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 : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Earlie who wrote (68193)	11/27/2009 12:33:47 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78426

For one thing, I believe Ventana is actually as close to production as Greystar is. With all due charitable respect to GSL, they still have metallurgical difficulties to solve. Their technical reports state that while they have strategies they are entertaining for dealing with it, there is no completely accepted method of recovering the maximum amount of the gold contained in the mineral body. In other words, metallurgical testing is a work in progress. Whilst they have started a feasibility study, and declared measured indicated and inferred resources, with rather lower grade at first blush than their 2005 drilling seemed to indicate, they have not actually figured out as far as I know the exact contribution of the high grade ore shoots. If they don't really know this contribution by detailed structural drilling, then they cannot decide what their recovery is, as you can't just heap up a pile of ore of indeterminate grade and then after having leached it for 6 months decide your recovery, as you don't know what you had to start to begin with. If the grade is X then on type of recovery applies economically, if the grade is Y then another might apply. No sense coming to a methodology decision before you know grade, and percentage recovery of gold in actuality by the different processes. Fort Knox in Alaska runs profitably on a grade of 0.25 grams per ton. Full milling. Not heap leach. The full milling option makes sense to GSL as they can more easily deal with the sulfides by roasting or autoclave in plant with good recoveries. At high tonnage costs are acceptable. Examples of large in plant ore recovery proceess are the ore bodies at Malartic or Osisko and Detour Gold. Very large plants are envisioned at comparable grades to GSL. Their ore is however not refractory and does not require secondary treatment. An example of bio heap leach that sort of worked and proves the concept to a degree is Brewery Creek. There is even the possibility of a hybrid recovery process where one ore is leached in plant and the other in heaps as befits the material. Heap leach is more attractive from thru put and capital cost perspective, so if they can get it to work with acceptable recoveries, they should keep that option in mind right to the end. But for heap leaching to work acceptably they have to do bio-heap leach, and tackle the sulfides ore, as right now the recovery in sulfide or "fresh ore" is abysmal with heap leaching. Bulk recoveries that they quote do not impress me, as the unknown component of losses in the ore due to high grade uncertainties cloud the issue and possibly give a lie to the figures. There may be much more gold to recover than they are calculating. I think they are several bulk tests and 2 years away from getting an satisfactory answer here. Ventana with triple to quintuple the grade and having underground ore, has no such problem in that it will most probably be a near surface underground mine. That dictates in plant leaching after fine grind. The ore grade can stand it and thus are available many economic ways of dealing with refractory gold that may exist. I admit metallurgy studies have yet to be done. Ventana has some exceptional intersections of high grade gold. Notable are 5.83 grams per ton over 94.5 metres. This is not that deep, perhaps 1200 feet. Nobody is saying you have to go all the way down there to get at the orebody. That is just the depth they drilled it to. With Ventana being at early stages, and GSL being a late stage project, the comparison is difficult to make. Ventana is more a stock play than GSL. GSL has to pump to get their stock up to a price that will befit a financing that puts them in production. I think they could be 2 years away to start and 3 years from production. Ventana might be neck and neck with them if they play it right. It makes zero sense for a burgeoning play like Ventana to join forces with an old dog like GSL. Babies and elderly gentlemen do not play in the same crib. Not that GSL is shabby. Most mines are built, not found and GSL is a classic example of making the metallurgy to make the mine. There have been many similar stories from Flin Flon to Kerr Addison. Not much noise was made about teh considerable structural and metallurgical work done in bring them to feasibility. It took some doing to unravel the Kerr Orebody. Far harder than GSL. And the metallurgy of the Kerr Mine, while based on a mature approach was bedeviled by graphite and talc. They solved it in house with proprietary methods in flotation and roasting. I am privy to much of their chemistry solution. Flin Flon involved the first cyanide recovery circuits in a massive sulphide ore. That made the economics of that massive copper ore body and the economics of Manitoba as well. Possibly without Flin Flon and the Mills and Crowe solution to their cyanide problem there may have been no Snow Lake. EC<:-}

To: Earlie who wrote (68193)	11/27/2009 1:24:47 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78426

With these kind of results, it should be Greystar who wants to join with Ventana. ventanagold.com The next part refers to sandbagging by the vendor. Not complying with Columbian law translates from the Spanish as "We want more money or there will be trouble." Caveat Exploratorer. The deal is very rich, seven million dollars. The orebody isn't bad either. Not all the orebody drilled lies on the Bodega property. It will be interesting to see who "wins" this dispute. If the people want the property back, then they must have had a better offer. Batista? Greystar? Possibly. One thing we do know is that big money plays rough in that area. Where big money got its money is open to question, but needles are safe from dromedary intrusion we aver. Ventana President and CEO Steve Orr said: "We believe this is an attempt to obtain more money for the mineral rights now that we have substantially increased the value of the property through our exploration success. There have been no changes to the mining laws and there are no government agencies involved in the dispute. We are confident in the integrity of the regulatory system and the application of justice in Colombia. Ventana has all the necessary permits in place to continue exploration and technical work on the property and the Vendor cannot legally stop Ventana from doing further work on the property." Ventana's initial 43-101 resource estimate on the La Bodega property is due in the first quarter of next year and the Company has a scoping study under way, with completion expected mid-2010. This work remains on schedule. Option Agreement Sociedad Minera La Bodega Limitada is a private company controlled by certain members of the Gelvez family of Bucaramanga, Colombia, and is the title holder to Concession Contract #3451 (the La Bodega property) granted by the Colombian mining authority. CVS entered into the Option Agreement in February 2006 which calls for a series of staged payments, as follows: Cash ($US) Shares On Signing - February 2006 (Paid) $ 300,000 - February 8, 2007 (Paid) $ 400,000 250,000 February 8, 2008 (Paid) $ 500,000 250,000 February 8, 2009 (Paid) $ 2,800,000 250,000 February 8, 2010 (Payment attempted Nov. 20, 2009) $ 3,000,000 250,000 Total: $ 7,000,000 1,000,000 Ventana has met all the conditions of the Option Agreement and the first four payments have been made. The final payment payable by February 8, 2010 was attempted (the Option Agreement allows for CVS to exercise the option in full at any time prior to the date of the final payment) but the Vendor has refused to accept the payment, which is a breach of the Option Agreement. Arbitration Process A claim has been filed by CVS with the Chamber of Commerce in Bucaramanga, Colombia for breach of the obligation by the Vendor to accept payment and the Chamber is now in the process of establishing the arbitration panel. Once the arbitrators have been chosen a settlement hearing will be held and arbitration costs established. The parties then have 10 days to deposit the assessed cost. If neither party pays, the arbitration is terminated and can be converted to a lawsuit in the courts. Otherwise it proceeds to hearings to collect and present evidence. Once under way, the arbitration cannot be stopped unless both parties agree, and the final decision is binding. It can be appealed before a Colombian high court based on a failure of procedure. Ventana's advice, and that of Colombian counsel, is that the Vendor's claim is completely without merit and Ventana is confident it will prevail. Corporate Development Update In addition, Ventana also announces that it is in advanced discussions which could result in the acquisition of the Company by a third party. Conference Call Ventana will hold a conference call today at 2:30pm PST/ 5:30pm EST. An audio transcript of the call will be available on the Company's website at www.ventanagold.com immediately following the call. Details for the conference call are as follows: Toll free within Canada and the US: 1 888 892 3255 International + 1 416 507 1616