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 : ASHTON MINING OF CANADA (ACA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann A. List who wrote (5749)	7/21/1998 7:04:00 AM
From: JKNF	Respond to of 7966

Great job Ann!!! Thanks John

To: Ann A. List who wrote (5749)	7/21/1998 8:04:00 AM
From: Ned Land	Respond to of 7966

I agree, thoughtful contribution! I think that the result is especially good considering how you've made the company's exploration budget twice that of DMM's. In the absence of this, the bottom line would be larger; also depreciation expense is much bigger. I guess more than anything else, what this tells me is that diamond mining has very low marginal costs, and therefore that, for a lower grade pipe to be deemed economic, all that's needed is a large resource tonnage. Imagine what the numbers would be like if both K91 and K14 were to go into production?

To: Ann A. List who wrote (5749)	7/21/1998 9:10:00 AM
From: St. Barbara	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7966

With this prefeasibilty cashflow, you've described what many of us have realized for a while. Well done. Whereas the grade estimate is high and needs to be confirmed, so is the marketing expenditures, IMO. Also, the capital requirements will be significantly less here, but you have considered the opposite will be true, as evidenced in your depreciation estimate. Another point, is that K-91 would have a longer life, hence a lower net present value. I believe that all of these are either self cancelling, or are within the error range (ie +/-30%)of the estimates. The most important point, though, is Nedland's comment about other potential, such as K-14, and K-__, et al.

To: Ann A. List who wrote (5749)	7/21/1998 9:38:00 AM
From: MrsNose	Respond to of 7966

I agree with the others. Wonderful extrapolation given that a lot of the variables have to estimated or assumed to be the same as DMM's. Now all we need are the numbers from ACA All the best, Margie

To: Ann A. List who wrote (5749)	7/21/1998 10:45:00 AM
From: ddl	Respond to of 7966

Hi Ann: welcome... Nice of you to have taken the time and do the research, It confirms what many of us feel. Though I feel some of your expenses may be high (no fault there as I like to look at the worse case scenario anyway), I was wondering if you could plug in a smaller cpt of lets say .4 and see what the bottom tells us. I feel, as many do, that ACA can profitably operate a mine in the ADP with a smaller cpt. The're doing it in Auzzieland now. Thanks for input - denis

To: Ann A. List who wrote (5749)	7/21/1998 11:41:00 AM
From: Famularo	Respond to of 7966

Ann, I just finished catching up with the unread posts and saw your work you posted. Like everyone said, GREAT WORK.... As numbers come out and you get the chance to pluck them in, send me the revised list at famularo@sprint.ca and I can post on your behalf. Once again, thank you so much for the input. On a different note, it will feel like 45 celcius with the humidity today, and yes, I will be in the pool. <g> regards Frank