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 : Medinah Mining Inc. (MDHM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Gold who wrote (6388)	10/1/1998 9:30:00 AM
From: the Chief	Respond to of 25548

Hi Mike. if they are doing closely spaced grid line pattern of IP/R in the X and Y direction-couldn't the Z direction be inferred? ie. have a computer ingest the x, y data and the exact surface location of the transverse of the IP/R then draw a 3-d representation? Apparantly, MDIN knows the surface area of the minerlization (at least the portion on their claims) and the depth so I think they can infer a 3-D image-what do you think? Hmmmmm. I don't think so Mike! Because the decay occurs quicker in areas of lesser mineralization I think you could assume by the length of delay time a thickening or thinning of the mineralizd area and guesstimate mass based on that decay. So I would expect that if you were to look at a colour image of the deposit it would show a larger decay time as a different colour, and therefore give representation of a thicker area of mineralization. My impression is that, if the deposit was mineralized at exactly the same amount "throughout the deposit", then there would be a direct correllation of decay time and mass of the deposit. Because this is virtually "unlikely" decay time could only be related to a thickening or thinning. That is to say, if there is one area of high "charged material" then the decay time would be longer...giving the impression of a larger mass...even though not true! I am going to daytrade a few gold stocks this AM....I will get back after market open to address your other question the Chief

To: Mike Gold who wrote (6388)	10/1/1998 7:41:00 PM
From: the Chief	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25548

Hi Mike Also, somebody emailed a question to ask you. Chief, I believe you are quite familar with quite a number of exploration stage mining companies-how does the share structure of MDIN compare to them? 33,000,000 shares out, 9 million preferred convertible to another 30 or 40 million shares in a year, apparantly quite a number of more shares around from either shorting, naked shorting, or unregistered shares, current share price of 0.065 cents.) Thanks. Market cap has to take into account full dillution including preferred, so I will use 73,000,000 shares. 73mm x.065 =$4,745,000US This is not an "outrageous market cap" in fact it is extremely low for the companies potential! However, and there is always a "however" somewhere out there is a $34,000,000US debt for these properties( albeit based on expenditures and milestones, we think!). The company in its "present stupidity" has chosen not to explain to the shareholders what the deal "is and was"! In pursuit of proceeding along with the mining aspects of the company Larry, Les and Ian have chosen like many "mining executives" to keep their shareholders in the dark! It is possible that it is being done for good reason. Under normal market conditions there actions would be tolerated and accepted. However, we are in a "commodities toilet" and the information vaccuum created by mining executives can cause numerous problems. Raising money, and share price being the most important! The AGM will give the shareholders opportunity to express their disdain with present information flow. However, as a result of attending many AGM's I can tell you, one piece of good news and the "disgusted few" generally curl their tails between their legs and "will be happy", something every company that treats their shareholders as mushrooms...hopes for!! So MDIN's shareprice is probably undervalued even in these market conditions ; 1) poor information flow from the company 2) poor understanding of the property deal 3) poor commodities prices (except AU) 4) OTC BB listing If the company chose to promote its properties and inform its shareholders results would likely be very different!! the Chief