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 : Exall Resources/Glimmer Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. Charters who wrote (789)	1/11/1999 7:51:00 AM
From: Winzer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1319

EC, << What if Glimmer is a shoo-in to win? >> Based on the excellent SAS website posted by James (thanks James-excellent area map), my curiousity / imagination continued to wonder if SAS was not somehow the saviour that Glimmer was looking for? e.g. Mayer Tchelebon suggested that the only way out of this impasse (without a long protracted battle) was to have a third party buy them both out (based on the 50/50 scenario). Now with the 56% GME being promoted/speculated in the past couple of weeks, I would say that GME (planning in anticipation of success) would be looking to eliminate their trucking and milling costs to the Stock Mill. Another interesting tid bit from the SAS site was the ad for a VP & CFO last year. His/her job description included the fact that " one of the first tasks will be $20 to $30 mln financing that is required for 1998-1999 to achieve our corporate goals" (could only be equipment and infrastructure for the Taylor Mine and/or Stock Mill). Yet another subliminal message was in the THIRD paragraph of the Other Properties section on the SAS Website dealing with a "motherhood" statement of "searching for high grade gold properties to buy". One concern is that the contract that Exall signed with SAS. In brief it stated on the SAS website that, in March 1997 a three year custom milling contract was signed which guarantees 15,000 tonnes per month(500tpd). Unless this is a typo and SAS wants the capacity for the Taylor or other feed, where does that leave EXL/GME? So much for SAS. Now if we turn to our maps and look around the horizon there is another possible (world class, huge and highly respected) third party that can put a stop to all this BS once and for all and based on the blue sky 2 mln ozs ++, it might just work. Hint - they just took a run at Argentina (ARP)for ?$5.50/share. One of their high profile "ex-employees" on the board and all! How about this WAG (wild ass guess?). Cheers Winzer

To: E. Charters who wrote (789)	1/11/1999 11:43:00 PM
From: James N. Wilson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1319

<<The inclusion of these costs in the expense calculation brings Exall's cash contribution to the joint venture well over the level needed to ensure its majority interest and continued operation of the mine.>> Above from EXL 1/28/1998 PR - CEO Stephen Roman. The PR was immediately countered by GME CEO R. McCloskey as to the validity of Exall's interpretation of court ruling. I have not heard of any further trips to the court or rulings by the referee. If these rumors are indeed true about a significant increase in GME's portion of the Glimmer Gold Mine I would guess the companies are at the bargaining table. Is this your understanding? james