To: SwampDogg who wrote (1566 ) 1/18/2000 9:15:00 AM From: the Chief Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1996
There is gold on a lot of properties and you know very well that a tonne of drilling has to be done to verify that it is that kind of system. A model is totally useless So how would you prefer people to refer to the potential of this property? Have you a set of rules that we should follow? Maybe if I included that the property is a "mountain with a rope around it" more often, would that meet your approval? In the game of "speculation" and the continued reference to an "elephant" of an anomaly by the company it is normal to "speculate" the size of the discovery based on other anomalies of lesser or equal size. You state a "model is totally useless". Have you read Sillitoes book? I can assure you Sillitoe does not think that a model is useless, it is the basis of determining "odds" of success. The higher the model applicability to a stringent set of model rules,...the higher probability of success. This deposit conforms to more "model" rules than Cerra Casale did, so the obvious conclusion is to compare to Cerra Casale isnt it? The property is located on a fault that has turned out 2 copper mines, one that competes in the elephant category. The property is garnishing interest from all of the major mining companies in the World, latest count puts 13-14 confidentiality agreements have been signed. The property has an anomaly that is at surgface or close to surface, so "little to no" overburden. The anomaly has extruding from the centre, fissures/veins that runt othe surface, that are represented by huge outcrops that either are leaching copper (Egor Intrusion) or contain gold. In the end I think we have the right to speculate, when a drill turns and the core is analyzed then we can see if the speculation was correct or not. the Chief