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 : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zardoz who wrote (23916)	12/7/1998 7:05:00 AM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 116762

Hutch, after reviewing some of the PDG numbers from other sites, there is some question as to those numbers. But one would be wise to remember, just because one can produce something at a given price, they may not sell it for that price(or even near it. The supply side is only 1/2 of the equation, the demand 1/2 must also be analyzed. That 1/2 (and the cost of supply side) should also be looked at in the light of a weaker dollar. rh

To: Zardoz who wrote (23916)	12/7/1998 9:08:00 AM
From: Enigma	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116762

Hutch - there's bias, and there's bias - you take the cake! If PGD becomes immensely more profitable don't you think this will be good for the stock price and also the XAU? E

To: Zardoz who wrote (23916)	12/7/1998 9:10:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116762

Placer only quotes a reserve as such if it is blocked out with levels (drifts or tunnels underground) on top and bottom of the ore block and drilling at certain spacings. (25 metres or less) All other probable ore, even if drilled, is not counted. So if they have 5 million ounces drilled from the surface in a deposit, that is not counted. On all their recent domestic mines they have gone underground, channel sampled and drilled before they counted them in the reserve category. This ultra conservatism means their true reserves are perhaps two times (at their producing mines) more than they quote and their probable mineable gold at their producers is another 50% or more beyond that. If you add their drilled off properties that have not yet seen feasibility you may add still more. (Most feasibilities with most companies are stopped at 30% of the probable mineable gold. They always figure on being able to mine at least three times what they consider a feasible amount. (the 30% feasible amount is a payback.. the 70% is not counted) That is why in the 30's when they really knew gold they would go underground on 3 years of drilled ore. They figured that with ten years they could pay back and profit.) This comes from Dome geologists and fits their pattern at Detour, Dona Lake and Musselwhite recently in Ontario. Ontario was the source of most of their gold in days gone by. mailto:echarter@vianet.on.ca The Canadian Mining Newsletter

To: Zardoz who wrote (23916)	12/7/1998 11:12:00 AM
From: Lucretius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116762

your logic is slightly flawed here. you assume that because someone is willing to give away property w/ proven reserves below mkt price thus lowering PDG's prodcution costs, that this will put downward pressure on gold cause now, PDG can produce at a lower cost. Such logic would lead one to believe that once prices start falling, they never stop until they hit zero as those in trouble are forced to sell at lower and lower prices and the the buyers buy cheaper and cheaper thus able to sell at lower prices and still keep a margin. Your twisted logic would also seem to suggest that bullmkts will continue indefinately as buyers continually buy aty higher prices from each other thus increasing the cost of production so gold prices would rise to infinity. doesn't work that way either. sorry, but it doesn't work that way. I'd say news like this is actually bullish. the fact that PDG was able to pick up this property so cheap shows the gold mkt is likely sold out. When people are practicallty giving things away... you're always near a bottom. BTW-- opposite works on the top too. when everyone is tripping overthemselves to buy... can we say "internut"?

To: Zardoz who wrote (23916)	12/21/1998 11:05:00 AM
From: Lucretius	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116762

Our discussion probably should have taken place over here where I see most of your drivel. Here is the post in question: techstocks.com In response to: Message 6917384 <<<"You never responded last time I pointed out your flawed BS concerning PDG's acquisition of S. A. properties" Where? I forget the posting. I recieve so many private messages a day, that my screen is nearly full in two days.>>> that's interesting since you private messaged me twice asking me to expand because you couldn't understand what I was talking about? You claimed you wanted me to add to what I had said in order that you could properly respond.... you never did. I can only assume you figured out that what you were saying was WRONG, and didn't want to compound the the situation by sticking to an inaccurate line of thinking and making yourself look even more ludicrous. I'm not going to debate with you. I don't have the time and nor do I really care about conversing with a clown such as yourself. I will continue to point out the garbage in your posts though. Someone needs to. If you do not post garbage and inaccuracies, you won't hear from me. -Lucretius BTW- I consider myself quite "cleaver" when I'm at home w/ Wally and the Beaver (G)