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 (9478)	4/10/1998 11:21:00 AM
From: David R. Schaller	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14627

Bill, it turns out that you have to email your questions to PFG & then they post them on the web page. When did this change occur? As my mom used to say "I was born at night...but not last night" No more inflammatory assertions on PFG's web page. On that we can be sure. Dave

To: David R. Schaller who wrote (9478)	4/10/1998 1:03:00 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Respond to of 14627

David, I do not know if Barrick has given the early data to PFG(that data that is available as prelude to the tests). I suspect they have not given it to them. It is remotely possible that Barrick does not have the data, as they never asked for it. However I think this is a remote possibility, after all they must do these early assays to determine what lenghts of core to crush and leach. They would hardly crush and leach barren sections...and report zero at great expense. So Barrick is relying on the fact that the leach tests are not yet completed to delay the data flow. This is not proper, and it is a way to balk the agreement mandated quarterly releases. There should be such a meeting soon and they should give notice to Barrick that they want this data, data which Barrick has. I can understand the need for B to conceal this data. It doubtless shows that the DD holes and RC holes differ more than we thought they would(possibly due to the presence of soluble silver salts). With this data PFG would be better armed for the final deal. It is PFG's interest to get this data, but not in Barrick's to release it. Bill

To: David R. Schaller who wrote (9478)	4/10/1998 8:57:00 PM
From: Quinn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 14627

I cannot believe that PFG does not know a great deal of information on the Diablillos that has not been made public. I also think there is a 'possibility' of an agenda going on where the Management is just wearing out the long term stockholders, in hopes of picking up their stock via frustrated selling. After all, PFG could be sitting on tremendous reserves, but if no one gets the news out, PFG will languish like is has for months. One has to ask the question: Why is Barrick still there? - it is just not their style to drag out decisions. Why has there been no decision to abort? What are the future plans of the property acquired from Corriente? What are the plethora of PFG geologists doing to earn their keep? What was told to the old Management to motivate them to let CMS & Co. have the entire company, without a performance clause? What of the La Colorada prospect? Does PFG plan on further drilling on the Cerro Blanco or do a J/V on that property? ? Why does the Management constantly flirt with non-disclosure on salient data? Why is there a vacuum of any information? --- and the list could go on and on. PFG has this Web site that some information is disseminated on, but there is no active discussion, as they edit everything and only discuss/answer self serving items. Why not use the SI forum? Maybe it's to tough, but it is a great vehicle to promote the company and its actions and assets. A lot of questions, and as usual, silence. The next AGM should be a event not to be missed.