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: Ed Fishbaine who wrote (7619)	9/26/1998 2:06:00 PM
From: Laser	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14226

Mr Fishbaine, Thanks for the post and candid comments. Looking for sacrificial lambs as the reason for Globals' failures in the production process is smoke and mirrors IMO. The basic process itself is flawed and non-economical. The proof from Sabin is non-refutable. The numbers published on June 25/98 are redundant. The failure of Global to publish cash receipts for the shipments thus far says it all. This company has demonstrated that it cannot deliver on any projections it has made. Writing a "Production Manual" will not bring about a miraculous turnaround for the company. The process is at fault and shifting blame to plant workers is nothing short of a witch hunt. Just MHO.

To: Ed Fishbaine who wrote (7619)	9/26/1998 2:47:00 PM
From: Scott Wheeler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Ed, thank you for the information. McKay sounds pragmatic and purposeful. More of those qualities do seem needed at the mill, especially now. If we can believe the 9/8 statement that, at least for shipments #1 and 2, Sabin was extracting more than Global had anticipated, then it's already possible. If we did not have prior extraction success, explanations about quality control or procedural consistency would be much less persuasive. I emphasize "if we can believe", however. If that statement was hype or just wishful thinking, then look out. But I do keep thinking about Professor Russel's word "bonanza" now and then and find it hard to believe that a maven such as he would risk reputation by careless sputter. No, I think we can more than likely take the current explanations as adequate and plausible, though we should also expect visits from Mr. Murphy from time to time along this path. I'm also sure nobody at Hassayampa is less frustrated than we discussants! My guess is that it's hard to psychologically move from an R&D mentality to a production one - maybe they just can't help themselves, e.g.;, "Hmmm, lets see...if we just wiggled this widget and peeled this onion and added a tad more hypochlorite....", when they should be sticking to the basics that work. jmo...Scott