Cross Lake Minerals CRN 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 : Cross Lake Minerals CRN

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Surething who wrote (1387)	1/28/1998 10:19:00 AM
From: the Chief	Read Replies (1) of 3650

No I read your post correctly Surething. I am not sure if I agree with your statement on "prudence" .It is prudent to define a mineralization zone that you have "advertized" as being a "massive sulphide zone" first,if you want people to believe you! Then use step-out drilling to support the size of your discovery. If this zone was "contiguous" I would agree with your statement on prudence. This is not the case here, we are dealing with a second anomaly, therefore a second zone. So we are not "stepping out" to determine "strike length". As far as I am concerned this supports my theory that the first zone is not going to cut it. To support the stock in the inevitable uncertainty that zone 1 will provide, the best thing to do is drill another anomaly and hope to get another "massive sulphide hole". *Note* I agree whole-heartedly with your answer Ed, good luck the Chief

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next