RE: Nem 2$ billion loss in derivativeswhy wouldn't they just be charging their own bank with the loss as it was their bank that made the bad decission not the projects. Didn't the project just borrow the money from the bank. Whether it be a real bank or the ABX or NEM bank. The project should just owe the money they have borrowed to get the project operational plus the interest. How can anything else even be legal. i.e. if the project is owned and operated by a subsidiary of the the major and that subsidiary has both jr mining company and government ownership as lesser partners in the project would the major screw their subsiduary, the other junior and the government ownership to cover their derivative loss? May make it a bit tough to do business with juniors or governments in the future don't you think. Most governments don't take kindly to multi nationals screwing around with their resource projects. It could be one of those times when the majors just has to eat the loss and write it off as a corporate screw up. They have sure all known for 10 years now that gold was headed higher and they needed to close derivative books long before now. Hell, I don't even think we are half way there, are we?