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 and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud Deplorable who wrote (4597)	1/11/2006 9:31:28 AM
From: tyc:>	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78416

I listened to Embry "slam Barrick", as you suggested.... (that was a great idea for a thread; keep it going). But I didn't hear much slamming; 1. He started off saying the current high price of gold was largely supported by the unwinding of shorts...(we should be grateful to the shorts ). 2. For Barrick, he correctly (implicitly) pointed out that their hedged production is not vulnerable to an increase in the price of gold, but rather it's vulnerable to inflation of costs. He said that if/when gold hits $1,000, the cost of taking it out of the ground could be $600 per oz, putting Barrick's $300 hedges truly underwater. IMHO that's valid (though unlikely) comment. But what about Barrick's unhedged reserves? Will they not more than compensate? (Of course Barrick would prefer not to be hedged in the present/future scenario)