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 : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Matt C. Austin who wrote (4863)	1/25/1998 12:14:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Respond to of 14226

Matt: Awfully nice of you to post CL's message for us. Guess you've changed your opinion about Ahmet since IPM indicated that AuRIC's .80opt fire assay of IPM's ore was non-repeatable. Personally, I don't see why GPGI would need to "drill" its pile of stockpiled ore to prove itself to the market. I think it would take a few months of production of 4,300 lbs. or dore, which supposedly equates to about 36 tons of head ore per month, and at $1,800 per ton, about $65,000 per month. If GPGI starts showing $65,000 worth of checks per month, that would do it for me.

To: Matt C. Austin who wrote (4863)	1/25/1998 12:59:00 PM
From: SnakeInATuxedo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14226

<<Global needs to hire some professional mining people and then follow their advice.>> I think this is precisely the strategy that Mr. Jensen has wisely eschewed, and has done so because the DD's require a totally new, totally different approach to mining technology. If he'd taken this advice 20 years ago, GPGI would either be: [1] bankrupt several times over; or [2] have about a zillion and one shares outstanding from using paper to pay for all those ".. professional mining people" and then "... follow[ing] their advice." and GPGI would probably not be any closer to production than it is now, just have spent a whole lot of money and "proven" the resource. Oh, WOW!

To: Matt C. Austin who wrote (4863)	1/25/1998 1:42:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Matt: I am not sure what to make of CL's opinion, his credibility is certainly not very high on this thread, nor on any other thread for that matter. For a person that has made a major effort of silencing any opposition to his opinions on IPM, and as a result caused the losss of many of IPM's holders fortunes, who is he to give advice to GPGI? By the way, GPGI is not the only company engaging in an effort of creating cash flow first and "resource evaluation" later. It seems to me that CKS is doing the same. With the many scandals that have involved companies hyping non existant resources, via the route CL proposes, I would not be surprised if the market will put more value on actual cash flow (as minimal that this cash flow might initially be) than on "resource evaluation" from an industry fraught with scammers. I think that D.J.'s route to the "promised land" will prove more fruitful that the "resource valuation" route. Zeev Zeev Zeev