- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
David_DJS
| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 22040 |
| Registered on: | 8/20/2005 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
quote:
Now that's a fun thought experiment.
It really is, and it's impactful on "peak gold" and goes to the heart of my statement that there will be more economic gold available for recovery in the future than there is today. Not less. An anecdote to explain some of this -
Let's say Newmont reports they have 100 million ounces of gold in proven/probable reserves. That figure does not come from "we have xx billion tons of ore at an average assay of .4 grams Au per ton = 100 million ounces" - - - that number comes from a) resource definition (drilling/assaying), b) metallurgical development where they figure out, based on mineralization (which can vary in a deposit) how much Au can be recovered, c) analysis of plant/equipment and potential for expansions and related capex, and d) the case assumption for the price of gold. Typically, a mining company will discount the case assumption for the price of gold relative to prevailing prices, so for example - when gold price is at $2500/oz, they'll go with an assumption of $1500/oz. This results in conservative estimates and projections.
So what happens when the price of gold hits and stabilizes at $5000? It isn't just that price is applied to the 100 million ounces. The number of ounces that are economically recoverable from the same volume of ore spikes. Same deposit can now yield 150 million ounces of gold rather than 100 million, for example.
And that's gold that hasn't already been mined. When the price of gold rises like it has the last few years, there's a lot of mine waste and tailings that become economic to treat and requires no mining.
0
quote:
Global gold discovery rates peaked in the mid-1990s, specifically around 1995–1996. A record number of major deposits were discovered during this time, containing more gold than any decade since.
That had as much to do with the application of new exploration technology as it did anything else. Moreover, there's semantics involved here - what is meant by "discovery"? Drilled out? But this isn't really my point.
quote:
Production will most likely peak soon as expanded old mines run dry, which will drive price higher as miners are forced to go deeper.
This is my point. You're looking at this statically, and gold mining/the gold market isn't static.
Maybe the quickest way to address this is with a question - don't we need to know what the price of gold will be to project production rates?
quote:
I misspoke and meant to say "Easy to mine" instead of "Easy to find"
Okay, but that's not really true either. It's easier to mine above ground (open pit) than underground, and there's more and more open pit mines and less and less underground mining operations as time goes on.
quote:
We are having to get more and more creative to extract Gold.
That has always been the case and will continue to be the case.
quote:
The juiciest(easiest) deposits are mostly gone. Ask any mining CEO and they'll tell you the same.
The point is"juiciest" changes. Some of the most profitable gold operations the last 25 years have been processing material that had already been mined and milled, and more was made the second time through - because of technology and lower costs.
I don't mean to get too far into the weeds here. My main point is simply that economic gold is not getting "scarcer". It's actually becoming more available, particularly when demand (price) is high.
quote:
I've noticed that the Bitcoin diehards rarely try to talk shite about Gold anymore
I don't frequent MT daily but I don't remember BTC diehards talking shite about gold. In fact, I'm assuming most are like me and own both. Investments in Au and BTC are consistent with what BTC diehards do talk shite about - the debasement of fiat currency.
quote:
All of the easy to find deposits have already been mined.
This isn't true. There's actually more gold in proven/probable reserves today than there was 50 years ago. There will be more economic gold available for mining/extraction in 100 years than there is today. It's a function of technology, energy costs/availability, gold price and a few other parameters.
quote:
Women don’t want to date or marry men? Obviously they need to lower their expectations of men and marriage. That seems to be the consensus here.
Or they could become rational, thoughtful, more self-aware and a shite ton less self-centered.
re: White Minnesotans
Posted by David_DJS on 1/15/26 at 11:57 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:
Corruption and Theft are not something that Minnesotans voted into power. Maybe have some sympathy.
They have voted Dem (or the DFL to be more accurate) for decades, so yes - they have absolutely voted for corruption and theft.
quote:
Everyone knows the real grab is the 170tril in middle class assests
Did you mean $17 trillion?
quote:
At what point will ICE be called off?
Somewhere between 12 and 15 million deported.
quote:
Why do you think they're choosing this event to vent their rage?
It's on their phones. If not this event, it'll be the next event, or a made up event - it really doesn't matter.
