Claude, I had overlooked your question.
<It does depends on the type of placer. Sure difficult in alluvials from river beds. But why would it be in conglomerates. These can be drilled to collect (mini-bulk) samples and that can be processed instead of assayed. Much more expensive I am sure, but difficult I don't think so. Why should it be? >
Here's what I remember. GE actually had a drill and maybe drilled one or two holes. GE's Technical Advisory Board decided that was not the best approach. They recommended bulk mining, instead. Remember, we were operating on a shoestring, we had lots of gold bearing dirt, but little money. Trial testimony (if I recall right) talked about the steep slopes, some 75 degrees or more. Drilling was also thought to be a poor choice. All the experts we had or now have seem to agree that bulk mining is preferred over drilling.
Claude, I am going to believe in our experts. They have been there, they know the Tipuani valley like the back of their hand. If I recall in the Freydanck report, others before GE had tried drilling. GE knows about these other companies' activities. I just have to believe that our GE experts are using sound judgment, and I am sure they know the huge attractiveness of proving up reserves. Some of those posters on this thread who have been to the valley can comment better than I about drilling difficulties, and maybe projected cost.
Recall that Behre Dolbear said their sampling program was not representative, due to the vastness of the property (they talked about 40 sq km! We now have 300 sq km (74,000 acres) and I would guess at least 40% is in conglomerate). Also, not representative sampling due to depth of conglomerate (500- 2500 m) and limited access to various sites, due to steep hills and valleys, many with +75 degree slopes. BD's reasons why it would be difficult to get representative samples would need to be multiplied many fold to describe reasons why it would be difficult, and maybe impossible, to get representative drilling results.
The cost, I would guess, would be multiple million of dollars to drill holes on steep slopes to get enough drill results at accepted spacing to claim proven reserves. I think we could take the money and build one or two of our monster 11,000 tpd plants and produce 40,000 to 100,000+ ozs per year from each plant. Seems more practical use of money, to me. If we did go the route of proving resources and reserves, on say 30,000 acres, who is the world would have enough money to buy us out? LOL. 30,000 acres, 1000 feet high for caving, 0.45 gpt, just $25 in ground value, would be over $25B value. For 400M fully diluted shares, that's over $60 a share. Notice, no pay streaks are counted on, just 30K acres is used, and only 1000 feet, and a piddling $25 in ground value used (wouldn't $100 still be conservative?). We would have another 1000 feet, on average, to dig out later, after block caving. It seems clear to me that to prove up these amounts of reserves, vast values that would be projected, would take vast amounts of money to do.
Claude, you need to look at the picture of those mountains on the GE unofficial site. Also, don't miss the video clips on the unofficial site, if Doug Lapp is successful in getting them put there in the near future. I, for one, can see that drilling would be very difficult.
gerald |
