Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Century Mining Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FreedomForAll who wrote (438)	6/20/2007 11:42:05 AM
From: hubris33	Respond to of 545

Hi freedom, I think you got the gist of my query and posts. don't worry about insulting anyone, basic is good! <ggg> However, I would argue that once one declares "commercial production" at a mine, THEN all subsequent expenses should be charged (matched) to revenues from operations. Isn't that the "matching principle?" But even if that is not the case, the deferred stripping seems like it should be amortized against production from the Sigma Pit, not the Lamaque Mine. While CMM continues to off load stripping costs to the Balance Sheet, it plans on killing the Sigma Pit in 2009 and thus there is nowhere to charge those costs to except for against Lamaque production. I don't know about you but from a layman's stand point this does not seem to be what the "matching principle" is all about. But as I a say... I'm no accountant. H3