SAM - they might not have been actively presenting themselves, but when I called 3 days before the release of the financials, I got an entirely different outlook than reality. At that late stage, they knew every detail about Q4 production and already had their BOD meeting to approve results. In all my days investing in juniors, I've never been told more bull and been given more absurdly rosy outlook. IR was saying 32,000 oz MINIMUM in '08 with good chance for 40,000 (said "look at our Investor Presentation" - which guides to 40,000 oz). In reality, they don't have a hope in hell of getting 32,000, let alone 40K. They will have a very difficult time matching last year's 28,000 and I suspect 25,000 is more realistic (4K in Q1, 5K in Q2, 8K in Q3, 8K in Q4 = 25K total).

And they won't be back to normal in Q2 as they specifically said they'd be ramping production back up during Q2. That means they won't be at "normal" rates until Q3. The best they can probably do is match last year's production (28K), and that assumes some sort of expansion in Q3 and Q4 - that's a far cry from the 40,000 oz that they were leading the market to believe was coming.

And since substantial parts of their current production are profitless ounces (ie "purchased ore"), their cash situation will likely deteriorate as they spend capex to develop the new mine faces to bring on new production.


Let us know what they say in NY. I'd love to grill them about production vs forecasts. Ask them specifically about how much "purchased ore" is being bought and how many ounces that is providing and how many ounces they expect in the future from buying ore. Those are profitless ounces, so they shouldn't even be mentioning them unless they add a big fat asterisk next to them with a disclaimer.

So many red flags are popping up when I look as SAM. Deceitful management. Profitless production. Overly generous option plans. Declining grades and production 3-4 quarters in a row. But for strongly rising Au and Ag prices, they'd be in deep chit.

The more I think about the bs I was told, the more pissed I get.

Bob - Thanks for detailing what's going on. I only paid attention to their assets, and wasn't up on the other details. I wish I had more powder to put to work as I'd take a position in them at these prices.

Re:SAM - you had no idea that management were sandbagging the market and nobody is blaming anyone except management for not disclosing material events. For that failure, they go to the bottom of the heap in my opinion.

Everyone should expect screw ups in juniors - they don't have the best deposits, people or funding and little things have a nasty habit of growing into large problems. But when management fails to inform the market of significant problems, that's a big red flag. And in SAM's case, they seemed to go out of their way to present an entirely false outlook for the company with obsolete Investor Presentations and grossly misleading information coming from their IR department.

Add in the outrageous "incentive" option policy and it's clear SAM's management interests are not aligned with shareholders.

If I still owned shares, I'd probably hold as well. But I'd expect Q1 to be horrendous and Q2 not much better. It's never good when you see declining grades and production quarter after quarter, so I'd be prepared for continuing bad news and potential failures to meet guidance.

SAM is a "show me" stock now and they don't deserve any credibility until proven otherwise.

STP was grossly over valued and was repeatedly pumped by the likes of DesLauriers of Resource Investor. Count yourself very lucky to sell above $1.50 - to me it was mass delusion at work driving the price up. Even at current prices, it ain't cheap.

Rather than buy STP at $0.80, look at CLL at $3. FAR better value. I wouldn't pay $0.40 for what STP has.

STP management are simply lying to the public when they tout the costs to bring on production. CLL is probably the most efficient capex user in the oilsands patch. Their first 10,000 bpd pod was put into production in record time (3 years) - even so, it took $270MM and that was before costs skyrocketed. Their second 10,000 bpd pod is expected to cost ~$320MM and that's low as they get the benefit of existing infrastructure from their first pod.

Knowing that, go look at the feasibility "assumptions" being used by STP's "independent" consultant - they woefully underestimate costs and that throws all the reserves and NPV calcs etc out the window.

Caveat Emptor.

ADY - Bob, please boil this down into layman's language for me. And who is Philip Taylor?

FMA - I talked to mgmt earlier this week. Almost at 1500 tpd already (1400 tpd last week and expected to finish a minor modification to get up to 1700 this week - it involved adding a screen to take the oversize out of the primary crusher before it got to the ball mills and recrush, allowing the ball mills to run at higher capacity).

They are fully unhedged. Fantastic time to be a new Cu-Au producer. Will announce commerciality effective March 1. Official mine opening next month.

Will release that long awaited 43-101 any day. Will finally allow them to get the story out, so have a bit more patience. I have been picking away at any shares below $0.90. I think FMA is an easy double and perhaps a triple if Cu prices hold (which they sure seem like they will).

And don't forget about Globestar (GMI) starting up mid summer. At current prices, they will cash flow over $100MM/yr (including modest hedge losses).

Plus you get their high grade Ni discovery which is worth more than than the Cu-Au mine for free.

GMI trades for a measly ~1.5x annualized cf. Extremely undervalued and have to be fish bait for Xstrata who owns the Ni smelter 8km from their Ni deposit and processes lower grade ore. Xstrata could offer 100% premium to current share price, keep the high grade Ni deposits, and flip the Cu mine for more than they paid. My back of envelope NPV calcs show the Ni is worth at least $250MM assuming a modest 10MM tn discovery (already at 6MM tonnes now and I expect to see 10MM tonnes by year end at the pace they are proving up more ore). If Xstrata weren't trying to flog themselves with CVRD (now Vale), I suspect GMI would have been gobbled up long ago.

TAM - more stunningly good drill results.

How on earth TAM carries a minuscule $30MM mc is beyond my comprehension. There isn't another zinc play in the world that has reported the huge grades and widths as TAM has in the last 3 years.

158' of 25.53% is equivalent to $600+ tonne ore or 20 gpt gold equivalent. That is Aurelian like widths and grades. Plus they found a 7.5' interval at ~60% combined grade (but calculated at 30%) - I've never seen a zinc-lead interval that high grade.

That's in addition to the 105' of 30+% at their Z155 deposit reported in February and the 105' of 31% at their R190 deposit.

