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 : Bema(Bgo) and Arizona Star -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Terry Swift who wrote (7902)	10/21/1997 8:11:00 PM
From: Ken Benes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10482

Terry: I would not be that quick to dismiss the assumptions made by NB. In fact those are the very assumptions that have been percolating just below the surface these past several months and is the reason for the stocks decline in price. BGO's management has been aware of this and have choosen to gloss over the problem, particularly the Refugio, and issue rosy prognostications that a deal for CC might be completed by the end of the summer, then moved to October, now possibly by the end of the year. The reality of current conditions are that in all probability there will not be a deal on Star prior to the end of the year and just possibly there might be some kind of jv for development of the CC limited to funding a full feasability study. This situation will leave BGO in limbo, limiting any further drilling to the Pancho/Verde deposit. An expansion of those deposits will in all probability extend several years into the future. Cash flow will be limited to the profits from the Refugio. Hopefully this will be enough to pay for the exploration of the Pancho/Verde deposit and pay for corporate expenses. The 31 million dollars that BGO has will be safeguarded and used sparingly. It is highly unlikely that BGO will be able to raise additional funds in the near future. I had hoped that a deal for Star would have provided BGo with a large infusion of cash that would have provided a large downpayment for expenses associated with development of the mine at the CC and a resumption of exploration on the three Amigos and the Quebrada. This has not happened and I believe as shareholders, we will be lucky to maintain a price of 4.00 into the future. At some point, the economics of the CC will improve as the price of gold approaches the 375.00 mark indicated in the prefeasability study, until then BGO will remain as just another resource stock with the interest of the majors focused on lower cost mines that can be developed quickly and cheaply. BGO is entering a prolonged period similar to the one they experienced while they were attempting to develop the Refugio property. This is unfortunate for us and the investor has to question whether he is willing to wait for the development of the CC in a market that has a lot of risk for an old story. Ken

To: Terry Swift who wrote (7902)	10/22/1997 3:24:00 AM
From: Phil Varichon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10482

Terry you wrote: <Their downgrade is based on $320 gold, a US$100 million mine at Pancho with no resulting expansion of production, and a valuation of Refugio at US$.88. You read that right.... Refugio at US$.88. A producing mine, 4 million ozs of proven reserves (Bema's share) and NB values it at $.88. The analyst who made those assumptions is smoking something illegal. They are laughable. If you want to apply such ludicrous assumptions to Barrick or Newmont, you could reduce your target price for them by 50-75% but nobody would be dumb enough to do so. Why NB has made such ludicrous assumptions regarding Bema, only they know. Good luck.> The reason is very simple. Refugio is not a cash cow as ABX is, it has low gold grade mined at extremely high altitude, it is full of hope but is not bringing any serious cash right now and its learning curve is close to 2 years now. CC is Refugio's big brother with the exact same anemic genes... Anybody that knows a bit the mining industry and does not focus only on one gold stock sees nothing really exciting in BGO right now. The trader loves the stock because there is still a lot of hope build into it, it is very liquid and volatile. Excellent for the non emotional investor. The value investor will have to wait until 2001 to make a real buck or POG going up to $400. By then there will be dozens of really interesting undevelopped mines. The real problem with BGO is that it has been the largest undeveloped gold deposit in the world for to long now, and might stay that way for a while yet... The market knows that well... The Prefeasability study was slim in its content, BGO is anorexic with news sine last April and the market is very efficient mid-term. I would not be surprised to see BGO reach 3$ and under before Xmas(tax loss season, maybe poor resul from Refugio due to El Nino, low cash, no takeover, no JV, you name it)with some spikes, but I could be wrong... Good luck to all whatever you do, cut your losses and run your profits... Philippe

To: Terry Swift who wrote (7902)	10/22/1997 7:40:00 AM
From: virginijus poshkus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10482

Terry, in the september quarter refugio produced only 19,576 ozs of the yellow stuff, bgo share of 9,788 ozs. cash operating costs were $543/oz exclusive of silver credits. total cash costs including royalties and taxes were $558 per oz. These costs were $321 & $338 for the nine months respectively. 1st quarter 1998 should be back to normal. vargas

To: Terry Swift who wrote (7902)	10/23/1997 12:40:00 PM
From: Feline	Respond to of 10482

Terry...pleaseee...According to Amax, Refugio as of Dec 31,96 had proven and probable reserves of 107 million tons grading 0.029 opt Au. This makes BGO's share about 1.6 million ozs not 4 million. This was based on a gold price higher than today so it wouldn't surprise me to see a reserve revision based on a higher cut-off grade. The NB valuation of Refugio is probably still too high at US$200 million. They are just trying to be polite as its business is fee driven and if they say anything negative they may be excluded from a financing.

To: Terry Swift who wrote (7902)	10/24/1997 7:37:00 PM
From: CanStocks	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 10482

TO TERRY, VARGAS and ALL: Your previous posts have been very valuable indeed to my line of thinking on this stock. Any insight on the following would be much appreciated: Do you think any further decline on the price of gold will cause any major in negotiations with BGO to become a joint venture partner in CC to pull out? In other words, will any price now make any assumptions for future gold prices predictibly lower so that CC will be deemed uneconomical. what is your recommendation? Wait it out? Any advice is much appreciated as I am a novice in the gold area and have been very nervous over the past month. Thanks in advance. CS.