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 : Golden Eagle Int. (MYNG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: the Chief who wrote (7187)	7/2/1998 9:49:00 AM
From: john	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34075

<<< I AGREE!! The more I read, the less I like the way this information is presented!!! I am not saying the "stuff" isn't there, but the presentation of this data becomes highly suspicious and raises more questions than it answers!!>>> So for a guy like myself who knows very little about geology are these techniques used by Guido totally radical? Or have other geologists used them in the past??

To: the Chief who wrote (7187)	7/2/1998 10:10:00 AM
From: CIMA	Respond to of 34075

Hey Chief. Great questions and good discussion with Mike. Thanks. Same to you Mike, really enjoying the banter.

To: the Chief who wrote (7187)	7/2/1998 10:56:00 AM
From: Mike Gold	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

Mr. Chief, it is true that in the previous Guido report, it made no mention of recovery % other than calling previous recovery of 50% or less diasterous etc. However, the previous report did not claim ANY proven reserves. The new report claims 6 million ounces as PROVEN resources. I think to be considered proven, you must be able to mine it economically. My guess is the new report will go into some detail about recovery % etc-i.e a discussion of technologies that can be used for an ore of this type and what recovery one may expect when using said technology-ie cyanide/leach method..