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 : MPVIF Mountain Province Mining -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chas. who wrote (793)	4/20/1998 6:05:00 PM
From: Gabriela Neri	Respond to of 2577

Chuck, Your points are certainly valid and sensible. There are always a few sides to approach the same issue. I wholeheartedly agree that the results of minibulk will go a long way in providing a benchmark of value for what is already discovered. Gem quality threshholds for mine development are a guess-I cant say that your guess is better than mine or visa versa. However, another significant input will be additional pipes. The geology of the central portion of the AK claim is suberb-much better than the southern portion where the existing pipes lie-and its likely that highly diamondiferous pipes reside there. Therefore, additional high quality pipes will contibute greatly to any decision making on the part of DeBeers. Also, the amount of money required to develop the mine will only be ultimately justified by the economics of the ore bodies. If the ore bodies justify economic mine development, then it is my guess that a mine will be developed. Most economic ore bodies are ultimately exploited. There exists a lot of potential in this play and the risk reward is extremely compelling, because I see a lot more upside potential than downside risk at or near these levels.