Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Great Panther Announces 22.3 mill. oz. Silver Equivalent Inferred Resource at KM66 Property
Monday September 18, 12:54 pm ET
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(MARKET WIRE)--Sep 18, 2006 -- GREAT PANTHER RESOURCES LIMITED (TSX VENTURE:GPR.V - News) is pleased to announce that Wardrop Engineering (Wardrop) of Vancouver, B.C. has delivered a NI 43-101 compliant resource estimate for the Company's Km 66 Project in northeastern Durango State, Mexico. Using a 50 g/t silver equivalent cut-off grade, Wardrop estimates that the Palmitas and Gloria Zones together contain an Inferred Mineral Resource of 4,969,800 tonnes at a grade of 59 g/t Ag, 0.13 g/t Au, 0.81% Pb and 1.31% Zn. Wardrop calculated that these grades equate to a silver equivalent grade of 139 g/t using commodity prices (based upon 3 year averages) of US$7.70/oz for silver, US$471/oz for gold, US$0.41/lb for lead and US$0.69/lb for zinc and recoveries of 76%, 70%, 80% and 80%, respectively. This resource equates to a total of 22.3 million ounces of silver equivalent.
Great Panther commissioned Wardrop to complete the NI43-101 report on the KM66 property after signing a Letter of Intent to option the property earlier this year. The Company has now signed a formal Option Agreement for the right to earn a 100% interest in the 3,508 hectare property, subject to a 3% NSR. Terms of the agreement call for Great Panther to make staged cash payments and share issuances totaling US$3,000,000 and 500,000 shares, over a period of 4 years, to the property owners. If the option is exercised, the Company can purchase up to 2% of the NSR, for US$500,000 per 0.5%. The transaction is subject to acceptance by the TSX Venture Exchange.
The resource estimate was based upon a comprehensive exploration program completed on the property by Coeur d'Alene Mines during 1997 and 1998, wherein they drilled 81 reverse circulation holes (7,515 metres & 3,614 samples) and 22 diamond drill holes (2,983 metres & 900 samples). The geological database also includes 422 surface channel samples. Coeur d'Alene dropped the property in 1998.
The resource includes 2,643,600 tonnes of oxide material at a grade of 51 g/t Ag, 0.11 g/t Au, 0.73% Pb and 0.98% Zn for a silver equivalent grade of 113 g/t and 2,326,200 tonnes of sulphide mineralization at a grade of 68 g/t Ag, 0.16 g/t Au, 0.90% Pb and 1.69% Zn for a silver equivalent grade of 169 g/t. As the grade of sulphide mineralization is 50% higher than the 40-60 metre-thick oxide zone, the Company expects the overall grade of the resource to increase over time as the deposit is extended to depth.
Wardrop used the Inverse Distance Squared method of calculating the resource, with blocks of 5m X 5m X 4m being used for the 3 dimensional model. Metallurgical recoveries were based upon tests conducted by Silver Standard in 1999 as part of a property review. Wardrop also calculated a resource using a 30 g/t silver equivalent cut-off (and the same pricing and metallurgical parameters), which yielded a total of 5,713,000 tonnes at a silver equivalent grade of 126 g/t. The complete NI43-101 report on the Km 66 property will be posted on SEDAR and on the Great Panther web-site as soon as a final copy is received from Wardrop, estimated to be within one week.
[continued in following link]
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/060918/0164055.html
The peak oil crisis: a report to Australia's Senate
Published on 21 Sep 2006 by Falls Church News-Press. Archived on 21 Sep 2006.
by Tom Whipple
Last fall Australia’s Senate, concerned about the future of the country’s oil supply, directed a standing committee to conduct an inquiry. The Committee was charged with investigating projections for the production and demand for oil inside Australia and globally, and the implications for the availability and price of transportation fuel. In essence, the Committee was asked to investigate peak oil.
To gather information, the Committee advertised hearings and wrote to many organizations inviting submissions. In response came 192 written replies from all over the world. The Committee also held nine public hearings. Two weeks ago the preliminary findings were issued as an interim report. A final report is to be released next month.
This report to the Australian Senate is important in that an independent public body, after reviewing a wide range of evidence for and against the imminent peaking of world oil production, has reached conclusions and made recommendations.
The report is refreshing in that it approaches peak oil backwards. Instead of launching into the reasons many believe world oil production will peak soon, the report begins by reviewing the reasoning behind the “official” predictions that it won’t.
The “official” arguments that most governments, oil companies, and international organizations use to argue that there are many decades of increasing world oil production ahead are roughly as follows:
• Estimates of world oil reserves continue to grow faster than the 31 billion barrels we consume each year.
• The US Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that there are still another two trillion barrels of conventional oil under ground — either in known reserves or waiting to be discovered. High prices and improving technology will allow this oil to be discovered and brought to market.
• Current high oil prices are an aberration caused by a rapid, unexpected increase in demand, particularly from China, and the lack of sufficient investment to satisfy this demand in recent years.
• Tar sands, heavy Orinoco oil, and shale are cited as yet another reason there is even more oil left to be exploited.
The critique of the “official” government and oil industry predictions by peak oil proponents starts by noting that their estimates of recoverable reserves are simply over-optimistic and that a geologic peak for conventional oil is likely somewhere in the next 25 years.
Peak oil proponents cite the following:
• World discovery of oil peaked in the 1960s. The world is presently using oil faster than it is finding more. Production in many major oil-producing countries is in decline.
• Oil reserves reported by Middle East countries are self-serving and untrustworthy. State-owned oil companies do not release detailed production data and do not permit independent audits.
• The USGS estimate of world oil reserves, made in 2000, is “thoroughly flawed.” The estimated extrapolated US experience, under which new fields were assessed conservatively and then allowed “to grow” over time, is criticized as not being applicable when the oil fields being found today are much smaller than those found in the past. If the USGS projection that there are still some two billion barrels of conventional oil underground is true, the world would be finding far more oil than it is today.
• The critics of the “official” predictions note that while 500-600 billion barrels of non-conventional oil exist, the difficulty, cost, and environmental problems associated with exploiting this oil is so great that it is largely irrelevant to offsetting large declines in conventional oil production that are expected shortly.
In commenting on the two positions, the Senate Committee made some interesting observations. Those who assert that imminent peaking of oil production is unlikely commonly assert that increasing oil prices will bring more exploration and a higher rate of recovery from existing fields. The Committee notes that the increasing costs associated with advanced oil recovery techniques, such as ultra-deep drilling, may be reaching a point where the costs outweigh the benefits.
In one of the more telling findings, the report comments: “peak oil proponents have criticized official estimates of future oil supply with detailed and plausible arguments. The Committee is not aware of any official agency publications that attempt to rebut the peak oil arguments point by point in similar detail.”
The major finding of the report is stark and simple. “In the Committee’s view the possibility of a peak of conventional oil production before 2030, even if it is no more than a possibility, should be a matter of concern. Exactly when it occurs (which is now very uncertain) is not the important point. Australia should be planning for it now, as Sweden is doing with its plan to be oil free by 2020.”
Other findings also show a sophisticated grasp of the issue. “If the price of oil declines in the next few years . . . this does not dispose of peak oil concerns. Peak oil is a different and much longer term concern.”
In subsequent chapters, the report goes on to examine the social impact peak oil will have on Australia, and what can be done from the supply and the demand side to mitigate the situation.
After noting that almost no thinking has been done beyond 25 years from now, the Committee notes, “in view of the enormous changes that will be needed to move to a future that is less dependent on conventional oil . . . longer term planning is needed.”
Oromonte Resources drills more gold intersections on its Nambija project in Southern Ecuador
Thursday September 21, 2:46 pm ET
http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/060921/oromonte_nambija_proj.html?.v=1
Eastplats Signs Letter of Intent with Sylvania Resources
Thursday September 21, 6:00 am ET
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(CCNMatthews - Sept. 21, 2006) - Mr. Ian Rozier, President of Eastern Platinum Limited ("Eastplats") (TSX:ELR - News; AIM:ELR) reports that Eastplats has signed a Letter of Intent ("LOI") with Sylvania Resources Ltd. ("Sylvania") with the objective of entering into a 'Pool and Share' Agreement on their Mareesburg and Everest North projects respectively ("the properties"), that comprise a contiguous platinum group metals ("PGM") deposit on the eastern limb of the Bushveld Igneous Complex near Steelpoort in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.
The Company and Sylvania are currently reviewing each others data with a view to formalizing the terms and conditions of the Pool and Share Agreement with respect to the management of mining and processing operations and the sharing of all PGM concentrate produced from the properties subject to the agreement.
Contact:
Mr. Ian Rozier, M.Sc., P. Eng.
Eastern Platinum Limited
President & CEO
(604) 685-6851
(604) 685-6493 (FAX)
info@eastplats.com
www.eastplats.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Eastern Platinum Limited
Dejour Enterprises Ltd. Uranium Exploration Update
Wednesday September 20, 5:15 pm ET
VANCOUVER, Sept. 20 /CNW/ - Dejour Enterprises Ltd. ("Dejour") (TSX-V: "DJE") Robert L. Hodgkinson, Chairman & CEO is pleased to provide an update on the uranium exploration program on the 100% owned projects in the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, totalling 966,989 acres.
Since the last exploration update (see Press Release dated July 13, 2006) Dejour has drilled an additional 1671 metres in seven (7) holes to follow up on significant results intersected in drilling on the R-Seven, Meanwell Lake and Sand Hill Lake projects. Of particular interest are the Sand Hill Lake results where two holes were drilled (SH06-7, -8) to follow up elevated sandstone geochemistry and alteration in hole SH06-06 (to 1.86 ppm U and 833 ppm B), drilled in June. Hole SH06-08 intersected similar values (to 1.45 ppm U); Hole SH06-07 intersected stronger alteration in the sandstone (to 4.63 ppm U, 573 ppm B) and in the bleached sheared graphitic basement rocks (up to 47.6 ppm U and 1056 pp B). This hole also shows a 10m offset of the unconformity relative to the surrounding holes. Of note is that there is very little historical drilling (10 holes) along the entire 6000 metre strike length of this conductive horizon. These results confirm that this conductive system is of definite interest - there is graphite, faulting, alteration and anomalous geochemistry in both the sandstone and basement. Most positively the target is shallow, less than 200m. The Sand Hill Lake project is adjacent to the Cameco Virgin River property where drilling is in progress to extend the significant uranium mineralization of the Centennial Zone discovery. Cameco considers this Virgin River property as one of their most important greenfields projects.
