Post by
ronnywing on Sep 21, 2015 1:01pm
That is why ana Paula calcs were based on $1200 gold
Just like here when pumpers were trying to use cash costs but the company uses all in costs which according to their terminoligy "exploded to $1134.
Comment by
blade86ca on Sep 21, 2015 1:12pm
Yes Ronnywing their last quarter their all in cash costs were "exploded" to $1134 which did NOT include production from anapaul and we have not even looked at the results of their pilot phase at San fran mine. Why do you think they acquired ana Paul ?? Do you understand why they did it ? I hope I don't have to explain that to you
Comment by
blade86ca on Sep 21, 2015 1:15pm
also Ronnywing if TMM is such a money losing pit with "exploding" costs , I assume giant miners like Goldcorp like to invest their hard earned $$ in a period where gold is so depressed in money losing pits right ?
Comment by
johnfever21 on Sep 21, 2015 2:12pm
Blade Timmins is losing money mining. And Timmins used the term "explosive costs" It's all there in the financials. Three year stock performance doesn't lie. many on the hokk for tax losses here going back a few years.
Comment by
blade86ca on Sep 21, 2015 2:37pm
Re-read the Press release , explosive costs does not mean their costs "exploded" as in sky rocketed to the moon , it means the explosives they use when mining for gold ( just like all miners use) went up , I think a poster already corrected another poster about this on here a month or so ago. I am shocked I even have to type this out and explain this
Comment by
ronnywing on Sep 21, 2015 1:21pm
You mean ana paula with the 'conceptual pit"? They in the report still require $1200 gold and just mothballed the plant to storage.