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: John Paquet who wrote (11931)	1/14/1999 9:30:00 PM
From: Cohiba	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 26850

Few comments, 1) For the record, I have been in and out of Wispear since April 1997 and have continuously followed it and this thread saince then, eventhough I am a new member of SI, I feel like I know many of you; 2) There is to me a huge problem with Kaisers' analysis with regard to the value of the stones in the mini-bulk sample. His analysis is based on an assumption that all 18 stones in the 1-6 ct bracket are of poor quality (worth between 18-30$/ct) while 359 stones out of the remaining 479 stones (roughly 75%) in the 0.005 to 1 ct bracket are of gem quality (123-145$/ct). Well my friends, this is a hell of an assumption to make. How that could be possible is beyond me. Again his premises are: Bracket Value Gem quality % + 6ct 1500-3000$/ct 100% 1-6 ct 18-30$/3ct 0% 0.005-1 ct 123-145$/ct 75% 3) In today's article by Stockwatch reporter, R. Turner is cited saying: " This is a unique dyke. It appears to be a cone sheet. Any time you are dealing with a unique deposit you will see some unique features." and further in the article: " It is relatively consistent and appears to be a homogeneous kimberlite." This is to me an almost total confirmation of Dr Bob cone theory and confirms that we have the tonnage and a pretty homogeneous system. 4) Aber did not want to finance their share last year but are this year. Their share last year would have amounted to about 1 million $(40% of 2.5 million $). This year program will cost them roughly 4 million dollars (33% of 12 million $). They certainly do not share Haiser's, Bishop's worries. Why, you may ask? I do not know why. All Iknow is that Aber has all the information and these two writers do not. 5) Canaccord and Yorkton are the highest net buyers since the beginning of the decline on Jan 4 1999. DS (Direct Action?) is the highest net seller. For all the above, I am still long Winspear... Regards, Cohiba