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 : Cross Lake Minerals CRN -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Leo Raftis who wrote (1357)	1/25/1998 6:40:00 PM
From: the Chief	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3650

"Conductivity checks" determine metal presence, however they donot indicate any "depth in the conductivity. You can have a conductive path that is as thin as a sheet of paper in depth, be 1000 metres wide and 1000 metres long. It will "light up the ground" but the deposit still can be uneconomical and does not suggest a massive copper hit as you have suggested. the Chief

To: Leo Raftis who wrote (1357)	1/25/1998 6:40:00 PM
From: Taco	Respond to of 3650

Hi Leo, good to have you back. To you and chief and everyone else, I totally agree that everyone has a right to be negative, but, it certainly does get trying when you are long the stock and believe there really is a mineable, economic deposit on the property. Leo, you mention that the "plunge is 20 - 25 degrees than 45 degrees this is significant to the cost of mining the copper". Is what you are saying is that this could be a lower cost producer than perhaps initially thought?