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 : Precious and Base Metal Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bmccra who wrote (27471)	1/24/2004 10:51:12 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

Your post is interesting and insightful. I don't have any thing of quality to add. Ideas of others that seemed to make sense were Madison Enterprises and Placer. But Madison is so small and already willing to deal on the adjoining property NEM might not bother to merge, unless long term it is cleaner to just eliminate Madison, and PDL may be too large and generate anti trust static. GG would be interesting but some claim NEM will remain more interested in open pit operations. But by acquiring GG it could obtain human capital with skills in deep underground mining. So in the end your Newcrest theory makes a lot of sense, (Boddington). My interest is in the collateral impact of the potential takeover. Thought about Madison but I don't really want to bother trying to acquire a worthwhile stake, in something I don't really want if they are not the target. I am convinced every single management team at large mining firms are looking to see what they could and should buy. People know that their bosses are not going to be happy if NEM takes what well might have been considered "their" prize.