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 : ARU.V Aurelian Resources Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marci58 who wrote (67)	11/2/2006 2:15:20 AM
From: sageyrain	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 516

Yes, you are likely correct. I started off early with 2.5 because I wasn't sure how much clay there was in the vein material. Some of these types of deposits have significant clay content. It is clear from the photos that there is not a significant clay component at FDN, but I have stuck with the 2.5 and have been too lazy to go back and recalculate. So, these calcs are conservative. 2.8 is probably a reasonable figure as the vein material is mostly quartz (2.6) and carbonate (2.7-3.6). I think that the sulfide component is overall probably less than 5% of the vein material based on the core photos to date although locally it is pretty flashy. Your suggestion has put the recalculation on my to do list, thanks.