To: Earlie who wrote (68257 ) 12/2/2009 3:56:56 AM From: E. Charters Respond to of 78426 I have heard all the cons about Ventana, but the cons on GSL are far more serious. Greystar is not stopped from entertaining production, but it does not have an economic projection on its ore recovery process, nor does it yet have a satisfactory method of tackling the sulfide ore. They need to work on it. They will be still thinking about it this time next year. Their ore is for the better part, refractory. Some is, some is not. Them are the facts. If they concentrated the sulfides, their mass pull is not satisfactory so far to get the grade of the con to the point where costs to process it, by say roasting, are low enough to lend comfort to a major investor. They are still tinkering. Proposals have been made but no solutions found that are elegant. If you multiply the same material GSL has by 5 you get the Ventana ore. No matter the true width of the veins at the end of the day. At the worst they are half the intersection with. But their con will be 5 times the grade. As I pointed out, high grade hides a lot of evils. Ventana has few worries about metallurgy when the economics of mining and milling are decimal points on their total value. They can easily sulfide-concentrate, and roast the con. At a mass pull of 8.5 to one their con grade is perhaps 1.2 ounces per ton. Not terrific, but who cares? Roasting has to be less than 1500 dollars per tone cost. I doubt it will crack 18 bucks. You have to distinguish between drill holes that intersect the ore at depth and holes that have to get to depth to intersect the ore. Which is it? Just because they get to 900 feet to find the intersection doesn't mean it is only found down there. It isa good thing that the ore runs deep, not a bad thing. Copper in the ore can be tricky but at the end of the day I have never seen a gold mine close down because it had copper in the ore. EC<:-}