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 : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Walsh who wrote (10014)	4/7/1999 11:56:00 AM
From: Scott Wheeler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Bob, thanks for your interesting spreadsheet. I did my own somewhat rougher calcs last night and got very similar numbers. I used Global's (not Sabin's) best values from a few weeks ago, where I figured that there were $15K worth of goodies with optimal ore and extraction method. Then, I guessed that 3/4 of that would be eaten up in costs of various types, including normal overhead - so $3500 left x 50/day x 250 days/yr = $44MM/yr profit, nicely in between your $30MM and $50MM estimated range. Even if you halve that to $22MM to be extra conservative, at 32MM?? shares you're still getting $0.70/share. If you use another conservative (for mining stocks) PE of 30:1, you get a $21 stock. My guess is that it would be higher if dividends were distributed.

To: Bob Walsh who wrote (10014)	4/7/1999 2:42:00 PM
From: Ed Fishbaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14226

Bob If I am correct in interpreting your spread sheet the annual net comes to $36.6 million to GPGI based on 50 tons per day for 250 days per year. Not to quibble (or to quibble slightly) I wonder about your assumption that the production values will match the assay values. McKay himself in an earlier release indicated that we should not expect production values to equal assay values. I also think that your refiner costs are on the low side. Therefore, I would suggest a reduction using your numbers to the $20-25 million net per year. However, you have used the average of the 5 samples reported. I do not believe that the lower grade values will be processed. McKay has indicated that he is going to do extended evaluation of the high grade areas. Global needs early cash flow in quantity in order to both establish itself in the market place and to generate funds for reinvestment in infrastructure. If one uses only sample #5 in your spread sheet as a high grade result one achieves a $52 million net per year. Discounting by 38% (the same discount I suggested above to $36 million) one gets back to around $32 million. Furthermore, an apparently little noticed remark in McKay's last missive indicated that the electrolyte was sopping up the metals and the reported results were less than would have been the case if the electrolyte had been fully saturated and the metals migrated into the anode slimes. Once the electrolyte is loaded the resultant slimes will be what will be shipped to Sabin. Therefore any numbers we play with based on the current report are really low ball. Ed PS I am prepared for Wflavel's idiocy in response.