On the Meanwell Lake project two holes were drilled to follow up on hole MW06-2 (to 4.8 ppm U). Results were encouraging with 2.99 ppm U at the unconformity in hole MW06-4. On the R-Seven property three holes were drilled in July. Two holes were drilled to follow up hole RS06-06 (2.18 ppm U) and intersected zones of bleaching and quartz dissolution in the sandstone but no significant radioactivity or uranium. Hole RS06-09 was drilled to test near HK-006, an historic hole which intersected 1079 cps at the unconformity. RS06-09 intersected several sections of bleached and fractured sandstone, and 3.68 ppm U and 66ppm lead at the unconformity. The alteration, structure and elevated uranium and lead content confirm the validity of this target.
On the Sand Hill Lake and Virgin Trend North projects Dejour has budgeted $800,000 to complete 140 line km. of very deep penetrating AMT surveys to define certain deeply buried graphitic horizons. Dejour has contracted Empulse Geophysics Ltd and Quantec Geophysics to complete these surveys by the end of October 2006. Preliminary results show deep conductive zones on the Virgin Trend North similar to and along strike from Cameco's Centennial Zone discovery where drilling has intersected uranium mineralization (5.83%U3O8) at the unconformity in multiple drill holes.
Dejour has also contracted Geotech Ltd. to fly 3900 km of additional VTEM surveys by the end of October 2006, budgeted at $650,000. This includes a detailed VTEM survey on the Sand Hill Lake property over a certain highly anomalous area drilled in the 2006 program. This survey will provide in depth geophysical information which should better define the basement geology, structural setting and size of this anomaly. The results of this survey, combined with the significant 2006 drilling results will be used to finalize the drilling program contemplated for the winter of 2007. Also included in this contract, Dejour will conclude VTEM surveys over its 8 eastern Athabasca projects and on additional claims acquired to cover conductors detected by the 2005 MEGATEM II surveys.
J. Allan McNutt, P. Geo., M.A.Sc., is the qualified person for Dejour's uranium projects.
About Dejour
Dejour Enterprises Ltd. is a Canadian energy company focused on exploration and development of uranium and oil & gas while leveraging opportunities that exist as a result of the global market's decreasing conventional supply and increasing demand for energy. The Company is listed on the TSX Venture Exchange (DJE.V), OTCBB (DJEEF), and Frankfurt (D5R). Dejour is a reporting issuer to the SEC. Refer to www.dejour.com for company details or contact the Office of Investor Relations at investor(at)dejour.com
Statements in this release that are forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties concerning the specific factors disclosed under the heading "Risk Factors" and elsewhere in the Corporations' periodic filings with Canadian securities regulators. Such information contained herein represents management's best judgment as of the date hereof based on information currently available. The corporation does not assume the obligation to update any forward-looking statement.
The TSX Venture Exchange does not accept responsibility for the adequacy
or accuracy of this news release.
For further information
Robert L. Hodgkinson, Chairman & CEO, DEJOUR ENTERPRISES LTD., Suite 1100-808 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC, V6C 2X4, Phone: (604) 638-5050, Facsimile: (604) 638-5051, Email: investor@dejour.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Dejour Enterprises Ltd.
Alaska astir over plan to tap its big 'tank' of natural gas
The terms of a proposal to develop and ship North Slope gas have Alaskans up in arms.
By Yereth Rosen | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
Wednesday, 09/20/06
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA – When Gov. Frank Murkowski announced last spring he had struck a deal with three major oil companies on terms for building a huge natural-gas pipeline to the Midwest, he said it would fulfill Alaska's decades-long dream of commercializing the North Slope's vast natural-gas resources.
"This is the greatest opportunity that has ever come by any of us to anchor in the economy of this state for the next 50 years," he said at a news conference, one of many he's held to rally support around the plan.
But now Alaska gas-pipeline politics has exploded.
Governor Murkowski was dumped from his job, finishing with 19 percent and in third place in the Aug. 22 Republican gubernatorial primary. Terms of his gas-pipeline contract led many voters to scorn the deal and the governor who proposed it.
Soon after the primary, FBI agents swarmed the offices of at least six state lawmakers, seizing papers and other evidence in a criminal probe related to oil and gas policy. Among those targeted is state Senate President Ben Stevens, son of Ted Stevens, Alaska's powerful US senator. The criminal investigation, according to search warrants issued for lawmakers' offices, appears to focus on possible oil-industry payouts for passage of the governor's gas deal and an oil-tax overhaul that is connected to it. In addition to the six lawmakers whose offices were searched, several others were interviewed by the FBI.
No charges have been filed.
Adding to the public's sour mood is the partial shutdown in August of the huge Prudhoe Bay oil field - stemming from pipeline leaks that BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. is supposed to prevent. All together, the events are causing Alaskans to reevaluate their relationship to the oil companies that have long dominated the state's economy and politics.
Alaskans may be pro-development, but they seem fed up with what they perceive to be corporate control of their state, says Jim Sampson, president of the AFL-CIO of Alaska. "There's been a push-back here," he said at an AFL-CIO state convention Aug. 24, where delegates wore buttons demanding: "Show us the JOBS."
A lot of gas up there
Natural-gas potential has long been the subject of high hopes and crushed dreams in Alaska, a state heavily dependent on production from its dwindling oil reserves.
Within the oil fields on state-owned land on the North Slope, there are about 35 trillion cubic feet of proven natural-gas reserves - the nation's largest known but untapped conventional supply - that have been languishing since they were discovered decades ago. Geologists believe two to three times as much could be discovered if companies bothered exploring for natural gas rather than for oil.
Lack of a way to transport the gas has kept it stranded on the North Slope. There, 8 billion cubic feet a day - enough to supply California's or Great Britain's daily needs - is pumped up, in conjunction with the oil production, and then reinjected into the reservoir for storage and to build pressure to assist in future oil recovery.
Detailed plans to build a gas-pipeline system date back to the 1970s. They never moved off the drawing board because of prohibitive costs.
High energy prices and an impending shortage of natural gas have finally made the huge project feasible, according to state officials.
But even as Murkowski touted his gas-pipeline deal as a milestone achievement in state history, critics saw it as a sweetheart deal for the three major oil producers: BP, Exxon Mobil, and ConocoPhillips.
All three major gubernatorial candidates - Tony Knowles (D), Sarah Palin (R), and former state lawmaker Andrew Halcro, an independent - are critics of the Murkowski deal, with Mr. Knowles and Ms. Palin promising to solicit entirely new proposals.
Within Murkowski's draft contract are controversial provisions that would:
• Freeze oil and gas tax rates for decades, forbidding the imposition of any new taxes on the three oil companies' Alaska operations, either by the legislature or by citizen initiative. "That's impossible. It's not constitutional, and it's wrong for Alaska," says Knowles.
• Require the state to take its tax and royalty earnings in the form of natural gas rather than cash, giving the state - which has never before marketed natural gas - the task of finding buyers and ensuring deliveries. "The state doesn't have a very good track record - and neither does any other state - of being in competition with private businesses, including three of the biggest oil companies in the world," says state Sen. Tom Wagoner, a Republican from Kenai.
• Omit any deadlines or performance benchmarks. The deal requires only that the three companies advance the project "as diligently as is prudent under the circumstances." "The contract doesn't do anything. All it does is lock us up for 35 or 40 years," says former Gov. Wally Hickel, a famously pro-development Republican.
• Surrender Alaska's right to take disputes with the companies to court and exempt them from oversight by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, which regulates utilities (including pipelines). Instead, disputes would be resolved by an arbitration panel, with some members chosen by the oil companies.
Time is of the essence, backers say
Such terms are needed to make the financially risky project feasible, say supporters.
Its backers - including Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials - say that unless this deal is approved quickly, the market niche that Alaska gas would fill will be satisfied by imported liquefied natural gas.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report warned that it is a matter of "urgency" that the deal be approved this year. "For Alaska to be a meaningful part of the natural-gas supply mix of the US in the coming years, action needs to be taken now," said a July 10 report from FERC to Congress.
The legislature did approve one Murkowski proposal related to the gas pipeline. After months of debate, in a second special session called by the governor, lawmakers overhauled the state oil-tax system so that taxes will now be paid on companies' reported net Alaska profits - a change sought by the oil producers - instead of on gross production. Backers of the change said it makes Alaska consistent with a worldwide standard and will encourage new investment. Critics say it would allow oil companies opportunities for creative accounting, resulting in endless disputes over how net profits are defined.
Those who voted against the net-profits tax say their suspicion that the vote was tainted heightened after the FBI raids of the six lawmakers' offices, in a probe of VECO Corp., an oil-field service company based in Anchorage.
House minority leader Ethan Berkowitz (D) says he was outraged to find oil lobbyists in the House chambers giving signals to direct some members how to vote. During one heated debate, he made a speech decrying the telephone calls and other messages that were reaching the House floor during the proceedings.
"I saw votes taken, strong-arm tactics used on various legislators, votes reversed. I saw ugly efforts to turn this legislative body into a rubber-stamp for an administration that was in lock step with the oil industry," says Mr. Berkowitz, who is running for lieutenant governor.
VECO, a private company headed by some of Alaska's most politically active businessmen, denies any wrongdoing. "VECO's record as an upstanding corporation that has worked for almost 40 years to improve Alaska, and the lives of Alaskans, speaks for itself," a company statement said.
Murkowski has not abandoned his quest to win legislative approval for the gas-pipeline deal before he leaves office in December. "To ignore this as a consequence of the primary election, we think, is irresponsible," he said at a news conference where he outlined plans for another special session.
