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: Larry Brubaker who wrote (4351)	5/16/1998 2:00:00 PM
From: Richard Mazzarella	Respond to of 11603

Larry, I sure don't underestimate the value of COC. Hewlett has done a lot of work for Maxam with proven and probables just to have it all discounted by critics. This COC should end any "scam" issue and we could get some serious attention now. The new "high" Pt has me a little concerned, but I can rationalize it from things I was told about that potential before. This could really do good things to juice up interest in IPM again, fruit doesn't fall far from the tree (good fruit, that is <VBG>).

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (4351)	5/16/1998 2:16:00 PM
From: GlobalMarine	Respond to of 11603

While COC numbers are welcome and may help convince skeptics that PMs exist in the dirt, IMO the platinum number is probably not representative of Peoria Seven/South as a whole esp. since previous non-COC platinum numbers were marginal. Hence, I'm inclined to focus on the 0.05 COC gold number and conclude that there's nothing really new to the Maxam story except that the first COC number appears consistent with previous non-COC work. I'm with you, Larry...what counts is whether they can economically extract the PMs from the ore. COC numbers help prove the case that PMs exist in the ground, but unless they can be economically extracted, it won't matter (NAXOF being a perfect example).