Rock Resources 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 : Rock Resources

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Mike Gold who wrote (957)	3/16/1999 10:48:00 AM
From: the Chief	Read Replies (1) of 1996

I suppose if one wished to be totally conservative a reduction to .63% may be warranted.....however, Los Pelambres and El Pachon are copper porphries and not copper-gold porphries/ gold-copper porphries. This insinuates higher internal temperatures when the geology was formed. The prescence of carbons supports that theory. Therefore a 1% Cu is an acceptable guess (on my part). I have literally discounted the presence of "any" gold in my assumptions...so any "finds" will "up the deposit value" raising average cash cost values per tonne to an equivalent 1% or higher. What do you think the IP anomoly is indicating? Is it showing the whole porphyry or just the minerlized breccia zone? If the rumor is true,and the anomoly is close to the surface-suggests the breccia zone. Would mean the underlying porphyry could be considerbly larger than your stated dimensions at depth. I am guessing the size as stated earlier...I have no "insider info", so can't speculate a guess on a guess...if you know what I mean! the Chief

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next