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: Bill Jackson who wrote (2482)	3/30/1998 10:52:00 PM
From: I_C_Deadpeople	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3744

Here is the legal question with regards to Barrick - they obviously had a non-disclosure agreement regarding public statements, but if ( a big if and likely impossible to prove ) they suspected fraud did they have a legal obligation to report it to the exchange? to the RCMP?to anyone? Ew

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (2482)	3/31/1998 2:09:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3744

Re Bre-X..The realizability of salting: Normet and SNC Lavalin are NOT off the hook. At least one law suit has named them. The Strathcona pictures of the crushed samples clearly reveal the obvious size difference of the gold particles. The foreign nature is jarring. With the little magnification that you get in the lab binocular microscopes or a powerful hand lense of 40 to 60 power you see the 100 to 2000 micron gold particles. The gold particles are almost all prefectly round in cross section. Their flat surfaces are rounded and extremely smooth. Since Normet looked at many such pictures and even tested to the extent of knowing that the rims had more gold versus silver than the cores we know that they had to be intimately familiar with the look of the gold. The crushed rock particles on the other hand look to be less than 1/20th the cross sectional size of the gold grains. This would make their area up to 400 times less than the gold grains. The size range of the gold was rather limited too. Nowhere are really small grains seen. It is difficult to imagine a crushing process that would liberate these gold grains, leave them entirely unabraded, polished, rounded, and reduce the liberating rock (non of which stuck to any of the gold grains) to so small a size in comparison. In sharp contrast the rock fragments are jagged and tiny. Non approach the grain size of the gold grains. If the crushing process flattened and enlarged the gold grains as is sometimes the case, then you would expect tearing, jagged edges and a flat appearance. A wide size range would be natural. Abrasion and scoring would be evident. Many smaller particles and flakes of gold would be evident. In fact to see such polished and smooth gold is rare even in placer streams. I have seen scads of gold through microscopes as part of jobs where such examination is routine. Really smoothed gold requires special stream conditions. Much placer gold in BC and gold in Alberta tills is much like milled gold in its jagged and "pristine state". I have seen smoothed gold in from some Yukon streams but it is not that common. Some placer gold from BC even has quartz grains attached to it, indicating very local sources. If DeGuzman had used such gold only the size of some of the grains would have given it away. If he had added the gold grains to the samples before crushing he might have hid some of the effect. But the foreign nature of the GOLD is obvious at a glance in the microscope. Even a 20 power hand lense would have seen some disturbing things. So what did SNC Lavalin do wrong? Well, remember they are an ENGINEERING firm. So what is their responsibility? BY LAW, in any Canadian province where and ENGINEERING firm or a professional ENGINEER reports to the exchange or to the public in an announcement of any assay or group of assays of the grade of these ASSAYS, they are REQUIRED UNDER PENALTY OF LAW to ASCERTAIN the RELIABILITY the samples. NO DISCLAIMER of responsibility allows them to state a grade or LEND THEIR NAME to the assays in any way without CULPABILITY if fraud should be proven. In other words they must take their own samples. Just try to sell a property. NO FIRM will take the property without taking THEIR OWN assays. Engineers have been suspended from the association by courts for failing to ascertain that samples reported on were in fact true and correct samples of the property. YOU CANNOT RUBBER STAMP SALTING and say "that is what the client asked us to do." IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. Imagine an engineer tesing a bridge and reporting to travellers that "all aspects of security that the client asked me to test are alright." One would justifiably think that the bridge might be safe, until another engineer points out that the appearance of the rivets and the paint is not the only aspect that should be called into question. There are enough traps for the unwary without exposing the public to the dangers of false comfort from supposed "expert" opinion being flawed from limitations imposed by the commercial needs of the client. That is number one. In addition to this laissez-faire wool-over-the -eyes-of-the-investor, SNC lavalin allowed a samples testing procedure to take place that was widely reported on and raised investor confidence IMMEASURABLY. This was the retesting of the LOA DURI rejects. This was supposed to show that the Bre-X samples were to be trusted. Otherwise why do it? What other point would an excercise in retesting have? Many pointed to that testing phase and said that the Bre-X samples must be OK. This was done by the company during a period where the samples where being called into question. The Kilborn worker, overseeing the sampling allowed the same workers who had been doing the sampling by the company to work UNSUPERVISED and she put the SAME TAG NUMBERS OF THE ORIGINAL SAMPLES IN THE TEST BAG WHERE IT WAS SENT UNDER COMPANY (BRE-X) CONTROL BACK TO THE SAME LAB. This is INEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE. THE KILBORN WORK FAILED THE INVESTING PUBLIC AND FOOLED THEM IN THREE WAYS. (1) IT FAILED TO TEST THE BRE-X STAFF, (2) IT FAILED TO TEST THE LAB AND (3)IT FAILED TO TEST THE ROCK. SO WHAT DID THE GRAND NAME OF KILBORN TEST? IT TESTED THE POCKET BOOK OF BRE-X AND ULITMATELY THE INVESTOR. GUILTY AS SIN. GUILTY AS CHARGED. THAT ANY MINING PROFESSIONAL IS OUT OF WORK AND KILBORN IS MAKING MILLIONS IS A CRYING GODDAMN SHAME. echarter@vianet.on.ca The Canadian Mining Newsletter

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (2482)	3/31/1998 2:29:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 3744

One threw cats. IF you are being wooed for money you are in the driver's seat. You can talk tough. Freeport threw cats. Dome could have and Barrick could have. The chose to short instead. Funny Barrick and Dome and a few others "walked" and let Freeport have it. Funny. I think you will find that some of the big wigs in Kilborn have brand new yachts and houses too. Funny the market started to collapse in Indonesia in FEBRUARY, two months before the public was made aware. There were rumours around too. Where there is smoke there is fire. Even Chorny dumped 1.6 million of his shares. And why did Felderhof sell? Did he become aware? Was he is he in the Caymans hiding just from taxes or other forces? And the guys who underwrote and bought copiously before hole 49 was even out. Why were they so confident? Why did one whole town buy shares? Are they all stupid? Existence of a sure fire promotion is far more confidence building than existence of one hole in a gold mine full of them. ----------------------