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 : Pacific Rim Mining V.PFG -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David R. Schaller who wrote (8168)	12/14/1997 1:32:00 PM
From: Quickdraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14627

Hi Dave: Most people by now may have seen the Globe and Mail's article regarding Peter Munk and Barrick at theglobeandmail.com An even more interesting read is from the Ottawa Citizen's Dec 13 edition where it would appear Munk indicates he would be prepared in the worst case scenario to diversify. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Barrick remains optimistic in midst of gold meltdown Company can ride out low-price period BloombergNews TORONTO - Barrick Gold Corp.'s Peter Munk, chairman and chief executive of the world's third-largest gold Producer, isn't particularly worried that the price of gold is hovering at 18 year lows. The company has a stronger balance sheet than most of its rivals and has perhaps the best hedging program among gold producers, many analysts say. Barrick is the only large gold miner with an "A' credit rating from Standard & Poor's Corp., which likes its low-cost structure, large hedge position and $327 million U.S. in cash. "We Positioned this company so that it can survive through its hedge position and low-cost production for a period without affecting my profits ' my earnings, or my cash flow," Mr. Munk said. This week, Toronto-based Barrick said it will repurchase as much as 10 per cent of its shares for $710 million Cdn. in an attempt to reassure investors that Barrick stands apart from other gold miners. Barrick, one of the first practitioners of selling its future production, currently has 10 million ounces of gold sold forward at an average price of $410 U.S. an ounce, or about 40 per cent more than the current gold price. By selling forward its production, Barrick promises to deliver an ounce of gold at a specific price and time in the future, locking in a price. Barrick is such a big believer in hedging that over the past decade it hasn't sold an ounce of gold produced from one of its mines into the spot market. Mr. Munk thinks Barrick can hunker down and survive even if his worst case scenario occurs and Europe's central bankers sell off their gold reserves next year as part of their preparations to create a single European currency. "We could take a 10-year view at $300-an-ounce hedging, expand our hedge position and look at options where we can merge or acquire a non-gold producer and then keep our gold in reserve," Mr. Munk said. Mr. Munk thinks it's unlikely that central banks will liquidate their gold reserves with prices so low. "If you dump 10 years' production on a market which isn't there, what are you going to get for it?" Gold bullion for three-month delivery has fallen 23 per cent over the past year from $370 U.S. an ounce to $284 U.S. amid concern European banks will follow Australia and Argentina in selling off part of their foreign exchange reserves. Barrick's shares, and those of its competitors, have fallen in tandem with bullion. Barrick's shares have fallen 40 per cent this year. They rose 8o cents tO $23.6o in mid-afternoon trading. This year Barrick made some moves to cope with falling gold prices, taking a $385-million U.S. charge to shut down five high-cost mines. With the shutdown of those mines and expansion of lower-cost deposits, Barrick's operating cost per ounce of gold will drop to $150 U.S. from $190 U.S. this year - compared with a world average COST Of $262 U.S. an ounce - while total production will remain constant at three million ounces. Mr. Munk said he expects falling bullion prices will create acquisition opportunities among higher-cost, more leveraged producers, although repurchasing shares is currently Barrick's best investment. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To: David R. Schaller who wrote (8168)	12/14/1997 1:41:00 PM
From: Shirley Owen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14627

Hi David and All, Here are some calculations to ponder. If I've left anything out or forgot to add something in, please feel free to comment on these figures. Oculto Deposit To Date: SILVER VALUES 91.3 million ozs. according to July 10 release (Cut-off Grade .35) 34.7 million ozs. 38% increase in strike (Dec.4,1997 release) assuming continuity. +++++++++ 125,994,000 Total in situ ounces 104,575,020.00 ozs. Of silver (83% recovery rate.) 31,372,506.00 ozs. silver (PFG's Share 30%) X $5.785 (Closing Spot Price for silver on Friday Dec.12,1997) ++++++++++++++ $181,489,947 U.S. (PFG's 30% Share) GOLD VALUES 286,000 ozs. according to July report (Cut-off grade .35) 108,680 ozs. 38% increase in strike and assuming continuity of grades +++++++++ 394,680 Total in situ ounces 347,318 ozs. Of gold (allowing for an 88% recovery rate, Dec.4, 1997 news release) 104,195 ozs. Gold (PFG's 30% Share) X $284.80 (Closing Price for gold on Friday Dec. 12,1997 ++++++++ $ 29,674,736. U.S. Total Value to PFG, assuming continuity and Friday's closing prices for gold and silver. $181,489,947. U.S. $ 29,674,736. U.S. ++++++++++ $ 211,164,468 U.S. by 25,151,120 F.D. shares = $8.39/share This amount would be tempered by what Barrick would be willing to pay for silver in the ground, and with gold markets being what they are, what they would pay for gold in the ground. These figures are, of course, making some assumptions about the continuity and the price of both silver and gold. We also don't know the "fudge" factor of the actual amount of reserves for gold and silver. I just thought I would post this for the sake of discussion. Cheers Shirley

To: David R. Schaller who wrote (8168)	12/14/1997 2:03:00 PM
From: Shirley Owen	Respond to of 14627

Hi David and All, I just thought I would mention, before anyone starts jumping up and down, that I didn't take into consideration all the costs associated with mining. I only looked at it as value in the ground, so all those things would naturally be taken into consideration if Barrick were thinking of a buy-out down the road. Does anyone know what value is placed on silver in the ground, if there is a buyout? I know gold's parameters run from $25 to $100, depending on whether they are proven, probable or otherwise. I would imagine there is a discount for gold in a bad market as well. Cheers Shirley

To: David R. Schaller who wrote (8168)	12/14/1997 3:58:00 PM
From: m jensen	Respond to of 14627

Here is one more angle from a metals in the ground comparison: As I am not sure as to the exact resource of either examples; this is purely speculative. Take into account both deposits are based on todays prices. Pierina: Gold @ 280.00 & silver @ 6.00 Au; 7.5mozs Ag 100mozs for a total value of 2.7 billion Oculto: Gold@280.00 & silver@ 6.00 & 38% increase in strike assuming continuity. Au 393,300oz Ag; 125.6moz for a total value of $863,724,000 Just from a deposit point of view I would say we are roughly 1/3 the resource at Pierina. It's easy to see why barrick likes the property considering the other targets on the property. Hopefully this is not totally off the wall! Regards Mike