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: Claude Cormier who wrote (21426)	2/19/2000 2:32:00 PM
From: Jim Bishop	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34075

Balanced and informative, as usual...thanks Claude. LOL I think now that those SEC people are done with Terry, they should maybe check out these dudes. biz.yahoo.com

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (21426)	2/19/2000 6:00:00 PM
From: Douglas Lapp	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 34075

I can understand your problem with sampling and i am not qualified to argue those points, i can only rebutt by quoting what other well educated and experienced mining men have said. Dr. Atwood says the only way to prove reserves is to actually produce, any calculation is JUST an estimate. The SEC expert witness "admitted that there was no uniform definition of "resources" or "reserves" even among U.S. government agencies." So i must ask you to lead me to these "U.S. Mining standards," is there a website? Are sampling methods and frequency written in laymans terms? Do they cover deposits that cannot be drill sampled? Regards, Doug

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (21426)	2/20/2000 11:45:00 PM
From: Douglas Lapp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34075

Claude, i am searching with utmost DD to find these spacing requirements. Australia has a code for resources,i find nothing inconsistent with the U.S. ausimm.com.au Gp to the code section it is a PDF file so you must have Adobe Acrobat to read. You have said: <In other words the announcement of 6M ounces proven, 157M indicated and 78M inferred not only premature but also unfounded. No wonder why the judge asked the company to retract themselves or remove the PR foirm their website.> This is a false assumption on your part, that is not at all why she said that,she said "This is not a scam" and her decision validated Mr. Paravicinis findings. The Internet removal was a knee jerk reaction to the defenses reasons for initiating the release. Simply put, she had to make the SEC win something! Further, The BD report did nothing to disprove Mr. Paravicinis work and the entire report is extremely large, 3 Bankers boxes full. A very small synopsis was publicized. <<We have spent 10 million dollars to explore>> <Where do you see that... The last financials showed a much smaller cumulative number.> Do they? Under oath in our courts, Terry Turner said the 10 million dollars was used in the exploration and preparation of the property. Now let us split hairs.