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: E. Charters who wrote (90057)	9/26/2002 4:50:04 PM
From: goldsheet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116834

Barrick and Newmont have both been suffering grade decline in Nevada. (One should consult historical annual reports to see it has been happening for years at both firms) Both seem to have been doing a great job making the best of it using all modern mining techniques, but as you well know there's always room for errors and surprises. A few years ago Newmont and Barrick swapped some land when it was easier (cheaper) to get at the Barrick ore from the Newmont pit, and visa versa. Lots of folks did not think Nevada ores were viable. The Roberts studies in the early sixties, followed by a small mine at Carlin in 1964 were almost unnoticed. Newmont could (should have ?) staked out more properties when they were cheap, and Barrick would never have existed. Heap leaching technology changed many of the rules of the game.