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 : Caussa Capital (formerly Antares) T.CAU

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: peter matson who wrote (1598)11/30/1997 10:39:00 AM
From: Donald F. DeKold  Read Replies (2) of 4718
 
Peter, I fully acknowledge that the 12,00,000 ounce figure was touted from a number of sources that were not official. However, I have come to believe this figure is what appeared in a report, which was co-authored by Barrick and Coleville, which would have been part of a joint news release had Barrick and Coleville been able to come to terms.

When Coleville returned from Indonesia last Fall, it was Barricks's refusal to endorse the report which left Coleville hanging on the vine. This is conjecture on my part, but Barrick knew they could have the whole property, because Coleville couldn't make their January payment on the Ojolali. At that time also Barrick was casting at eye at Bre-X. That's when Antares entered the picture and salvaged Coleville's hold on the Ojolali.

Sure, my estimates are very high, but you must admit very little of the Ojolali has been studied. The 29,700 has very little data, but promising aeromags and remote imaging. Who knows...it could be even better than the Ojolali.

And don't forget about the Northern B. C. property. I've heard it is comparable to the Ojolali.

When we say "X" ounces of metal is "proven," is that not simply a resource calculation based on sampling? What's the difference?

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