But others have a different strategy for getting the gas pipeline under way. Voters in November will consider a citizen initiative that would impose a tax of nearly $1 billion a year for natural-gas reserves that are not commercialized. The tax, on long-known natural-gas reserves, would be refunded once a gas pipeline is built.
None of the top three gubernatorial candidates backs the reserves tax, which critics say is overly punitive, but all acknowledge that it is popular. "If I were a bettin' man, I'd be betting that the thing passes," Palin said at a recent news conference. "I think a lot of Alaskans are feeling like, '... We can take the issue on through the ballot box.' "
[LINK INCLUDES GRAPH - SOURCE: ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES/DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS; RICH CLABAUGH - STAFF]
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0920/csmimg/p2b.gif
Miramar Receives Doris North Project Certificate
Wednesday September 20, 8:00 am ET
Permitting Moves to the Next Phase
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(MARKET WIRE)--Sep 20, 2006 -- Miramar Mining Corporation (TSX:MAE.TO - News)(AMEX:MNG - News) today announced that it has received the Doris North Project Certificate from the Nunavut Impact Review Board, ("NIRB") and that the first phase of proposed production at Hope Bay has officially moved into the regulatory process.
In March 2006, the NIRB completed its review of the environmental impact assessment of the Doris North Project and recommended to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada ("INAC") that the Project should be given approval to obtain the required permits for construction and operation. In a letter dated July 28, 2006, the Minister of INAC accepted NIRB's recommendation. The Minister's letter also advised that the other federal departments with jurisdictional responsibility in relation to Doris North have concurred with this decision.
The Project Certificate received from NIRB on September 15, 2006 includes terms and conditions to be implemented by various regulatory agencies in accordance with their guidelines for issuing licences, permits and authorizations for Doris North. The Project will need a number of permits, authorizations and leases, and steps towards obtaining these are underway.
"We are delighted that we are now through the environmental assessment phase of the project and to be working with the various regulatory agencies to obtain the permits necessary for construction and operation of Doris North. The issuance of the Project Certificate signifies that the federal government and the NIRB have agreed that the project can proceed subject to licensing and permitting conditions. Now we must work with the various agencies to demonstrate that the project meets all guidelines and regulations. We are excited about what will potentially the first new gold mine in Nunavut," said Tony Walsh, Miramar's President and CEO.
Subject to timely progress in obtaining necessary permits, Miramar plans to start procurement and mobilizing of equipment with the intention of moving as much material possible in the shipping season of 2007. Dependent on receipt of all final licences, permits and authorizations, Miramar hopes to commence mining at Doris North in mid 2008
Miramar Mining Corporation
Miramar is a Canadian gold company that controls the Hope Bay project, a large undeveloped gold project in Canada. The Hope Bay project extends over 1,000 sq. km. and encompasses one of the most prospective undeveloped greenstone belts in Canada. Miramar aims to become an intermediate gold producer through the integrated development of the Hope Bay belt. Any production at Hope Bay is subject to positive feasibility studies, permitting and regulatory approval, the availability of financing and other contingencies.
Additional Information
All other information previously released on the Hope Bay Project is also available on Miramar's website at http://www.miramarmining.com/.
Forward-Looking Statements
Statements relating to planned permitting, construction and operation and commencement of production at the Doris North Mine at the Hope Bay project forward-looking statements within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts and are generally, but not always, identified by the words "expects", "plans", "anticipates", "believes", "intends", "estimates", "projects", "aims", "potential", "goal", "objective", "prospective", and similar expressions, or that events or conditions "will", "would", "may", "can", "could" or "should" occur. Information inferred from the interpretation of drilling results and information concerning mineral resource estimates may also be deemed to be forward-looking statements, as it constitutes a prediction of what might be found to be present when and if a project is actually developed. These forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those reflected in the forward-looking statements, including, without limitation: risks related to fluctuations in gold prices; uncertainties related to raising sufficient financing to fund the planned work in a timely manner and on acceptable terms; changes in planned work resulting from weather, logistical, technical or other factors; the possibility that results of work will not fulfill expectations and realize the perceived potential of the Company's properties; uncertainties involved in the interpretation of drilling results and other tests and the estimation of gold reserves and resources; the possibility that required permits may not be obtained on a timely manner or at all or that conditions imposed in connection with those permits may not be achievable on an economic basis; the possibility that capital and operating costs may be higher than currently estimated and may preclude commercial development or render operations uneconomic; the need for commercial cooperation with NIRB, NWB and other governmental agencies, the possibility that the estimated recovery rates may not be achieved; risk of accidents, equipment breakdowns and labour disputes or other unanticipated difficulties or interruptions; the possibility of cost overruns or unanticipated expenses in the work program; the risk of environmental contamination or damage resulting from Miramar's operations and other risks and uncertainties, including those described in the Miramar's Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 and Reports on Form 6-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, estimates and opinions of Miramar's management on the date the statements are made. Miramar undertakes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements if management's beliefs, estimates or opinions, or other factors, should change.
This news release has been authorized by the undersigned on behalf of Miramar Mining Corporation.
Contact:
Contacts:
Miramar Mining Corporation
Anthony P. Walsh
President & CEO
(604) 985-2572 or Toll Free: 1-800-663-8780
(604) 980-0731 (FAX)
info@miramarmining.com
http://www.miramarmining.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Miramar Mining Corporation
The Coming Industrial Metals Downturn
By Steve Saville
19 Sep 2006 at 10:08 AM EDT
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=23942
Plexmar Resources Inc.: High Grade Values on Escondida Project, Ecuador
Tuesday September 19, 9:56 am ET
SAINTE-FOY, QUEBEC--(CCNMatthews - Sept. 19, 2006) -Plexmar Resources Inc. (TSX VENTURE:PLE - News), is pleased to announce the final assay values from the field reconnaissance trip on the Escondida block of properties. (see press release dated Aug.24 2006) The samples were taken during the due diligence phase. Four of them returned values higher than 10 g/t Au and required further assaying. Below are the final gold values:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/060919/200609190347814001.html?.v=1
Plexmar Resources Inc.: High Grade Values on Escondida Project, Ecuador
Tuesday September 19, 9:56 am ET
SAINTE-FOY, QUEBEC--(CCNMatthews - Sept. 19, 2006) - Plexmar Resources Inc. (TSX VENTURE:PLE - News), is pleased to announce the final assay values from the field reconnaissance trip on the Escondida block of properties. (see press release dated Aug.24 2006) The samples were taken during the due diligence phase. Four of them returned values higher than 10 g/t Au and required further assaying. Below are the final gold values:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/060919/200609190347814001.html?.v=1
Plexmar Resources Inc.: High Grade Values on Escondida Project, Ecuador
Tuesday September 19, 9:56 am ET
SAINTE-FOY, QUEBEC--(CCNMatthews - Sept. 19, 2006) - Plexmar Resources Inc. (TSX VENTURE:PLE - News), is pleased to announce the final assay values from the field reconnaissance trip on the Escondida block of properties. (see press release dated Aug.24 2006) The samples were taken during the due diligence phase. Four of them returned values higher than 10 g/t Au and required further assaying. Below are the final gold values:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/060919/200609190347814001.html?.v=1
Great Panther Announces 22.3 mill. oz. Silver Equivalent Inferred Resource at KM66 Property
Monday September 18, 12:54 pm ET
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(MARKET WIRE)--Sep 18, 2006 -- GREAT PANTHER RESOURCES LIMITED (TSX VENTURE:GPR.V - News) is pleased to announce that Wardrop Engineering (Wardrop) of Vancouver, B.C. has delivered a NI 43-101 compliant resource estimate for the Company's Km 66 Project in northeastern Durango State, Mexico. Using a 50 g/t silver equivalent cut-off grade, Wardrop estimates that the Palmitas and Gloria Zones together contain an Inferred Mineral Resource of 4,969,800 tonnes at a grade of 59 g/t Ag, 0.13 g/t Au, 0.81% Pb and 1.31% Zn. Wardrop calculated that these grades equate to a silver equivalent grade of 139 g/t using commodity prices (based upon 3 year averages) of US$7.70/oz for silver, US$471/oz for gold, US$0.41/lb for lead and US$0.69/lb for zinc and recoveries of 76%, 70%, 80% and 80%, respectively. This resource equates to a total of 22.3 million ounces of silver equivalent.
Great Panther commissioned Wardrop to complete the NI43-101 report on the KM66 property after signing a Letter of Intent to option the property earlier this year. The Company has now signed a formal Option Agreement for the right to earn a 100% interest in the 3,508 hectare property, subject to a 3% NSR. Terms of the agreement call for Great Panther to make staged cash payments and share issuances totaling US$3,000,000 and 500,000 shares, over a period of 4 years, to the property owners. If the option is exercised, the Company can purchase up to 2% of the NSR, for US$500,000 per 0.5%. The transaction is subject to acceptance by the TSX Venture Exchange.
The resource estimate was based upon a comprehensive exploration program completed on the property by Coeur d'Alene Mines during 1997 and 1998, wherein they drilled 81 reverse circulation holes (7,515 metres & 3,614 samples) and 22 diamond drill holes (2,983 metres & 900 samples). The geological database also includes 422 surface channel samples. Coeur d'Alene dropped the property in 1998.
The resource includes 2,643,600 tonnes of oxide material at a grade of 51 g/t Ag, 0.11 g/t Au, 0.73% Pb and 0.98% Zn for a silver equivalent grade of 113 g/t and 2,326,200 tonnes of sulphide mineralization at a grade of 68 g/t Ag, 0.16 g/t Au, 0.90% Pb and 1.69% Zn for a silver equivalent grade of 169 g/t. As the grade of sulphide mineralization is 50% higher than the 40-60 metre-thick oxide zone, the Company expects the overall grade of the resource to increase over time as the deposit is extended to depth.
