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 : Precious and Base Metal Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jpthoma1 who wrote (110)	10/11/2001 2:39:45 PM
From: geoffb_si	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39344

Hi, JP: 1) So where did this huge anomaly come from? That's a lot of material; I believe 5,000 tonnes of zinc was the conservative estimate. In the geology report, Mosher did a thorough analysis showing that it's unlikely the material in the anomaly was transported from elsewhere. 2) Not sure. I don't know much about basal clasts. 3) Yes, this is disappointing, but doesn't prove that the anomaly isn't below. Remember that San Nicolas has no exposure, but deep geophysics and deep drilling discovered that deposit. 4) I disagree--it isn't impossible as you state. Wind-blown loess (over many millenium) can transport the signature geochemical anamaly several to dozens of metres away from where it came from below. There were only a few spots where the material at deeper levels (below 20 cms) were tested. Your conclusion that it's impossible is based on very limited data. 5) Difficult to conclude anything from the fact that 3 companies sampled and didn't JV. Did you sit in on the negotiations? Perhaps PLY mgt realize what they have, and don't want to give it away for a song. Major companies want a major stake in these deposits. Also, it's my understanding that Pasminco expressed a desire to do a JV, but because of their implosion, they were unable to consummate a deal. My conclusion: The source of this anomaly is not coming from underneath. If you conclude it didn't come from underneath, you need to give us a plausible explanation for how this geochemical anomaly, which, by the way, aligns with geophysical fracture patterns, got to this location. Nobody has given a plausible explanation for transporting all this material several kilometres based on the data in the geology report. But since the only way to confirm (or invalidate) that conlusion is to use the «truth machine», so let's see what they will (or won't) find. Exactly. Geoff