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: Paul Denton who wrote (9717)	7/14/1998 10:26:00 AM
From: toma	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 34075

Paul - i sensed that your post was going ny the way-side, so I thought i'd shed a little light... i live in denver and spoke with Guy last week - a very accessible, amiable fellow, i enjoyed speaking with him. the Trites report, from what i understand, was the first assessment of the capacity of the ore deposit...Guido Paravicini was brought in tho confirm (or refute!) the Trites report...as all have seen, Mr Paravicini's results confirmed the Trites findings (in my opinion, as a geologist/geochemical data analyst) there is not a statistical difference between the two reports - and certainly no statistical significance to Mr Paravicini changing his numbers by a paultry 30,000 ozs. (0.5%). Also, if you will notice Mr. Paravicini took great pains to undergo a very conservative analysis of the potential of the deposit. For example, he estimated the total volume of the ore bearing body at only 30 to 40% of the volume that could have been estimated based on topographic data. As far as the existence of a Trites report - I don't have that information. Anyway, reported values aside...the nest a critical step is the verification of these reports by another firm. Although they already have data to look over...this firm will have to collect confirmatory samples, check Mr Paravicini's statistical analyses, check the analytical laboratory's QA/QC results and certifications, etc. They (the "third party firm") will have to be extremely careful in their analysis of this deposit. We can't expect this to be turned around quickly. While I want GE to respond quickly to quell all the negative press, I desire a thorough, quality-minded investigation, that will stand on it's own merits. as always, my opinions only... toma

To: Paul Denton who wrote (9717)	7/15/1998 4:32:00 PM
From: CIMA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34075

More attempts at answers at Chief's request: 1) Yes, the Trite report exists. However, the report was not released to the public because apparently Mr. Trites son had a fit of gold fever and tried to steal the property from Golden Eagle after gaining knowledge of his father's findings. Mr. Trite's son apparently remains in jail today. IMO, something fairly significant in his father's report must have motivated him to use extreme measures to gain control of the property. Unfortunately for the son, he lost. 2) See the above situation and I think you would understand why. 3) Mr. Viscarra was the geologist who Guido replaced. Guido replaced him because Mr. Viscarra had health problems. 4) I don't know if Trite and Guido know each other but Guido had access to the Trite report. 5) Mr. Viscarra didn't formulate formal conclusions because of his health problems. 6) Mr. Viscarra is supposed to be checking Guido's work. I haven't heard any follow-up on this but will be seeing both Guido and Mr. Viscarra when in Bolivia if possible (I assume it will be).