Wardrop used the Inverse Distance Squared method of calculating the resource, with blocks of 5m X 5m X 4m being used for the 3 dimensional model. Metallurgical recoveries were based upon tests conducted by Silver Standard in 1999 as part of a property review. Wardrop also calculated a resource using a 30 g/t silver equivalent cut-off (and the same pricing and metallurgical parameters), which yielded a total of 5,713,000 tonnes at a silver equivalent grade of 126 g/t. The complete NI43-101 report on the Km 66 property will be posted on SEDAR and on the Great Panther web-site as soon as a final copy is received from Wardrop, estimated to be within one week.
[continued in following link]
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/060918/0164055.html
U.S. capital inflows fall sharply in July
Total of $32.9 billion marks lowest since May 2005
By Greg Robb & Robert Schroeder, MarketWatch
Last Update: 12:02 PM ET Sep 18, 2006
[Continued on following link.]
http://tinyurl.com/rp6a3
Goldcorp Continues to Recommend Rejection of Mini-Tender Offer by TRC Capital
Monday September 18, 9:00 am ET
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(MARKET WIRE)--Sep 18, 2006 -- GOLDCORP INC. (TSX:G.TO - News)(NYSE:GG - News) announced that it has received a notification that TRC Capital Corporation has decreased its unsolicited "mini-tender" offer price for up to 3,000,000 Common Shares of Goldcorp to $27.75 per share from $32.50 per share.
Goldcorp continues to recommend that its shareholders reject this unsolicited offer. Goldcorp wishes to inform its shareholders that it is not associated with TRC Capital, the offer or the offer documentation.
TRC Capital has made numerous unsolicited "mini-tender" offers for shares of other companies. "Mini-tender" offers are offers to purchase a small percentage of a company's shares, thereby avoiding most of the filing, disclosure and procedural requirements of Canadian and Untied States federal security legislation.
Securities regulators in the United States and Canada have recommended that shareholders exercise caution in connection with mini-tinder offers and that they consult their investment advisors regarding these types of offers. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has published investor tips regarding mini-tender offers on its website at:
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/minitend.htm
Comments from the Canadian Securities Administrators on mini-tenders can be found under Staff Notice 61-301 at:
Comments from the Canadian Securities Administrators on mini-tenders can be found under Staff Notice 61-301 at:
www.osc.gov.on.ca/Regulation/Rulemaking/Current/Part6/
csa_19991210_61-301.jsp
(due to the length of this URL, it may be necessary to copy and paste this hyperlink into your internet browser's URL address field).
Goldcorp advises shareholders to consult their financial advisors and to exercise caution with this offer. Goldcorp understands that shareholders who have already tendered to the offer may withdraw their common shares by providing the written notice described in the TRC Capital offering document prior to the expiration of the offer.
Goldcorp is one of the world's lowest-cost and fastest growing multi-million ounce gold producers with operations throughout the Americas and Australia. Gold production in 2006 is expected to be approximately 1.8 million ounces on an annualized basis, at total cash cost of less than US$100 an ounce. In the second half of 2006, production is expected to be 950,000 ounces. The Company does not hedge its gold production.
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
Safe Harbor Statement under the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Except for the statements of historical fact contained herein, the information presented constitutes "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements, including but not limited to those with respect to the price of gold, silver and copper, the timing and amount of estimated future production, costs of production, reserve determination and reserve conversion rates involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Goldcorp to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, among others, risks related to the integration of acquisitions, risks related to international operations, risks related to joint venture operations, the actual results of current exploration activities, actual results of current reclamation activities, conclusions of economic evaluations, changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined, future prices of gold, silver and copper, as well as those factors discussed in the section entitled "General Development of the Business - Risks of Business" in Goldcorp's Form 40-F on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. and Goldcorp's Annual Information Form on file with the securities regulatory authorities in Canada. Although Goldcorp has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.
Contact:
Contacts:
Goldcorp Inc.
Melanie Pilon
Director, Investor Relations
(604) 696-3024
(604) 696-3001 (FAX)
info@goldcorp.com
http://www.goldcorp.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Goldcorp Inc.
The Long Case for U.S. Gold
Sunday September 17, 9:11 pm ET
Microcap Speculator submits: On August 29, 2006, Bill Cara suggested it was time to buy U.S. Gold . The stock was trading at $6.26 then, but has since plunged well below $5. Cara believes that the shares were pressured by an institutional private placement at C$4.50.
Whatever has caused the drop, the stock is now at a place where I believe the risk-reward heavily favors accumulation. Obviously, U.S. Gold and all miners could suffer if gold prices continue to plummet. However, with the Washington Accord deadline for central bank selling almost passed, a rebound soon is highly likely.
More importantly, U.S. Gold is a solid vehicle for speculation. Don't let the OTC bulletin board listing fool you. U.S. Gold is run by Rob McEwen, former CEO of Goldcorp (NYSE: GG - News), one of the world's largest and finest gold mining companies. In a recent open letter to shareholders, McEwen explained the exciting prospects for the company's Nevada mining properties:
CORTEZ HILLS DISCOVERY CHANGED EVERYTHING
Placer Dome (bought by Barrick Gold) found what many consider one of Nevada's most significant gold deposits when it discovered Cortez Hills in 2003. The geological similarities with Nevada's world famous Carlin Trend, which is the production base of Barrick Gold and Newmont Mining, challenged firmly held beliefs that large deposits of this type do not exist in the Cortez Trend. Cortez Hills, including the area surrounding the discovery, has past production, current reserves and mineralized material totaling more than 30 million ounces and we are 10 miles away! This is a very prospective area to be looking for gold.
This spring we started our aggressive, US$30 million, two year exploration program at Tonkin Springs. Previous exploration had last occurred prior to the influential Cortez Hills discovery. A lot has happen since Cortez Hills, allowing geologists to better understanding the area and the required ingredients associated with large gold deposits in this part of the world.
LOWER PLATE AT TONKIN SPRINGS
New interpretations supported by age-dating, mapping, core drilling and fossil identification suggest that there is a much larger package of Lower Plate rock at Tonkin Springs, than was previously believed to exist (Figure 1 and 2).
Why is Lower Plate important to your share price? This is where major gold discoveries are made within Nevada's Carlin and Cortez Trends. The presence of Lower Plate rock near surface greatly improves the odds of making a discovery at Tonkin Springs!
We Are Excited about our Future!
[VP of Project Development and former Newmont exec] Eric Saderholm is adamant, "I agree with others that are working on the U.S. Gold team that the projection of the Cortez linears (structures hosting Cortez Hills gold) run right at us. It is apparent to me that we have all the right ingredients for large discoveries and ounce additions. It's time to put it all together and take our best shots at success."
I bought a considerable position late last week between $4.50 and $4.81. It is true that the technical picture is currently bleak, but I don't think it will look so bad a month from now.
USGL.OB 1-yr Chart
http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/060917/17033_id.html?.v=1
DISCLOSURE: I am long USGL.OB. Not a recommendation to buy or sell any security. For informational and educational purposes only.
Peabody Energy Purchases 19.99% of Excel Coal and Offers A$9.50 for Remaining Shares
Monday September 18, 8:59 am ET
ST. LOUIS, Sept. 18 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Peabody Energy (NYSE: BTU - News) announced today that it has signed a binding agreement to purchase 19.99 percent of Excel Coal at A$9.50 per share. Peabody and Excel Coal have also agreed to modify the existing scheme of arrangement whereby Peabody will purchase the remaining outstanding shares at A$9.50 per share.
Peabody believes that the advance purchase of 19.99 percent of Excel and the modified scheme of arrangement will help to ensure a successful acquisition. Peabody has secured the necessary regulatory and third party approvals, and arranged its financing for the acquisition. The shareholder approval process under the scheme of arrangement is underway, with a shareholder meeting currently scheduled for Oct. 4, 2006.
"The combined operations of Excel and Peabody Pacific provide numerous synergies and an extensive growth platform to serve high-demand markets on five continents," said Peabody President and Chief Executive Officer Gregory H. Boyce. "We are well advanced in the integration process, and have continuing confidence in the potential of the combined entities to create long-term shareholder value. We look forward to working with Excel's quality people and assets as we implement our growth plans."
Excel Coal is one of the largest independent coal companies in Australia. Peabody Energy is the world's largest private-sector coal company, with 2005 sales of 240 million tons of coal and $4.6 billion in revenues. Its coal products fuel more than 10 percent of all U.S. electricity generation and 3 percent of worldwide electricity.
Certain statements in this press release are forward-looking as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements involve certain risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from expectations as of Sept. 18, 2006. These factors are difficult to accurately predict and may be beyond the control of the company. These risks include, but are not limited to: growth in coal and power markets; future economic conditions; weather; rail, barge and port performance and costs; ability to renew sales contracts; successful implementation of business strategies; regulatory and court decisions; future legislation; changes in post-retirement benefit and pension obligations; negotiation of labor contracts and labor availability and relations; capacity and cost of surety bonds and letters of credit; effects of currency exchange rates; risks associated with customers; risks associated with performance of suppliers; availability and costs of key commodities such as steel, tires, diesel fuel and explosives; performance risks related to high-margin metallurgical coal production; geology and equipment risks inherent to mining; terrorist attacks or threats; replacement of reserves; implementation of new accounting standards and Medicare rules; inflationary trends; effects of interest rates; effects of acquisitions or divestitures; revenues related to synthetic fuel production; revenues and other risks detailed in the company's reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The use of "Peabody," "the company," and "our" relate to Peabody, its subsidiaries and majority-owned affiliates.
CONTACT:
Vic Svec
(314)342-7768
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Peabody Energy
Oil and XOI Corrections
Adam Hamilton, CPA
September 15th, 2006
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/hamilton/hamilton091506.html
PLAN C - Curtailment and Community
By NewSolutions - The Community Solution
Number 10, September 2006
http://www.communitysolution.org/pdfs/NS10.pdf
Jill Leyland of WGC Sees Promising Long Term Prospects for Gold
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=23805
Chariot Provides Update on Metallurgical Tests
Friday September 15, 9:26 am ET
Transition Zone Yields Positive Flotation Results Significant Improvement in Precious Metals Recoveries
TORONTO, ONTARIO--(CCNMatthews - Sept. 15, 2006) - Chariot Resources Limited ("Chariot") (TSX:CHD - News) is pleased to provide an update on the metallurgical testing program for its Mina Justa project. Initial metallurgical test results were released on January 10, 2006.
