BRE-X, Indonesia, Ashanti Goldfields, Strong Companies. Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : BRE-X, Indonesia, Ashanti Goldfields, Strong Companies.

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Jeffry K. Smith who wrote (15347)	4/19/1997 5:31:00 PM
From: Dennis Martin	of 28369

To determine if the gold is likely there, we have to focus on only two questions and determine if either is likely. All other information is superfluous and just serves to create confusion IMO. 1)Could Freeport make a mistake? 2)Could the core have been switched and why? If we can't say yes to one of these questions then we have to conclude that the gold quantity has been misrepresented and may be negligible. I suggest that the horsepower of the group organize and focus on attempting to answer these questions instead of attacking the problem in pieces. The analyst, Levesque Beaubien Geoffrion, speculates on these two questions, bre-x.com This theory hypothesizes that somebody or some organization wanted to devastate BXM. How? By managing to get at the Freeport samples and replace them with others with little gold. We still don't know enough about the way FCX sampled the recent cores. For example, did they sieve samples and analyze a minus 75 microne fractions which is what BXM did? Did FCX analyze the +75 microns fractions? It is noted that the gold was coarse and this could cause huge variations in assay values depending on the screening method. It is also noted that assays can be very variable even from the same sample. Question 1) Could Freeport make a mistake? To answer a question posed by Jeffry K. Smith re: Freeport holdings, -------- info-mine.com In the past, the bulk of Indonesias production has come from Freeport McMoRans Ertsberg and Grasberg mines located in Irian Jaya. Grasberg is the single largest gold resource in the world. Together, Ertsberg and Grasberg have proven and probable reserves of 1.13 billion t grading 1.3% Cu, and 1.42 g/t gold for a staggering 51+ million ounces of gold. The discovery of Grasberg during the late 1980s set a new standard in the definition of gigantic gold deposits. Production from sources other than Irian Jaya, has increased sharply during the first half of this decade. Yearly production from CRA Ltd.s Kelian and Ashton Minings Mount Muro mines on Kalimantan exceeds 480,000 ounces/year, with another 125,000-160,000 ounces/year expected in 1996 from Newmont Gold Corporations recommissioned Minhassa mine. ------- We know CRA Ltd.(an Australian Co.) had problems with sample analyes from a similar deposit (Kelian). Bre-x admitted to having these same problems. They adopted the cyanide leach technique. Are there variables within this technique that could have been missed by Freeport ie. screening as the analyst suggests. The variability in Fire Assays of +- 100% is confusing. This reliability is extremely odd to me and suggests a deposit unlike any others I know about(I don't know much). With samples from a deposit known to be complex, could it be possible that certain variables in the cyanide leach could have the same variability? Why does Freeport or Bre-x give details not give details of the drilling and anayses methodology; this alone is suspect and it bothers me that some have suggested "preliminary". You have to know what you are doing before you do it! Could it be their way of keeping some cards to explain away the problems if they were in error? Can anyone add to this? Question 2) Could the samples have been switched? The first point to mention that in this case the motives have to fit the scenario that the gold would eventually be confirmed. This means that the motives would be based on short term impact or gain for the people involved with the switch. Who would benefit? Almost everyone would benefit from a lower Bre-x stock (shorting) and knowing that it would rise again. Even Bre-x would see a huge benefit (refer to my previous posts). They are awfully quick to release highly negative information. Its common sense that if you take Freeports assays reading no gold that the "reserve estimates may be overstated", why the hell would Bre-x make a special announcement that initially was construed as being said by them. As far as I am concerned the damage would have been less without this added shock to the markets. This was not clarified until later after the damage was done. Freeport switching the samples or submitting false ones? I have a hard time believing that only because of the legal implications. If they had an excuse up front(assaying problems) maybe thay would do it. Barrick/Placer ? As likely as anyone I guess. Can anyone add to this?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next