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: Quinn who wrote (9492)	4/11/1998 7:06:00 AM
From: David R. Schaller	Respond to of 14627

Quinn, One of the most obvious differences between the new management & the old is the way information is kept so close to the vest. The plumber & the accountant for whatever their faults seemed interested in seeing the stock price reflect its potential. The new crew wanted the speculation taken out of the stock. Just that change in attitude was enough to effect the share price big time. The drop in POG, and BRE-X simply worked in their favor by taking the speculation out of the entire market. At some point, even if this has been some sort of accumulation ploy, there will be a need to see higher prices. The most likely way for that to happen is for the resource at Diablillos to increase in size to the point that it will be intuitively obvious to the most casual bystander that a mine will be built there. It could be that we will have to wait until the other 85% of the Diablillos anomaly is drilled off. But it could also be that the assays that have already been prepared on the 12 twinned holes hold the key to the near term future of this company. Whoever controls that data... controls the stock price. Is it likely that Barrick has given it to PFG? If suspicions of PFG management are correct (ie. they are accumulating) and the results are good, then I think we would have seen more upward price pressure. Do you read anything into Barrick pulling their rigs until May? I was thinking (dangerous activity) that whether they returned at all could in fact depend on what happens with current tests. (Which, even at Barrick's apparently slow pace, should be finished by then) Regards, Dave

To: Quinn who wrote (9492)	4/11/1998 11:46:00 AM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Respond to of 14627

Quinn you have asked the right questions. I am sure that they have been on every long-term shareholders mind at one time or another. I also feel that there is an agenda in play. It certainly has been a testing time for many an investor. Management can say or not say what ever they choose as far as I am concerned and as you so eloquinntly pointed out, the bottom line, Barrick is still there and it does not waffle on decisions. Darren

To: Quinn who wrote (9492)	4/14/1998 6:49:00 PM
From: Phil Jones	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14627

Someone gave me a copy of Barrick's annual report. No mention of the Diablillos site this year -- unlike last year. Discussion of Pierina (Peru) and Pascua (Chile), both with mouth-watering amounts of both gold and silver. Diablillos is very pale by comparison. The Chilean property has 11M ozs of gold and 300M ozs of silver, as I remember the figures. After reading the report, I was wondering why Barrick was still involved with PFG. As Quinn or somebody else mentioned, all I can figure is that Barrick's $10M has been paid for rights to June, 2000, and Barrick doesn't have any big decisions to make until then. So why not stay around to see if something new and unexpected may turn up over the next two years? Anyway, PFG doesn't look very promising in the short term.