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 : Naxos Resources (NAXOF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neal davidson who wrote (12275)	4/24/1998 4:26:00 PM
From: W.F. Schwertley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20681

Neal, Now I get the math. Thanks for pointing out my error. So we lost about 50% of the gold between 1/96 and today. I would guess that many would attribute this loss to different assay techniques? However, I would like to point out that on 3/12/98 Ladoux gave two assay numbers for hole #4 at the 150' to 175' depth (.120 and .181 oz per ton) and two assay numbers at the 25' to 50' depth (.134 and .222 oz per ton). Today, the assay number given for same depths respectively was .181 oz per ton and .178 oz per ton. So I must conclude that these are the numbers used in the 3/12 press release. In today's release they used the highest number of the old PR (.181) for the 150'-175' sample and they averaged the two numbers ((.134 + .222) / 2 = .178) for the 25'-50' sample. Pretty sneaky. So, since these numbers are not new they should not be used in computing today's average. The new average for the assay numbers then becomes .028 oz per ton for the samples taken from 0' to 150'. So the real difference between 1/96 and today's average numbers is .139 oz per ton. Which means the numbers on 1/96 are 83% greater than todays. When you remove the old numbers the PR doesn't look too good. IPM has done better. WFS