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 (21463)	2/21/2000 12:17:00 AM
From: Claude Cormier	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34075

<<<Where do you see that... The last financials showed a much smaller cumulative number.> < Do they? > Well if I remember well from the filing I read in early 99, the company had spent the following from Inception (21 July 1988) up to September 30th 1998: General & Admin: $5.8 millions Exploration: $840,000 Depreciation: $152,000 That is not much on exploration to produce those resources/reserves numbers. Usually it is the other way around... more money on exploration and less on admin and GE.

To: Douglas Lapp who wrote (21463)	2/21/2000 12:34:00 AM
From: Jon Matz	Respond to of 34075

Didn't Guido's report state that the gold was evenly dispersed throughout the cangalli? It was either his report or from the video the Cima Funders received. Seems that they had hoped to find rich pockets on the floor of the paleo channel. But instead found the remarkable fact that the whole of the tested area was equally (economically recoverable grade) rich in gold, ie: all samples, top to bottom. If this is true, then much of Claudes premise is unwarranted. Certainly they would have to do more testing if say, numerous and sporadically the samples showed no economically recoverable gold. But all of them being economic? Perhaps none of this is in print, if so, forgive me. Historically challenged, Jon