Batch and locked cycle flotation tests were completed at Plenge Laboratories in Lima. These tests were performed on broad composites of fresh drill core from the main sulphide ore body, including the Transition zone, the Bornite-Chalcocite zone and the Chalcopyrite zone.
The flotation conditions were optimized to produce a high quality concentrate grade. Silver and gold recoveries to concentrate were over 90% in the locked cycle tests. None of the concentrates contained any concentrations of elements that would incur smelter penalties. The following results are released today:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ore type Transition Bornite-Chalcocite Chalcopyrite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentrate Grade (% Cu) 50.9 39.6 29.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copper Recovery (%) 86.6 91.9 88.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gold & Silver Recovery (%) + 90.0 + 90.0 + 90.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flotation tests are ongoing at Plenge Laboratories in Lima with the objective of increasing recovery while possibly reducing the concentrate grade somewhat.
Set-out below are projections of optimized results, relative to assumptions used in the Scoping Study that was released on May 3, 2006 and the most recent rest results. These projections will be confirmed in the latest round of testing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scoping Study Recent Test Results Projection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copper Recovery (%) 90.0 86.6 88.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gold & Silver Recovery (%) 54.0 + 90.0 80.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentrate Grade 35.0 50.9 40.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scoping Study Recent Test Results Projection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bornite-Chalcocite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copper Recovery (%) 93.0 91.2 92.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gold & Silver Recovery (%) 54.0 + 90.0 80.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentrate Grade 35.0 39.6 35.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scoping Study Recent Test Results Projection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chalcopyrite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copper Recovery (%) 93.0 88.0 90.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gold & Silver Recovery (%) 54.0 + 90.0 80.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentrate Grade 27.0 29.7 27.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this news release was reviewed and validated by Adam Johnston and by Joseph Schlitt the designated Qualified Persons as defined in National Instrument 43-101.
Mr. Ulli Rath, President and CEO, said, "The latest flotation results confirm that material from the Transition zone can be processed to produce a very high-grade copper concentrate. I am pleased that the recent flotation tests and projections for copper are in line with the assumptions used in the Scoping Study, and that precious metal recoveries are higher."
Chariot Resources Limited (TSX:CHD - News) is developing its 70% owned Marcona Copper Property in Peru. With exceptional infrastructure, a significant resource and strong financial and commercial partners, the Mina Justa project is targeted to be a mid-tier copper producer in 2009.
Additional details about Chariot can be viewed at the Company's website, www.chariotresources.com.
CHARIOT RESOURCES LIMITED.
Ulrich (Ulli) Rath
President & CEO
Contact:
Toronto, Canada
Chariot Resources Limited
Ulli Rath - President & CEO
Office:+1 (416) 363-4554
Cell phone:+1 (416) 270-4481
Forbes West
Chariot Resources Limited
(416) 203-2200/888-655-5532
Lima, Peru
Chariot Resources Limited
John Kapusta - VP Exploration & Geological Services
+51-1-617 1313
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Chariot Resources Limited
The Peak Oil Crisis: Hyping Jack No. 2
By Tom Whipple
Thursday, 14 September 2006
The story broke the morning after Labor Day, when the Wall Street Journal ran a front-page piece reporting that Chevron along with two partners had announced the results of a major oil production test in the Gulf of Mexico. The partners Chevron, Statoil, and Devon Energy ran the test on a well known as Jack No. 2 that was drilled last year in the Lower Tertiary zone of the Gulf of Mexico. This zone is about 80 miles wide, 300 miles long and is located about 175 miles off shore. The well was unusual in that it went to a depth of 28,000 feet and the drilling began under 7,000 feet of water.
Released details of the test noted that a number of technical breakthroughs had been achieved. By using the latest technology, Chevron was able to discern and drill into promising geological structures that had previously been hidden below a layer of sound-absorbing silt. The test, which achieved flow rates of 6,000 barrels per day (b/d), established that oil could be extracted at acceptable rates from very deep deposits. It also set several records for extracting oil under conditions of extreme pressures and temperatures.
Although no formal estimate as to the size of this particular find was announced, background briefers spoke of the possibility that the zone could contain from 3 to 15 billion barrels of oil in scattered deposits. If this speculation were to prove true, it would put the Lower Tertiary in a class with Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay and increase domestic US oil reserves by 50 percent.
The news of this great “discovery” naturally was replayed by nearly every newspaper and TV network in the country. Katie Couric ran a segment about the discovery on her first evening news show. Most reporting emphasized the possibility that the US might have found another 15 billion barrels of oil in its own backyard, but tempered the jubilation with the news that the find would have no immediate impact on gasoline prices.
A few, mostly financial journalists, took the announcement as an opportunity to disparage the idea of imminent peak oil. These writers are aware that should world oil production go into decline within the next decade the world’s economy would be in a lot of trouble, not to mention the credibility of those who make a living by forecasting decades of growth ahead. Therefore, they eagerly accepted the dubious premise that this one test proves that plenty of oil can be found by drilling deeper so long as oil prices remain high enough to support the costs of ultra-deep oil production; advanced technology is used to the fullest; and environmental restrictions are lifted. Several pronounced peak oil a dead issue.
As the week wore on however, knowledgeable geologists and petroleum engineers began to question all the euphoria. First they noted that the Jack No. 2 test was not conducted on a single oil field that might contain 15 billion barrels oil. Rather, it was one test of a well in a zone that extends for hundreds of miles under the Gulf of Mexico. Whatever producible oil the zone contains will likely be found in numerous smaller deposits.
A number of wells have already been sunk in the Lower Tertiary. Some were dry holes and a few struck oil bearing rock, which may have the potential to produce oil profitably. So far, only a handful of these exploratory wells have struck deposits of light oil, which may be possible to produce. Others have struck thicker oils that may be impossible to extract from extreme depths at acceptable rates.
What seems to be turning up in the deeper waters of the Gulf are a series of smaller oil fields — some of which may someday be profitable to produce and some of which probably won’t. Extrapolating this situation to a major new discovery that will delay the onset of peak oil is clearly a reach.
To extract oil from 20,000 feet below the surface, where the pressures run to 20,000 pounds per square inch (psi) and the temperature of the oil is in the order of 200 degrees centigrade, is going to be a major technical challenge. Wells drilled to these depths will cost in the range of $100 million each. To drill and set in place the production equipment for one of these fields may cost on the order of $1.5 billion, or more, as the cost of oil production equipment is inflating rapidly.
Add to this the problem of what to do with very hot oil and the associated natural gas as it comes flowing to the top of a well 7,000 feet under the Gulf and 175 miles from shore. The decision to attempt production from these ultra-deep fields will not be taken lightly by the oil companies involved.
Although there are no geopolitical problems or nationalistic governments involved in producing oil from the Gulf of Mexico, the fields are right in its center — out where the Category 4 and 5 hurricanes really get wound up. On top of this there are questions of how much oil can be extracted from an ultra-deep field with extreme pressures. Although the recent test produced 6,000 barrels a day, for a month, a knowledgeable old geologist opined that he would like to see a test run for a year or more before committing billions to a whole new regime of oil production.
Assuming that producing oil from the Lower Tertiary turns out to be economically and technically feasible, will new production from the region have anything to do with delaying peak oil? The answer is an emphatic NO.
Knowledgeable observers who have commented on the issue agree that even if all goes well, it is unlikely that more than 300-500,000 b/d of production could come into production from all the possible fields in the Lower Tertiary over the next five to seven years. In the meantime, the world will have burned another 150 to 200 billion barrels of oil and US production from existing fields will decline from the current 5 million b/d to somewhere around 4 million b/d.
This suggests that it will take some spectacular and unlikely gains from new production to offset the natural decline currently underway in the US. Of still greater concern is production from Mexico’s giant 2 million b/d Cantarell oilfield, most of which is exported to the US. Creditable reports suggest that Cantarell is entering very rapid depletion and may be producing at a fraction of its current level five years from now. It would be virtually impossible for this level of new production from the Lower Tertiary to come online in the next five years.
So long as the world continues to consume some 31 billion barrels of oil a year, there is still nothing in sight that can forestall imminent peak oil.
Prominent CERA official – “Peak Oil theory is garbage”
by Steve Andrews
Published on 11 Sep 2006 by ASPO-USA's Peak Oil Review / Energy Bulletin. Archived on 12 Sep 2006.
The Countdown for the Peak of Oil Production has Begun – but what are the Views of the Most Important International Energy Agencies...
Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) is a widely touted US-based energy advisor firm. They bill themselves as a source to “help decision makers anticipate the energy future and formulate timely, successful plans in the face of rapid changes and uncertainty.” One aspect of our energy future about which CERA appears certain is the concept of peak oil.
"Peak Oil theory is garbage as far as we’re concerned", said Robert W. Esser, a geologist by training and CERA’s senior consultant/director of global oil and gas resources, according to Business Week online national correspondent Mark Morrison (Sept 7).
A wide range of very serious organizations are looking at and/or have commented upon the concept of peak oil, including the National Academy of Sciences (10/05), the US GAO (11/06), and the National Petroleum Council (2/07), working at the request of US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. Apparently, CERA thinks that’s all a waste of time and, in some cases, tax-payer money. By inference, CERA completely discounts the considered opinions of dozens of sober individuals and firms looking into the peak oil issue. Consider just this partial list of informed (mostly US-based) commentators:
1. Fellow industry analysts like PFC Energy; Groppe Long & Littell; and Petrie Parkman & Co. Last fall, Tom Petrie said he expected peak oil by around 2010 and that he would be “shocked” if world oil production didn’t peak by 2015. In PFC Energy’s 2004 presentation on peak oil, they show world oil production peaking in the 2014 time frame; their 2006 study, to be presented at the ASPO-USA conference next month, likely points to a slightly earlier date. Henry Groppe sees world petroleum liquids production peaking by 2010.