Sharon? Geez. You do have patience, lol. Lamond runs those companies like his private fiefdom. There is no reason why a company like Sharon even exists any more - should roll it up with Diaz, boot back office and management, get them cash flow positive and generate a profit and then sell itself to somebody who can drive shareholder value. Diaz NPV is $83MM. Carries a $19MM mc.

I think Diaz has a bigger chunk of Speaks and is probably a better value.

Nord - you can't get any quantity at these prices. Every time I've tried, the selling dries up or somebody jumps in ahead of me. The last few weeks and I haven't been able to grab more than 25,000.

GORO - indeed. Nice grades. But we need the cstr permits and get the mine into production. And bleeding results of one or two holes at a time is getting mighty tiresome. Need to get a lot more rigs running.

I doubt "dumping" any positions BSC may have had in commodities would have been at a loss. Almost all commodities were near all time highs. More than likely they were big winners for them and JPM used them to offset some massive write downs in their subprime "assets".

I really doubt BSC had all that many big losses remaining. What brought them down was a liquidity crisis. It was an old fashioned run on the bank, not losses that brought them down. Any bank that had such a big run would collapse.

The irony is that if the Fed opened the credit window to broker dealers a week earlier, BSC would probably be trading at $60 a share. JPM stock value increased $13 B the day they "bailed out" BSC (when every other financial stocks plummeted). It shows that the market felt that BSC was worth orders of magnitude more than the $250MM that JPM paid for them.

Iron ore and coal plays appear to have the best fundies. Ag plays may be ripe for a fall - just wait as new crop reports come in - there will be a big supply response - fields are being planted fence post to fence post. Unless there is a drought in a major growing area, I think soft commodities will have a very difficult time. I think fertilizer plays will remain buoyant as fertilizers are very cost effective to increase yields.

China is talking down Copper once again. This is the third year and a row we've heard the same bs. As you point out, the recent winter weather had an impact on demand as they were unable to import Cu as they normally would. Nevertheless, combined SHFE and LME inventories continue to decline.

And once Chile's power problems become acute, supply will be constrained. Chile is expecting a 5-10% cut in power supply in the next few months as hydroelectric supply is disrupted due to the worst drought in 40 years.

OIL is difficult to understand. Too many moving parts for me. I liked the story when it was simply "get into production". The easy money was waiting for em to do that. Now, it's got earnings and all sorts of complications (hedges, currency fx, operational snafus).

As such, I redeployed into Serica and Ithaca, which are the next "get into production" plays that trade at significant discounts. I wanted Antrim below $3 and missed it by pennies and watched it head to $4+ in a couple of weeks.

Starcore (SAM) - what a crock o chit.

I don't think I've ever changed my opinion of a company or a management team so quickly. After my talk to IR and DD on SAM last week (and reading about SAM on these boards for a while now), I thought I had a pretty good handle on what is going on. Boy, was I ever MISLED (polite way to say I was lied to - tantamount to fraud imo). I talked in detail to SAM IR guy about production, cash costs, etc etc. Just 3 days later, I was shocked to read the financials and see the difference btw reality and the BS I had been told and the Investor Presentation I was sent.

The financials reveal all sorts of NASTY surprises.


Production isn't expected to be back up to normal rates (what ever that means) until end of the next quarter (or so they claim). They've had three successive declines in production, each quarter getting worse, with Q4 outright horrendous. (and Q1 may even be worse from the looks of things). Yet their current "forecast" (per the Investor Presentation) is for increasing production to 40,000 gold equiv ounces this year? How very very curious. And how very very very VERY unlikely.


Based on the comments in the financials, it appears extremely unlikely they can match last year's production (28,000 Au equiv), let alone ramp up to 40,000 as per their investor presentation. 25,000 oz may be optimistic depending on how bad production is right now (of course, they won't tell us - that would be too forthright and transparent - seems these jokers think it is much better to hide the truth (lie? deceive?) and then "surprise" the market with bad news). And that means cash costs are going up - maybe not as high at $490 as per Q4, but well above $300 I had been told to expect last week - probably in the low-mid $400s is my guess. Based on their huge G&A and declining production, it looks like these guys will be lucky to show any earnings in '08 - hard to imagine with $1000 POG.

And despite protestations from management, it's clear management are only out for themselves.

These pieces of chit, err, "top management" reserve the right to award themselves TWENTY PERCENT (20%) of the common stock. That's outrageous and scandalous greed. 10% is bad enough. But 20%? That's shocking. And then to compound things, they have hugely accelerated vesting conditions - 33% in 6 months. 66% in 12 months and 100% in 18 months. Plus they give themselves 5 yrs to exercise them. Shareholder friendly? A resounding NOT! Perhaps the only consolation is that most of them are issued at significantly higher prices than the current share price. (but you can bet they will start to issue them like candy at current prices if they can do so without shareholder revolt).

And to prove these SOBs are some of the greediest baztards around, go look at the "incentive options" they awarded themselves in the last 6 months (presumably for doing such a bang up job to lose money with ~$1000 POG and see production drop ~40%).

They lost $2.52MM in the last 6 months with gold near all time highs. Yet where did the majority of the loss come from? Well, from "top management" awarding themselves about $1.888MM in "stock based compensation" in addition to $449K in "management" fees and salaries. What a crock o chit.

And then look at production. About 37% is "purchased ore" (average for the last 2 quarters - it rose to 42% in Q4). And from that $4.75MM in revs from purchased ore, they saw a gross "operational" profit (before G&A, etc etc) of a minuscule $88K. The purchased ore kept the production numbers up, but it is almost a complete waste of time and energy. I guess $88K is better than nothing, but it sure limits the ability of SAM to capitalize on rising gold prices when 40% of "production" provides little to no benefit to shareholders.

And that raises all sorts of questions about their 40,000 oz "guidance". Just how much is from their own operations and how much is to come from "purchased ore"? It is crucial piece of data to know to model earnings (or lack thereof in SAM's case). But of course, SAM doesn't disclose that info. Very curious. Well, not really.


Based on what I learned, I think SAM is more than fairly priced and probably deserves to go lower. Significant portion of their production is virtually profitless and offers no upside to increasing gold prices. The remaining portion of production (60-70%) has seen lower grades for 3 (perhaps 4 if this quarter is as bad as it appears) consecutive quarters. Management is unwilling (unable?) to provide reliable or accurate guidance or contemporaneously inform sheep, err, investors what is going on. Insiders are gorging themselves on "incentive options" and salaries while offering pie in the sky, fanciful projections.


SAM is a sell and a stock to avoid. Management is untrustworthy.

225MM shares o/s. Absurd valuation. One of the biggest scams around.

Halted for that news? Come on. These Halts are "supposed" to be for significant news. 1m intercepts are hardly unusual.

"Comtois drill results never cease to amaze us"

Pluheeze

Globestar Mining (GMI) gonna generate big cash flows and profits at these Cu/Ag/Au prices. Mine start up mid year and are fully cashed up.

~30-34MM lbs Cu/yr
~15-20,000 oz Au/yr
~500,000 oz Ag/yr
Will recover about ~120MM lbs Zinc starting 2010.

Also are proving up a high grade Ni laterite deposit adjacent to the Falcondo Ni smelter (only 8km away). The NPV of their Ni is worth more than the current mc, but gets zero valuation by the market as management does little promotion. This is the hidden kicker and why I like GMI so much.

MC is around $160MM. (101MM shares os x $1.58) At current prices I see them throwing off around $115MM in annualized cash flow, after accounting for hedges.

Have modest hedges due to $45MM bank debt, but they also set up call options that capped their hedge losses. Hedged Gold at $650, capped at $800. Hedged Ag at $12.50, capped at $17.25. Really minor Cu hedging at $2.50 or so.



Financial Instruments and Off Balance Sheet Arrangements
During the second quarter ended June 30, 2007 the Company entered into a combination of forward and call option contracts for gold and silver, for quantities based on 90% of the estimated production of these metals from the Cerro de Maimon project during the initial three years, to economically hedge against the risk of declining commodity prices. The hedging program in place provides a forward price for gold of US$650 per ounce for a total of 57,900 ounces and a forward price for silver of US$11.50 per ounce for a total of 1,440,000 ounces. As discussed above, the program includes long call options at an average strike price of US$800 per ounce for gold and US$17.25 per ounce for silver, thus permitting the Company to participate in price increases in the event that gold or silver prices exceed the strike prices of the options.
During the third quarter ended September 30, 2007 the Company entered into a combination of forward and call option contracts for copper at approximately 10% of the estimated production of the Cerro de Maimon Project during the initial 3 years of operations. The hedging program in place provides a forward price for copper of US$2.52 per pound for a total of 9,497,503 pounds. The program includes long call options at an average strike price of US$4.04 per pound of copper, thus permitting the Company to participate in price increases in the event that copper prices exceed the strike prices of the options.
These hedging programs were required as part of the terms of the project debt facility with NEDBANK. No further hedging is required. The program requires no cash margins, collateral or other security from the Company.

Apparently they have to share the port with fruit growers and there is doubt that they can load enough ships before the port is closed.

Yikes - ADY down 12.5% on the news about the losses.

Bob - Thanks. If you want more info on Admiral, check out Hot Copper - has a fairly active website that discusses all Aussie mining plays. The Admiral board is decent, but also has more than their share of the usual pissing and moaning so common on some of these boards.

Admiralty - Bob, thanks for reminding me about them - I looked hard at them about 3-4 months ago but thought they were a bit expensive. Now, with production and share price significantly lower, it does look like good value.


Just curious how you found them? I frequent Hot Copper - a good Aussie board (with lousy layout) and saw it mentioned in passing months ago.

Admiralty - Bob, thanks for reminding me about them - I looked hard at them about 3-4 months ago but thought they were a bit expensive. Now, with production and share price significantly lower, it does look like good value.


Just curious how you found them? I frequent Hot Copper - a good Aussie board (with lousy layout) and saw it mentioned in passing months ago.

Take a gander at GLR Resources (GRS.V). Very cheap pre production gold play seeing some forced selling offering great entry.

Expecting final enviro review by mid April at end of public comment period. Then final permits a few weeks later.

Want to get into production in mid '09 with 90,000 opy open pit in SASK. with $300-$350 cash costs (FS says $280, but it's a bit dated). Updating 43-101 and expect 10 yr LOM (up from 7)


Share count - 63 MM mc = $25MM - cheap.


Have $45 MM debt facility agreement. Need another $8MM capex via equity.

At ~$1000 PG, they generate $60MM cash flow. I don't know of another gold play trading so cheap.

Rockgate samples 2.55% U, 1,380 g/t Ag at Pomy

2008-03-10 10:18 PT - News Release

Mr. Karl Kottmeier reports

ROCKGATE SAMPLES 2.55% URANIUM, 1380 G/T SILVER, 4.71 % SELENIUM AND 5.50 % COPPER AT BATHURST INLET PROJECT, NUNAVUT

Rockgate Capital Corp. has released additional rock grab sample assay results obtained from the company's Pomy uranium deposit. The Pomy deposit is located within Rockgate's 100-per-cent-owned Bathurst Inlet project, which covers approximately 1,000 square kilometres of the Proterozoic, Kilohigok sedimentary basin near Bathurst Inlet in Nunavut.

In July, 2007, 22 rock samples were collected by Rockgate from 10 trenches first developed by Cominco in 1976 over a 900-metre strike length of known uranium mineralization. High-grade selenium and silver were discovered at this time to occur with the uranium mineralization in trenches 3 and 4 with values of up to 2.121 per cent uranium, selenium values to 6.1 per cent and silver values to 1,810 grams per tonne from this area. Details of the assay results from all 22 samples were outlined in the September, 2007, news release.

The enclosed assay results in the table are from five additional grab samples collected in late September, 2007, by Rockgate personnel from trench No. 3. Significant concentrations of mercury up to 91,633 parts per billion and bismuth up to 206.30 parts per million were also obtained.

