Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Manhattan Minerals (MAN.T) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amit Ghate who wrote (2365)	6/19/1999 3:01:00 PM
From: Jeff Dickson	Respond to of 4504

Amit, I don't believe there were any assays for Silver in the oxide layer, but I'll look back and check. There are certainly numbers for 30m and deeper. -jeff

To: Amit Ghate who wrote (2365)	6/19/1999 7:05:00 PM
From: Jeff Dickson	Respond to of 4504

Amit, >Drill hole TG-1 intercept over interval 26.0 to 30.9 meters should >read true width 4.9 m at 150.7 g/t Ag, not 12.0 m true width TG-1 was not vertical (see further down in press release). Judging from the other two widths TG-1 was drilled at 30 degrees, so the true width is not 4.9 but 4.25m. The 12m intercept comes from the true width of the last two intervals combined, 13.9 meters. Cheers, -jeff

To: Amit Ghate who wrote (2365)	6/21/1999 1:07:00 AM
From: Claude Cormier	Respond to of 4504

<<1. Drill hole TG-1 intercept over interval 26.0 to 30.9 meters should read true width 4.9 m at 150.7 g/t Ag, not 12.0 m true width. This correction may slightly affect the average grade calculated for the deposit. >> Good observation Amit... But i think that the error does not affect the total width and garde of the hole... it is only a typo on the true width of the last section manhattan-min.com <<2. I don't understand how the average of TG-11 can be 628.9 g/t over 13.8 m, when 10.7 m of that interval show an average around 25 g/t. Are there nuggets in the samples? If so how will that affect continuity calculations? >> Good catch again... either the 628g/t is a typo or the section below and above the 5.6m has it a rich pocket in the 1300g/t Ag... which is a possibility. I'll try to find an answer. << How did these assays compare to the BRGM assays with respect to Ag values (which I believe are the only overlapping elements in the assays)? >> IMO, these are not overlapping elements. My understading is that the overlying oxidized cap was not assayed by BGRM... so the silver in there is new silver. Remember that in 1979-80, there was no such thing as heap leaching... companies where simply not looking for this stuff..they were after the sulfides. But again, I could be wrong... will check as well. In any case, the silver grades on the sulfide body are 38g/t ton.