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: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (4366)	5/18/1998 12:46:00 AM
From: go4it	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11603

Richard, Rand, I am not certain but I believe that the ore did not FA because of the high Ir #'s. I do believe that the material will FA now that they are aware of the Ir being part of the sample and I also believe that Dale will be ordering a new COC FA be performed due to the new developements. So I continue on that note : The presentation that was delivered was incredible. It was professional, concise and to the point. Other than a slight bit of comic relief when the secretary misread the vote and unintentionally fired the accounting auditors which momentarily put everyone in shock until she realized her mistake. Overhead displays were shown on a targeted area that showed the distribution of mineralization by element. This was only a small portion of the property. I found this very interesting indeed. During a short break in the meeting I did get the opportunity to speak to Hewlett and I can't begin to tell you how refreshing and exciting it was to actually talk to someone about the process and mineralization on a technical basis without all kinds of supposition. Although I still have a little difficulty buying into the ionic migration theory on a whole it was still a great short conversation. Richard, <<Also, was there any explanation on why the PGMs assays are now very different than what Maxam assayed before?>> Things change. It is my opinion that PGM's were never targeted although it has always been known that they were there in quantity. This is what the COC results provided so this is what was reported. When I was asked what I thought of the COC my reply was "Oh Shit". The person who asked me my opinion agreed. I don't believe that this was what they were looking for nor do I believe they even wanted to see this in anything other than production but this is what they got so this is what they reported. A can of worms? Yes !!!! But if that lard a** that works in the mining museum would tour his own rock collection he will see exactly what I saw and that is Pt and Pd that has been found in Arizona as well as some very interesting numbers associated with it. He will also see an excerpt that speaks about the black sands in Az being favorable for placer deposits. I'll post more later. I want to catch up on IPM thread a little. One last note for anyone who meets me in the future and that is I really am 34 yrs old and not in my 60's.