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 : Rock Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: the Chief who wrote (281)	11/10/1998 3:20:00 PM
From: Chad Barrett	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1996

Chief, I have some questions about the prior settlements the BC government has made. Hopefully you will be able to shed some light on this issues for me. First of all, were the Royal Oak properties that the government expropriated for parkland just "exploration properties" that had yet to be drilled (ie. with proven resources)? Or did they have a proven mineral resource on them? Or was there a producing mine on them? I'm guessing that the amount of investment that a company had put into the property would be taken into account when coming to a settlement? Yes? This might explain why Royal Oak got 166 million? There was also mention of another company getting over 7 million as a settlement. Once again, do we know how much property they held? How much exploration had they done on their property? Finally, how does the Rock's expropriated property compare to these previous 2 settlements? My guess would be that they are in a similar situation to the company that got 7+ million. However, they have been waiting longer, and it is possible that they had invested more into their property, or that they had more property taken away than the other company? That would seem to justify a larger settlement.... ? Without knowing the facts about the previous properties that the BC gov. has already payed compensation for, it is hard to know how the Rock stacks up. However, it does look good for them to get a considerable chunk of change! That 7+ million settlement does seem to be the worst case scenario.... Chad