Your post just highlights that you know absolutely nothing about investing in the Resource Sector. It's the most ridiculous posting that I have ever read. By the way, in your various posts you keep referring to a "43-01". It's actually a 43-101. No one who would have even the most basic understanding of mining would keep making that mistake.

How can you say the company is well financed?

At the end of September 2016, according to their Financial Statements, they had $0.5 million in cash/receivables, $2.2 million in payables/accruals and $9 million of debt (net current liability of $10.7 million).

Even assuming the company has been cash break even since then (more likely >$1 million outflow) the proceeds from the new $10.7 million loan has effectively been accounted for. It's virtually all been spoken for with nothing left for future overheads or any investment in drilling for the future. There needs to be another capital injection.

Please tell me that I'm missing something here?

Firstly it doesn't matter how many times you say it (and you are really sounding like a scratched recorded now, scratched record now, scratched record now) - NO ONE IS LISTENING and your words of wisdom are not going to entice a major to act.

Secondly, I would have thought the last thing we want now is a takeover priced at the traditional 30% premium - wow what a great investment return that would made for those who invested at much higher prices (i.e. Most).

Are we at risk of this being delisted/removed from the NYSE platform?

Today's announcement that Bob Kopple has resigned as a director (after just 12-months). Importantly he has 6 million shares in the Company. Wouldn't surprise me to see them being sold.

Class action coming.

Do you think I would get an honest response? I doubt it.

Why do you think they will "get into production"? They have been there and done that and it failed - big time. Over $60 million of cash consumed by the company over the past 4 years having poured a total of 70,000 ounces. This represents a cash loss of $850 per ounce having realized an average gold price of $1,300 per ounce over that period.

They would have required the gold price to have averaged $2,150 per ounce to have merely achieved cash break even.

Are you suggesting a gold price significantly higher than this???

Thanks - it was a good trip. Your comments re GEO one minute and Gold with Ag as a credit to costs another is a good one. However this method of reporting is the norm in the Resource Sector. It becomes more confusing for investors of base metal producers who often have multiple by-products which can result in cash costs becoming negative!! The bottom line is that for a Resource company to be "successful" it must generate a sustainable and positive cash flow of a magnitude that provides a good return on the capital investment. LODE has never generated a +ive cash flow. Maybe porkie will learn to fly one day??!!

Absolutely. Thanks.

Also I was overseas when you asked me about what is meant by "equivalent gold ounces" earlier in the month. Apologies for the delayed response. This is effectively gold ounces plus the gold equivalent of the silver ounces. It's used for reporting production as well as Resources.

For 2015 the Company poured 15,451 ounces of gold plus 221,723 ounces of silver which the Company calculates to be the equivalent of 3,004 ounces of gold (resulting in 18,455 ounces of gold equivalent). See page 43 of the 10-k (2015).

The average gold and silver price for 2015 was around $1,180 and $16 per ounce. Therefore it would take 73.75 ounces of silver to provide the same revenue as one ounce of gold. Therefore the 221,723 ounces of silver divided by 73.75 provides the 3,004 (give or take) ounces of gold equivalent for silver.

Obviously changes in both the gold and silver price ensure that this ratio is constantly changing.

Gold equivalent is an ok statistic but at the end of the day this is a gold producer with silver being the poor (but contributing) cousin. It's the gold production thats going to determine the success or failure of the operation. Accordingly I tend to focus on actual gold production and not on gold "equivalents".

Absolutely. Thanks.

Also I was overseas when you asked me about what is meant by "equivalent gold ounces" earlier in the month. Apologies for the delayed response. This is effectively gold ounces plus the gold equivalent of the silver ounces. It's used for reporting production as well as Resources.

For 2015 the Company poured 15,451 ounces of gold plus 221,723 ounces of silver which the Company calculates to be the equivalent of 3,004 ounces of gold (resulting in 18,455 ounces of gold equivalent). See page 43 of the 10-k (2015).

The average gold and silver price for 2015 was around $1,180 and $16 per ounce. Therefore it would take 73.75 ounces of silver to provide the same revenue as one ounce of gold. Therefore the 221,723 ounces of silver divided by 73.75 provides the 3,004 (give or take) ounces of gold equivalent for silver.

Obviously changes in both the gold and silver price ensure that this ratio is constantly changing.

It's an ok statistic but at the end of the day this is a gold producer with silver revenue being treated as a credit to operating costs. Accordingly I tend to focus on actual gold production and not on gold "equivalents".

The property being acquired (3405 Citrus Street, Silver Springs, Nevada 89429 - as described in the Loan Agreement) is around 35 miles from the mine site? That's way too far (and many private properties in between) for the water rights to be of any operationally use/benefit. Reading the announcement it is clear that the acquisition represents an investment as part of their real estate business - not mining related. Just thought I would clarify.

Not sure what you are expecting from the CC re underground. With all the past hype and fanfare following the drilling of PQ, the bottom line is that it did not deliver a stand alone (feasible) mine plan - as I had previously predicted.

