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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Ego Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chris714 who wrote (12111)	5/25/2014 1:50:16 AM
From: hubris33	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12175

Chris - those 13 came from my hard work, detective work and knowledge of the industry. They are soley my picks selected from a review of over several hundred [500+] possibles, narrowed down to 42 in a beauty pagent. See original post: Message 28664891 They are not any analysts picks, though I note that subsequent to my postiing several have been picked up by letter writers or gold analysts. In late 2012, reeling from some bad calls, I made radical changes to my selection criteria and methods. The new focus was on grades - what I believe are really high grades, i.e >7.5 gpt, NOT what most companies were calling "high grade" at the time 1~2 gpt. Then, I also was looking for "been there, done that" management. Guys (or gals) who had a proven track record of DEVELOPING projects or growing companies - not just guys who "worked at" this mine company or another. Maintaining a project requires different skills from developing (building) one and I feel the most growth [and subsequently BIG returns] comes from good geology, discovered early and developed by great management. So the list is a mix of high grade projects and experienced management. I guess there are a few others tossed in for various reasons but most follow that criteria. One of my early picks was Glencairn Gold - because of the geology at the La Libertad Mine. Most investors were focused on the 1-2 gpt coming from the open pits and had not "found" the geology reports from Blackhawk, from 10-15 years prior. Those showed me they had 5-7 gpt finds, that if commingled into the mill expansion, could easily double production. I bought into that one in the 15-cent range and later when it was bought out by B2Gold stayed with the project/geology for an 8+-bagger. Oh sure there were some projects with high grades that didn't make it into consideration. One I was interested in some time ago was Claude Resources with high grades in the Red Lake Area and at the existing Seabee mine. They had the geology to double production and escape the vagrancies of being a "tinker toy" sized mine (<75k opy). However, the company was in the hands of Neil McMillian who managed to do very little with the company in his 17 year tenure. A big move for CGR was selling its O&G assets just as CL was running up, oh and buying out a 1-2gpt project from an even weaker Jr. partner. Looked to me like the big run up in POG was squandered by CGR. So an example of how management can negatively effect things. In another situation, Sulliden Gold it was the opposite. The company was lead by Peter Tagliomonte who was Mine Man of the Year for 2006 for his role in developing a mine for Desert Sun. DEZ was bought out by AUY at a great premium - after being a nice multi-bagger. He also was rebuilding the La Libertad mine in Nicaragua before the project got bought out by B2Gold. So we knew management had the "been there, done that" experience. Here what we didn't care for was the grade of the project 1-2 gpt with some of the ore being refractory (sulfide) and thus requiring special processing (i.e. higher cost). Oh that project may now get built, now that they are merging with Rio Alta and out of the Forbes & Manhattan clutches. Saw F&M "develop" two projects, but stumble on the financing at critical times (as POG was crashing). So another reason to look at SUE with a jaundiced eye. Oh and there is another example of how good geology isn't always good geology - even with good management. Colossus Minerals was a Brazilian project to rebuild the Serra Pelada Mine. Project had some impressive grades with not only gold, but also Pt and Pd! The problem there was ground control issues. Look at some of my earlier posts - I noted that this proposed mine was in "soft rocks" [i.e. sedimentary rocks] and not the typical "hard rock" geology. One could see evidence of this in the core boxes which showed cores, not as solid tubes, but piles of broken rock. Broken rock, means it is hard to keep the roof of the tunnel from collapsing on you. Then, if one looked at their development decline, one saw that it was neatly rock bolted and shot-creted. So the mining costs for ground control were going to be high. THEN the company started to have water infiltration problems ( go figure! broken rock below the water table?) and had to start a ground-water control program. Both of these costly to production and totally predicable, if one looked at the pictures. I think Colossus is now under "reorganization" (bankrupt). So there you have it some insight as to where the picks came from and my way of evaluating things. I'm just some loud-mouth on a message board - do your own DD. History will bear out how good these picks were, or weren't. Good luck! Anyone have what they think are good picks, feel free to post them.