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 : Pacific Rim Mining V.PFG -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (9451)	4/8/1998 5:53:00 PM
From: Quickdraw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14627

Thanks Bill: A very clear explanation. Now, if these are the Sept 1997 columns and they have only now been loaded and it will take a few months to fully ascertain the results (get the curve drawn), it looks again as if we are heading for a mid June timeframe before ... ??? Unbelievable isn't it ... but it again goes to prove Barrick controls the timeframe. Thanks again Bill! I'm off to send my question to Pacrim. Rick

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (9451)	4/8/1998 7:27:00 PM
From: Quickdraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14627

Bill: This is the email I forwarded to Mr. Shrake ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. Shrake: In your latest reply to me at the Pacrim Forum you state "they did say that the columns were loaded a week ago." Are you referring to the column leach tests mentioned in PFGs Sep 22, 1997 press release at pacrim-mining.com or to results from the latest drill program? "A 1000 kilo bulk metallurgical sample has been shipped to Lakefield labs in Chile for three column leach tests." If they relate to the Sept 22 bulk metallurgical samples, are you able to expand on what might have caused the delay in initiating these tests. Is it common for this type of testing to be delayed or is this in fact not a delay but a further step in a series of tests. Any help would be appreciated. Rick