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: Brumell who wrote (1032)	5/18/2001 3:36:38 PM
From: jpthoma1	Respond to of 4051

Geochem anomalies are sometimes very difficult to explain. I am working on a large one right now. I have lost a couple of hair trying to understand how it happens to be there and I haven't yet found the source! And there is no railway nor truck road around it!!!! ;o)) JP

To: Brumell who wrote (1032)	5/20/2001 11:48:34 AM
From: Brumell	Respond to of 4051

I'm starting to think PLY issuing the map was not such a good idea. We appear to be wandering further and further from realities. Remember!! The highest in-soil readings are found within a narrow band 100 metres or so wide running down the western edge of both anomalies. Check graphs shown in past several NRs. This is true for both E1 North and South anomalies. If anomalies are caused by cultural (human) contamination, railroads are the obvious culprit. However, areas of highest readings are furthest from railroads and located 2 kms or more from railroad. Levels drop or disappear nearer railroads. Charcas is located approx. 14 kms (about 8 miles) to the northwest across flat land. There's no logical reason to think Charcas could cause a narrow band of high metal readings in PLY's anomalies unless by intentional dumping. Such dumping would have required 1000's loads dropped on both sides of a deep arroyo as much as 25 kms from the mine.