To: ild who wrote (22021 ) 11/19/2004 12:33:39 PM From: ild Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 110194 Date: Fri Nov 19 2004 12:04 trotsky (BG, 9:46) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved that is indeed the biggest drawback of the HUGO deposit. it's fairly big and in some areas high grade as porphyries go, but it's very deep down. most porphyry deposits are viable only because they lie relatively close to surface, which allows for open pit bulk mining methods. even so, the investment needed to get your average close-to-surface porphyry going is usually very large ( bulk mining implies that you need a big fleet of huge trucks, and generally facilities able to treat a lot of material and waste ) . to wit: PDG estimates that development of Cerro Casale would cost $1.65bn. at a minimum. and Cerro IS close to surface, and while it has lower grades, it is also bigger than Hugo ( pending further discoveries at Hugo of course ) . developing Hugo is certainly possile, but i guess it's a huge engineering headache and will cost a bundle. Date: Fri Nov 19 2004 11:18 trotsky (Todd, 8:11@ETF) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved i agree 100%. haven't commented thus far because i wanted to see how long it takes until someone has to say something good about it. there can be no doubt that this ETF will increase investor demand for gold, and the numbers will likely be significant. this is clear from the huge success similar products have had on overseas exchanges. there are many institutions and individuals that value gold as a portfolio diversifier but have refrained from buying it on account of the troubles involved ( risk in the futures, storage of physical ) . in fact, many funds simply were not allowed to trade in the 'non-paper' alternatives, and CEF's frequent capital raising exercises show that there is big demand for a tradable bullion security of this sort. Date: Fri Nov 19 2004 11:10 trotsky (P. Yorkie) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved "The US dollar is represented by the goods and services of a country..." this is a popular misconception, forwarded usually by defenders of the fiat system of unbacked paper money. in theory, the dollar is a claim on US based assets - in practice, it's just a piece of paper, or an electron on a hard disk drive these days. it's 'value' is derived only from a gun held to everybody's head ( "this shall be 'legal tender'" ) and the fact that the state accepts it for payment of taxes. aside from that, it's a pure confidence game - since when you present your dollar at the Fed, you get 'a dollar' in exchange for it, i.e. nothing. confidence can vanish overnight, for a number of reasons. since the currency forms the basis for a fractional reserve banking system, it is far more vulnerable than people generally think. all that has to happen to produce a complete repudiation is that about 20% of depositors show up and demand their 'money' at the same time.