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 : Paramount Ventures & Finance -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 1st.mate who wrote (3137)	8/31/1999 1:01:00 PM
From: Don Richards	Respond to of 4884

Maybe we're going to be different 'cause we're better!:-)..After all,the one outfit had to have a beaver dam bust to show them the dyke (where apparantly the prospectors diamonds came from),that they couldn't locate by drilling!!Then when they sampled the dike,they couldn't find any diamonds in it!!I certainly hope we can do better than that!!Besides,we got the right people for the job!!

To: 1st.mate who wrote (3137)	8/31/1999 1:28:00 PM
From: Lazarus Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4884

matey, I think one of the differences that was brought up at the AGM is that in 5 (?) different areas CNB had all 4 indicator groups or as Rory Moore described it, a full suite. My understanding is that you can have diamonds in areas where you only have 1 or 2 of these groups but when you look at some of the best pipes in the world, as we did at the meeting, and you quickly begin to understand that a full suite of indicators and the density is very important to a first class discovery. They compared our results to the richest, producing mines in the world and also the Aber pipes which one at least has a very good reputation. In almost every case our results were better then and in a few cases, as good as. In BC we have a local program that is quite interesting by the name of "Gold Trails and Ghost Towns". They tell many of the old stories of BC and the Yukon gold rushes and it is amazing the number of claims that were worked for years with marginal results and then the right people came in and made major discovery's. The difference in Ontario I think is that rock is not always just rock and while the big picture is similar from area to area, the details always vary. We have, through CNB, over 3 1/2 years work done on our claims that formed the basis of the Kennecott decision. If the CNB results were of the same caliber as seen by Spider Resources etc., my gut tells me that we would not have the JV that we do with Kennecott. Since Kennecott signed the deal, they have completed a (this is my best guess) a four month work program and hopefully by the end of September we will have an update on that project. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Kennecott is going to far exceed their "$1,500,000 commitment by the end of 2000". We will know soon enough. Lazarus