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: J. Kerr who wrote (9271)	3/26/1998 9:36:00 PM
From: Phil Jones	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14627

J.K.: Your post makes me wonder why Barrick will do anything until June, 2000 -- unless silver soars and they see an opportunity to sell to a silver major such as Pan American Silver at a large profit. Or if gold soared, Barrick might buy out PFG's interest. Unless gold or silver prices take off, we could be sitting in the same spot 2 years from now.

To: J. Kerr who wrote (9271)	3/27/1998 12:37:00 PM
From: Shirley Owen	Respond to of 14627

Hi James, There is an interesting legal question here. Think about this: If PFG has the right to withhold consent arbitrarily to the sale of Barrick's share to a third party, then ostensibly they could hold up any sale of the property to a third party, thus forcing Barrick to accept $10,000 U.S in return for the property. I am not saying they would do this, as it would probably sour future relations with Barrick, but it is a legal possibility if the original agreement actually is written in these terms. I would like to see the original of this legal agreement, because I find it hard to believe that Barrick would agree to such a restrictive term. I know that the prospectus says this, and the terms were posted for a long time on the PFG website, but it would be nice to see the actual wording of the document. That being said, I know that Barrick has spent more than this amount on other properties, and then made the decision to walk away, so it wouldn't be a first time for them. If I were PFG, in the circumstances of Barrick wanting to sell their interest to a third party, I would be negotiating with Barrick for a higher percentage participation--at least 50%- for PFG--before giving consent. I further believe that a deal that so fundamentally affects PFG's operations would certainly require approval from PFG's shareholders at an EGM. David Schaller is quite right when he says that in the normal course of events, in drilling a property, the common practice is to continuously step-out, as well as to do in-fill drilling, in order to test the extent of the strike length, as well as the limits of the width. Yet we have an experienced company like Barrick concentrating on in-fill drilling, in a defined space, without testing the limits of the strike length? This is highly unusual to say the least. I also believe that it will all come to a head this summer. There is no percentage gain for Barrick to sit on it. Don't forget, as Ross Mickey mentioned, there would be a feasibility study, which is a lengthy process in itself, that would be required before building the mine. Barrick has always been a company who acts quickly once they have made a decision, to move the whole process along at highly efficient speed. There attitude is, if it is mineable, then let's get on with it. Don't forget that, from feasibility to production is quite time-consuming and they would be looking at 2 to 3 years, at least, before the first gold would be poured, so the price of gold today is not so relevant. Munk has shown, by his hedging, that he is a forward thinking person. He would probably like to catch the upward momentum on silver as soon as possible, as well. Lastly, let me stick my neck out and predict that we will ultimately discover that there is a much larger gold deposit than is now known, as well as a much larger silver credit than is known at this time. Just some food for thought! Cheers Shirley