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 : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (54775)	1/11/2006 9:43:53 AM
From: DaYooper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Welcome to the G&K time warp where old posters can and do return from the dead. Looks like the 2006 tech rally has awoken some from the other side. LOL.

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (54775)	5/12/2006 11:39:11 PM
From: hubris33	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

>>>Isn't it the case that to determine true widths they'd need to know the inclination of the formation, as well as the drill hole inclination?<<<< Absolutely! Move to the head of the class.... <g> 1. Wanted to keep the explanation basic for a wide audience and 2. Geology 101: finding the Strike & Dip of the rocks one is playing with is (should be) part of the early stage prospecting/mapping phase. Of course bedding planes, contacts, fractures, etc. in cores might provide a clue as well. Everyone else provides 'true width' numbers in their reports, why does OZN leave such out? It is such a basic item, that to leave this information out is unusual which leads to speculation of inability or unwillingness. Additionally, one less knowledgeable or astute could miss the fact that the reported thicknesses were 'apparent' and conclude more ore is present than actually exists. Why leave ones self open to criticism or potentially negative inference? H3