Sample No. Uranium Selenium Silver Copper Lead
U308 % % g/t % %

G12464 0.62 1.80 500.0 1.61 1.27
G12465 1.64 2.86 2080.0 3.20 1.07
G12466 0.02 0.18 38.3
G12467 2.55 4.71 1380.0 5.50
G12468 1.39 3.78 1320.0 4.10 1.40

The company has compiled and studied the historical data produced by Cominco in the 1970s and identified a number of geological highlights from the Pomy prospect including:

* Grab samples of up to 4.35 per cent uranium oxide in sandstone;
* Grab samples of up to 6.5 per cent U3O8 in basalt;
* Trench sample of 2.10 per cent U3O8 over four metres along the sandstone/basalt contact;
* Diamond drill hole PM-3 intercepted 0.17 per cent U308 over 8.11 metres in the basalt;
* Diamond drill hole PM-7 intercepted 0.28 per cent U3O8 over 10.0 metres in the basalt.

Rockgate's Nunavut project is located along the west side of Bathurst Inlet over a large Proterozoic sedimentary basin with known uranium occurrences. These occurrences are situated near the basal angular unconformity and in close proximity to a large regional structure called the Bathurst Inlet fault. The majority of mineralization is situated within the Proterozoic, Brown Sound formation basalt and at both contacts with sandstones.

Previous geological mapping outlined three separate basalt flows within the Pomy area. Detailed mapping indicates the majority of the sediments and basalt flows are north trending with a consistent moderate westward dip. However, in the trench No. 3 area where the high-grade mineralization was discovered both units rotate rapidly to a near vertical dip. The regional Bathurst fault trends along the entire length of Rockgate's Bathurst Inlet project and is within one kilometre of the Pomy mineralization. Numerous northwest-trending structures cross the mineralized basalts and may be responsible for the rapid change in dip.

Permit applications will be submitted to complete diamond drilling of the Pomy mineralization this summer and fall. The current drill proposal outlines 10 holes to test along the known 900-metre trend of mineralization. The holes are designed to crosscut perpendicular to the northwest-trending structures where they cross the basalt flows. Additional diamond drilling will be focused in the area of the recently discovered high-grade mineralization.

Eco Tech Laboratory Ltd. of Kamloops, B.C., an accredited laboratory, is conducting the sample preparation and analyses. Mr. Lorne Warner, PGeo, director and vice-president of exploration, is the qualified person for the company under National Instrument 43-101.

As reported in Stockwatch news dated March 3, 2008, Rockgate plans to spin off the company's Canadian assets into a new exploration company pursuant to a plan of arrangement to be implemented under the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia). As part of the arrangement, Rockgate shareholders will retain their Rockgate shares and will receive units in the new company based on a ratio of one unit of the new company for every three shares of Rockgate held. This arrangement is subject to the approval of shareholders and the TSX Venture Exchange.

MSQ.V - Big friggin moly deposit. This resource is only based on 20% of the known deposit. It looks bigger than Mt Hope already...


MOSQUITO COMPLETES NI 43-101 RESOURCE ON CUMO DEPOSIT OF 2.89 BILLION POUNDS OF MOLYDENUM OXIDE, 3.41 BILLION POUNDS OF COPPER AND 149.8 MILLION OUNCES OF SILVER

Mr. Shaun M. Dykes, M.Sc. (Eng), P.Geo, Exploration Manager and Director of Mosquito and Mosquito's qualified person under National Instrument 43-101 is pleased to report the results of a new 43-101 compliant independent mineral resource estimate for the CUMO porphyry molybdenum-copper deposit located in Idaho. Giroux Consulting, an independent, internationally recognized mineral industry consultant, calculated the estimate. Results are a significant improvement on the historic resource originally calculated in 1981 by AMAX and covers only a portion of the mineralizing system identified to date.

The NI 43-101 calculation confirms that the CUMO deposit contains:

* 2.89 billion pounds of molybdenum oxide(MoO3),
* 3.41 billion lbs of Copper (Cu),
* 149.8 million ounces of silver (Ag) and
* 185.3 million lbs of tungsten(W)

within an inferred Mineral Resource of 2.01 billion tons(1.83 billion metric tons).

The 2.01 billion ton mineral resource is divided into two components based on cutoff grades:

zone cutoff tons MoS2 Cu MoS2 Cu Ag W
grade millions Equiv. % Equiv. % % % ppm ppm

Cu-Ag 0.1% Cu 292.9 0.049 0.55 0.016 0.14 3.50 36
Cumo& Mo 0.04% MoS2 1,720.0 0.122 1.38 0.091 0.08 2.37 47.7

For calculation of Cu Equiv. and MoS2 equiv. see description at end of Table 1

It should be noted, Mosquito's assay results also indicate the presence of significant quantities of Rhenium and Gallium, which due to the lack of historical assays could not be estimated at this time.

Importantly, the Giroux estimate also shows the presence of higher grade resources in the main Cu-Mo and Mo zones:

zone cutoff tons MoS2 Cu MoS2 Cu Ag W
grade millions Equiv. % Equiv. % % % ppm ppm

Cumo & Mo 0.09% MoS2 757.6 0.152 1.71 0.122 0.06 2.19 47.1

These higher-grade resources will potentially facilitate rapid recovery of capital costs during the early years of a possible large-scale mining operation.

Giroux Consultants were chosen to complete the 43-101 compliant resource estimate at Cumo, because of their extensive work on large tonnage open pit and underground accessible primary molybdenum projects throughout the world. A technical report detailing the resource estimate will be filed on SEDAR within the next 45 days. The specific breakdown of Inferred Mineral Resources for the CUMO deposit above varying cut-off grades is tabulated in Table 1.

Giroux's estimate is based on drill core assay results from 4,959.2 meters (16,270.2 feet) of drilling in 8 holes completed by Mosquito in 2006 and 2007 and 10,980.7 meters (36,025.8 feet) in 22 diamond drill holes completed by AMAX between 1971 and 1981. Due to mineral zonation the deposit was split into three mineral zones: a Cu-Ag zone near surface grading downward into a Cu-Mo zone and finally into a Mo zone. Cu and silver were highest within the Cu-Ag and Cu-Mo Domains while MoS2 and W were highest in the Cu-Mo and Mo domains. The grade distribution for each variable was examined in each zone with erratic high grades capped. Uniform 20 ft. composites were formed that honored the boundaries of the 3 grade zones. Semi variograms were run for each variable and isotropic models were fit to the data. Grades for each variable were interpolated into 50 x 50 x 50 ft. blocks by ordinary kriging. Specific gravities were obtained from drill core and average values were applied to each domain.

