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: charred who wrote (10886)	12/1/1998 7:59:00 AM
From: David R. Schaller	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14627

charred, this resource calculation emphasizes to me the low ball conservative nature of the first calculation. It was that low estimate which precipitated the long decline in share price. Now the numbers are back & the gold % has even increased. The total resource is back close to the 3mil oz equivalent that everyone thought we had two years ago. I have a hard time believing that there isn't a method behind someone's madness. No wonder Barrick refused to go along with PFG's untweaked estimates. It looks to me as though the resource calculation was really a calculated attempt to pressure Barrick into pulling the plug. Why hang in there with such a poor resource? But they know better than PFG whats there and don't seem to want to relinquish the property. Without a big drill program for next year, its difficult to see how Barrick can proceed to develop the resource in a yr 2000 timely manner. What is the significance of their continued plans to twin four holes? Are they doing this for informational purposes only? Have they read our posts and want to put the DD/RC controversy to bed before they pull out? And the beat goes on, Dave