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

To: teevee who wrote (11412)	1/9/1999 11:10:00 PM
From: Sudhir Khanna	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 26850

Kaiser has an excellent product and deserves to be read. I recommend his letter to all. I know a little of what he has said and he raises some good points. Most of these have already been discussed on this thread, by him, by myself and I am sure by others. Caution in a speculative play is the norm, not the exception. Let me ask a question to begin with. In operating mines around the world, where does the value come from? I believe you will find that the value (ie. bulk of the revenue) comes from a small percentage of the stones. This is the reality of operating mines. This is from the June 15, 1998 issue (prior to the release of the valuations): "The value of a kimberlite body is built upon the existence of large stones. There remains no question that the dyke system of interest contains large stones of economic importance. The market will realize this importance when the value of the stones is reported. Large, gem quality stones such as these have the potential to yield values in excess of hundreds of dollars per carat." There is no doubt that the three stones make up a large percentage of the value of the stones recovered from the mini-bulk samples. I agree with teevee in that the real question is whether we can realistically expect similar larger stones from the dyke. This depends on how the diamond plot looks and the distribution of the stones. When the results first came out I asked Randy about the distribution of the stones. This is from the June 22, 1998 issue: "The arguments I have made above also imply (this is my speculation only) that a plot of the size of the stones will yield a logarithmic curve. As I have already stated in my last write-up, this is a further reason to expect larger stones from a larger (5,000 tonnes) mini bulk sample." This was based on conversations with John and Randy. I call it speculation because no one, including myself and I am assuming Kaiser, has seen the plots. The possibility of a scam has been discussed and dismissed long ago on this thread, by myself and by others, including Kaiser. I suggested that people step back and look at the larger picture once they have recovered their initial capital. From the Dec. 2, 1999 issue: "The nature of the conception continues to be debated. Does a larger mineralized source exist? Has the source been eroded? Does this highly diamondiferous dyke occur in the shape of a gently dipping conical sheet? I have been speculating, since the discovery of the NW Peninsula dyke, that the dyke will, in itself, yield enough tonnage and value to be of interest to the market. The size of the indicator mineral train, the existence of diamondiferous boulders, the numerous dyke intersections at expected depth and the angle of the intersections require a geological explanation. What was important to realize is that the simple existence of this debate and the volume of the debate, will eventually lead to higher prices for Winspear. The size of the baby will continue to be debated until its eventual birth. Our focus is in making money and from this viewpoint, it is enough to know that, from the information known to date, a birth will occur and that it will support higher prices." Sincerely, Sudhir Khanna, P.Eng. Edtior, The RESOURCE INDICATOR goldsheet.simplenet.com mailto:khannas@interlog.com?subject=wsp