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 : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tommaso who wrote (93644)	8/13/2001 12:01:17 PM
From: ItsAllCyclical	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

A recap of your gold to $180 theory... Gold is going to $180 since it only costs $180 to produce. I read an article and it talked about $180 gold. I read a report and it mentioned $200 cash costs. I visited a gold mine once. Well, on the whole a person who has visited a gold mine is likely to know more about gold mining than a person who has not. ------------------------------------------------ Backing into a corner are we? Don't want to admit the difference between net costs and cash costs? As for you last point you may not even be correct there. At the start of the energy cycle the E&P execs and major oil execs were for the most part very negative and they knew the business. Same in the gold industry. Hard to find to many CEO's saying gold is going to $350+ anytime soon.