SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Echo Bay Mines, anyone (anyone) ((anyone))?
ECO 33.94+1.3%12:00 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Paul Moerman who wrote ()3/29/1997 5:38:00 PM
From: dch   of 300
 
Question:

Given the Bre-X debacle, where an estimated deposit of 200 million ounces of gold became an estimated deposit of "insignificant" amounts of gold, WHY didn't the price of gold shoot up and why didn't the value of established gold mining companies also rise? I can understand why smaller, not-yet-producing gold companies would get shot down just for resembling Bre-X in any size, shape or form. But if there's an assumption that a scarce resource like gold had become less scarce by 200m ounces because of the Bre-X find, and then it is announced that the huge assumption was, in effect, wrong by 200m ounces, so that the scarceness of the resource before the assumption is restored, it would seem to make sense that the value of all other known/estimated deposits would increase. Or is it the case that the current price of gold is only dependent upon metal that's on the market, with no regard for metal that is potentially coming to market. (Wheat prices are affected by the estimated amount of wheat that's ready to be, but not yet been, harvested--aren't they?) Anyone have any opinions or expertise on this issue? I suppose we could see a delayed reaction next week. Here's hoping...
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext