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 : Maxam Gold Corp. OBB:MXAM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (3133)	11/25/1997 4:58:00 PM
From: SnakeInATuxedo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11603

<<.. think they can get thall at minimum wage to do that?>> Gosh, he ought to be willing to pay THEM for a privilege such as that. $^)

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (3133)	11/25/1997 7:51:00 PM
From: Donald Watson, Jr.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11603

Richard, the numbers do look positve for MXAM, Kudos to Dale & Co. One thing we can note is the lack of COC> I have no doubt that with COC the results would have been the same. The areas that MXAM assayed by fire assay give the dirts credibility. Now for the IPM spin on things. I think this is very good news, if IPM would have come up with these numbers on COC we would have been thrilled. But one important factor, IPM had only 2 twenty pound samples Fire Assayed, the results were lower than expected but as Sam Shaw says "You must use Large Samples to get accurate numbers" IPM used small samples and were at the low end of the scale (although they did match Aurics numbers in relation to Sample Proximity) Lets see what happens when Batemen evaluates the 2100 samples in the first Kilometer. IPM and MXAM are in the same boat as far as I can tell. I like Runyons style though in PRs Factual and to the Point without giving to much "Chicken to roost talk". This is a feather in their cap. IPM aand MXAM have the goods. Good luck to all. Your Friend, Don Watson