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: Laser who wrote (7224)	9/7/1998 5:52:00 PM
From: Ed Fishbaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14226

Laser, Aside from your illiteracy where do you get this $630 number from. I would like to see your figures and the source since nobody who I know, including the company officials, has a precise handle on costs. My general impression, however, is that processing costs are a small fraction of the $630 number you use. You are not a reliable reporter. Previously you referred to Global as a gold producer whereas all informed investors know that its primarily a pgm producer. Your comparisons of Global with Stillwater are inept. It does little good for you to hedge your misleading assertions by coping out by calling yourself illiterate. Do you have a secret agenda? If you have been sent by some dark forces they did not adequately prep you about Global. But perhaps they themselves are in the dark too.

To: Laser who wrote (7224)	9/8/1998 10:24:00 AM
From: Ed Fishbaine	Respond to of 14226

Laser In your first post you state >---$630 /ton in cash costs exclusive of salaries and other sundry items< In your documentation the reference to fixed overhead includes salaries etc. Based on the figures you used the net for 15 tons per day would come to $187,604 less $200 per ton for refining costs which at 324 tons per month would = $64,800. So the bottom line would be $122,804. Not bad per month for starters. 15 tons per day is a miniscule fraction of the ultimate production level. Now, chemical costs at $75,168 per month will be lowered considerably not only by economies of scale, but by finessing the processing procedure which is now underway. Initial costs in start up operations are always excessive. Refining fees will also come down considerably as larger volumes are sent to Sabin. Similarly, labor costs will also come down as the procedures become rationalized and to some extent possibly computerized. Again, there is always much waste until procedures are fully developed. I, and all other investors, I am sure, will be very happy with $100,000 net per month to start with. Regards, Ed