2. T. Boone Pickens, oil industry entrepreneur with a background in geology, has stated several times that peak oil may have already arrived.
3. The Hirsch Report: with funding from the National Energy Technology Laboratory, Robert L. Hirsch and Roger Bezdek were lead authors of a 70+-page report entitled “Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management.” The authors’ key concern: “Dealing with world oil production peaking will be extremely complex, involve literally trillions of dollars and require many years of intense effort.” Esser’s statement trivializes their report.
4. U.S. Congressmen Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and Tom Udall (D-NM) sound seriously concerned about peak oil, have been speaking out and writing about the issue, and have enlisted over a dozen colleagues to join them in the House Peak Oil Caucus. CERA would seem to be saying they’re wasting their time.
5. Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, a former petroleum geologist, was recently quoted in a Bloomberg Markets article as saying, “I think the people most exuberant about peak oil underestimate how much unconventional sources of oil will help flatten the peak, but to say there is no peak is shortsighted.”
6. Former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore both recently referenced peak oil. First in June, Gore spent a minute talking it up on CNN’s Larry King Live. Then in early July, Clinton—in an interview with Atlantic Monthly—gave substantial credence to the peak oil concept. He also wondered why he had never received a peak oil briefing, given its strategic importance.
7. US cities large and small, from San Francisco and Portland (OR) to Willets and Sebastopol (CA), are leading the way in incorporating the eventual reality of peak oil in their long-term municipal planning processes.
8. Senior geologists like author Walter Youngquist (OR), Craig Hatfield (OH), Joe Riva (MD), and Jeffrey Brown (TX) have drawn attention to issues like long-term depletion, the limits to growth by unconventional oil sources, the problems with declining net-energy return, etc.
9. PhD academics like Dr. Al Bartlett (University of Colorado-Boulder) plus Robert Kaufmann and Cutler Cleveland (Boston University) have for at least two decades been pointing to upcoming problems associated with peak oil. By association, is their work “garbage?”
10. Financial analyst Jeffery Rubin—chief economist for the respected CIBC World Markets—foresees a peaking in world oil production between now and the end of the decade. Eric Sprott, Sprott Asset Management, has over $1 billion of his firm’s assets invested in areas that will benefit from peak oil.
11. Matt Simmons, chairman of Simmons & Co Int’l and author of “Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy,” speaks more frequently about the peak oil story than any other respected executive in the country.
12. James Mckenzie, in his work for World Resources Institute, published a study in 1996 showing a peaking in world oil production in 2014 (plus or minus about five years, given three different scenarios).
13. Editorials and features in newspapers and major magazine cover the peak oil story. If, as CERA asserts, that story is “garbage,” why did a respected publication like Bloomberg Markets devote eight pages to this story in their September issue?
14. Richard Rainwater, a Texas-based billionaire investor, made piles of money by foreseeing, back in the mid-1990s, that oil prices were eventually headed strongly up due to long-term limited production vs. demand. Now he worries in the pages of Fortune magazine about the potential social costs and consequences that he believes peak oil could precipitate.
15. Sadad al Husseini, Saudi Aramco’s former head of exploration and production, wrote last fall that world oil production would peak and plateau by 2015, at between 90 to 95 million barrels a day.
16. French oil firm Total’s CEO Thierry Desmarest has broken ranks with other CEO’s of major oil companies by forecasting a 2020 peaking for world oil production. (From 1996 – 2000, several BP players forecast a 2010 peak; since 2000 they no longer mention a peak.)
17. Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review, uses an analytical technique similar to that of CERA—following production trends and projections vs. following stated reserves. He sees a peaking in world oil production around 2010-2011.
18. Pang Xiongqi, professor at China’s University of Petroleum in Beijing, expects Chinese production to peak in 2009 and world oil production to top out in 2012.
19. The Oil Drum, perhaps the most rigorous website covering the peak oil story, includes a host of writers and researchers who research and write timely commentaries.
20. ASPO-USA foresees a peak between now and 2015. We believe there are too many variables, especially growing non-geologic factors, to forecast a date. However, given the Hirsh Report’s warning about lag time for mitigating actions, we’re close enough to peaking that trying to pick a precise date is irrelevant.
There is a bottom line here for people trying spot the signal vs. the noise here. Ask whether the risk is greater if decision-makers act earlier based on the views of peak oil “concernists,” or if those decision-makers accept the notion that “peak oil theory is garbage” and defer action beyond granting oil companies access to resources and simply letting markets work.
Steve Andrews is a co-founder of ASPO-USA. He has followed the building peak oil story since the early 1980s.
Record clip of metals mergers: chasing fool's gold?
Miners draw fire for putting hefty premiums on bids to buy out rivals
http://tinyurl.com/lzo53
Orezone Resources Inc.: First Drill Results From Namaga Project in Niger: 22m Grading 2.4 g/t and 10m Grading 4.9g/t
Thursday September 14, 8:30 am ET
OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(MARKET WIRE)--Sep 14, 2006 -- Orezone Resources Inc. (TSX:OZN.TO - News)(AMEX:OZN - News) reports that assay results have been received from a rotary air blast ("RAB") and reverse circulation ("RC") drilling program carried out on the 1148 km2 Namaga permit in Niger, West Africa. The Namaga permit, located in the Tera greenstone belt in Western Niger, has been optioned from Greencastle Resources (VGN: TSXV) and surrounds Koma Bangou, the country's largest artisanal mining site. The first phase of drilling consisted of 4,268m of RAB and 2,000m of RC drilling to test targets previously identified by Ashanti Goldfields through soil geochemistry, mapping and trenching and by Orezone through a recent geophysical survey. The best results have come from two drill fences that tested a two km-long quartz rubble geochemical anomaly in the Block 3 target area, located 20km west of Koma Bangou. Hole B3B0154 intersected 10m grading 4.86g/t starting at 32m downhole, while the adjacent hole B3B0155 intersected 22m at 2.40g/t starting at 10m downhole. (Note: lengths are downhole lengths. Further information is needed to determine true widths) Please see table of significant results at www.orezone.com/site/properties/namagatable.asp
Orezone Resources optioned the Namaga and Koyria properties from Greencastle in January of this year (see press release January 23, 2006) and immediately commenced evaluating their gold potential. Several line kilometres of induced polarization ("IP") grids were run across the most prospective ground on both properties. Drilling on the Namaga permit commenced in May this year and two target areas were drilled before the onset of the rainy season (July to Sept). It is anticipated that drilling will commence on the Koyria permit, located in the Sirba greenstone belt and along strike from Semafo's (SMF: TSX) Samira Hill Mine, after the rainy season this year.
Mr. Ron Little, President & CEO stated: "Results from the first pass regional exploration program are very encouraging for us and our partners and we intend to carry out a follow up program at Namaga this fall."
The latest results are part of an ongoing $2.3 million exploration program in Niger covering the Namaga and Koyria permits and Orezone's 100% owned Kossa permit. Orezone can earn a 50% interest in the Namaga and Koyria permits by spending $1 million on each property over three years and can increase its interest to 75% by completing a Bankable Feasibility Study.
Drilling on the Namaga property was supervised by Dr. Pascal Marquis, VP Exploration and Mr. Jeff Ackert, VP Technical Services, P.Geo., who is a Qualified Person under National Instrument 43-101 and has reviewed and approved the technical information in this release. Samples were collected at a minimum of every 1m down the hole and 2m composite samples were analyzed using a 2kg bottle roll cyanide leach at the Abilab Laboratory in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, an internationally recognized laboratory. A minimum of 10% of the samples are for QA/QC, which includes random head assays, duplicates, standards and blanks, as well as tail assays on samples that returned at least 0.5 g/t.
Orezone is an explorer and emerging gold producer that has an exploration permit for Essakane, the largest gold deposit in Burkina Faso, West Africa, where partner Gold Fields Limited is earning a 60 per cent interest by completing a bankable feasibility study. Orezone also has a pipeline of promising projects, all located in politically stable areas of West Africa which is one of the world's fastest growing gold producing regions. Orezone's mission is to create wealth by discovering and developing the earth's resources in an efficient and responsible manner.
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS: This news release contains certain "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 21E of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Except for statements of historicalfact relating to the company, certain information contained herein constitutes forward-looking statements. Forward-looking satements are frequently characterized by words such as "plan," "expect," "project," "intend," "believe," "anticipate, "estimate" and other similar words, or statements that certain events or conditions "may" or "will" occur.Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions andestimates of management at the date the statements aremade, and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially fom those projected in the forward-looking statements. These factors include the inherent risks involved in the exploration and development of mineral propeties, the uncetainties involved in interpeting drillingresults and oher geological data, fluctuating metal prices, the possibility oproject cost overruns or unanticipated costs and expenses, uncetaintiesrelating to the availability and costs of financing needed in the future and other factors. The Company undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking statements if circumstances or management's estimates or opinion should change. The reader is cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.
Contact:
Contacts:
Orezone Resources Inc.
Ron Little
President & CEO
(613) 241-3699
Toll Free: (888) 673-0663
rlittle@orezone.com
Orezone Resources Inc.
Greg Bowes
Vice President & CFO
(613) 241-3699
Toll Free: (888) 673-0663
gbowes@orezone.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Orezone Resources Inc.
Gold and Silver Breakouts Offer Opportunities
By Marty Lundgren
12 Sep 2006 at 12:55 PM EDT
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=23680
Gold: The Bull Gallops On and Small-Caps Should Shine
By Andrew K. Burger
12 Sep 2006 at 02:04 PM EDT
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=23670
A Brazilian Gold Mine
By Bill Mann (TMF Otter) and Andy Cross
September 13, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/hhugn
Uranium, the "No-Brainer, Gotta Love It" Metal
By Peter Grandich
12 Sep 2006 at 11:22 AM EDT
PERRINEVILLE, NJ (Grandich Publications) -- While I did step into the correction camp on gold and have turned decisively bearish on copper, I’ve had only one opinion on uranium since $17 a pound – BULLISH! Throughout its rise from under $20, I kept calling it the no-brainer metal. When asked my latest opinion on it, I simply respond – I LOVE IT!
