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: Bill Jackson who wrote (8791)	2/24/1998 4:48:00 PM
From: Quinn	Respond to of 14627

With major gold mining companies being rated, in part, by their cost of production/oz. of gold, Barrick is going to look very very good on the Diablillos, with the Au. cost of production in the negative - big time. If you look at Barrick's annual report, they play up two salient points; one the forward hedging and two their low cost of production to differientiate themselves from the other Majors

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (8791)	2/25/1998 2:29:00 AM
From: Don craig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14627

Bill: The 3 Million ounce bottom line for Barrick is discussed constantly, and I get the feeling lately that people do not believe that figure can be reached on the Diablillos anymore. I think the fact that Silver has become such a hot topic lately and Gold has not, has lead people to believe that there might not be an economical Gold deposit. Well, when most of us got involve with PFG in the begining, I think it was based on the potential for a Gold mine on the Diablillos, and did not have a whole lot to do with Silver. Don't get me wrong I am not trying to say that the Silver is not important, I'm just saying lets not forget that we may still have a substantial amount of Gold here. Just my thoughts Bill. Good Luck Don