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 : Wolverine Exploration -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: doubloon who wrote (70)	1/12/2012 10:30:44 PM
From: jfburk	Respond to of 173

Thanks for the response. As usual, hindsight is always 20/20. Sure have a terrible looking portfolio at the moment but not going anywhere, counting on those other "holes" to generate results.

To: doubloon who wrote (70)	1/12/2012 11:50:50 PM
From: Cup-rum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173

not sure why people maintain Grid 2 targets were the more likely targets?? That notion doesn't seem to be supported by the facts: The Abiti Geophysics report wolverineexplorationinc.com proposed 11 drill targets: 5 first priority targets and 6 second priority targets. Out of the 11 proposed drill locations, 7 are on Grid 1 ; - even more striking: 4 out of 5 of the first priority targets are on Grid 1 also! From the published press releases, it appears that indeed the 4 first priority targets on Grid 1 were drilled: CR1-05-1, CR1-06-1, CR1-07-1 and CR1-08-1. why would we have confidence in Abiti Geophysics pinpointing the correct/most promising 2nd priority targets, when the same methodology failed to propose valid 1st priority targets? is there some thought being spent among WOLV management on trying to "validate'/cross check the Abiti geophysics with a different geophysical technique prior to continuing the current course? obviously something doesn't add up here...?