Mosquito has substantiated that the CUMO resource consists of about 20% of a much larger mineralized system covered by the property (also confirmed by AMAX in 1981). This is also confirmed by Giroux's resource calculation in that the current geological block model comprising approximately 50% of the mineralizing system has a total of 264,510 blocks in the Cu-Ag zone, 255,668 in the Cu-Mo and 189,914 in the Mo zones. Giroux calculated 71,218 blocks (27%) in Cu -Ag, 106,344 blocks (42%) in Cu-Mo and 98,532 blocks (52%) in the MO zone for a total of 39 % of the blocks in the geologic model or 19.5% of mineralized system. A large portion of the 2008 drill program will be focused on drilling in the areas of the uncalculated blocks. (see attached figure)

Cumo is favorably located in southwestern Idaho in an extensively logged, historic gold placer and lode mining area, readily accessible from nearby major centers of Idaho City and Boise.

Mineralization consists of copper, molybdenum, silver, tungsten, rhenium and gallium. As a result of the multi-element nature of the mineralization, Mosquito decided to include both a copper and molybdenum equivalent for the resource table. Both equivalents are required as the deposit is zoned as described in previous press releases and in the resource tables. See notes below table for explanation of the calculation of copper equivalent (Cu Equiv.), MoS2 equivalent (MoS2 Equiv.). The presence of the by-product elements copper, silver, tungsten, rhenium, and gallium are very significant in terms of the development of the property.

CUMO has an excellent configuration for very low cost open-pit mining. The thick mineralization is very continuous with almost no internal waste and is persistent over a broad area measuring 2 km by 3 km. Mineralization begins right at the bedrock surface which is covered only by a thin layer of overburden and broken rock ranging from 4 to 20 meters thick, indicating the deposit will have an unusually low strip ratio. The deposit is currently 500-600 meters thick and open to the south, east and west.

Immediate plans for the CUMO deposit are, to develop the drill parameters for definition of measured and indicated resources, complete the ongoing metallurgical test work, complete the environmental assessment for the drilling permit, continue drilling to define the full extent of the deposit and expand the higher grade zone encountered in the 2007 southernmost drilling, complete a preliminary sizing/scoping study that will facilitate the start of environmental base line measurements for the mine permitting process and collect engineering data for specific mine, mill and infrastructure design.

Dr. Matt Ball, Ph.D., P.Geo., a qualified Person (NI 43-101) , a Director and Senior Geologist of Mosquito is supervising the exploration program at CUMO, including the quality control and assurance program. Logging and sampling is completed at Mosquito's secure facility at Garden Valley, Idaho. The entire HQ diameter core was sampled and cut in half using a diamond saw. Half the core is sent for analysis, the other half has been kept and stored at the core facility. Following cutting the samples are delivered directly by Mosquito personnel to ALS Chemex in Elko, Nevada, a fully accredited analytical laboratory. They are first analyzed for 47 elements using a four (4) acid digestion with analysis by Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma Optical Mass Spectrometer (ICP-MS). Copper and Molybdenum bearing samples are then checked by using a larger 5 gram sample and analyzed using pressed powder pellet X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRF). In addition duplicates, blanks, and standards are analyzed to ensure analytical accuracy and reproducibility. All rejects are being kept for further analysis and for use in metallurgical testing.

Drill hole location maps, an outline of the CUMO deposit and mineralized zone, and a complete tabulation of significant intersections from the CUMO drill programs to date may be found on Mosquito's web site at www.mosquitogold.com. Mr. Shaun M. Dykes, M.Sc. (Eng), P.Geo., Exploration Manager and Director of Mosquito is the designated qualified person for the Cumo Project, and prepared the technical information contained in this news release.

On Behalf of the Board

MOSQUITO CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES LTD.

Brian McClay

President

THIS NEWS RELEASE WAS PREPARED BY MANAGEMENT WHO TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTENTS. THE TSX-VENTURE EXCHANGE DOES NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS RELEASE.


TABLE 1 2008 INFERRED RESOURCE ESTIMATE FOR CUMO (AFTER GIROUX 2008)

Cutoff Tons > Cutoff Grade > Cutoff Contained Contained Contained Contained MoS2 Cu
Cu (Short tons) MoS2 Cu (%) Ag W Million Million Million Million Equiv Equiv
% % % ppm ppm lbs MoO3 lbs Cu ozs AG lbs W % %

0.10 292,900,000 0.016 0.14 3.50 36.0 84.3 826.00 29.93 21.11 0.049 0.55
0.12 173,300,000 0.014 0.16 3.96 38.0 43.6 568.40 20.04 13.18 0.050 0.56
0.14 107,300,000 0.014 0.19 4.36 41.0 27.0 397.00 13.66 8.81 0.054 0.60
0.16 71,100,000 0.013 0.20 4.61 43.0 16.6 290.10 9.57 6.12 0.055 0.62
0.18 44,500,000 0.013 0.23 4.91 45.0 10.4 200.30 6.38 4.01 0.059 0.66
0.20 30,800,000 0.013 0.24 5.09 49.0 7.20 149.70 4.58 3.02 0.062 0.70
0.22 24,000,000 0.013 0.25 5.12 50.0 5.60 121.00 3.59 2.40 0.064 0.71

COPPER-MOLYBDENUM ZONE (CU-MO)

Cutoff Tons > Cutoff Grade > Cutoff Contained Contained Contained Contained MoS2 Cu
Cu (Short tons) MoS2 Cu (%) Ag W Million Million Million Million Equiv Equiv
% % % ppm ppm lbs MoO3 lbs Cu ozs AG lbs W % %

