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 : JAB International (JABI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charger who wrote (1010)	11/9/1997 5:04:00 PM
From: Mr. Miller	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4571

Congrats Milk, you got #1000. I chose unwell. It was my understanding that CNBC simply stated what BCMD stated in their release, and this was only because they did 15 million shares, one of the few VERY active stocks of the day. Had BCMD not done 15 million shares, would we have gotten coverage-probably not. The visits to the site are nice but that does not prove anything. It helps, don't get me wrong, but unless those people actually saw gold flowing from the rocks, it is of little value to me(the visit that is). I do respect opinions, but I need proof in the form of gold. Winderful TA stuff. I have always not been a fan of trying to evaluate a stock that way, but more power to you if it works for you. Someone asked me this: if BCMD has so much potential(blah blah blah), why have a JV at all? My answer was to facilitate production-ie. get it going much quicker than BCMD would without mucho money, and to start production at the other sites. Another question was a bit harder-if BCMD has this great potential, why hasn't a big major gold company bought them out, either in gobbling up shares, or offering a nice price, like 10, 20 or 30/share? My answer was that it is only potential-all those possibilities may very well come to light if BCMD can prove in the form of gold what it has, and have reliable assays for what is left. I still believe that we can talk about alot of things this way or that, but the bottom line is---is there gold(probably or definitely)? and how much(the real big question). Coming up with decent reasonable figures this quarter will do wonders for BCMD. I don't think weak numbers will kill BCMD, but it may slow down this excitement. Cambridge estimated 200,000oz. gold in 4-5 years. Doesn't that equate to "only" 62 million in revenues per year, and about 30 million in earnings. 62 million is not a whole lot, but it is significant. I still am trying to understand gold stocks. If we have say 50 million shares outstanding by then and that means .60eps, where can this be in price. In other words, where do gold stocks trade usually from a P/E standpoint, or does P/E really not matter? This is why I asked about Bre-X's situation. I have not read the summary, but I would want to see shares outstanding and what kind of gold was projected. Obviously, if it went to ~$300 without ever showing gold, people bid the stock up to $300 on "nothing" for eps? If we post .01 eps for this quarter, could we really go to 5 or 10. That would be an astronomical P/E ratio of about 125 to 250. Not unheard of, but is this what the gold industry would do to a stock with this kind of potential. Very excited on possibilities of this puppy. Little to no debt is excellent. Still learning the details of gold stock action. Thanks to all responses in advance. Miller

To: Charger who wrote (1010)	11/9/1997 6:21:00 PM
From: Eakole	Respond to of 4571

Charger & Darlene Thank you for your well intended comments, which I conclude are honest and straight forward. But there is one big HOWEVER. . . I percieve that most of the information read on this thread is highly opinionated and too often seems to be prejudiced for a cause. In a universe of physical realities, perceived realities is most often a miserable second best. Too often our conclusions are based on conclusions founded of information disseminated by others with less than honest intentions. Don't get me wrong, I do not doubt YOUR motives, but at the same time I do not discount the possibility that you may be laboring under the malintentioned offerings of others. (Presidents, Politicians, the Press and Bureaucrats not included.) Look Charger & Darlene, we did are not enter this dialog as protagonists, but rather as juries that have assembled to discover the truth that when found will will generate a profit, not a loss. . . and. . . not to champion a company. My previous communication was motivated by a NEW visitor's enthusiasm for this thread. I percieved he was smitten with the immense amount of knowledge imparted in such an open and friendly manner. I am just doing the same, but from another point of view. In closing allow me to render an opinion about the present status of the BCMD. It is up to the recent high made in mid-October, I hope it will break through that high, however, there is a fly in the ointment. . . and that is the lack of volume on the uptick. Technically, volume is usually necessary to support a rising price, but volume not a necessity in a falling one. Eakole

To: Charger who wrote (1010)	11/9/1997 11:10:00 PM
From: Milk	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 4571

All I've done some research over the weekend to see how the industry is doing overall. Since many of us, including myself, have invested heavily in BCMD, I'd like to compare notes. Here is what I am concerned about: Most of the gold mining stocks are not doing too well (see biz.yahoo.com. Despite the fact that many of them report gold deposits much greater than those of BCMD, backed by detailed exploration reports, they are in the $1-4 per share range. BCMD's production engineer "expects production costs at the lower Brush Creek to be $150 per ounce", which is much lower the the '97 average of $220 per ounce in the US. This, of course, is based on 1oz per ton figure. These figures, however, as well as the projected amounts of gold, can only be confirmed by geological exploration and drilling, encountering "visible gold" just won't do it. I haven't found any evidence of the extensive exploration, have you? Their yearly report doesn't cover the lower Brush Creek mine (why?), but here is what it says about the Ruby Mine, whose figures were used by Cambridge Research: "Consequently, no assurances can be given that future production will result in grades of similar or historical amount. Furthermore, the Company has not completed sufficient geological activities and drilling to establish proven or probable ore reserves at the Ruby Mine. The Company has no present intention of conducting further geological exploration and drilling to establish ore reserves at the Ruby Mine at this time." BRE-X, the greatest scam since the Brooklyn Bridge transaction, blew investors away by gradually raising their estimates of AU deposits from 30MM to 70.95MM(!) ounces, which is MUCH higher than BCMD's (again, I have to rely on Cambridge Research here). We shouldn't grow emotionally attached to this stock, but rather stay alert. Let's save the excitement for the day we sell at a nice profit. Charger and Darlene are doing an excellent job researching, let's help them out. I'd like to know what you folks think about it. Milk P.S. I am not a geologist (as if you haven't noticed<g>)