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: Brian N L who wrote (9494)	7/12/1998 3:16:00 PM
From: MoneyMade	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34075

Why open Pit...this theory makes the most sense By: XHOWX Reply To: None Wednesday, 8 Jul 1998 , 4:42 AM EDT Post # of 89 GET THIS GUYS: The gold deposit so far is in hard packed dirt and sand (with a few small rocks) above the hard rock foundation. The hard rock is far down so that they do not need to drill into solid rock for the samples, They/We are lucky that the dirt layer is so thick. Very large amounts of dirt/sand were washed down off of rocks of the mountains higher up. The lowest cost way is to first get the gold out of the layer of dirt/sand to the tune of 157 to 242 million ounces via open pit strip mining -- if Golden Eagle is verified. Then, with a fantastic fortune made, go after the hard rock source above the area where the rains washed gold out of the solid rock montains above. This is why i think others do not understand the lay of the property. They keep thinking gold is mostly found in solid rock --- but mud slides, caused by rain, washes rock from above which gets gold out of the rock bringing it down as mud slides. This dirt/sand builds up in some places. Remmember, sand is from washed rock. The Sutters Mill near Sacramento California 1849 gold rush is an example. The gold was found about 30 - 50 feet down from the bottom of the river -- thus dirt/sand/mud. The river carried the gold down from the rocky parts of the California serria mountains. I saw the 1849 gold rush site - and it's mostly dirt with low foothills down from the mountain range. Thus gold does get washed down from mountain rock. It settles down to the lower part of the dirt since it is heavy and the dirt is lighter. They never did do hard rock drilling during the 1849 California gold rush. -- just daming up the river and a lot of digging - then slucing. If a layer of dirt/sand is thick enough and has high enough gold content there is no need for traditional drilling. Also,the area has steep canyons/ravenes so that all one has to do is to climb down the side of a ravene to get gold samples along the sides, thus no need to drill since one can use his body and hands as a "drill" by just going down the sides of the ravenes to get deep down samples. If the land was all flat one can not climb down. My opinions. Do your own checking and take your own risks. Mine is still a gamble until verification is done by an outside company. (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- long; ST Rating- strong buy; LT Rating- strong buy)

To: Brian N L who wrote (9494)	7/12/1998 3:20:00 PM
From: RMF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

Brian, I read it again and it still says, "But keep in mind the SEC did not jump into the mix uninvited". My main concern about MINE is that it will be important to the perception of mining stocks in the U.S. and elsewhere. Bre-X did about a decades worth of damage to jr. mining stocks as far as fund participation is concerned (especially gold jrs.), and the publicity that MINE has generated has made it far more important than a 50 mil. cap. mining company should be. As far as the odds being 50/50, I think anybody that trades a lot of mining stocks would think those exceptional odds. You can usually make a few bucks trading them on expectations, but finding one that will ultimately turn into a profitable mine is more like 1 in 100.