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 : Gold and Silver Mining Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (1687)	7/22/2001 9:23:56 PM
From: russwinter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4051

<mineable ounces that have been discovered > I've seen only 20 million mentioned by a few sources for 2000, and exploration this year is down yet again. And I'd guess much of that is additions to the better long life mines/deposits, or projects owned by juniors that the majors will have to buy. The problem for production will be at the many marginal, high cost, short life mines where reserves aren't being replaced at all. As I keep telling Bob, I'm not debating him about the merits of superlative projects like Yanacocha, Bulyanhulu, or Moab Khotsong. I'm talking about the many old dying dogs like Bambabani, Bousquet and Omni. It's real fierce natural selection at this POG, with few surviving. There simply aren't enough superlative economic ounces around to replace the marginal stuff on the way out over the next couple years. And as you well know given that we own many of the better replacement deposits out there, they aren't being valued at much yet. The reason is that even 150ish cash costs deposits don't especially work now. And that's revealing. To prove my point I'll ask the question, "Would Goldstrike (in total) or Kalgoorlie be built today?"

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (1687)	7/23/2001 1:27:38 PM
From: goldsheet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4051

<You will eventually be correct, because gold is a finite commodity> > In essence, mon ami, you are saying that $265 gold is good enough to allow production to remain stable until there is no more gold on this planet. Absolutely not. Gold reserves now seem to be stated at $300-325 for most firms, which means that is the price where mining would be economic. I think there are about 700moz in reserves, which at a rate of 80moz, would get depleted in 9 years (if everything were static) One would expect (hope) that over the 9 years production would decline and prices would rise, so resources could be moved into reserves. There is also the possibility more reserves would be discovered. ( reality is dynamic, so I admit I do not know, just guessing ) Even if there are as much as 1.5 billion ounces and the future average mining rate is as low as 50moz, something serious will happen in the next 30 years, which we will hopefully be alive to see ( good health to you ! ). If all economic gold gets mined out, there will be a finite amount of bullion above ground (maybe 6 billion ounces) that should go way up in value, and there will be no gold mining stocks left since there is no gold left.