0.01 972,900,000 0.067 0.113 3.28 49.0 1,172.3 2,198.80 93.2 95.4 0.103 1.16
0.02 959,200,000 0.068 0.113 3.30 50.0 1,173.1 2,167.80 92.4 96.0 0.105 1.18
0.03 901,200,000 0.071 0.114 3.33 50.0 1,150.7 2,054.70 87.6 90.2 0.108 1.21
0.04 788,200,000 0.076 0.115 3.26 52.0 1,077.3 1,812.90 75.0 82.1 0.114 1.28
0.05 650,200,000 0.082 0.115 3.19 53.0 958.9 1,495.50 60.6 69.0 0.120 1.35
0.06 505,400,000 0.090 0.116 3.21 54.0 818.0 1,172.50 47.4 54.6 0.129 1.45
0.07 371,100,000 0.099 0.115 3.27 54.0 660.7 853.50 35.4 40.1 0.138 1.55
0.08 284,300,000 0.107 0.115 3.35 53.0 547.1 653.90 27.8 30.2 0.146 1.64
0.09 205,600,000 0.116 0.115 3.45 53.0 428.9 472.90 20.7 21.8 0.155 1.74
0.1 137,700,000 0.127 0.115 3.61 53.0 314.5 316.70 14.5 14.6 0.166 1.86
0.11 103,000,000 0.134 0.113 3.70 52.0 248.2 232.80 11.1 10.7 0.172 1.93
0.12 76,100,000 0.141 0.112 3.73 49.0 193.0 170.50 8.3 7.8 0.179 2.01

TABLE 1 2008 INFERRED RESOURCE ESTIMATE FOR CUMO (AFTER GIROUX 2008) (CONTINUED)
MOLYBDENUM ZONE (MO)

Cutoff Tons > Cutoff Grade > Cutoff Contained Contained Contained Contained MoS2 Cu
Cu (Short tons) MoS2 Cu (%) Ag W Million Million Million Million Equiv Equiv
% % % ppm ppm lbs MoO3 lbs Cu ozs AG lbs W % %

0.01 945,500,000 0.102 0.042 1.61 43.0 1,734.4 794.2 44.4 81.4 0.128 1.44
0.02 945,400,000 0.102 0.042 1.61 43.0 1,734.3 794.1 44.4 81.4 0.128 1.44
0.03 942,400,000 0.102 0.042 1.61 43.0 1,728.8 791.6 44.3 81.1 0.128 1.44
0.04 932,100,000 0.103 0.042 1.61 44.0 1,726.6 783 43.8 82.1 0.129 1.45
0.05 913,700,000 0.104 0.041 1.60 44.0 1,709.0 749.2 42.7 80.5 0.130 1.46
0.06 868,000,000 0.106 0.041 1.58 44.0 1,654.7 711.8 40.0 76.5 0.132 1.49
0.07 788,100,000 0.111 0.041 1.57 44.0 1,573.3 646.2 36.1 69.4 0.137 1.54
0.08 659,500,000 0.118 0.041 1.57 44.0 1,399.6 540.8 30.2 58.1 0.144 1.62
0.09 552,000,000 0.124 0.042 1.56 45.0 1,231.0 463.7 25.1 49.7 0.151 1.70
0.1 444,200,000 0.131 0.042 1.55 46.0 1,046.5 373.1 20.1 40.9 0.158 1.78
0.11 366,100,000 0.137 0.041 1.53 46.0 902.0 300.2 16.4 33.7 0.164 1.85
0.12 274,400,000 0.145 0.042 1.55 46.0 715.6 230.5 12.4 25.3 0.172 1.94

CUMO CU-MO AND MO COMBINED ZONES

Cutoff Tons > Cutoff Grade > Cutoff Contained Contained Contained Contained MoS2 Cu
Cu (Short tons) MoS2 Cu (%) Ag W Million Million Million Million Equiv Equiv
% % % ppm ppm lbs MoO3 lbs Cu ozs AG lbs W % %

0.01 1,918,400,000 0.084 0.078 2.46 46.0 2,906.8 2993.0 137.6 176.8 0.115 1.30
0.02 1,904,600,000 0.085 0.078 2.46 46.5 2,907.3 2961.9 136.9 177.4 0.116 1.31
0.03 1,843,600,000 0.087 0.077 2.45 46.4 2,879.5 2846.4 131.9 171.3 0.118 1.33
0.04 1,720,300,000 0.091 0.075 2.37 47.7 2,804.0 2595.8 118.8 164.2 0.122 1.38
0.05 1,563,900,000 0.095 0.072 2.26 47.7 2,667.8 2244.7 103.3 149.5 0.126 1.42
0.06 1,373,400,000 0.100 0.069 2.18 47.7 2,472.8 1884.3 87.4 131.1 0.131 1.47
0.07 1,159,200,000 0.107 0.065 2.11 47.2 2,234.0 1499.8 71.6 109.5 0.138 1.55
0.08 943,800,000 0.115 0.063 2.11 46.7 1,946.7 1194.7 58.0 88.3 0.145 1.63
0.09 757,600,000 0.122 0.062 2.07 47.2 1,659.9 936.6 45.9 71.5 0.152 1.71
0.1 581,900,000 0.130 0.059 2.04 47.7 1,361.0 689.8 34.6 55.5 0.160 1.80
0.11 469,100,000 0.136 0.057 2.01 47.3 1,150.2 533.0 27.5 44.4 0.166 1.87
0.12 350,500,000 0.144 0.057 2.02 47.1 908.5 401.0 20.7 33.0 0.174 1.95

Notes: Copper equivalent (Cu. Equiv.) and Molybdenite Equiv. (MoS2 Equiv.) are based on the following metal prices(all in US$):
Copper $2.00/lb, Molybdenum Oxide ($25/lb), Silver $0.32/gram and Tungsten $0.22/gram.($14,000 per ton)
Other factors include 1% = 20 pounds; 1 ppm = 1 gm/T; 1000 ppb =1 ppm = 1 gm/T.
Molybdenum is sold as either ferro-molybdenite or molybdenum oxide.
The price used is $25 per pound Molybdenum oxide.
To obtain the amount of Molybdenum oxide that can be produced from MoS2, the following is required:
convert MoS2 to Mo by dividing MoS2 by 1.6681 then convert to MoO3 (Molybdenum Oxide) by multiplying by 1.5.
Therefore the amount of molybdenum oxide is pounds MoS2 times 1.5 / 1.6681.
Metallurgical recoveries and net smelter returns are assumed to be 100%
Formulas :
Cu. Equiv. = ((cu* 20*$)+((MoS2*20*(1.5/1.6681)*$(MoO3))+(Ag*$)+(W*$))/ $(copper)
MoS2. Equiv. = ((cu* 20*$)+((MoS2*20*(1.5/1.6681)*$(MoO3))+(Ag*$)+(W*$))/ ((1.6681/1.5)* $(MoO3))

Mineral Resources do not have demonstrated economic viability.

An Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade can be estimated, on the basis of geological evidence and limited sampling and reasonably assumed geological and grade continuity.

We seek Safe Harbor.

Serica - NAV is far higher than $1.16 at current oil prices. More like $1.75...

And NAV is highly likely to be understated as most of their reserves are based on single discovery wells without the benefit of appraisal wells to delineate the reservoirs. As such, reserves are going to be very conservative.

Kambuna gives em robust cash flow of over $100MM a year - enough to significantly increase their exploration efforts and fund their development without any future dilution.

Compare to other plays with similar production of ~10,000 boed. You won't find any with a measly ~$215MM mc with $80-$100MM in cash in the bank.

I think SQZ is a triple from current prices with any drilling success. A double seems in the bag at current oil prices...

London Copper Price Likely to Hit $10,000 in Q2 ($4.53 lb)

By Interfax-China
07 Mar 2008 at 10:46 AM GMT-05:00

SHANGHAI (Interfax-China) -- Copper prices on the London Metal Exchange (LME) are very likely to reach as high as $10,000 per tonne in the second quarter of this year, due to increased speculative fund investment in the commodity market, Chinese analysts told Interfax Thursday.

The LME three-month copper contract ended 1.5% lower at $8,560 per tonne on Thursday, after touching an intra-day high of $8,795 per tonne.

"U.S. dollar weakness, along with market expectation of a U.S. Fed interest rate cut in the near future, has forced investors to quit stock, real estate and bond markets, in favour of commodity markets. The three-month copper price contract on the LME is very likely to hit $10,000 per tonne in the second quarter," Bi Sheng, general manger of the futures department of Henan Gold Dragon Copper Tube, China's largest copper tube manufacturer, said.

The recent bullish copper market is more driven by speculative fund investment than by strong consumption from China, Bi said.

He also said that current downstream copper consumption is not as strong as last year, and the U.S. economic recession and its sluggish real estate market will have a negative impact on China's copper tube exports.

Hu Kaixi, an analyst from Shanghai CIFCO, China's leading futures broker, also said that LME copper prices will soar to as high as $10,000 per tonne by May this year, supported by the recovery of China's copper consumption and inventory restocking activities.

"Copper prices will see seasonal correction this summer, but are very likely to reach a new record of $11,800 per tonne by October," he said.

Copper inventories in Western countries have fallen to new lows recently, prompting both the EU and United States to restock. Moreover, global copper supply shortages are not due to improve within the next three to five years, despite an expected downturn in global consumption following the subprime crisis.

China's copper consumption growth is set to slow from nearly 17% year-on-year in 2007, when the country consumed 4.5 million tonnes, to 6.7% year-on-year in 2008, with China forecast consume 4.8 million tonnes, Yang Changhua, an analyst from leading consultancy Beijing Antaike Information Co. Ltd., said.

Yang also said that speculative funds will take advantage of the global tight energy supply to push commodity prices, including copper, to new highs. "Shanghai copper futures will soar to RMB 70,000 ($9,846.67) per tonne by March," he said.

A Shanghai-based physical trader, who wished to remain anonymous, told Interfax that fund companies holding short positions are selling off copper contracts, which is pushing up prices.

"Speculative funds have until recently not been too interested in the base metals market compared to the softs, precious metal and energy market. However, the weak economic outlook from a weak U.S. dollar and the subprime mortgage crisis is now making base metals more attractive," he said.

Copper prices are on their way to peaks, but large-scale corrections are also possible, as prices are vulnerable to changes in consumption and the economic environment, the trader said.

Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE) copper future prices closed lower today, following the overnight pullback by London Metal Exchange counterparts. The most traded May delivery lost RMB 580 ($81.58), or 0.83%, to close at RMB 69,140 ($9,724.33) per tonne.

Analyst He Lili, from Yide Futures, said that copper prices advanced too quickly recently, and price may continue lower short term before resuming uptrend and a possible challenge of record highs.

On Thursday, London copper stockpiles decreased by 2,350 tonnes to 135,800 tonnes and SHFE copper stockpiles increased by 3,954 tonnes this week to 52,840 tonnes today.

Spot copper prices traded between RMB 67,700 (9,521.8) and RMB 67,900 ($9,550.0) per tonne.

Gold- Silver - be careful out there. The shorts are just itching to take down all the precious metals (and oil and copper too).

The slightest rebound in the dollar and you'll see mass exits for the door. So be prepared.

The dollar will bounce when the European Central Bank lowers interest rates. I expect that to happen mid year. If the market gets a whiff, they'll be gone in a flash out of commodities - inflation be damned.

H2 '08 could see a strong rebound in the dollar. The Fed will stop lowering rates by mid summer and the US economy will start to show some growth. At the same time, the ECB will still be cutting rates to shore up anemic Eurozone growth. The Euro will weaken and the dollar will strengthen. All commodities will see price pressures.

I plan to be heavily in cash by mid year. Commodities are gonna get a double whammy this summer - typically slow summer doldrums coupled with stronger dollar.

Check out Serica Energy (SQZ)- on fire sale at these prices ($1.23).

Tristone recently initiated coverage with a $2.50 target price (using $80 oil), and an Outperform rating.

