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 : ECHARTERS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (942)	11/1/1997 10:36:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3744

It was COC..not good COC but that is what is was supposed to be to the investors! They (Kilborn) ran a sample checking facility at Busang. Lavalin employees and BXM employees handling samples, rebagging them and sending them out to assay labs. After the scam is over we get the grimy details about how it was handled! Badly. Sending original sample numbers to a third party. No sample blanks or check assays were ever run through the Loa Duri facitlity. Unbelievable. And no mike work on the samples. What crap! A junior tech could look at those samples ounder a microscope and see the gaff. The gold was 40 times larger than the ground rock and was smooth as a baby's bum! Normet is a guilty as sin!

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (942)	11/1/1997 11:18:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 3744

"But Kilborn came under fire in the report by Strathcona Mineral Services Ltd. for not spotting smoking guns in reports by Normet Pty of Australia and PetraScience Consultants of Vancouver. "The fact that they didn't draw more conclusions or have their suspicions aroused by the Normet report is the more troubling aspect of their involvement there," said geologist Donald Bubar, president of Avalon Ventures Ltd. " ---------------------------------- An engineer or an engineering firm cannot put out a report on assays and certify them or draw and conclusions for a trading company without ascertaining that the assays are reputable and valid. It has no bearing on the "contract" that they sign with a company. Fine print in a report cannot protect them. The investor by association will tend trust that a firm of reputation would not just repeat the allegations of another. This principle was used to remove the engineering license of a geologist in British Columbia who I know who had made a report based upon assays furnished to him by a company. The decision by the engineers society stated that failure to check the assays by taking his own samples and controlling the assaying process was negligent. It is part of the education and training of all technicians and professional engineers that sample reliability be checked for a variety of reasons. I myself have participated in checking programs on previous work that ran to millions of dollars. It been a routine part of the business since I have been in short pants. In the past couple of years there have been a number of lawsuits about MISREPRESENTATION of assays in the sale of properties. echarter@vianet.on.ca