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 : PLAYFAIR MINING - PLY . V -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: loantech who wrote (196)	7/18/2001 9:01:47 AM
From: Just G	Respond to of 505

loantech: We might as well post it here too. To me it is what we all expected and have spoken about. Briggs is being honest and upfront. G Dear Tom, Sorry for the delay, I have spoken to Neil and he is happy for me to make some general comments on their results. The anomalies that Playfair have are certainly some of the best we have seen, not only in terms of the amplitude but also the element association that is reporting along the lines. A number of independent companies have reviewed the data, resampled and have confirmed the anomalies. They are also convinced that it is not contamination. I must say that I have not been on site. I believe that there will be a buried source giving rise to the anomalies we are seeing and it may well be substantial based on my previous experience from the last 8-9 years researching and applying MMI geochemistry. HOWEVER, I must also make it clear that this does not mean that the source will necessary be easy to find in that we can give no input as to the depth of the source, it could be highly disseminated, and therefore uneconomic in mining terms, or it may be a number of deep, high grade discrete pods, also a difficult mining proposition. To put this in perspective, I believe Playfair has found an excellent target that ranks with some of the best I have seen, but that does not mean it has discovered a mine just yet. To try and answer your specific questions: When your mmi technology has located an anomoly in the past in any given general geographic mineable area can you tell me the percent of times that subsequent drilling has proven up resources similar to your mmi findings that are economically mineable? There are two aspects here, the generally accepted success rate that is discussed by independant consultants that use MMI is that it generally has around a 90% hit rate when specific anomalies are drilled. The technology has found around 5 gold resources that have or are being mined. It has discovered 3 new base metal resources that at various feasibility stages. I would point out that there is no guarantee that they will become mines. You mention a few other mines on your website that your technology has been used. Did these mines drill for further confirmation of what your mmi was telling them and did their results match earlier estimations? MMI has been used around mining centres to expand resources but also to make new discoveries. Certainly drilling was used to test the anomalies, and then define the reserves for subsequent mining. I hope this is some benefit to you in assessing the Playfair prospect. There is no question in my mind that it must be drilled and I would certainly expect that there will be a source at depth, I cant say if it will be economic because that is dependant on so many other factors, depth, metallurgy, commodity prices, grades, infrastructure, govt policy and the list goes on. Best regards, Russ Birrell

To: loantech who wrote (196)	7/18/2001 11:22:15 AM
From: Brumell	Respond to of 505

You made a remarkable post, loantech. Remarkable digging on your part... and remarkable that MMI was willing to reply. FWIW, I believe MMI's reply makes good sense. He claims a 90 percent success rate when drilling anomalies... meaning 90 percent that bedrock mineralization created the anomaly. The next question then becomes "will this mineralization be mineable." Again their comments make sense as only drilling can determine that. However, with the known geology of area, other producing mines, strength of anomaly, strike of anomaly, etc, possibilities look very good. Great stuff, loantech. Thanks for posting. Bob

To: loantech who wrote (196)	7/18/2001 12:50:25 PM
From: jpthoma1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 505

Nice post. As he confirms, we have an anomaly. A real one. Nothing less than that. And this was confirmed too by an independant geologist. We will be able to read that report soon, I think. As he says, this anomaly may be caused by a real and economical deposit (this is what we all hope for, don't we!) or be one of those numerous uneconomical anomalies discovered all over the world. But, it's a large one, better than average. So, chances to hit sonething are good. So, what do we do? Well, the «truth machine» I presume!!! I just hope that they know where to locate the first hole! JP