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: SWW who wrote (13708)	9/30/1998 7:57:00 PM
From: the Chief	Respond to of 34075

Hi Steve.I also have heard that the shafts (head frames) were very dangerous due to unstablility of the formation unless good engineering practices were implimented. No surprise there. Got to keep the engineers employed. I also heard that long before the gringoes arrived that these shafts were dug by hand shored with on-sight material and exploited for 100's of years! No doubt there were fatalities in this type of work, but this is the case when building bridges as well! If you believe that the river bed and the surrounding hillsides are; a mass of structures filled with conglomerates consisting of coarse boulders towards the bottom (up to several cubic meters in volume) and less coarse boulders towards the top, as stated in Guido's/ Hausen narrative, then one has to question the 14.049 g/m3 of gold to any "KNOWN" depth!! It would be obvious that if you had 10 metre rocks you would also have no gold in that "space"! So how would you calculate the "volume" to come up with a "proven number"???? If you believe that the 1500-2500+ metres claimed is based on among other things the samples taken from a "structurally secure" mineshaft, which was dug by hand through "10 metre rock structures"???? by hand and shovel, are representative of the hillsides, than you have to assume cost cutting created the lack of drilling!! I'ze confused!!!!! Are you! the Chief