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 : Golden Eagle Int. (MYNG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CIMA who wrote (2983)	5/23/1998 2:18:00 AM
From: Savant	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

Cima, until Claude gets back, I'll take a stab at the answers, he can correct any errors. 1. this is important...Bre-S was "somewhat" loose in this area 2. Yes, it would imply conservatism 3. Guido took what he figured the cubic meters of viable materials would be and then reduced it by 60 to 70 % this would imply conservatism. 3. As Claude pointed out, just to have the gold is not enough. It must be legal to mine it B.it must be cost effective to mine it C.These are as of the time of determination. D. this implies things could change.......Hope this is accurate and helps. Best, S.

To: CIMA who wrote (2983)	5/23/1998 7:45:00 AM
From: Richard Mazzarella	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34075

CIMA, <<TO BE ECONOMICALLY AND LEGALLY EXTRACTABLE OR PRODUCIBLE AT THE TIME OF THE DETERMINATION OF THE RESERVE.>> This statement wasn't in caps in the release. That statement depends on the price of gold at the time of determination. What was the POG used? If you haven't noticed, there are a number of mines around the world with low grades closing because of marginal extraction economics. Doesn't it concern you that MINE didn't post its grades? At least the average grade? They must know them because they used grades calculating their proven and probable for the report.

To: CIMA who wrote (2983)	5/23/1998 12:26:00 PM
From: Claude Cormier	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 34075

CIMA, Indeed it really looks like great care has been placed on all procedures. I have nothing to say about the methodology. I am only surprised by the conclusion. I am used to read miners proving up a few millions ounces after tenths of thousands meters of either drilling, channelling and trenching with the same quantity of samples. The resources announced by MINE based on that number of samples does not match with the numerous situations I have look at so far. I guess we always learn. When the tech report is available, we will be in a better position to discuss the matter. BTW, I am told that MINE doesn't have 100% in the property and that it is only receiveing a small interest. Can you shed some light on this?