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: Milk who wrote (1022)	11/9/1997 11:31:00 PM
From: Lord Smooth	Respond to of 4571

Stock prices are not comparable due to the different number of shares outstand for each stock. A stock price of $1 with 100 million shares outstanding is a different from a $1 stock with 1 million shares outstanding. Find the market capitalization by multiplying current stock price times number of shares outstanding. That way we should have a relevant way of comparing the companies. Thanks for the research. Perhaps most relevant in valuing BCMD is are similar penny stock gold mining companies, with similar potential reserves, production... Also, gold mining companies nearby BCMD like OAU sixteen to one and a few others that trade on Vancouver Exchange. What were those Vancouver stocks again? S

To: Milk who wrote (1022)	11/10/1997 12:31:00 AM
From: DDS-OMS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4571

Milk, Spend some more time going over the 60 page annual report. You will notice the last fiscal year's income was a little over $20,000--hardly enough to do any "extensive exploration". A couple of years ago, BCMD tried a little placer mining at Ruby and wasn't successful. No mining was done in FY97 at all, nor do I think any was done in FY96 either, since total revenues of approx $40,000 all came from interest--same as FY97. With no income, obviously they are not going to do any exploration, and plainly stated so. This is why a JV partner is so crucial--a cash infusion to develop claims and embark on an ambitious drilling program. BCMD's business plan in year 1 ( with JV partner) calls for: (A) Diamond drill for the down-dip extension of the Golden Gate ore shoot at five 200' intervals to a depth of 1,000' below #6 level. Cost: $1,300,000. Goal: to define 127,000 oz. gold. (B) Diamond drill to explore for the potential lateral off-set continuation of the Golden Gate ore shoot above the Cassidy level which may have been displaced by a post-mineralization fault. Cost: $140,000. Goal: Define a resource of 20,000-40,000 oz. (C) Diamond drill upper Brush Creek for extension of the 2 known ore shoots and potential delineation of a new ore shoot. Cost: $1,500,000. Goal: Define a resource of 107,000 oz. (D) Dual rotary drill Gardners Point placer. Cost:$500,000. Goal: Shift 220,000 oz resource to a proven and probble reserve. You can ask IR to fax you BCMD's business plan--above is only one year out of 4 in the plan. Read in the AR the historical notes about the claims--this is not playing around in the sand hoping to find glitter--ALL of these claims are over a century old and have had decades of past production---and NONE have ever been explored via diamond drilling. As of October 1932, a complilation was published which lists a total gold production of 1.77 million oz from all the mines in the district--which does include mines that BCMD does not have claims upon.

To: Milk who wrote (1022)	11/10/1997 12:32:00 AM
From: Jeffery E. Forrest	Respond to of 4571

Their yearly report doesn't cover the lower Brush Creek mine (why?), lower Brush Creek news happened AFTER the yearly report didn't it? It's too late in the evening for me to start searching right now, but I THINK this is the case. 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. And also have MUCH larger shares outstanding and float.

To: Milk who wrote (1022)	11/10/1997 3:07:00 PM
From: Charger	Respond to of 4571

Production costs of $150 are actually based upon .3 oz/ton. So if they get 1 oz/ton, or 2 or 3, production costs per ton go down accordingly. The company is promoting the figure of $150/oz in order to stay in a conservative range. This is considered to be "economical ore". The standard in the industry, I am told, for economical ore is $150/.3 oz per ton. This is known as "free milling ore", takes no chemical or leaching to extract the ore. They do not have to do anything more than crush the rock and then wash it to obtain the gold. The gold is then sold to a San Francisco firm for 98% of spot price. This was all covered in the conference call a few days ago. The major mining concentration is happening in the Brush Creek Mine, as opposed to the Ruby Mine. The miners are daily pushing through a block, having recently encountered a wins, towards Pillar 4 and Pillar 7. In the Cambridge Research report, you will notice all the exploration and development monies allocated. This specific iformation about the exploration and development talked exclusively about the Brush Creek Mine and was also posted on here on SI. I appreciate your questioning and hope this response is useful to you. Keep on digging!