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 : Golden Eagle Int. (MYNG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Douglas Lapp who wrote (21222)	2/16/2000 12:11:00 AM
From: ge-believer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 34075

Trial update: The SEC expert wasn't a good witness for them. He has a BS from a state university, 30 years or so of experience with the forestry service, in mining. Compare that to Dr. Hausen, who got his PhD from Columbia for writing the first paper describing the Carlin Trend. He also has 35 years of experience all over the world, on huge projects. Mr. Mullin hasn't been out of the country. Compare that also to Paravicini, who has a masters from Washington University, and has completed his course work for a PhD from Harvard, paid for by the US. All of the GE experts have qualifications too numerous to mention here. Guido was an excellent witness for us--very credible. He testified in detail about the unique nature of the deposit. He said that it wasn't adequate to describe it as either a placer or a hard-rock deposit. He suggested that it falls somewhere in the middle. Hausen and Atwood share this view. Much was said about the sample size and number. Guido made the point that neither was intended to be adequate in and of themselves. His study made use of the vast amount of mining data that is available in the literature concerning this deposit. He reviewed texts going back as far as 400 years from his personal library, including actual mining records. Everyone, including Mullin, agreed that the experience of the field engineer evaluating a placer was more important than the actual sample test results. This point was made in an important text on the subject, as well as in a manual that Mullin co-authored. Therefore, Guido's sampling program was designed to fill in the blanks in the available literature, as opposed to defining a deposit from scratch. I'm no geologist, but common sense tells me that actual mining records would be preferable to having nothing but thousands of sample results. Then, confirming the historical record with test data would seem to me to be the best of both. (FWIW, Ron told me that the available literature is so extensive that it even includes drill records for Digrdoug's old property.) A couple of items of interest: Guido mentioned that his reserve estimates were about the same as those of Dr. Trites, who was present in the court room. He also said that he stands by his reserve calculations. Yesterday, TT stated, "in our estimation, he was dead right". Something I had been unclear about was where the "reserves" were located. They were only established for the Chaco and Cangalli areas. For those who have expressed their concern over the absence of an opinion on the property from Dr. Hausen, I asked him about the size of the deposit. He didn't give me a number, but said it was a "monster". This was from the man who discovered the Carlin Trend. I said, "yes, but is it economically recoverable?" He said, "Heaven's yes."