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 Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldsheet who wrote (82123)	2/15/2002 2:08:14 PM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 116972

<<$300 instead of around $275. $25 doesn't seem like much unless you are mining million of ounces or mining a marginal property, then it is enough to generate plenty of cash flow or keep a property open. $25 makes all the difference.>> & it an even greater difference from the absolute low or worse yet from the predicted low of $70-170. <<The excess exploration funds spent in the mid-90s (why not look at the 90s as an excess over normal exploration, instead of now as a drop?) >> Won't this only be able seen correctly with a bit more history as we find out what the future brings? Guess what I'm saying is I agree, exploration funding must be looked at against an average number. <<resulted in more than a few good gold finds (in addition to more that a few juniors screwing investors). These finds are still there, some are marginal at $275 (like Pascua Lama) but they will eventually come online.>> Including all from those jr's that screwed investors? ;) <<Now I hate to mention individual firms, but the reserve/resource numbers out of Barrick yesterday were GREAT !! After producing 6.1moz, reserves went from 79.3moz to 82.3moz, which means they added 9.1moz, replacing 150% of production.>> But there was an earnings miss though it can be dismissed as real 1 time costs - the merger & law suit.

To: goldsheet who wrote (82123)	2/15/2002 2:21:33 PM
From: russwinter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116972

<costs are not decreased, technology is not improved, resources are not delineated, resources do not become reserves, new resources are not found, etc.. > True in theory, but one small problem with it's execution: it requires capital (AND a good return on investment), and plenty of it. <Goldcorp and Agnico Eagle are perfect examples of firms that have found plenty of gold in current gold mines.> A handful of fine operators that have the skills and resources to find and develop gold will not make up for the rest of the wreckage and severe evisceration of capital in this industry. Do you ever look at balance sheets and corporate capital structures? <Veladero went from 3.9-to-8.4> Those new reserves are going to require a substantial long term investment to exploit. 300 won't cut it. ABX is in increasingly poor shape in their heartland: Nevada.