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: Dr. Bob who wrote (2663)	1/18/1998 4:50:00 PM
From: Eric Freeman	Respond to of 4571

Dr. Bob - Your points are well taken - but will either fall on many ears that only want to hear more positive press releases. I agree that when you start to look at real production, costs, proven reserves you will quickly see that BCMD is in the same position that many junior exploration plays find themselves. You need big reserves in order to get the big boys interested, or you need a lot of money to develop the play. Right now - big money is scarce. So you end up with a number of situations where the play is very risky beyond the initial find etc. So what are you left with - partners, a takeover. Look around at what is available right now. Look at the market cap on this one as the price goes up. It is a trade situation as I have said any number of times - the real value will be expensive to realize even if a moderate prove up occurs. The more you dig, the more obvious this will be. Classic this one: when it is going up, it is for all the potential, when it is going down, it is someones fault. Still looking for a trade in the 5/8th range. And Roebear - if my little notes are what cause it to get there - gee - then what can I say. I'll accept the credit if it will make your day complete. Seriously folks: check out the whole world of gold stocks right now. Take a look at how many are much further down the path - look at the number of shares, price, reserves, partners, potential. Figure what cost for big production here, dilution or sell out?? Doc - if you keep digging you will be trading like me, but do not dig to deep since you might scare people, when what you find does not seem to be pure gold. (IMO) Eric

To: Dr. Bob who wrote (2663)	1/18/1998 8:51:00 PM
From: virginijus poshkus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4571

Dr.Bob, be prepared for a frontal assault. Questions that you brought up are not allowed on the BCMD thread. only positive issues are raised here, negative issues are left at the curb. vargas

To: Dr. Bob who wrote (2663)	1/19/1998 6:04:00 PM
From: D.McQ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4571

Dr. Bob: I really liked your post. You have raised issues for discussion that are intelligent and thought provoking. I was surprised that a few of the posters here for some reason appear to have taken them in a negative light. Because the answers for your questions are contained in the Public Relations packages sent out to anyone interested in Brush Creek Mining, I am assuming your post is an attempt to open up some intelligent discussion on this thread. Therefore I hope you accept my response to your post in the spirit it is being given. I would merely like to share the results of my own personal due diligence with you. I look forward to your response and welcome an opportunty for an intelligent discussion of facts based on research and due diligence rather than speculation etc. PART ONE: <<<<<<<<<<<<<Question: What is the relationship of BCMD's properties and these two faults? Do the properties completely emcompass the fault, or are there sections of the properties that lie outside the fault?>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that the properties staddle the fault both to the east and west side for over a 5 mile stretch. Which gives over 11 miles of property open at strike and depth. The notes I have made and the research I have done indicates that the Ruby and Carson mines are to the west of the Melones fault. I'm not sure if they are considered on the western Melones fault or if they are considered as merely being in the district. The Kate Hardy Mine, the Upper and Lower Brush Creek Mines and the Finian Prospect are the mines that go north and south directly along the Melones fault. The Strandberg Report does in fact give a detailed breakdown of the 3,345,577 ozs of Estimated Inferred Resources. In addition to the 217,021 placer Inferred Resource at Garners Point/Pioneer Mine the report covered the hard rock mines you mention: <<<<< 1. Upper and Lower Brush Creek 2. Kate Hardy 3. Ruby-Cincinnati 4. Carson >>>>>>>>> The Lower Brush Creek Mine has 787,692 oz; the Upper Brush Creek Mine has 475,839 oz; the Kate Hardy Mine has 454,125 oz; the Ruby Mine has 703,375 oz; the Cincinnati Mine has 413,750 oz; and the Carson Mine has 293,7775 oz. (It should also be noted that the Ruby mine is both a Placer and Hard Rock mine.) It was also pointed out in the engineer's report that this information is based on the "projection of known ore shoots and does not include the two virgin ore blocks with visible gold that the Company announced December 20, 1997. All properties remain open on strike as well. Three lode properties and four placer properties have potential for resources and have yet to be explored." In addition, the nature of these meso-thermal deposits is that they go to extreme depths. Strandberg's report goes to a 7500 depth on the known ore shoots. The Keewatin report indicates a 6-8 million oz possible resource in the "Property package" going to a depth of 3500 feet. I would also like to point out that the Empire mine went to a depth of 11,000 feet. So we now have two respected Engineer's who have done separate reports and which in fact back up each other. They both are based on "reasonable geo-scientific data". They both indicate that BCMD may have what could be termed a world class gold deposit. (ie. by difinition, 1 million ounces and up) Since the company has put out press releases stating they have discovered two new ore blocks many of us shareholders feel it is reasonable to expect them to report the actual results of these two new finds in the very near future. We are also expecting an update of the findings in Pillar #4. All three of these ore blocks are in the Lower Brush Creek Mine, where BCMD has already discovered more than one pocket of high grade ore that is "running over 500 oz per ton". .....to be continued Darlene