With prices north of $50 now, it’s no longer a no-brainer. And like a marriage that has gone past the “honeymoon” days, the crazy love has turned to “contained” enjoyment. However, uranium remains the most likely significant metal to continue rising in price. To appreciate why, let us look back at where it’s been and where it may be heading.
In the 1970s, the world began to envision nuclear power as the wave of the future for power needs. Major resource companies greatly ramped up mining and exploration for uranium in hopes of filling that need. Then came Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and before you could say “lights out,” power companies cancelled orders for nuclear reactors. Rather than pay the penalties for reneging on uranium purchase contracts, companies figured out it was cheaper to continue buying uranium and stockpile it. Uranium exploration literally grounded to a halt.
In the mid 1990s, the low spot price saw production at existing mines fall 50% below demand. Stockpiles were then drawn down and with the decommissioning of Russian nuclear warheads, the need to explore for uranium became non-existent.
The new millennium ushered in dramatically increased demand for nuclear power in Europe and especially Asia. This allowed for stockpiles to be swiftly drawn down at a time when an energy crunch began on the back of rising energy prices. Because there was little or no new exploration for uranium for many years, new additional supply was nowhere to be found. Hence, we’ve witnessed a strong rise in uranium prices.
While the “easy” money has been made, I believe there remain numerous bullish reasons for uranium to reach or surpass my target of $75:
Demand should remain strong for the foreseeable future. The number of reactors under construction worldwide continues to grow. China, Asia and Korea have committed themselves to nuclear power and Europe also is increasing its interest. Relatively new markets like India are opening up and where once a new nuclear plant seemed impossible, the United States, it is now being reconsidered as a viable energy source.
While uranium exploration has been hit with some of the same obstacles other metals have - rising costs and labor shortages, it also has two additional factors hindering supply - very strict environmental permitting and a shortage of real (non-moose pasture type) exploration projects. Many experts believe it won’t be until at least 2009 before a significant increase in planned mine production results in a perceived temporarily oversupply market. Russia is also indicating it will not continuing converting its warheads into uranium suitable for U.S. reactors when their non-proliferation agreement expires in 2013.
Investment demand, virtually non-existent until a couple of years ago, is only now becoming recognized. This is mainly due to Uranium Participation Corporation [TSX:U] a publicly-held investment company, which invests primarily in the physical ownership of uranium. The very fact that they recently announced a second offering suggested demand for physical uranium remains strong (it also aided in driving the uranium price above $50).
Within five years, there should only be enough secondary supplies to meet a quarter of the expected demand for uranium. Lack of aggressive exploration and falling inventory should keep the uranium market tight for several years.
The aggressive M&A activities in the metals market are likely to spill over into the uranium market (but because there are so few real producers, it should be more in the way of acquiring attractive projects from exploration companies).
Teck Cominco [TSX:TCK.B; NYSE:TCK] stated recently it may consider uranium acquisitions to benefit from a possible doubling of prices for the nuclear fuel.
“If there was some way into it where it makes sense financially, we’ll do it, because we like the prospects of the industry,” said Donald Lindsey, CEO of Teck Cominco.
© Grandich Publications, LLC 2006
Peter Grandich is Editor of “The Grandich Letter,” published by Grandich Publications, LLC, which provides research, analysis, and investor relation services.
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=23696
Cramer Interviews Peter Marrone, President of Yamana Gold
09 12 06
[prceded by advertisement]
In this Sept. 12 'Mad Money' clip, Jim Cramer and Peter Marrone discuss whether Cramer should be nervous about where they get their gold.
http://tinyurl.com/eq2tw
ninjaturtle,
I have my silver positions established and will not sell until silver gets to $60 oz. I feel pretty safe so long as the federal government keeps spending beyond its means and people rack up more debt beyond their ability to pay.
As for western central banks actually selling gold, let them do it. The Chinese will probably buy it while they have a good laugh. And if the Chinese do buy it, it will never reach the market again.
After the summer 2008 Olympics, the dollar will be toast, in my opinion. I choose this line of demarcation, as I think the Chinese will become less accommodative in their backing of the dollar. Until the Olympics, they will be nice guys, not wanting any country to boycott the Olympics, where they will showcase their modern country to the world. Once the Olympics end, they will change their behavior, as the world's resources become more restrictive and the USD continues to inflate itself beyond reason.
Good luck in your investing,
sumisu
Gold futures retreat under $600 mark
Prices at lowest level since late June; silver plunges
http://tinyurl.com/efod5
johnlw,
That's why they play 9 innings and sometimes extra innings.
sumisu
Miramar & KIA Announce Signing of Historical IIBA in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut
Thursday September 7, 5:03 pm ET
Inuit Impact & Benefit Agreement signed for Doris North, Nunavut's first potential Gold mine
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(MARKET WIRE)--Sep 7, 2006 -- Miramar Mining Corporation (TSX:MAE.TO - News)(AMEX:MNG - News) and the Kitikmeot Inuit Association (KIA) announced today that Miramar's subsidiary, Miramar Hope Bay Ltd., and the KIA have signed an Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement (IIBA) relating to the development of a gold mine at Doris North on the Hope Bay greenstone belt. This historic agreement represents a significant milestone for both Miramar and for economic development for the region and territory, as Doris North is the first potential gold mine in Nunavut. The KIA is the designated Inuit organization responsible for negotiating the IIBA on behalf of the Inuit of the Kitikmeot region of Nunavut.
The IIBA satisfies the requirements of both Articles 20 and 26 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and outlines the benefits that will be provided to the Inuit as a result of the development and operation of the Doris North gold mine. The IIBA provides that local employment, training, and business opportunities arising from construction and operation of the Doris North project are made available to the Inuit of the Kitikmeot region. The IIBA also outlines the special considerations and compensation that Miramar Hope Bay Ltd. will provide for Inuit regarding traditional, social and cultural matters, and effects on Inuit water rights.
The IIBA became effective on September 6, 2006 after the signing of the formal agreement at a ceremony sponsored by Miramar in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. The ceremony was attended by elders, constituents and MLA's from the five communities in the region Also in attendance for the historic occasion were Nunavut Premier Hon. Paul Okalik, Nunavut Minister of Environment, Hon. Patterk Nester and Nunavut Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, Hon. Olayuk Akesuk. The ceremony also was attended by federal representatives including Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell, MP for Nunavut, and Hon. Senator Willie Adams. Several of Miramar's Board of Directors and staff were also happy to join in the occasion.
"This IIBA is a major commitment in the right direction for our economy that will help both KIA and Miramar. We are committed to seeing that our people in our communities get much needed jobs, training, scholarships, business contracts and many other opportunities which will benefit the Kitikmeot for the life of the Mine," said KIA President, Donald Havioyak. Mr. Havioyak added that KIA has always supported and will continue to support mining developments as long as they balance environmental protection with economic development.
"We are very encouraged by the commitment and dedication shown by the KIA in reaching this agreement," said Mr. Tony Walsh, Miramar's President & CEO. "This agreement will fulfill one of Miramar's principal goals which is to make the Doris North Project a win/win for both Miramar and the Inuit of the Kitikmeot region."
The Doris North project is anticipated to begin production in mid-2008, provided that all permits and licences are received in a timely manner.
Forward-Looking Statements
This News Release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 concerning the plan for development of the Doris North Project, the IIBA and the potential of the Hope Bay belt. These forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those reflected in the forward-looking statements including, without limitation, the need for continual cooperation with the KIA; the possibility that the KIA's policies or positions will change; uncertainties involved in raising adequate financing for development projects in a timely manner and on acceptable terms; the possibility that results of work will not fulfill the Company's expectations and realize the perceived potential of the properties; uncertainties involved in the interpretation of drilling results and other tests and the estimation of gold reserves and resources; accidents, equipment breakdowns, labour disputes or other difficulties or interruptions; risks and uncertainties relating to fluctuating precious and base metals prices, currency exchange rates and equity markets; the possibility that capital or operating costs may be higher than currently estimated or that gold grades may be lower than currently estimated; the possibility that planned recovery rates may not be achieved; the possibility of unexpected costs and expenses relating to environmental issues; the possibility of failure to obtain permits for the Doris North project on a timely basis or on acceptable terms; uncertainties relating to the need and timing for government approvals and the cooperation of government agencies; and other risks and uncertainties, including those described in this news release and in the Company's Annual Report on Form 40-F and Reports on Form 6-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, estimates and opinions of Miramar's management on the dates the statements are made. Miramar undertakes no obligation to updated these forward-looking statements if management's beliefs, estimates or opinions, or other factors, should change.
Contact:
Contacts:
Kitikmeot Inuit Association
Mr. Donald Havioyak
President
(867) 983-2458
(867) 983-2701 (FAX)
Miramar Mining Corporation
Anthony P. Walsh
President & CEO
(604) 985-2572 or Toll Free: 1-800-663-8780
(604) 980-0731 (FAX)
info@miramarmining.com
http://www.miramarmining.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Miramar Mining Corporation
U.S. Cities’ Preparedness for an Oil Crisis
http://tinyurl.com/zlber
The Peak Oil Crisis: The Word Begins to Spread
By Tom Whipple
Thursday, 07 September 2006
The world oil situation is quiet at the moment. Oil prices have dropped to their lowest level in 15 weeks due to the lack of any imminent geopolitical threats or looming hurricanes. The Iranian nuclear enrichment situation seems to be on hold for awhile as the US can't convince China, Russia, Japan and a lot of European powers that the world would be better if only the UN imposed harsh sanctions on Tehran thereby forcing them to limit oil exports in retaliation. However, we earthlings are still draining off our finite oil supply at the rate of 85 million barrels a day (b/d) so things are bound to get interesting again somewhere down the line.
