Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : North American Palladium(AMEX:PAL)- PGM Producer -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ptaskmaster who wrote (435)	2/1/2000 1:13:00 PM
From: ali	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 976

Ptask, I tend to agree with your opinion, only my thinking is a little more sinister.What if the Russian Bear is waking up and starting another round of cold war?? Platinum/palladium is a very strategic material in today's high tech application for war toys...hate to think any farther.Hope it does not come to that.ali

To: Ptaskmaster who wrote (435)	2/1/2000 8:08:00 PM
From: Aurum	Respond to of 976

Hi Ptask, any information regarding Noril'sk is very hard to find! But, I have found a few snippets which, to me, indicate that the Noril'sk mines are probably not economic producers and are probably stumbling along, going from one crisis to another. The have arrived these conclusions from the following: a) the ore bodies appear to be low grade. Yes, the ore bodies are very large (50+ years of reserves) but that doesn't count for anything if the ore is sub-economic. b) the PGMs are produced only as a minor by-product of the copper and nickel mining. That means that production of PGMs is tied to the copper and nickel production. c) the mines and smelters had (still have?) an enormous workforce; 162,000 workers in 1993-4. Sure, Noril'sk produced a significant proportion of the world's PGMs and nickel. But, this production in terms of the numbers in the work force, is terrible. Production in 1993-94 was 162,520 tonnes of nickel, 313,800 t of copper, 2,830 t of cobalt. Plus PGMs. d) there was (still is?) international concern about the environmental situation around the smelters. In 1995 the smelters spewed out 2.8 million tons of sulphur dioxide. I am glad that I don't live down wind! Living at Noril'sk must be very difficult, and I assume that the work force must be under considerable strain. A recent explosion closed down one small mine. e) When the Noril'sk mines and smelter were privatized, the whole lot sold for only 236 million ECU. Sure, many of Russia's resources were sold off for peanuts, but apparently independent experts agreed that it wasn't worth very much more. f) In 1998 the Noril'sk mines and smelters made a loss of 2.8 billion Roubles. g) The management of Noril'sk has been looking at buying into large nickel operations overseas. They were looking at financing some of the Australian laterite projects. This begs the question, why be bothered if Noril'sk has such large reserves? Why not put the money into Noril'sk? h) I may be wrong here, but haven't nickel and copper exports from Noril'sk dried up as well? By all accounts all sectors of Russian industry are living hand-to-mouth. It is not credible that they would hold back exports when they are desperate for money. To sum up, I believe that Noril'sk has been subject to the same problems that are bedevilling most of Russia's industry. Management has concentrated in high grading and has not spent any money on development or maintenance (and may not be paying their bills, or paying their work force). And Noril'sk is in the process of falling over.

To: Ptaskmaster who wrote (435)	2/1/2000 8:24:00 PM
From: Aurum	Respond to of 976

Hi Ptask, I occurred to me that it might be instructive to see if the exports of palladium from Russia parallel the exports of nickel and copper over the last 5 years. The ratio should be relatively constant, unless new mines have started producing, or old mines have closed. If the decline in palladium is paralleled by a similar decline in nickel and copper, then I think it is safe to assume that PGMs are not being held back to any large extent. Regarding Noril'sk, it seems that they also have a de-commissioned nuclear reactor on site to add to their woes. bellona.no

To: Ptaskmaster who wrote (435)	2/1/2000 8:33:00 PM
From: Aurum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 976

Hi Ptask, here is an article describing Noril'sk management's plans for overseas expansion. Very telling, I think. Norilsk may raise nickel output overseas MOSCOW, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Russian metals giant Norilsk Nickel does not plan to raise nickel output at its home base in Siberia but may do so abroad, especially in Australia, Norilsk chairman Yuri Kotlyar said on Tuesday. ``We don't want nickel output raised from our Norilsk deposits or they will become exhausted sooner than expected,' Kotlyar told reporters at a metals conference. He said Norilsk had deposits of ores rich in metal which, if extracted at their current pace, would last until 2037. ``But if we had to raise output in accordance with the world consumption needs, it would be by exploiting foreign deposits, including those in Australia,' Kotlyar said. Norilsk said in October it had held talks with Australia's Anaconda Nickel Ltd (Australia:ANL.AX - news) over acquisitions of mining assets. Anaconda is developing the Murrin Murrin nickel project, using a cheap technology which, if successful, might produce 200,000 tonnes of nickel per year, or 20 percent of annual world output. Kotlyar said Norilsk would not lose its share of the world nickel market, even if cheap Australian nickel started appearing, as the company had started a restructuring programme that would drastically cut production costs. ``Some Canadian, European and African producers, where production costs are higher, are more likely to be pushed out of the market,' Kotlyar said. Norilsk general director Aleksander Khloponin said in October Norilsk planned to produce over 200,000 tonnes of nickel this year.