To: Dr. Bob who wrote (2663)	1/19/1998 9:59:00 PM
From: D.McQ	Respond to of 4571

Dr. Bob: Once again I would like to say how much I appreciate your posts. Anytime a person trades on solid information and not just emotional "hype" I feel they are able to make a correct investment decision. It takes knowledge of a stock's potential to know if a pullback means "man the lifeboats every man for himself" or "accumulate as much as you can for the next big run". By sharing input and due diligence it gives each of us a chance to "compare notes" so to speak and reevaluate our investment decisions. Thank you for the thought provoking input. BTW, I think the reason my copy of the Standberg report has more information on it is because it was not "retyped". (There is a lot of very detailed information in this report. It amazed me that Bill was willing to go to so much work and I would like to pass on my apreciation to him.) However, I would recommend everyone contact BCMD Public Relations at 1-888-272-7335 and request a full and complete copy. Part 2 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<The company currently has permission from the United States Forest Service to transport only 30 tons per day of ore from the Lower Brush Creek mine to the Ruby mill site (permission obtained June, 1997). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is my understanding this permit is issued by the county and can be upgraded. It is a "cumulative permit", that is whatever has not already been hauled is "banked" and can be hauled at a later date. At this point the company should have a "large bank" accumulated since they have just recently received the necessary financing to increase operations. Since my research as indicated that the company has recently applied for permits to haul 100 tons per day I think it would be safe to assume that the current "accumulated bank" should be more than adequate for the time beginning. To me this indicates that BCMD is indeed "gearing up" to increase production more every day. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Question: What is the processing capacity of the Ruby mill?>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to the SEC Filing dated October 1997: "The Company filed its plan of operation for the Ruby and Carson Mines with the United States Forestry Department, and has obtained all necessary permits for production and milling at the Ruby Mine of up to 225 tons of material per day." My research also indicated that the Ruby has both a placer and hard rock mill. The hard rock mill at the Ruby can do 90-100 tons per day as can the hard rock mill at the Kate Hardy. This second mill is ready to be made fully operational when mine production increases. Both of these mills are currently fully equipped and in good repair. The Ruby is already permitted for 225 tons per day; the Kate Hardy mill only requires permits. It is also my understanding the company plans to procure those permits in the very near future. I recently addressed this question to BCMD's PR department and was told that it only takes 2 months for the full permitting process to be completed. Considering the time of year I feel that gives BCMD adequate lead time to get this second mill up and operational. <<<<<<<<<<it would take 72 years to work just the one mine.>>>>>> I think you are very right about the life expectancy of each of the 9 mines BCMD owns. It has been tossed around that there is a 30-40 year life expectancy for the properties at peak production which I feel represents an exciting and excellent long term future for us present shareholders. <<<<<<<<<< Clearly, additional capacity is needed - both for ore extraction and milling. This is noted in Strandburgs report on Page 4, where at 250 tons per day mill expenditure of $9.5 M is noted. Question: When will this mill be constructed and how will it be financed? How will this mill be located with respect to the 4 mines?>>> The SEC filings indicate that BCMD currently has 3 mills that have been well-maintained and appear to only need permitting and minor repairs. IMHO there is no immediate need for constructing an additional mill. I think BCMD should use it's current funds in a manner that would generate a more immediate financial return. It also would seem more realistic to me to expect BCMD to expand and increase production at the present mills before constructing an additional mill, especially considering that the current mills appear to be stragetically located in close proximity to the current mines. <<<<<<<Question: What is the theoretical maximum ore extraction rate for each of the mines? Are there any sort of limitations on this rate due to the physical location of the mine, the internal structures of the mine, or due to earlier work done at the mine for gold extraction?>>>>> Personnally I do not see how there could be extraction limitations considering the fact that there are 9 mines all covering such a vast geographical area. The SEC Filings give detailed reports of each mine and mill and it appears that they are all in good repair and have been maintained. Therefore given the fact that BCMD has already weathered the expense of getting these mines to their current readiness for production I feel it indicates that they intend to quickly gear up into production. It is also my understanding that production should only be limited by the amount of manpower and blasts of rounds taken out of the mine. To me that means there is unlimited potential for growth. It is merely a matter of logistics. IMHO, BCMD has already accomplished a considerable amount of progress in the few short weeks that have elapsed since the $9 million JV agreement gave them the financial backing they were lacking. Just the 2 "virgin ore block" discoveries tells me they are on the right track here and the future looks very promising. ........to be continued Darlene

