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: Bruce Robbins who wrote (3958)	1/14/2000 6:27:00 PM
From: Sailfish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4504

Greetings to all.. Well, to say the least, I'm confused, maybe even fubar'd... ;-) Just did a quick look-through and of the latest 20 holes as reported drilled on the TG1 Sulphide Deposit, 14 of them, or 70%, had Cu intersects greater than 2%...That averages out to 2.74% Cu over 581.3 meters of >2% core...To put it another way, it's 14 holes, out of 20, with an average of 41.5 meters per hole containing an average of 2.74% Cu per hole... The 6 remaining holes all had various intersections of > 1% Cu....Or, 6 holes with an average of 25.4 meters per hole containing an average of 1.4% Cu... I appreciate the fact that by averaging these results, it detracts from any real resource model...However, wouldn't these results not mean a "significant" increase to the indicated? mineral resource of TG1...?? Not to be forgotten is the fact that all of this (which includes the oxide cap) will be mined by open pit... Hell, for how the market responded, they may well have just reported on Graham's necksize or the length of the duck's bill... :-) Can anyone speak to this...(sans le neck et le bill)...??? Thanks... Also, would someone provide a definition of "infill drilling"..?? Thanks...I'm from Missouri... :-) Regards....Ray