Slate Grocery REIT T.SGR

RE: Slugbait20. . .Old Mines

[Monedas1]

Thanks! I also like the old mines in today's environment given the high cost of developing new infrastructure, the time to develop and the current demand for ounces. The old mines come into the cost model as exploratory and then turn quickly into production without the risk of a purely exploratory or development play. In the mining lifecycle, going from feasibility into production is a steep increase in share price that usually even exceeds that from discovery to the run up after the first complete resource estimate. Another advantage is that many of the old drift mines closed because the pumping technology and lack of rock bolts for ground control would not allow mining below 3,000 feet not because of lack of gold. The companies just walked away from gold below that depth. Of course, cost given low gold prices was a second factor. Now, 9,000 feet is no problem and can be mined effectively. FYI--Another great previous mine that is proceeding like SGR and is being re-developed using existing shafts is Northern Star Mining (NSM) in Quebec. Investors have discovered them and their share price has been steadily increasing to now $0.78 CAD. NSM has no 43-101 but probably has 1M oz AU, and good blue sky but will not start production until July of 2006 at 30,000 oz for 2006 and 80,000 oz for 2007 but has production costs (all in) of $200 per oz. Another company that whose production was closed but just started production yesterday is St Andrew Goldfields. A lot of shares outstanding but currently $0.15 CAD. The number of shares is less of an issue if you are in production. SAS is starting with 30,000 oz at $325 per oz cost. I like San Gold because production is now with fewer shares and a higher number of ounces per year than some of the others. Ginn needs to make public our production status. I emailed him today of this concern.