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 : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tim Hall who wrote (26171)11/14/1997 5:26:00 PM
From: Furry Otter  Respond to of 35569
 
Not my point...my point is we do not know how many holes were augered that make up this report. What did BD and Bateman do? Dig one hole? Where? Did they attempt to intersect a previous IPM hole? I do not think so...and all we know at this point is that the two areas making up the report were "limited."

I think B and B went out there, augered (x) hole(s), ran it through the recovery process to the point of obtaining concentrate, which they sent to a lab for fire assaying. The results are in the report. Does this mean the same values will hold for the entire property? Nope. As the PR states, they have a sample backlog to run through before we can being to answer that question.

Regards, Otter



To: Tim Hall who wrote (26171)11/14/1997 7:22:00 PM
From: Bob Jagow  Respond to of 35569
 
Tim, You just won dumb post of the month for "What good is a modified fire assay if it doesn't come up with the same results as a recovery method?"

DaJudgeBob


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News