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: Don craig who wrote (8299)	12/31/1997 8:45:00 AM
From: David R. Schaller	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14627

Don, you can find the Q & A forum on the PFG web site. Just click on discussion forum. As far as the other points you raise..your guess is as good as mine. I think we should get another resource calculation before the 12 DD/RC Barrick twins are released. It would seem to me that PFG would want to nail down a year end number to compare earlier years against. Barrick obviously has a better handle on any variance between DD & RC results than they have released. The 12 twinned holes must be an aggressive attempt to resolve the issue. Factors as high as 3x for silver and 1.5x for gold were mentioned by PFG when I first called them, over a year ago. A year later & we still have no more knowledge about the actual ore grade than we knew then. Personally I would have thought that this would have been a high priority issue to resolve. Certainly cheaper than dilling 200-300 more holes.. just to a increase a resource that may already be at a much higher grade. To specululate; 1)The resource is so large & at a high enough grade that whether the discepancies are resolved now or next year is irrelevant. 2)Barrick has a good enough handle on the variance already to allow accurate decisions to be made. 3)Barrick stumbled on the discrepancy in their bulk testing and immediately decided to twin 12 holes. 4)Barrick has two resource calculations, one based on DD holes and the other based on RC holes. They look like two completely different deposits and some head honcho said "enough is enough, lets get this straightened out" 5)Add your own.... I didn't buy in for a short term investment but had determined to stay until the "fat lady sang" as they say. So I will wait until these two companies get their act together. (It would have seemed to me that twinning should have been going on all along instead of an afterthought) Regards, Dave