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 : BRE-X, Indonesia, Ashanti Goldfields, Strong Companies. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Donald McRobb who wrote (27399)	10/25/1997 12:01:00 AM
From: robnhood	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28369

Donald,,,that smells more like the truth,,,anyway I miss this thread , where you could get flamed like clockwork,,and all the great personalities that inhabited it,,,cheers alan,,,where are you starting your next one????rrman

To: Donald McRobb who wrote (27399)	10/25/1997 10:07:00 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28369

Donald: You are right about one thing, to do this scam you need to carefully prepare and mix the salting materials. You are dealing with such a small gold concentration that just a tiny pinch makes the sample too rich for words. I suspect they would make a first dilution down to a few thousand PPM, then you could put ounces of that into a 10 pound sample, mix it and end up with 1-10 grams per ton in the final mix. For example:A 10 Lb sample is 1/200th of a ton, and so 5 grams per ton becomes 5/200 grams, or 25 milligrams of gold, just over 1 cubic millimeter. Hard to weigh, mix evenly etc. But if you take 1 grams of finely pulverized alluvial gold and add it to 20 pounds and mix it well you end up with 100 grams per ton, "salting concentrate". If you then take 1/10th of a pound of this( and add it to 20 pounds of sample you end up with 1 gram per ton and so forth, it simplifies the salting and as long as the mixtures of the concentrate are precise you can use a measuring cup to do it and no fiurther precision weighing is needed. At the density if crushed material one cup would weigh around 20-22 ounces and a rought and ready fast salting method ensues that is accurate within 5-10%(all you need, as the holes are supposed to vary). Couple this with a composite salting map and you are off to the races. This job is doable by one person, as once the master plan and concentrate is made up the rest will go quickly. Other employees can prep the samples by bagging and crushing, and one person could salt the lot. bit by bit as drilling proceeded. I would be able to salt at least 25 samples per hour from prepared concentrate and a drill hole map, varying the salting from 1 gram to 10 grams per ton as needed(or higher /lower). This represents around 150 feet of core, and so one hole would take a couple of hours to do max, as few had over 300 feet of pay zone. So I could do 4-6 holes per day or 30-40 in a week. Depending on the rate at which holes were drilled, I estimate DeGuzman would need around 1 week per month on site to keep the scam going. It would be interesting to chart the rate of drilling, rate of assays from the labs a,d the presence of DeGuzman on site to see if there were large gaps when DeGuzman was away for a month or so showed up as a slump in samples back from the assay lab. Of course he may have put in some delays to artificially confound such an analysis, but perhaps not?? Bill

To: Donald McRobb who wrote (27399)	10/31/1997 9:34:00 PM
From: Donald McRobb	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28369

The Northern Miner Volume 83 Number 36 November 3, 1997 EDITORIAL -- The legacy of Busang -- Tighter rules on foreign projects Regulators and mining industry experts are engaged in much soul-searching, and a good part of this exercise is aimed at finding ways to ensure that a massive fraud such as Bre-X Minerals' Busang project does not happen again. While this infamous bungle in the jungle was an extraordinary event, an open discussion on tightening up the rules of the game is taking place in Toronto. Several proposals for reforms have already been submitted by investors and industry experts to a joint committee set up by the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Ontario Securities Commission. Investor protection has become an increasingly complex matter, especially now that Canadian juniors are taking on mineral projects in far-flung corners of the globe. More than ever, investors must be able to rely on the accuracy of information presented by company officials. The panel has heard that some investors want better disclosure and the security of knowing that company officials are liable for the content and quality of information when they report a major discovery. Some want independent verification of resource calculations for major finds. Others want the security of knowing that company executives are prepared to stand by the statements made in news releases and annual reports, as well as those made in prospectuses. And investors want the bad news, as well as the good. As one old hand in the game has learned: "It's not always what they tell you, but what they don't tell you, that's important." Junior companies are keenly interested in the debate taking place and the various recommendations being proposed, particularly with regard to audits and the quality of disclosure. Their main concern is over-regulation, and that the cost of compliance will make exploration a far more costly exercise than it already is. After all, the raison d'tre of exploration companies is to spend money on the ground -- not on a battery of lawyers screening each and every press release. As one mining executive said, "There is no point in having better disclosure rules if the only thing companies have to disclose is that nothing is going on." We share the view, held by most junior companies, that massive regulatory change is not required. But, at the same time, we agree that better disclosure would go a long way toward addressing some of the promotional sins of the past. Some changes would cost relatively little to implement. And company officials should be held responsible if the information being presented is later found to be deliberately misleading. Standardizing the way companies report exploration results is another worthwhile proposal that merits attention. For example, publicly listed companies should not be allowed to use uncertified labs or unconventional assaying techniques. Major new discoveries should be independently audited when the first resource calculations are made. We also believe that regulators should be given the resources necessary to enforce rules and regulations already in place, as well as those coming down the pipe. This is more important than ever, as law enforcement investigations in foreign countries often fall between jurisdictional cracks. Elsewhere in Canada, the Alberta Stock Exchange has take steps to tighten rules for companies operating in foreign jurisdictions. Exchange officials say verifying information can be difficult and that companies will have to meet higher listing standards. Sensible reforms are worth examining, but responsible companies should not have to pay for the sins of irresponsible ones. Only the bad apples should be drummed out of the business.