From the Cambridge House Resource Conference. Big Al moderates a panel
Click download link to listen on this device: Download Show
Clay – I share your concern re: frakking. Talking with geologists in Alberta, I find a lot of skepticism regarding America’s perceived and highly politically motivated strides toward “self-sufficiency” thanks to fields and pools that deplete at double-digit rates, involving companies that may have to revise their reserves estimates. Enough said?
Al — Thanks for some very well moderated discussion, well worth the price of admission. (grin) It is noteworthy that all the prospects mentioned are American. I wonder if there is any jurisdiction that the speakers would prefer to avoid. In the context of Uranium discussion, I wonder about the industry expectations for Thorium. Thanks & regards
Al:
An excellent panel discussion. Query: Was there much emphasis on AG or AG compamies at the Conference? Any general consensus vis a vis the other PM’s?
I will be checking this report out this evening. All looks great for a rally soon. Thanks for the link, Clive got this recent fall in price perfectly and will likely be the one to call the rally.
Dan
sunday night and gold already heading down. another tough week ahead? the little hope we had late last week might be snuffed out soon. more pain
No James, we are very close to delivery default on the Comex. It took emergency delivery of several tonnes of gold recently and massive shorting. Maybe I can’t count the days on my fingers yet, but I can count the months.
Does anyone have input on the following:
I was curious about the volume of a ton of potential resource.
A ton of material will obviously change due to a plethora of reasons….where in the technical reports does the average ton of resource become defined in terms of “volume” or lwh type measure. I am trying to visualize the resource potential of an asset by determining what a cord of wood (128 cubic feet) at a project being considered. Any ideas or direction appreciated.
A looked at this awhile back when I observed a video reported the scoop could only take 1/2 bucket a trip due to the weight of the ore.
D.M.O’
Into the google search bar I entered “what is the volume of a ton of …” , and the following suggestions to finish the question came up; feathers, gold, coal, sand, water, soil, gravel, rock, asphalt, top soil. Clicking on the one of your choice should give you an answer.
Ignore if I misunderstood the question.
If we move feathers to the mill the CATS will last longer.
A ton is a weight = 20 hundredweights, = 160 stones or equals 2,240 pounds.
A tonne is 1,000 kilograms = approx 2,200 pounds.,
Dennis,
The only number for density of rocks I remember is welsh coal runs about 35 cubic feet to the ton, but northern english coal runs about 37 cubic feet to the ton.
if we did indeed have gold capitulation, the theme of last week, then I would expect gold to start going up, that has to be the case. otherwise we really didnt have capitulation and it will go down some more. if we had capitulation and it still goes down, then this is a bear market
Mumbai is reporting gold imports into India for the month of January were just over 100 tons.
For this last week, with regard to GLD and SLV the two biggest ETFs:
W GLD had over 9.7 tonnes of gold removed again from the gold vaults, SLV added another 2.03 million oz.
The interpretation I make is that GLD is being heavily shorted but SLV is not.
I could speculate that the shorting has little to do with the general public and more to do with freeing up gold for bullion banks to meet obligations.
I didn’t catch a typo, I really must be too tired That should have read 39.7 tonnes of GLD gold removed from storage. Not 9.7
You do realize that if there were an equal number of shorts and longs for GLD, then GLD would not have any gold stored. This creates a great danger for holders of GLD paper that think they are holding real gold, especially when rumors abound that another failure like MFGlobal is imminent .
Five opinions including Al, with as many or more views of what the investment future is. But notwithstanding, there was consensus on the oil and gas future for the US. Myself being an old time petroleum geologist, I would agree with only one caveat, depletion and fall off production rate in fracking as per costs of drilling and completion is an economic issue which may not have as long a favorable investment as many think. Just like any new discovery whether it be gold, oil, minerals or technology, the easy to get low hanging fruit is removed first requiring increasing capital investment to go after the rest.
Future economics of the Bakken is a serious and deep interest to those companies involved.