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 : Royal Oak-RYO -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Bidder who wrote (1059)	7/16/1998 9:24:00 PM
From: Richard Gibbons	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1706

> You dismissed my arguments that Kemess was uneconomic > based on the low grade. Of course the parties with a > vested interest claim it to be economic! This is kind of an amusing comment, coming from a short seller, with a vested interest, who is claiming Kemess to be uneconomic. So on one hand, we have those who, if they deliberately lied, would almost certainly get sued, who have years of experience in the mining industry and have spent millions of dollars attempting to determine the economics of a mine, and who have staked the company on the feasibility of this mine. On the other hand, we have a short seller whose strongest argument for his theory that Kemess is uneconomic is something along the lines of "my reliable unnamed sources said so". I'm not commenting on whether or not RYO will survive, because I'm not sure. I appreciate your efforts in keeping the discussion going, and making it interesting. However, the argument of discrediting management based on their vested interest doesn't seem to me to be a good one. Overall, I like your contributions (just not this one). You've provided a contrary opinion to the general bullishness of SI, and have made people aware that there is significant risk in this stock! Plus, you've made this thread much more entertaining. Thanks, keep it up.... Richard