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 : Gold and Silver Mining Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (1024)	5/18/2001 11:05:30 AM
From: geoffb_si	Respond to of 4051

Hi, Elizabeth: > This wouldn't be the first time "new" geochem anomalies > were ultimately explained by past mining activities. No doubt, this is true. But, I'm not sure the geochemical dispersion patterns at the E1-North/South are easily explained by contamination. > I also believe generally that geochem anomalies are weak > targets and more work like geophysics and trenching are > usually recommended before they haul the drill out. I believe the geochemical anomalies match up with geophysical anomolies (from their website): This project was acquired for two reasons. First, the property covered numerous, never before explored airborne magnetic targets within areas of alluvial cover. The magnetic targets were interpreted as possible, intrusive stocks associated with carbonate replacement mineralization. Second, the recent development of MMI, a new partial extraction geochemical technique believed to be capable of identifying mineralization in overburden covered areas provided a cost effective means of evaluating these targets. It would seem they still need to do ground geophysics before drilling targets, but initial airborne geophysics and geochemical samples seem to indicate a good target (or two). Geoff