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 (10900)	12/2/1998 6:03:00 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14627

Charred, PFG will have to conduct it's own defensive due diligence just to avoid leaving any money on the table. Had their been a proper fully PFG attended(PFG geologist on site when drilling and splitting/sampling core etc) drilling program with the assay lab reporting to both PFG and Barrick then such a vendor DD would not be needed. With what evidence would PFG sue? Barrick has already shown that it keeps data to itself and will act in Barrick's self interest. The differences between RC and DD in these areas have not been demonstrated to my satisfaction. It is well known that RC holes often lose 50% or more of the gold due to wipe and settle mechanisms, and that makes quite a difference. So I do not make any accusation of fraud or cheating against Barrick, but say they need to be watched and the data verified and analyzed. This reserve calculation PFG has done. It was based on RC holes. Once the RC/DD relatioship has been confirmed, and increase in reseves can be computed rapidly as all the holes are plotted in a 3D system. Bill