Very diversified, jiminy, but according to SLW itself, Pascua Lama will account for 25% of production in 2016, as much as the next two mines - Penasquito and San Dimas - combined. Personally, however, I think Pascua Lama's issues are largely discounted to the sp already, and since the LOM is estimated at over 25 years, another year or two delay would not in my mind be a big setback. Don't forget also that any shortfall greater than 25% is also guaranteed from 3 other Barrick mines, so obviously SLW anticipated potential delays.
Regardless, SLW isn't sitting on its assets. The new deal with Hudbay alone will bring in 14% of production this year and an estimated 8% in 2016. I think we can expect similar deals going forward, which will gradually diminish the impact of Pascua Lama in either direction.
As evidenced by the example of my largest PM holding, Sandstorm Gold - which is up sharply after uplisting to the NYSE - I think SLW will be the default choice for institutional investment once they start moving into silver in a big way. I could be wrong, but as long as Pascua Lama doesn't turn out to be the proverbial "hole in the ground with a liar standing next to it" - as some posters here apparently think it is - I don't think its problems or delays will be a major disincentive for them investing in SLW. And it hasn't been for me.