Home > Boards > US Listed > Mining/Resources > Chester Mining (CHMN)

1. I was actually wondering not for chester

Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (1) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
brandemarcus Member Profile
 
Followed By 25
Posts 1,407
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 09/11/12
160x600 placeholder
brandemarcus   Tuesday, 07/30/13 09:56:01 PM
Re: sanbrunobaby post# 49
Post # of 88 
1. I was actually wondering not for chester but for an individual as an example after ildm takeover aslm spiked a bit but quickly calmed down.

2. I had a talk with Bill Campbell today and we both have some misconceptions about the nature of the company.

3. Noneof the reserves associated with the chester vein in the 43-101 report are subject to the 4% nsr or the 20% net profits interest. These reserves are part of the sunshine mine and not subject to the chester royalty.

4. This is not to say that the chester vein does not extend onto property subject to the nsr and net profits interest but no reserves for that area have been published in a 43-101. I believe but am not certain the chester nsr covers area to the east of the area marked chester vein and to the west silver summit shaft.

5. This area has been mined way in the past (40-50 years ago) and was the source of very high grade silver and that was when chester paid dividends.

6. These areas are also not subject to the 7% nsr that the rest of the sunshine mine is subject to which goes for epa cleanup and to compensate the Coeur d'Alene Indian tribe.

7 One can only infer about the prospects for this ground from the fact that Sunshine owned 51% or more chester and Sterling also held quite bit back in 2007.

Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (1) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
Follow Board Follow Board Keyboard Shortcuts Report TOS Violation
X
Current Price
Change
Volume
Detailed Quote - Discussion Board
Intraday Chart
+/- to Watchlist
Consent Preferences