Pacific Rim Mining V.PFG Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 Rim Mining V.PFG

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (10802)	11/11/1998 10:01:00 AM
From: David R. Schaller	Read Replies (4) of 14627

Bill, I think it's safe to assume that Barrick approved the last resource calculation (which we all felt to be conservative) In so doing it would seem that they also approved the set of assumptions that went into that estimate. Now they seem to be balking. Indicating to me that the concern is either over the newly added drill indicated resource or the previous assumptions or both. If the objection deals with only the new drill results the effect would seem to be minimal. If they are taking issue with the basic assumptions that went into the previous calculations it would seem that the net effect could be big time. It calls to mind Rick T's correspondence with Barrick last year... wherein they indicated 800,000 oz au which then stood in distinct contradiction to PFG's 250,000. Maybe they're pushing for bigger numbers; since, if PFG's estimates are correct its hard to see why Barrick is delaying in pulling the plug. Regards, Dave PS: is it possible that different groups at Barrick are involved on this second go-round and are demanding that the deposit be viewed differently than the 1st time? Especially with regard to public communications?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next