To: Dr. Bob who wrote (2663)	1/20/1998
From: D.McQ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4571

Dr Bob: Part 3 <<<<<<<<<<<<The company talks about gold being in "pillars" in the mine. Question: Are these pillars required to retain the structural integrity of the mine? If so, how can one mine material from them without sacrificing the structural integrity of the mine? Will removed pillar material have to be replaced by new structural supports, such as steel or wood timbers? What is the cost of such work? Is this even feasible?>>>>>> There have been several Shareholders who have visited the Brush Creek Mine. Yes these "pillars" do indeed support the structure. It has been explained to me that as these pillars are mined they are immediately back filled, shored up and retimbered as the miners move through them. In hard core mining the only material that is removed is ore that doesn't contain millable gold. The material that is does not assay out as high enough grade ore to be worthwhile to mill is not removed from the mine. If I understand it correctly, this low grade material is used to replace gold laden ore that is removed from the pillars. Since the miners are working in the areas supported by these "pillars", I would assume that it is in their own self interest that this work be done speedily and with utmost care. I would also like to point out that there are site maps on BCMD's (hopefully soon to be official)website that Aiko is working on at come.to. If you study these site map it appears that BCMD is currently following a well thought out strategy as they work their way through the pillars one by one. I noticed that the other 2 "virgin ore sites" appear to line up with the vein of "visible ore" they appear to be chasing to its source. <<<<<<<Assuming that a 250 ton per day mill is constructed and that the 4 mines can support a combined extraction rate of 250 tons per day, then assuming a 30 day month ( probably not reality ), an extraction rate of 90,000 tons per year can be assumed. Assuming a mill recovery rate of 90%, then we have, hopefully, 81,000 ounces of gold per year. Using these figures and a total inferred resource of 3182k tons, it will take approximately 35 years to extract all of the ore. Question: Is there a practical time limit to a project such as this? In other words, is 35 years too long a time frame for such a project? If it is, then more milling and ore extraction capcity must be added. <<<<<<<< By its permitting and current mining efforts I feel BCMD has already given every indication that your calculations are feasible in the near future. However, there are also many variables to be taken into consideration. How rich is the ore? How many more 500 oz/ton pockets are here? How many of these pockets will they be able to mine in a day, a week, a month or a year? It is easy to see that it doesn't take many pockets of ore that grades 500+ oz/ton to throw your calculations way off. In addition, many noted experts have speculated that only about 10% of the gold in this area has been currently located. The fact must be noted that in the few short weeks that BCMD has commenced mining and exploration of just the Lower Brush Creek Mine, they have already discovered 2 additional "virgin ore blocks" of very "high grade" ore. Additionally, it needs to be taken into consideration that these two new finds were stated by BCMD as not being included in BCMD's present inferred resource of 3,345K oz of gold. IMHO the kind of number calculations you are currently doing should be consider nothing more than a conservative guess. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<The Strandberg report gives an inferred resource of 1 ounce of gold per ton. Yet, the following text is taken from the S-3 filed on 12/22/97: "From February 1992 when the Company began limited production at the Ruby Mine to December 1992 when the Company ceased production due to inclement weather, the Company milled approximately 7,300 tons of mineralized placer material and recovered approximately 200 ounces of gold, an amount which is inconsistent with historical production at the Ruby Mine in the early 1940's." Question: Why were only .03 ounces per ton extracted from the Ruby mine? >>>>>>>>> From what I have read, the Ruby mine has both hard rock and placer ore that can be mined. Placer and Hard rock are two entirely different types of mines. As far as I am aware, the Ruby Mines hard rock ore has not yet been mined and therefore the Ruby mine production of 7,300 tons was for mining its placer ore only. As is noted on the S3 filing the company was mining the placer channels and yielding over 1/4 oz ton. (I would like to point out that this is excellent grade for placer mining. Many of the other mining companies I have research usually grade in grams per ton rather that oz per ton. A grade of as few as 3 grams per ton is usually considered a press worthy gold strike.) For placer ore the Strandberg report used only .0221 ounces per bank cubic yard for a total of 217,021 in inferred resources. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Why the discrepancy between this actual mining work and the Strandberg report? >>>>>>>>>> The only discrepancy I see was that BCMD actually produced placer ore from the Ruby that graded at 1/4 oz per ton compared to the much more conservative number of .0221 ounces of "inferred resource" for placer that Strandberg used. Since the Strandberg report of 3,128,556 is at 1 oz per ton for "LODE" or hard rock mining I assume they used the figure which is historical for this area. The Placer ore was given an Inferred Resource Value of only 217,021 ounces. I feel it is obvious that this report did not place a large amount of inferred value in the placer operation. It therefore seems logical to me that BCMD would not continue to pursue this "placer" gold when there is a considerable amount of value placed on its "hard rock" gold that has proven to able to generate a larger return since it produces more gold per oz than "placer" mined ore. Why wouldn't they wait until the value of gold appreciates enough to make "placer" gold a profitable venture? <<<<<<<<<Is this an indication of the "real" amount of gold left in these properties, as opposed to the report>>>>>>>> IMHO the fact that BCMD is currently discovering "virgin ore blocks of very high grade visible gold" is an better indication of the amount of gold left in these properties, as opposed to the "Inferred Resources" the report is currently projecting. I would also like to point out that at this point BCMD is very much a "news" driven stock. It seems logical to me that figures should be released by BCMD that should be similar to the figures mentioned in the October news release. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<When will the investors get some sort of production implementation plan which details some of the important metrics of this mining operation on a mine by mine basis? Jim Chapin apparently has the time to escort people on mine tours - why doesn't he have the time to put together a reasonable business plan for his investors? Is this a real business or just a bunch of mining wannabe's playing with some toy mines? And, when will we see some realistic press releases from this "company" giving some real data, not "5 gallon buckets" and pictures of gold buttons? >>>>>>>>>>>> I have also been informed that at the annual meeting held January 8, 1998 it was disclosed to shareholders that the company is working with its JV partner on future targets and developments. IMHO when this business plan has been determined it should be immediately released to the public. Personnally I'm impressed that Jim Chapin is willing to treat small individual investors with the same dignity and respect he treats other "wealthy" investors. As far as I understand he doesn't usually escort people on mine tours. It, however, would seem logical to me that if he wanted to check the mines out himself, taking along a few investors might give him an opportunity to make wise use of the long periods of down time necessary to commute the distance between the office and the mine. As far as the "5 gallons buckets" that alot of us thought were hype in the October press release, I would like to hear someone suggest a better way to remove "jewelry grade ore" that is is worth from $500.00 to $1,250.00 per ounce, quartz included. Personnaly I don't care how they get it out as long as they don't send it pounding down the chutes. A few ounces here and there can add up very quickly when you are dealing with ore this rich. Darlene

To: Dr. Bob who wrote (2663)	1/21/1998 1:42:00 AM
From: D.McQ	Respond to of 4571

Dr Bob: Part 4<<<<<<<For example, the McDonald Gold Project in Montana has reserves of 3700K ounces of gold, and 8000K ounces of silver, and their project life is only 15 years.>>>>>>>>>>> I became quite interested in Canyon Resources/McDonald Gold Project when Steven Porter made the recent buy recommendation on BCMD. Royal Oak and Brush Creek I was very familiar with. Canyon Resources was not a company I had closely followed. Here is what my preliminary due diligence turned up regarding Canyon Resources and the McDonald Project you mention: Canyon Resources acquired 100% interest in this property from Phelps Dodge last September 1997, for a payment of $5 mil dollars with an additional payment to Phelps Dodge of between $95 million and $145 million when "permitting for the project is completed or construction is commenced." The final amount of $150 million total purchase price will be based, if necessary on quarterly production numbers. This information is from a September 25 news release and clearly shows the McDonald project is in the developing and exploration stage. It appears to me that not only has production not even begun yet, permitting has not been completed. In comparison, Brush Creek is many years past the developing and exploration stage. They have the infrastructures in place and the mills are built. Instead of working on construction etc BCMD is working on increasing production; i.e. taking gold out of the ground on a daily basis. From what I have found, it apears that Canyon Resources first started working on the McDonald property in 1989 and the operation was submitted in 1994 to the state for permitting etc. To my knowledge construction has still not begun on the McDonald Project. On the other hand BCMD is already a up and running not just mining but milling as well. I have learned from past experience with companies in this sector of the stock market, that it takes many years and a large amount of capital outlay to bring a mine from the point the McDonald project is right now to the point BCMD currently is at. Also because they are into production and development etc. I think it is reasonable to say that any major gold strikes BCMD has right now will go directly onto the bottom line and to me that equates to a quicker return on my investment. Another point in BCMD's favor is that they are currently mining in an area rich with gold lore. One tale is that in these very mines the old timers were attempting to blast forward and accidentally dislodged a huge piece of ore from above. This turned out to be a pocket of gold so rich that this one block alone yielded $1 million worth of gold when gold was only selling for $20 an ounce. With that in mind, I feel that with today's technology it isn't surprising that BCMD recently found "2 virgin ore blocks that contain pockets of visible gold". I think they are following a well thought out and detailed plan and that they have merely taken their first step towards becoming a major gold producer. Darlene