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 : Gallery Resources (Alberta GYR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 1king who wrote (1299)	7/2/1998 10:48:00 AM
From: Kent C.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1829

Welcome back 1King, here's another article (more of a summary of the exploration results from the past of Harp Lake 2): Mineralizing Indicators at the Harp Lake 2 Project The area containing the strong max-min (HLEM) responses obtained during the ground geophysical surveys completed in October, 1997 also host to: 1. Surface showings containing up to 0.6% concentrations in both nickel and copper. 2. A gossan zone (rusty weathering rocks produced by sulphide minerals) which measures approx. 300 feet in length by 75 feet in width. 3. Drill core intersections of weak nickel and copper mineralization drilled underneath the gossan. This mineralized zone is at least 225 feet wide (150 feet wider than the surface gossan) and open in both directions. 4. Weak, electromagnetic conductors detected during an airborne survey conducted over the area in 1995. Therefore, there are several, positive indicators which coincide with the zone of strong HLEM (electromagnetic) responses and suggest the accumulation of sulphide rich mineralization.

To: 1king who wrote (1299)	7/2/1998 4:03:00 PM
From: 1king	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1829

To those who requested my input via PM's: These latest PR's are interesting but contain very little hard data. There is little quantitative information for someone like myself to comment on re" the BHUTEM. A "good quality" conductor usually does not have a ch1 response and probably less than 10-20% ch 2 and 3. It indicates moderate to weak mineralization at best. The vertical thickness is very impressive but these things tend to change during modelling. A feature this wide is always described by its top and bottom eddy currents, the shape of the profile at the body's edges, so we will wait to see how Yves or Ben interprets that. I would like to see the axial component on the web site hmmmmmmmmmmmm The use of subjective phrases such as "conductivity being better defined" (??) and "can be produced by an accumulation of heavy conductive metals" are meaningless. As is the discussion of economic grades, mining potential, whole rock cash values, and a refresher in VB mineralogy. I would encourage people to ignore most of that verbiage. I personally, don't think these reports should be release as PR's in their entirety it is not appropriate. Only pertinent information concerning hard facts need to be made public but I guess some people appreciate all the info to disseminate themselves. So! A huge amount of words with little real substance. However with the exception of the MT bullshit, the program, on the surface, seems to be a technical success, and results to date are WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET". This would have to be considered encouraging, and the summer program should be treated with cautious optimism. I look forward to more hard results in the coming weeks and in some ways GYR appears to be setting a standard for the SVB exploration neophytes to follow. With regards to buying more stock........I do the rocks not the stocks <G>. Happy hunting. Regards 1King P.S. That is a general statement of qualifications and the "no interest" phase is always included, but many times not totally true. You can assume it to be true I guess.