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 : ABER RESOURCES -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lorne who wrote (1418)	5/21/1999 2:42:00 PM
From: WillP	Respond to of 2006

Oops...duplicate. See next one.

To: Lorne who wrote (1418)	5/21/1999 2:42:00 PM
From: WillP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2006

Lorne: Yes. That's not an unusual event, since the more ore you mine, the larger stones you find...generally. Also, the recent increase in diamond prices may contribute to the increase. However...people sometimes confuse the data. If you are looking at an "average" value, then the appreciation looks much higher, since Misery's lower figures are included in any such average. Here's another way to look at the value appreciation with greater mining samples. One of the diamonds recovered from A154-S was just under 15 carats...and was junk. Had it been a gem, it might have had a value of $45,000 or substantially more. That would have added $15 US per carat to the overall value of the parcel, and about $70 US per tonne to the value. But it wasn't, so it added nothing. Conservatively, you know that 15 carat stones exist, and probably one in 7 will be gems. Therefore, such a stone population would add $2+ per carat, and $10 per tonne to the Diavik value. Regards, WillP