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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Winter in the Great White North -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: russet who wrote (3175)	10/1/2002 1:30:34 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8273

I don't know what Merk is talking about. I think our estimate of 1 billion mineable ounces is perfectly reasonable. You have to stand about 100 feet from the chart, tilt left at 35 degrees and watch the laser pointer with one eye closed. Then you will see that it is undeniable. Actually in the case of the fellow I mentioned with the million ounces, his standards of reserve estimation, (Most is resource and potential in this ounceage), is tighter than any US mine. They only talk about drill holes with certain spacings with tunnels above and below the ore, AND mining history in contiguous ore. Resource is simply the same with wider spacings. I think resource is 100 foot spacings. Potential has fewer drill holes but some workings. All our ore estimations are based on mining, in three areas, reports on drilling, and small amounts of channel sampling. This is in the potential inferred category. There is some ore in the resource - inferred or drill indicated. The tailings pond grades are in the potential category due to estimates of losses at heads and some sampling. Feasibility on the tails would require about 50 holes of hand drill percussion/core with assays and recovery testing. Contrary to what Merk says, there is probably more hidden ore, not mined in many deposits, i.e. left behind than many believe. I would doubt some geostats on drilling and areas not mined too, but some hard straight arithmetic stats based on drill holes forgotten of past mines, indicates million and millions of ounces not accounted in national reserves. I know of one mine alone where 13 million or more ounces of gold of about 0.20 ounce grade per ton exists but it is unkown to many. The engineer (mine superintendant) who drilled it told me in 1977. I know of 4 others situations where paralell situations of drilled ore, or inferred ore exist in old mines. Drilled ounces but abandoned. In the millions of ounces. As well many tailings ponds are probably profitble, but failed operations seem to deny this. It is a matter of engineering know-how. And capital. EC<:-}

To: russet who wrote (3175)	10/1/2002 8:44:50 AM
From: IngotWeTrust	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8273

EXCELLENT PAPER, Russett. My compliments for this contribution. Actually made me laugh outloud, reading it...especially the part where Stillwater, which had been making assumptions of uninterrupted mineralization up to 1,900 feet beyond each drill core sample, agreed to limit all assumptions to 1,000 feet. Now, with Corner Bay in Mind and their precious few 74 drill holes...most not even being core drill samples but RCs...well, one has to [geostatistically] ask just what uninterrupted mineralization distances---1900? 2900? 3900? hell...let's make it an even 5280 shall we???---- beyond those paltry 74 holes PAAS is trying to peer through before the November drop dead date and BAY.TO goes teeters up.?.?.?.? The other thigh slapper is that this whole topic of manipulated reserves and resource estimates is exACTLY where Geo in Denver and Enigma and I came to the parting of the ways in the first place. They have always claimed "THEIR" geostats didn't stink...and I said they did. Especially Enigma's sacred Barrick. One last thigh slapper: Woolly CB's stats "claim to fame" should have him all over this Merks' quote: Mr. Merks says the problem is with geostatistics, *a computer-driven variant of applied statistics developed in the 1960s* to calculate the size of mineral finds. He says it has turned out to be flawed science, but the industry has maintained it as the standard nonetheless because it is in their interest to have the most aggressive resource estimate possible. Oh, well....nothing like a little "lite" reading to kick off the day. Again...grrrreat little find there. Thanks for the posting effort. one of YOUR grateful fans LOL

To: russet who wrote (3175)	10/1/2002 11:19:24 AM
From: gg cox	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8273

Spud, it's nice to know we own a company that's a beacon of honesty in a sea of flim flam and we have a merit badge to prove it here <<gggggg>> biz.yahoo.com or do "we" still own it??..long term investing, from a lot of what I have read here on SI, is for suckers...hhhmmm I wonder why those penny's don't move like they used to... is everyone else supposed to hold while we get the 10 cent profit???(don't tell anyone, i'm only looking for 5 cents)<<<gggg>>>

To: russet who wrote (3175)	10/1/2002 2:37:02 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8273

So 'krieging' is a sub-category of 'statistical geo-engineering', one of its styles/methods? ... such is my impression ... i've always made a special point of not getting too deep into this geo stuff, to take it with a grain of salt so to speak, because the essential fundamentals to share speculation, after the chart's read on stage-of-spec-cycle, are People Property and Phinancing, in roughly that order, and if you have the first, People, you'll get the other two soon enough, and if you don't, they obviously weren't in fact good People, quod erat demonstrandum There has to be an element of guesswork to estimating a deposit, it is assumed that there exists a fudge factor, it should be assumed by the speculator in any case, at least when he is buying ... the only way you'll ever know for sure what's in a deposit is to mine the sucker, and even then you'll have no idea what lies six inches away from where you ended your digging ..... i thought that this is why larger geos went further in the business, remember Felderfraude, he could spread his arms thaaaaat wide In our village under the mango trees we have a simple and workable arrangement - one scale of weights and measures for buying, and another for selling ... it is an eminently logical system, and yes we are willing to franchise it, soon as we are made the right offer, please send inquiries and cheques to Hijos de los Chingones, 666 Avenida Ladrona, Paraíso del Sur, Méx