Unfrickingbelievable.
re: White House to end funding to sanctuary cities and states on Feb. 1
Posted by David_DJS on 1/14/26 at 2:15 pm to conservativewifeymom
Yay Trump! And when the fed judge issues an injunction to stop you, ignore it. frick these blue cities.
quote:
Why would I provide any details to a hostile message board poster? How would that benefit me or the discussion in any way?
It was suggested to you, because we don't want to know details of your life, to simply put it in the context of what wives are dealing with when their husbands opt out of important shite. Because we have no clue wtf you're talking about.
What sort of monumental life events/challenges do wives see their husbands opting out of these days so routinely that it supports your argument that men don't value women?
re: Principled Massie had nothing to say about the Clintons skipping their Epstein hearing?
Posted by David_DJS on 1/14/26 at 2:04 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:
frick that beta do-nothing grandstanding strongly worded tweet "principled" Liberaltarian RINO nerd. Probably finally got around to tweeting something 24 hours later because he knew what a TDS hypcrocrite he looked like if he didn't ultimately say something.
Are you okay?
And yes, I'm sure you're right - he tweeted about the Clintons because he knew you were waiting to see if he did.
quote:
Massie isn’t MAGA he’s a libertarian RINO.
In political terms, what's the difference between a RINO and MAGA? I don't think there's much of a difference.
quote:
I don’t understand how it’s hard for you all to acknowledge that. Massie also talks shite daily about Trump/JE
Why would I acknowledge something I not only don't know, but don't give a frick about?
quote:
Why don’t all die on a hill for a Kentucky congressman? Don’t get it.
Nobody is dying anywhere. Massie means a shite ton more to those with MDS than he does to me. For me, he's good on spending, opposing Israel's outsized influence on American politics, and privacy issues - but he's a single house member, so not that powerful.
re: Principled Massie had nothing to say about the Clintons skipping their Epstein hearing?
Posted by David_DJS on 1/14/26 at 1:27 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:
Of course he didn't. He's only guided by what most nerds in opposition to this administration are guided by... his TDS.
You should read the entire thread before posting. Your MDS does you no favors.
quote:
stout
I don't get the weird MDS shite from a faction of MAGA.
quote:
Photoshop’d
Original header here: LINK
There's nothing inside you that makes you feel like a shithead for being so dishonest?
That's a real question. I'm curious.
re: Macomb Co, MI - 239 Illegals Selected for Jury, Though Selected; Some Voting for Years
Posted by David_DJS on 1/13/26 at 4:44 pm to the808bass
quote:
This does not happen.
And if it does happen, it’s not a lot.
And if it's a lot, it's actually a good thing.
re: Numbers and total funding of IRS registered NGO’s in multiple states
Posted by David_DJS on 1/13/26 at 3:54 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
So, your view is that the money you choose to donate to a charity is "really" the government's money?
Interesting.
It's not all that interesting or even hard to understand.
I owe the state of Arizona $10K in state income taxes. I donate $2500 to an education-related NGO. Now I owe $7500 to the state of Arizona.
That's income tax dollars diverted to an NGO without going through gov't and makes your 70% figure meaningless. Not to mention what the poster just ahead of me stated - that a lot of NGOs are funded by other NGOs.
re: Numbers and total funding of IRS registered NGO’s in multiple states
Posted by David_DJS on 1/13/26 at 2:25 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
70% of NGOs do NOT receive government funding.
Is it 70%? Don't forget that many are funded by tax-favored donations and some are even dollar-for-dollar tax credits. The money may have not flowed through government but those are tax payer dollars.
re: Capping credit card rates is going to have unintended consequences
Posted by David_DJS on 1/13/26 at 12:55 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
I have never paid any interest on a credit card. This will result in less credit availability for riskier borrowers, but likely won’t affect me or people like me at all
Because credit card companies won't look to replace all that revenue/margin?
re: Capping credit card rates is going to have unintended consequences
Posted by David_DJS on 1/13/26 at 12:50 pm to DyeHardDylan
quote:
Capping them at 10% means less people will be approved for credit cards, as the companies will want to reduce the amount of risk they take on. Those who borrow will be less incentivized to pay their bills and more people will go into debt
I think the more likely consequences will be - credit card companies will figure out ways to exact dollars from users who pay pay their cards of monthly/never carry a balance. In other words, the responsible consumer will end up paying more for the use of their credit cards and the cost of irresponsibility will go down for those that currently provide the margin for credit card companies.
Popular
8
