SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Condor who wrote (22767)10/24/2003 2:14:35 AM
From: E. Charters  Respond to of 39344
 
Barr did say one to two million.

On the other hand I said possibly 32 million.

That is only 6.5 miles of mineralization at 125 feet in width at .06 ounces per ton to 1500 feet deep. Tonnage factor of 12. Is that too much to ask for?

Many Sudbury mines ran to 50 million tons. Some ran to 250 million. They were monsters. They allowed Inco to control the world nickel price for 100 years. This formation dwarfs a Sudbury deposit in scale. It may run to billions of tons. The amazing thing is -- it looks like pure crap. Not a chance of carrying any value. That is the secret that Inco ignored in their portentous wisdom for many years, and the mouth breathing investment public bought into it. Platinum frequently associates best with weak sulphides, less than 5 per cent. Platinum deposits may look like pure rock.

You could not sell a Sudbury claim to save you life, nor a pure platinum play. The "smart" money always came back knee-jerk and said... why doesn't Inco take it? As if anyone would want that to happen.

I feel certain that much and perhaps a multiple of that is there.

There I go losing control again. Serves the ignoramuses right. When they lose their resources, might as well lose big. I have had crap rubbed in my face for a long time by sanctimonious morons, but it gives me no great glee to point out that by being morons they haven't gained much.

EC<:-}