SI
SI
discoversearch

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: toma who wrote (12206)8/11/1998 7:59:00 PM
From: rjbac  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 34075
 
toma,

Are you aware of the size of MINE"S property.(pretty big don't you think). I'm not a geologist but I have invested in "many" gold stocks over the past 20 years even know some key CEO types.... Everyone I talk to concerning this "sampling", laughs at the thought of trying to prove up 6.4 mil. OZ"S with 1000 or even 3000 samples, especially "grab" samples. I have companies with possible 2+ mil. OZ's who have been proving up and verifying for 8 years on properties 1/2 or less the size of MINE's. Hey, you state is it likely; I say no way...You state will it give a better idea; anything helps but we/I want proven reserves not more inferred...please feel free to tell me where my thought process on this has gone astray.

Bac

Bac




To: toma who wrote (12206)8/12/1998 12:03:00 AM
From: Claude Cormier  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 34075
 
<<but, 1000 samples collected at widely distributed locations WILL definitely, give a better idea of how much is there. >>

Of course...to some degree they will know more about the property... but isn't there a question of credibility here. After all, a statement was made that this property contained 6M ounces proven, 78M ounces indicated and 157M inferred. If any third party comes out with a non-confirmation... then isn't the game over?