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: Walter who wrote (28014)	8/2/1998 12:29:00 PM
From: Dennis Martin	of 28369

In this article, I share Walsh's confusion. The role of Normet has bothered me throughout. I do not understand why no one has focused on Normet and their role in all of this. With all the cr@p of who knew what and who is guilty of what, I think the answer to everything lies clearly in the hands of this Company. Picture how this whole thing would have progressed if they had made a correct interpretation of the gold. Imagine how many people depended on this "independant" technical evaluation (including me). Although I have to be careful due to the new police state that we are in (keep it up marcos and Porter Davis), I can not see any excuses for them. They examined the samples and found rounded particles that have been clearly defined by others as from an alluvial source. Did they not know the basics of what they were doing??? Were they not interviewed, after the sh!t hit the fan, where they reaffirmed their support for Bre-x?? I think there are volumes between the above lines! Also, if Walsh is correct, I rescind my previous support for SNC. If they were in fact contracted to do a feasibility of the PROPERTY then I am it changes my understanding. My previous understanding was that they only took lab results and field notes and quantified the resource (this is common). If it was my choice, I would not send someone to the property if my contract was so limited because of the increased liability. I would clearly define the terms or demand an increased role on the site to protect my interests. At this point I can only assume that these terms were actually defined. I would be interested to find out why exactly they had someone on the property and what the terms were. I raise the above as food for thought. I enjoy seeing this all unfold like a soap opera/detective novel mixed together. Take care,

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next