There are two parts to the peak oil story. First, is the peaking of world oil production itself and the accompanying economic, political, social, cultural, and you-name-it shocks that will precede, accompany, and last long after the peaking. The second is universal recognition of what is going on and the serious efforts to do something about living with less oil.
At 1,000 barrels a second or 31 billion barrels a year, we are moving nicely towards peak production, so there is little we have to do to get there. Recognizing there is a world-class problem in the offing clearly is another story. While a handful of magazines and a few large-circulation, influential newspapers have carried scattered peak oil stories for some time now, many of these been in the vein of "we might be hit by a giant meteor/earthquake/tsunami or bird flu" any minute now, or long after we are dead. In either case there is nothing we can do about it. Things may be changing.
Last week Bloomberg, "the leading global provider of data, news and analytics," published a balanced, carefully researched, 4,200 word article on peak oil. For those of us who follow the peak oil story, this was an event of earth shaking proportions.
Keyed on the July meeting of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO)in Italy, the article covers most aspects of the peak oil story including extensive quotes from all sides of the issue. The piece is entitled "Peak Oil Forecasters Win Converts on Wall Street to $200 Crude."
The author, Deepak Gopinath, captures the essence of peak oil in one succinct paragraph:
"Proponents of this controversial idea say global oil production is now at or near its zenith. Once the flow crests and starts to decline -- and some geologists say it already has -- oil will no longer be able to slake the world's growing thirst for energy. The result will be the oil shock to end all oil shocks. The price of a barrel of crude will spiral to $200 -- and keep rising. To the peaksters, today's energy crunch is nothing next to the pain that will follow."
Gopinath strengthens the credentials of peak oil by pointing out that the US Secretary of Energy has asked the National Petroleum Council to look into the matter; the US Government Accountability Office is scheduled to release a study on peak oil in November; and the US House of Representatives has a small but vocal peak oil caucus.
Then it is time to hear from the doubters. The ExxonMobil PR guy says "nonsense." "The world is nowhere near running out of oil." "ExxonMobil geologists believe oil production will keep rising through 2030."
The author then trots out a geologist from Cambridge Energy Research Associates who proclaims that "our outlook goes out to 2020, and we see no evidence of a peak." Realizing he may be a little far out on a limb, the geologist opines that "Eventually we will start to see a decline. There is still time to think about alternatives."
After noting that people have been predicting the end of oil production for over 100 years, and that it has never happened —yet—, the story becomes one of reciting the evidence and arguments for peak oil. Little is left out. M. King Hubbert of Hubbert's peak is brought in along with his various disciples Colin Campbell, founder of ASPO, along with Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton who has calculated that peak oil production was reached on December 16, 2005 (We don't know as yet if he was right).
President Bush and his "addicted to oil" speech and billionaire oilman Boone Pickens, a peak oil believer are quoted. Declining production, a paucity of new discoveries, rapidly increasing costs to discover and produce new oil, nearly everything in the peak oil mantra is mentioned in the story. On balance this story is about 90 to 10 pro peak oil. The evidence peak oil is for real and imminent is laid out in some detail while the doubters simply assert their beliefs all is well and that no peak is in sight.
Now with wire service stories such as this one from Bloomberg, individual newspapers decide for themselves whether or not to run it. So far as I have been able to tell, only the International Herald Tribune has run the story although I did note a passing reference to the story on the Wall Street Journal's web site.
Obviously thousands of influential opinion makers, financial analysts and policymakers are aware of this story and have taken the message at least partially aboard.
In the Sept. 5 Wall Street Journal, in a story about a big new oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico, the author was recounting why oil has risen from $20 to over $70 a barrel in recent years. He wrote, "Factors fueling the price include shrinking surplus production capacity, fear that global oil output is peaking, instability in several oil-producing regions and a rising tide of oil nationalism which has led some countries to tighten their control over their oil nationalism.
When the Journal, which has been one of the strongest opponents of the notion the that world oil production is peaking, includes a clause about peak oil (even if they are referring to someone else's irrational fears), we are starting to make progress.
Clarification of the Huge Chevron Gulf Oil Discovery
Published on 6 Sep 2006 by Energy Bulletin.
by Randy Kirk
The September 5th announcement by Chevron and Devon and Statoil of the huge Gulf of Mexico discovery should be clarified. The announcement claims that the discovery could increase US proven reserves of oil by as much as 50%. However, the total amounts are highly speculative. Additionally, the discovery likely won't impact oil markets but could potentially impact natural gas markets since the discovery is probably mainly natural gas. The area will not come online for at least 4 years and, at a full rate, for at least 7 years. Further, it is likely that there are political motivations behind the announcement, as the vote to open offshore drilling in the United States is upcoming in the US Senate.
[Continued in following link.]
http://www.energybulletin.net/20140.html
Silver Wheaton Ups Stake in Bear Creek
Wednesday September 6, 6:15 pm ET
Silver Wheaton Ups Stake in Bear Creek Mining Corp. to 16.8 Percent
NEW YORK (AP) -- Canadian silver miner Silver Wheaton Corp. said Wednesday it boosted its stake in Bear Creek Mining Corp. by $18.6 million.
Bear Creek Mining is a gold and silver miner focusing on Peru.
Silver Wheaton said it bought an additional 2.3 million shares, or about 6 percent of the company's outstanding shares. After the purchase, Silver Wheaton owns 7.7 million common shares and warrants exercisable to acquire an additional 270,000 shares -- totaling about 17 percent of Bear Creek's stock on a diluted basis.
Silver Wheaton's U.S.-listed shares closed up 2 cents at $11.84 on the New York Stock Exchange.
Silver Wheaton Ups Stake in Bear Creek
Wednesday September 6, 6:15 pm ET
Silver Wheaton Ups Stake in Bear Creek Mining Corp. to 16.8 Percent
NEW YORK (AP) -- Canadian silver miner Silver Wheaton Corp. said Wednesday it boosted its stake in Bear Creek Mining Corp. by $18.6 million.
Bear Creek Mining is a gold and silver miner focusing on Peru.
Silver Wheaton said it bought an additional 2.3 million shares, or about 6 percent of the company's outstanding shares. After the purchase, Silver Wheaton owns 7.7 million common shares and warrants exercisable to acquire an additional 270,000 shares -- totaling about 17 percent of Bear Creek's stock on a diluted basis.
Silver Wheaton's U.S.-listed shares closed up 2 cents at $11.84 on the New York Stock Exchange.
Silver Wheaton Ups Stake in Bear Creek
Wednesday September 6, 6:15 pm ET
Silver Wheaton Ups Stake in Bear Creek Mining Corp. to 16.8 Percent
NEW YORK (AP) -- Canadian silver miner Silver Wheaton Corp. said Wednesday it boosted its stake in Bear Creek Mining Corp. by $18.6 million.
Bear Creek Mining is a gold and silver miner focusing on Peru.
Silver Wheaton said it bought an additional 2.3 million shares, or about 6 percent of the company's outstanding shares. After the purchase, Silver Wheaton owns 7.7 million common shares and warrants exercisable to acquire an additional 270,000 shares -- totaling about 17 percent of Bear Creek's stock on a diluted basis.
Silver Wheaton's U.S.-listed shares closed up 2 cents at $11.84 on the New York Stock Exchange.
Silver Wheaton-Goldcorp’s In-house Bank
By: Jim Damberger, Penticton, B.C.
-- Posted 5 September, 2006
I love banks. They always make money and never take any risk.
Ian Telfer at Goldcorp has found a new way to build an in-house bank. He calls it Silver Wheaton (SLW). The business model that he developed for SLW is brilliant. I own scads of this company and have made lots of money from it. And the company has only begun to get exciting.
The basic business model for SLW is to find deals where silver is produced as a by-product and is not properly valued by the market. Silver producers (like gold producers) normally sell for premium PE ratios. Base metal producers for example will have a PE of 8-12, whereas a silver producer may have a PE of 30-50. Thus, a base metal producer that produces silver as a by-product only gets financial (stock value) credit for that silver as if it were copper or lead. Same for gold producers who are evaluated more on the ounces of gold produced than on profit. This has to do with gold price leverage. Gold producers get little credit for silver production.
Enter SLW. SLW pays a lump sum for future production plus an on-going fixed amount per ounce. The supplier assumes all political and production risk. The supplier then has money to do with as required (often expand its own production). Since SLW stock commands a premium as a silver producer, it can sell its stock with an inferred future PE of 3-4 times that of base metal company and pays only the normal PE price (plus a premium) to the supplier. Sounds just like a bank. Buy money for 3% and loan it out at 7% with collateral. AND IT GETS BETTER.
Most of us believe that silver will double or more in the next 2-3 years. SLW gets ALL the benefit from this. Goldcorp is the major shareholder for SLW. You can be sure that SLW gets all of the silver Goldcorp can supply. Although I am not an accountant but an engineer, the other big bonus is that this type of financing probably does not show up as a debt on the Goldcorp books. Win/win/win.
Now enter Glamis and its Penasquito project. Estimated capital of $900 million is required. Silver Wheaton is earning over $100 million per year AND could come up with another $600 million by diluting its stock at current prices by about 20%. In return for a payment on the order of $900 million, SLW receives 20 million ounces per year of silver. Thus SLW doubles its output by a 20% share dilution. In the cards?? I’m betting on it.
Glamis aside, in the latest web cast, SLW indicates that it will double in the next 12-18 months. With current production at 16 million ounces (10 million from Goldcorp), add in the Glamis project and you have a 50 plus million ounce company in the next 5-6 years. Since this business model is a financing arrangement and not a resource dependent arrangement, THERE IS NO LIMIT TO HOW BIG SLW CAN GROW. Actual producers deal with things like cost escalations, strikes, and politics. These are minimal for SLW.
One more trinket. SLW owns 15% of Bear Creek with a resource estimate of 250 million ounces silver (open in all directions).
Maximum leverage for SLW can be obtained thru the ‘B’ warrants (SLW.WT.B) on the Toronto exchange. Go to the SLW web site for details.
-- Posted 5 September, 2006
http://news.silverseek.com/SilverSeek/1157483637.php