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: Larry Brubaker who wrote (5658)	4/9/1998 2:37:00 PM
From: Ed Fishbaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Larry, Picking up where I left off... I believe that the market response to the recent COC report of Brian Russell was far weaker than is warranted by the meaning of the report. This was probably due to the expectation that Global would one day emerge suddenly, like a flash of lightening, as a producer of metals at the multiple ounce per ton level. Reporting .4 per ounce, while characterized as a "bonanza" by Brian Russell, disappointed this expectation. As I acknowledged before, this expectation was not irrational based on the history of promises by Global. But putting aside promises and looking at the reality of Global today is what we should do. Assume that .4pgm per ton is what we have at the Hassayampa, 500,000 tons of enhanced ore contains $60 million dollars of metals in the ground at $300 per ounce. There are 15 million tons of raw ore, which after stripping, would yield a minimum of 4 million tons enhanced. This means another $480 million of metals in the ground. This estimate is based on evaluation to about 25 -30 feet down.. There is no telling how much further down the metals go. But we do know that in comparable deposits the ore grade enriches with depth because of the weight of the metals. Then there is the Weaver Creek with an estimated 100 million tons of raw ore to 25-30 feet. this would reduce to 25 million tons of enhanced ore. You do the arithmetic on this. (I calculate $3 billion). Allowing 90% for infrastructure costs, discount to present value etc. the net value of the deposits comes to $354 million or $16 per share. This is without consideration of the deposits beyond 25-30 feet and the Oro Grande, possibly the richest known platinum deposit in North America. Now, all the above is without consideration of the potential of the proprietary catalyst. We have no proof that this works. There is reason to believe that it does work. I believe that it works. I believe that technical glitches and mistakes, along with developmental problems have delayed proof that it works. If it proves out, the numbers above will be a pale shadow of the actual value of these deposits. If it does not prove out we still have a viable property at the developmental level which is massively undervalued. I anticipate that you will demand proof that the raw ores of Hassayampa and Weaver Creek are at the .4 oz/ton level. You are justified in this demand. But supposing this proof was provided. What then for the price of the shares? Regards, Ed

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (5658)	4/9/1998 3:02:00 PM
From: Ed Fishbaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Larry, I just calculated the value of Brian Russell's findings based on current spot prices for the metals. With gold @ $308, Platinum @ $420, Palladium @ $291 and Rhodium @ $557. With Russell's values of 1.82 grams gold, 5.69 grams platinum, 2.4 grams palladium and 3.22 grams rhodium. 1.82 grams gold = $18; 5.69 grams Platinum = $77; 2.4 grams palladium = $22 and 3.22 grams Rhodium = $60. These values total $177 per 13.13 grams (=0.383 ounces). On a per ounce basis you have $177/.383 = $462. So instead of using $300 per ounce as I did in my previous post use $462 and see what you get. Looks like better than a 50 % increment. Regards Ed