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 (21449)	2/20/2000 11:17:00 PM
From: Claude Cormier	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34075

<< i have thouroughly checked into the "worldwide mining Industry" standards for reserves. There are no spacing requirements. >> I didn't say that these spacing requirements were written standards. What I meant is that, in general, these are what the industry is using. Of course, nobody can say that 25 meters or 50 meters should be the rule. In fact, it is much more than that in the vertical direction where samples are taken every meter. But all deposits have their specifics sometimes 50 meters will be enough, when grades are constant and continuity is excellent, to declare that the resources is proven/indicated. I gave those numbers as a guideline based on years of readings of exploration programs. What can I say, miners do drill to 25-meters/50-meters spacing to establish proven/probable reserves or measured/indicated resources. One of the most important concept in classifying resources and reserves is data density. In simple words, the quantity of samples and their location within a given volume of potential ore is critical in determining the appropriate classification. In short, when continuity and distribution of the minerals in a deposit is excellent, you need less samples. When the distribution is erratic you need more. As an example, one of the best deposit I have looked at in recent years is the Alamo Dorado silver deposit in Mexico. They are up to 100 millions ounces of silver (equivalent to 1.8M ounces of gold) in the measured category. They collected roughly 12000 samples over an area measuring 400 meters in lenght, 200 meters in width and 200 meters to depth. I'll let you figure out how many samples are needed to classify a large area into 6M ounces gold of proven, 157 millions ounces gold of indicated and 76 millions ounces of inferred. As BD said, the distribution and grades at Cangalli are erratic. I know you will say that alluvials and placer deposits are different. and you cannot drill them. Well Cangalli appears to be a mixed of alluvials/placer/conglomerates. Well I have read about conglomerates being drilled and alluvials being bulk sampled. But in all these case, they never achieved the "proven reserve" status. Especially in the case of alluvials, these large deposits are never drilled and there are never sampled enough to establisth proven or probable reserves. At best they estimate possible/inferred resources. There may well be hundred millions ounces at Cangalli. I never argued with this. What I am saying is that I think it is not possible to say that there are 6 millions ounces of gold proven and 157 millions ounces of gold indicated with the limited amount of exploration work done so far. As MYNG said "They will have to mine the deposit to find how much metals are in there". And that is the major risk for investors. Nobody knows. No matter what estimates you can reach, you don't know. You can certainly start mining some zones that appears to be ritch, but as long as you bypass the sampling process and the data density rule, you navigate in troubled waters. That is my opinion and I can understand that you may have a different one. Time will tell who is right. You can read a lot about resource classification in the following documents: 1) From the Canadian Institute of Mining, a new proposal: cim.org 2)This one by the Society of Mining Engineers in the USA is very recent. Also excellent. smenet.org 3) From USGS 1996 Mineral Commodity Surveys; but is not as completed as the first two references: minerals.usgs.gov