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 : Barrick Gold (ABX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fishfinder who wrote (1111)	4/6/1999 10:24:00 AM
From: mineman	Respond to of 3558

I checked with my source who had told me Wully-Bully is a dog. He phoned his source and I just wrote down what he told me... "it will lose money right from the start for it will cost more to underground mine and then to mill the continually changing width and grade veins than the value of the recovered gold which is with the copper and has to be sent a long way to a smelter!"

To: Fishfinder who wrote (1111)	4/6/1999 3:08:00 PM
From: mineman	Respond to of 3558

My contact phoned his Bulyanhulu man again who said 50% of what Kilborn's included in Ore Reserves are actually either too narrow to profitably mine or wide enough but too low grade to profitably mine. He also said the high underground mining costs combined with the high costs of power generation for the mill and high shipping costs to a smelter for gold-recovery means Barrick will probably just break even on every ounce of gold they produce even at their hedged price of $400 per ounce.