SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : AVL.V - AVALON VENTURES
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Pete Mimmack who wrote (1285)8/9/1999 10:21:00 PM
From: Marcia Mazurski  Read Replies (1) of 1474
 
Pete,
You correctly deduced that the two holes referred to by Emerald Fields (S-98-48,49) are on the far western side of the property and tested a separate target located over 1 mile northwest of the Big Whopper. You also correctly deduced that there is no dispute here.

To set the record straight, here are the facts:

Holes S-98-48 and -49 were drilled from south to north to test a petalite showing and second pegmatite target defined by a magnetic low, near the common boundary with the Emerald Fields property. Hole locations and significant assays are disclosed in the news release of April 7, 1998 which can be viewed on the Avalon website.THESE HOLES ARE SITUATED NOWHERE NEAR, AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIG WHOPPER PETALITE DEPOSIT. They were collared on Avalon claims according to the best available information at the time. Emerald Fields say that their legal boundary survey shows the claim boundary lies several 10's of metres further south than originally assumed from the claim maps (although this has yet to be verified by Avalon).

If this is correct, then it is true that these two holes may have crossed the claim boundary. Big deal! Neither hole has any significant mineralization, the widths of 0.20m and 1.0m being far too narrow to be of economic consequence.

The bottom line here is that since the two holes are essentially barren of economically-significant mineralization, it really doesn't matter where they are located with respect to the claim boundary. It speaks volumes about Emerald Fields' priorities that such a trivial issue merits headline status on their new website.

Regards,
Don
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News