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 : ASHTON MINING OF CANADA (ACA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BWEEB who wrote (5999)	8/7/1998 10:05:00 AM
From: ddl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7966

Bee, thanks, but I think I have somewhat of a grasp on this... For one, unless Ashton releases full details on the core samplings, nobody knows what the core says. For two, they never released full details on the original core samplings and again, no one can tell what they are comparing to. I'm sure they did not include the overburden, but then in both cases, we cannot tell if they drilled through layers of kimberlite, how thick they were, if only kimberlite material was assayed (which I doubt) or if the whole strike length was tabulated together, which I feel they do. 36 tons out of the original 40tons might lead me to beleive that there was 4 tons (10%) of non-kimberlite material, but you don't that. they know exactly what they got, we don't. I don't agree with their reporting and they should at the very least try to explain this disparity. telling us that the first sample was "of higher content but of limited extent" is crap, what's the "extent". Does it mean sample 1 was was 20m and good but sample 2 was 200m and overall bad? Oh well, I hope we got a 50/50 chance on K-14 that they drilled the right side of the fence...