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 : Maxam Gold Corp. OBB:MXAM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (8420)	5/18/1999 8:08:00 AM
From: Char	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11603

Claude, Are you saying that you don't believe any of Richard Hewlett's resource calculations? Char

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (8420)	5/18/1999 10:42:00 AM
From: Ed Devlin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11603

CC-- Of course, I meant precious metals. I'm sure you have faith in the Arizona Diamondback baseball team. BTW, why does Cambior keep running into such horrible environmental problems? Bad luck or bad planning? One of the reasons I got interested in the desert was the ghastly accident Cambior had with its cyanide pond in S.A. At least Maxam isn't going to be a big polluter. <<...I think that before thinking about production one must make sure he has something in the ground he can recover.>> Agreed. The key, of course, is the level of confidence in the economics of the entire process, from exploration to paying for the gas for the truck to haul concentrate to the refiner and paying for the guard to take the check to the bank. A very big picture. A banker looks at "sure" one way. I think your view of "sure" is quite close to that. But somebody with a lot of money is already sure enough to put up funds for Maxam to go into limited production and further development. Dale is sure that there is an economic ore body. Heck, every time I go to Peoria 7, I stick my finger in the ground and lick it and it tastes like gold, so I'm convinced <g>. The opinions see-saw, but the basic question of "sure" keeps coming back. "Can't lose"? "Too likely to win to pass up"? Almost the same ideas, but crucially different. Your threshold of confidence is very high, and it almost assures that you do not lose. That is what being conservative is about, I guess. My threshold of confidence is somewhat lower, so I am more likely to lose with a loser (as I have demonstrated so well in the past!), but perhaps I am more likely to win with a winner. Who can tell? As you know, I wish you all the best, Ed D.