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 : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI)

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JACK R. SMITH JR. who wrote (6294)6/22/1998 12:52:00 PM
From: Ed Fishbaine  Read Replies (2) of 14226
 
Jack

Doing a bit of research I1m finding something interesting about Thall.

His recent post about Twiford was preceded by a post on May 11 which, as part of an attack on GPGI, stated that he can find no reference to platinum ever produced at the OroGrande.

I quote from his post of May 11:

> I have also been searching the USGS annual reports about the Oro Grande back in the early part of the century and can find no reference to platinum.<

The letter he recently posted from the SEC re Twiford with the addresse crossed out was addressed to Nyal J. Niemuth, Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources.

This letter was in the Global file at the SEC and this file also includes a report from INCO Ltd, Ontario Division, written by R. Tenbergen and T. Price. They visited the Oro Grande and Weaver Creek duiring the week of August 19, 1990. Their findings were incorporated into the massive INCO report written by Peter Fischer.

I quote from their summary:

> Historical workings on the property were not consistent with the recovery of PGMs. However, historical information from the early 1900s indicates that PGMs were present in the gold mining operation and that the U.S. mint docked the bullion shipment by up to 20 percent due to silver and platinum content.

Geological and geochemical features indicate potential for PGMs on the Oro Grande property. The mapping and historical documentation indicate that potential may exist at depth and may extend well beyond the mapped area of the ORO Grande property. Review of previous assays and limited new assaying confirms Global1s contention that the deposit is unusual. The sampling and assaying techniques used for past assay results can not be considered reliable for quantification purposes.
At minimum a tie in between the mineralology, the sampliong and the assaying will be required to determine exact composition and recovery potential for any values.

The Weaver Creek property is a placer deposit and as such may contain mineralization similar to the Oro Grande property.<

The question is:What does it mean that Thall reports only the negative on GPGI and in the same file there are the positive Inco findings quoted above. The anseer IMO is that 1) he did not see the file, but was provided the Twiford letter by Niemuth (by the way why hide his name?).
2) he saw the file and elected to post only the negative .

We know that Niemuth and the AZ Bureau of Mines insist that there is no platinum in Arizona. Should Global succeed in producing platinum what happens to their jobs? They will look like reactionary idiots and be canned.

In either case Thall seems to have an agenda of his own. He is either the tool of Niemuth or for some reason he wants to hurt GPGI. Is he the tool of some other group or individual?

So there are forces out there who want Global to fail. I suspect that aside from Niemuth and Thall there are others with an agenda. Fortunately Global will not be stopped by them. No matter how far the shares may fall in price enough money will be found to keep going although dilution will be required. They are too close to success to stop now or be stopped. That the anti-GPGI forces need to besmirch Twiford in an attempt to discredit the company is an indication of how desperate they are.

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