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: rjbac who wrote (12214)	8/11/1998 10:20:00 PM
From: toma	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34075

bac - i think you missed my point...and you are definitely miss using the term "grab" sample. first grab samples: if you'll recall a previous post, a grab sample represent a single point - be it in time or space or both. it does not imply preferential (i.e. biased) selection. in addition, depending on the purpose of the investigation, strategically selected samples often provide more information than random samples. let's say, for example, you have found a pay streak and want to quanitfy it's potential. in this case you would collect samples which are biased. because sampling outside of the zone of interest would provide you zero information. second, my point, since it wasn't clear, is that at this point GE may simply be looking to examine the vailidity of Mr Paravicini's report. using an outside party provides a "third party" verification that perhaps some parts are correct, and more likely that additional work is needed before the numbers can be stated with greater certainty. another point, along the lines of the preferential sampling, is that perhaps (and this is again speculation because we can't access the report) Mr Paravicini collect a suffcient data set, using biased sample locations, to issue his statement about the proven reserves. that's another part of BDs "third party" audit. i know i didn't hit all the points...but i hope this clarifies what i was saying. toma p.s. i still stand behind what i said about it being statistically possible to represent the character of the deposit at a given confidence level. and i did qualify that for the confidence to be high, the samples had to be shown to be representative of the population via variance analysis. this is something that i believe charters touched on earlier and is a probablisitic approach of defining possible outcomes. it is real statistics...i also believe i said that no deposit could be truly quanitied because of the extremely small portion of the entire population that gets sampled.