Claude Res Inc CLGRF

Last time i was in Redlake

[cashonthedash]

...I saw a gold coloured chicken with three legs....run so fast i couldn't even get a picture..... area natives say those chickens lay golden eggs,,,,true story...

[Chris_toronto]

I listned live to the conference call with selling thoughts dancing in my head but at the end decided to keep the shares will I next week have feelings of dread ??   The point I'd like to understand is Why that $42 million spent in 2012 on capital expenditures is not included anywhere in the Highlights of Financial Results?  Shouldn't it be?  How can they calculate net

[Lookin_2_Score]

I would suggest you contact the company and request to be connected to the CFO. Communicate your concerns / questions and see if he can provide clarity or answers.

[boreps]

The audited  consolidated finacial results are not available yet. When available they will be hidden somewhere closer to the end of the annual report. For example if you want to see them for 2011 go straight to page 56 out of 108. The 2012 FS you will find probably around page 67. That's how this company operates. Bottom line they need heavy cash infusions every year in order to survive

[Chris_toronto]

It's interesting that you say that because a few days ago I did look at an overview of Elgin and  immediately I started comparing it to Claude.   It was just a first impression but, I thought they have somewhat higher production costs than crj.  They have similar size annual output, no debt and a bit smaller market cap which surprised me because they have long life ore bodies in

[Lookin_2_Score]

Claude seems to burn cash faster than a biotech company. What concerns me is the following: 1. Neil has already expressed a 1Q production shortfall which will most likely disappoint shareholders in May. 2. The number of analysts or should I say the lack of providing company coverage.  Note: Only three 3. The questions posed by the analyst seem to be more of an immediate financial concern

[oddykog]

I agree that they do have great skill at burning cash.  I also agree that they will hard pressed to raise cash by moves other than selling a project or even the whole company and that is a good thing.  The saving grace is that the investments of the last couple of years now allows them to begin getting ore out of the Seabee Deep and the L62 ore bodies, which are richer veins, so that

[Bottles]

"Amisk and Madsen are now impossible to develop without deeper pockets around to help"   oddykog,   Good post!   In the area of Madsen and Amisk, I disagree somewhat. In regards to Madsen, this property is just now undergoing a scoping study. In regards to Amisk, a PEA is being undertaken. These two pending reports will shed more light as to initial CapEx to undertake

[Lookin_2_Score]

IMO, Amisk and Madsen are sugar plums dancing in the heads of wishful thinkers. These assests are not even reflected in the current share price. McMillan says Madsen needs to produce 100k ozs a year before it's feasible to bring on line. I say McMilan has never seen 100k ozs a year from anything  he's over seen. Shareholders need to see progress now.  I say bring Madsen on line

[Lookin_2_Score]

"All things considered, I think we are looking at a 3 to 5 year proposition with respect to these properties embarking upon production. At the very least, properties such as these do not become marketable and or appealing to lets say a JV partner without first having a BFS." Bottles: There was a man carryng a  a bag of sugar plums that was paid over a half million dollars a year and

[gog]

Even producing 100,000 per year at the grades it has, MAdsen would be unwise to put back into production. Were best to wait out the financing storm thats killing the market, let 800+ juniors go belly up and then we'll be very attractive for investment. Madsen needs larger exploration which would kill our treasury right now and it's very difficult to mine from a grade control perspective