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 : Cross Lake Minerals CRN -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dean poets who wrote (1051)	1/2/1998 8:18:00 PM
From: Ed Pakstas	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3650

Thanks dean...Very interesting...Jist goes to show that we need more results to improve the tonnage on this puppy...If in fact the present tonnage is correct and the future earnings of this puppy are 2.85/share, then at what multiple should we be trading at???... ed

To: dean poets who wrote (1051)	1/2/1998 9:37:00 PM
From: tanoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3650

Hello dean; I see what you are trying to do, but it is not like comparing apples with apples, to get a more reallistic potential comparison, one must look at the Kidd Creek deposit to get a more ture reflection of the potential. It is known in the Timmins area for the actual mined grade to come out better than the drill results, just something I'am aware of, and I'am no expert at this. So I really can't explain it much better, this would be better explained by a geologist more familiar with this situation. On paper it is easy to draw up conclusions, but in reality it may differ greatly. Manhattan is in Peru after all, and the geology although simillar, in many cases very different. I do not own CRN, so don't take this as hyping, just an observation that was pointed out to me a few years ago when I was trying to do a comparison. Unless the geology is exactly the same (highly unlikely), the comparisons can be flawed. With regards,Frank