Will be in production at year end in Indonesia on their Kambuna field. Expect 35MM mcf and about 3,250 bpd condensate net production. At current prices, that's ~$110MM cash flow (assuming $60 bbl netbacks).

Raised $52MM in January at $2.10 with substantial insider participation. Now have $80-$100MM in cash, plus $100MM facility to fully fund their production facilities.

176MM shares os. Current sp is $1.23, for a $216MM mc. EV is $116-$136MM.


I don't understand the selling at current prices, but it appears to be fund liquidation and the shares are at multi year lows with no justification that I know of.

Serica has an active program this year - 3 development wells in Indonesia (going on now), one appraisal well offshore Norway, and three exploration spuds (2- Ireland, 1 Vietnam).

Also have discovery wells in the North Sea (Columbus and Chablis fields).

Tristone estimates over $11 unrisked share potential from the exploration.

I think Serica is a screamer at current prices.

I have a copy of Tristone's report if anyone is interested...

nsomniyak - First Metals trades under FMA.T. Also has a pink sheet symbol FSTMF, but people say they are having trouble with it.

First Metals - Curlews, they are already starting on work to get Magusi into production. They had planned on getting both mines up and running by mid '08, but the mill is the limiting factor - can only produce ~1500 tpd. Otherwise, they'd put Magusi into production right now - it already has ~5 yr resource.

They have a fully funded 20,000m drill campaign going on at Magusi right now. It is designed to move resources into reserves and prove up more tonnage. Management is looking for a ~10 yr mine life and feels pretty confident about doing so.


As soon as the open pitable material at Fabie is exhausted (in about a month or two), that mining equipment can be used to develop Magusi. Fabie will continue to be mined underground for at least another year.

They also expect Fabie to prove up more mine life as the deposit is open at depth, so I doubt Fabie will even be mined out by mid '09 in any case.

At current valuations, FMA is a steal.

Monty -

First Metals has more reserves than Zaruma, has higher grades, is already in production and trades at a better valuation.

If you like Zaruma (like I do), First Metals is a screaming buy...

Zaruma, First Metals and Globestar are very very cheap.

Anywhere near current prices and these plays are cash cows.

Zaruma is coming on line at end of year. Trading well below 1x '09 cf.

First Metals already in production. Trading at less than 1x THIS YEAR'S cash flow.

Globestar is trading about 1.3x first year cf. Start up of their high grade Au-Cu-Ag mine mid year and you get their big Ni holdings for nothing.

Nord is now producing and is trading below 1x '09 cf.

Wind Mills - larger is better.

1) Large windmills require less maintenance. And since they are large and have significant output, they get maintenance attention quickly when needed. Small output mills can sit for weeks or months until enough break down to make economic sense to arrange repairs.

2) Bird kill is far lower as big blades are easier to see and spin much slower and are at greater height. Unless the windmill is tiny (smaller than commercial units), they rarely put cages around them.

In my area (Altamont wind farm is about 30 miles away), they curse the small windmills. ~20-30% of the small mills are out of commission at any one time. Maintenance is a nightmare. Many owners simply abandoned them when tax subsidies ran out as they were so unreliable.

And with so many thousands of fast spinning blades so close together, bird kill is very high and increasing (and a travesty).

Great Panther? Again? Geez, how many times can one under performing dog be hyped? GPR has had more letter writers pumping them than the rest of the sector put together.

I did some detailed DD about 18 months ago on them. Did not "get it" then. Don't get it now. Yes, Ag prices higher. But GPR hasn't come close to meeting production guidance and their costs are far higher than expected. Rehabbing century old mining complexes is far more challenging than they ever expected.


Even at current Ag prices, GPR isn't cheap. And an under performing company doesn't deserve any premium, no matter how often they are pumped.

Zaruma, Nord, First Metals - all have their pluses.

Nord has far and away the biggest reserves and the most ability to grow organically. Zaruma is tiny and has limited reserves (but I expect them to prove up at least 10 year mine life). First Metals is a no brainer, but again, their weak point is reserves and ability the transition into Magusi production won't be seamless as they say it will.

Nord has the backing of Sprott, which is one of the major reasons I grabbed a good size position.

First Metals doesn't have any sponsor, so seems left out in the cold and unloved.

And don't forget Globestar. Slightly more expensive, but has the best outlook of all three due to their hidden Nickel kicker.

I like Copper plays - I am skeptical that supply can keep up with demand, particularly when the US re accelerates in H2 '08. As such, I think there is upward price pressure on Cu and think a new record high is coming...

First Metals - Jennings has $2.15 target using $3.10 Cu this year.

FMA is highly levered to Cu prices. At current Cu prices, they are trading well below 1x '08 cash flow - unheard of for a producer...


Last trade was $1, off the recent bottom, but well below the highs and well below where it is going this year as word gets out.

Tip: Grab some before they release the 43-101 in the very near future. The news will pleasantlysurprise a lot of people.

Zaruma - that research was pretty weak. They should demand a bigger fee if that's all you get for $20k.

Target prices were in the ballpark. $0.70 by year end if they get the mine built on time is possible. I am looking for ~$1 target in about 18 months if Cu averages about $3.50.

At current $0.22, Zaruma is very compelling for those willing to wait while they build the mine and mill.

TAM - finally rec'd their long awaited positive enviro and socio-economic approval for their Pine Point restart on Friday.

This positive recommendation gives the green light for project financing and mine cstr. A few more permits needed, but they are pro-forma now that they have the enviro approvals and public support (including the First Nations).

They have a very large drill delineated deposit (8 B lbs of metal) with some extremely high grade deposits - first one has 1MM tonnes of 16.65% ave zn-pb (or about $480 tn at current prices = 1/2 oz per tonne gold equivalent). They will mine at bulk rates of 2800 tpd, generating ~$500K PER DAY in cash flow (not revenue) = ~$180MM/yr.

And current mc is a measly $32MM. Trading at 0.17x first year cash flow.

Multi bagger upside.

FMA - extremely undervalued trading at ~1.2x 2008 cash flow.

One of the best buys in the market.