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: Jim Bishop who wrote (11464)	7/29/1998 6:30:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

Yes, and to prove it you need 16 times as many drill samples. Like maybe 3584 drill holes. Of course if you do have that grade you don't need near as many tons. The key is averages. How do you know? I have severe doubts that a whole formation runs 4.anything grams per tonne. My reasons for doubting that is that there are no other rock formations anywhere so far discovered that contain that richness of gold for very many tons. It is unlikely simply because it has no analogy anywhere. A primitive statistic but not a bad one to consider. The proper first conclusion would be the dounbtful. SO. In order to disprove it as that is a better way to go about it that trying to prove it, you must carefully cross section the formation at random at intervals that are statistically relevant for the area we are investigating. I would suggest that the industry norm for large formations is about 100 metre centre separations. Until a majority of the holes (in the 100's) come back with grades within 25% of what was declared I would relegate their claims to the unproven category as is the industry norm again. Worth investigating? Perhaps. EC<:-}