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 : Pacific North West Capital Corporation-PFN on Alberta
PFN 7.3600.0%Nov 20 4:00 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Brumell who wrote (1260)4/27/2000 12:55:00 PM
From: koan  Read Replies (1) of 2255
 
My thinking on PGM's and Sudbury is this: If we are running a deficit in the supply/ demand equation for PGM's; and as most PGM's are derived as credits from other mining (e.g.nickle), then at some point the cost of PGM's is going to have to be directly related to the cost of getting them out of the ground by themselves. One does not start up a nickle deposit to get PGM credits, so the PGM's are price inelastic until the price gets to the point you can mine them directly.

Inasmuch as PGM's are spread very thinly around the world (usually at best, 1 or 2 grams per ton) that cost may well need to be much higher than it is now. It seems Sudbury is indicating as good of PGM values and tonnage as anyplace I know of and much of it is on the surface.

But my thesis is that at some point the price of PGM's is going to need to be directly related to the cost of getting them out of the ground directly.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News