Surely you realize that for Comstock, silver is merely a by-product. Total sales of silver over the past 4-years was just $13 million (about $300,000 per month), compared to >$80 million in gold sales. A global recovery in the silver price isn't going to change anything in a substantial way here - especially when considering the cash losses were around $1.5 million per month. Silver would have to go to $120 per ounce to help the Company merely break even. Why don't you think through basic common sense logics before coming up with such ridiculous predictions and comments?

Also it's not that difficult to reduce costs once you stop production!!! An 8-year old could understand that concept. The % reduction in revenue is significantly greater that the % saving in costs. Again this is NOT A POSITIVE situation.

Brilliant - up 7% today. However the stock is down since the beginning of the year whilst the junior gold index is up 72% over the same period. Looking at the 12-month period LODE is down 38% vs gold index up 6%. 24/months LODE down 80% Index up 3% Do you want me to continue. This is not a good result for shareholders and assessing one days "achievement" is inappropriate, misleading and ridiculous (you are really clutching at straws).

"Not experiencing a break down"!!! If a share price fall from $3.80 to $0.37 in 4-years (representing a negative return of 171% per year) isn't a break down, then I don't know what is!!

NEWS FLASH - the gold price is higher!!. Why were they mining when the price of gold was $1,100 and not mining now it's $1,300? Your explanation/justification just doesn't make any logical sense.

I couldn't agree with you more. Lester has been hyping this for a few years now and is sounding like a cracked record. The reason the company is trying to reduce its debt has nothing to do with positioning itself for a takeover - it's trying to survive. Debt and virtually no income is the recipe for default and implosion.

If I may provide some input to your question. Unfortunately the gold price has, and will continue to have little impact on the PPS (either up or down) because they have ceased mining and are merely recovering the remaining gold on the leach pad (very small though). They have high payables/loans (around $23 million) and with little cash and minimal production, the company finds itself in a very precarious position. Again with no cash there can not be any exploration to talk of so don't expect any exploration news in the medium term. The PQ assays looked good but it's very small and highly unlikely to be able to sustain the costs and commitments required to recommence production. To answer your specific question about what could occur that would create a positive price increase. I think little - maybe only a takeover but I can't see that being a realistic situation. Their current market cap of $50-60 million with the background of their liabilities and little action, I believe that there is far greater risk of the price continuing to fall over the calling months and wouldn't be surprised to see sub 20 cps. Please accept this with the proviso of it being made on the basis of "IMHO".

What value do you place in this company and what's the basis of that valuation? Appreciate your thoughts.

You are right. A few months isn't enough - probably 12 months but at least come clean once you realize things aren't going according to plan. There has never been any of that type of advice to shareholders. Everything has been great when clearly it hasn't been.

Most of you will be glad to know that I am going to Japan for a couple of months (leaving tomorrow) so probably won't have time to make any postings here for a while. Good luck to you all and "see you" when I get back. Hopefully gold will be $3,000/oz by then and we will all be happier!!

Following from my analysis of the past, another compelling issue that I see is that the mistakes that the company are now admitting to have made would have been realized a few months after production started, yet it took them 3 years, and $60 million of shareholders money, to own up to them and to stop production. During this period we were told on a number of occasions that 40,000 ounces a year was the new production rate and at one time (I believe Q4/14) were told that this had been achieved at that this was the new rate. As we now know, it was always 20,000 ounces pa. They talked of initiatives that had reduced costs when in fact the cost savings were 90% the result of lower production. This isn't an "initiate" it's obviously a negative connotation. You can save 100% of your mining costs if you stop mining!!! which they have now "achieved". Investors need to take what is told and said with a large pitch of salt and a huge dose of skepticism.

Check your facts!! The last time I passed by the site, there was nothing happening - no equipment, no drilling, no underground development. The tunneling company were there earlier in the year and did work (exploration drive and drilling) - but that was prior to the share for work announcement and as far as I'm aware, that's all now stopped. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Realtors post about being a bad guy and shorting the stock was aimed at me - not you. By you responding, Realtor assumed that you and I were the same person. He failed to "realtorize" the obvious mistake.

Wrong again!! Not a short, not a bad guy. Just one that tells it as I see it - and so far over the past 2-years, I've been spot-on with this one.

The tunneling company are not going to help here. As I have said previously that deal has not been consummated nor likely to be at current prices. NO SHARES HAVE BEEN ISSUED - the same number of shares are on issue before this was announced. Therefore the $5 million credit balance has not yet been established. ASK WHY? With the tunneling company not able to sell any shares below 56cps, this deal isn't going to happen. The way the announcement was worded is misleading at best and possibly worse@.

Also what's your interest in LODE?

Im just an investor in resource stocks. What do you mean by "results"? What is needed is an economic study (PEA, FS) on PQ. Their financials aren't going to provide anything. We know they are no longer mining, and we also know that there's 2,000 to 3,000 ounces left to come out of the pad over the next couple of quarters - that's what the Q10,s are going to show.

I would like to contribute my thoughts to this discussion as well. The decision to commence open pit mining (which commenced in Q3/12) had no chance of making money. It was so obvious. I accept that the gold price was higher back then (they used $1,700/oz gold and $30/oz silver in their Jan 2013 Resource Statement) but even if those prices were realized, they would have consumed (lost) $33 million instead of the actual of $60 million over this three year period. The gold price needed to average $2,300/oz to merely have broken even.

Q: Why wasn't this realized before making the development decision?

A: There was no Feasibility Study done (nor even a pre-FS or a PEA), and no Reserves. The decision was clearly made without appropriate financial/economic analysis.

Effectively management is the same now as it was back then (with only the exit of John Winfield and the arrival of Robert Kopple in the board).

Open pit mining is relatively simple compared to the technical, operational and financial complexities of going underground.

It was good to see the CEO accept that mistakes had been made, and putting it mainly down to experience. However nothing has changed. The lessons learnt will not assist management in going underground - assuming that what they currently have is economic.

I read a lot on this site about how great the grades from the recent drilling at PQ were. Although grade is important it's not the only factor. The size of the deposit, it's dip, the width, geotechnical issues, ground support required, the mining methods available (the dip of the deposit is critical - impacting on dilution (much high for underground than open pit and annual tons mineable) are just some of the highly complex issues that will need to be assessed. This all takes time (at least 6-months) before an appropriate decision can be made. There are many high-grade underground deposits with much higher grades than PQ that fail. Take the Pinson underground mine for example. This had a 0.4 o/t Reserve that failed to make money.

So I would suggest that the market (especially the serious Resource Investors) would be highly skeptical of investing in a company whose management team has made so many basic and fundamental mistakes on a fairly simple open pit operation and who clearly lack the experience required to ensure that future mistakes are avoided.

R

All too easy to say with the benefit of time. Had you invested $350,000 in the junior gold index 3-months ago you would be sitting on a $110,000 profit now. If you invested in LODE March 1 you would be sitting on a $100,000 loss now. Let's see what the next 3-months bring.

Look at the chart. There haven't been any highs to sell into. You need a stock that's generally trending up for that strategy to work. Maybe in the future!!

Don't understand your post. "Pasted", "200:1", "HQ". Please explain.

Unfortunately the minority no pun intended) have once again has prevailed.

Congratulations. A well thought out and articulate summation. I concur with most of your points in particular regarding the actual/realistic resource estimate. The 3.2 million ounces of gold equivalent constantly quoted assumes a cut off grade of 0.007 ounces per ton and comes from page 111 of the Technical Report dated January 2013 which assumed a $1,700 gold price (reasonable at that time but not now). Of the 3.2 million ounces, 2.5 million ounces is from Lucerne and 0.7 million ounces from Dayton.

IMHO this cut off was far to low even for that gold price (equates to revenue of around $8 per ton after met recoveries). Costs have been nearer $25/t (influenced significantly by the high fixed costs and higher than anticipated strip ratio). The cut-off at that time should have been at least 0.02 ounces per ton and with a reduction in the gold price and even higher decrease in the silver price, the appropriate cut off grade today would be around 0.03 ounces per ton.

The total resource for Lucerne using a 0.03 o/t cut off according to the official resource statement amounts to 1.2 million gold ounces (1.3 million gold equivalent gold ounces) - a reduction of some 1.2 million ounces before taking into account mine depletion.

Same applies for Dayton. At 0.03 o/t cut off the resource provides for some 0.25 million ounces gold (0.26 ounces gold equivalent).

Therefore the 3.2 million ounces AuE comes down to around The 1.6 million ounces (adjusting for mine depletion ) using a more realistic/appropriate 0.03 o/t cut off (which includes ~0.3 million inferred ounces). Whether any of these ounces will become economic is doubtful. If there is no reasonable expectation of their economic extraction in the future, there is a risk that the Resource Ounces are in fact zero.

The current SP provides a market cap of $63 million. Add the net debt of around $20 million (including the $10 million owing to Winfield following his royalty restructure which is not included as a liability in the balance sheets) provides an enterprise value of $83 million.

For 1.5 million ounce resource (yet to be proven economic), I would suggest a valuation of nearer $20 to 30 million.

Even if the property portfolio is worth $20 million (which effectively clears the debt and payables) that would provide a market cap of $20 to 30 million and a share price nearer 8 to 17 cents per share.

Side issue - Does anyone know why and how the Winfield debt can justifiably be excluded from the liabilities of the company? I find this highly questionable. From my reading of the deal it's debt whatever way it's looked at - even that part that can be satisfied via issuing shares.

No!! Not even a prelim economic assessment. Beyond negligent.

You are a very sensible investor. Knowing when it's time to walk away. Respect!

"how many times do I have to say LODE HAS PREFORMED POORLY in the past." I think you are going to say it a few more times in the future as well if you are relying on PQ to save the day. The grades look good but when you look at the entire situation it's unlikely to be economic. It's more to do with its (small) size, shallow angle (problem for stoping) and extensive mining by old timers. This is not going to be the saving grace you expect/hope for - more like a continued fall from grace.

There are "positive" posts and then there are the "knowledgable" posts. You may call them "negative" but as far as I can see going back 3-years those "negatives" have got it right time and again. Just look at the 3-year chart - can't get better verification. I believe that the "negatives" get 10 out of 10 and a big tick. In my book that's a huge POSITIVE!!!