InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

tob999

10/18/12 12:20 PM

#41915 RE: I-Glow #41910

We've been over this already! That was many years ago when gold was $400 per OZ..Gold is trading over 4 x that now.
icon url

MoMoRaptor

10/18/12 12:21 PM

#41917 RE: I-Glow #41910

Compensated Awareness Post View Disclaimer
Wrong, TUMI could not make the payments, simple as that! they could not meet their contractual obligations and walked away!!!!
icon url

Sooah

10/18/12 12:35 PM

#41937 RE: I-Glow #41910

Yes, my point exactly from a reply I made directly to you I-Glow. If you did further DD on Cinco Minas, specifically the Tumi geological report then look at the price of gold from 2002-2004, you will understand exactly what they meant by "economic perspective" which in this case, had Tumi moved forward with the project almost a decade ago when gold was around $300 per oz, then the NPV for the project would have been NEGATIVE at the time. When you factor in the cost of capital at that time, one can easily understand Tumi's decision years back.

Timing is everything, and as it stands, the price of gold is projected to reach perhaps 1,000% from when the initial Tumi reports were made which makes Cinco Minas an excellent asset to acquire or to develop as a standalone or with a JV partner.

It is very important to understand these factors instead of spewing unfounded and baseless garbage.

make the Cinco Minas property unattractive to the Company from an economic prospective. To meet the
Company’s exploration goals, a project must also be able to reach “advanced project status” quickly and cost
effectively. Neither the open pit nor the underground options meet the standard for operational size and economic
potential.