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 : MARUM RESOURCES ON ALBERTA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jesse who wrote (2103)	10/6/1999 7:37:00 PM
From: Naibob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2514

Someone please explain the significance of the statement in the preceding post referring to samples "within a defined stratigraphic unit along a 33km expansion fault". I am not an experienced person when it comes to reading geological data. My first impression was "not bad" assuming that samples would be taken over a defined area to yield meaningful results for the defined area as a whole. However when reading the above I question whether this is what in fact this release says. Is the area from which samples are drawn along the full length of the 33km fault or is it for sake of comparison ,say a very small area along (side) the fault which measures 33 km? A sample taken from within a defined area could be from one location (pile)couldn't it? Or are the samples gathered across the 33 km sample area? The latter is what I hope is the case, but is it???? Long on Marum Hopefully we are on our way. Naibob

To: Jesse who wrote (2103)	10/6/1999 7:43:00 PM
From: Leigh McBain	Respond to of 2514

Jesse, good to see the results coming out, also good to see that average creeping up. 2 more samples hitting above the .8 g/t that is the apparent economic benchmark. With the kind of tonnage that would be being looked at here even low grade assays have the potential to produce massive amounts of gold. Let's keep the 1.00 plus grades coming and then get some drilling done and see what happens. This is looking very interesting. Obviously more of the 46.67 stuff wouldn't hurt anyone's feelings either. Salut, Leigh McBain

To: Jesse who wrote (2103)	10/6/1999 7:58:00 PM
From: Leigh McBain	Respond to of 2514

One other quick note. I am NOT hyping, but we need to keep in mind that the base metals potential, did not in any way negate the possibility of diamonds and this precious metals discovery does not negate in any way the potential of either the base metals play or the diamond play. We now are looking at potential for all 3, we have not been switching teams. This seems to me to be the ultimate in "adding value to the company", take one project and just keep finding more on it. Salut, Leigh McBain