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: REDDY who wrote (13980)	10/9/1998 10:55:00 AM
From: Jim Bishop	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34075

<How did they do that?.> BD? <eom>

To: REDDY who wrote (13980)	10/9/1998 2:00:00 PM
From: the Chief	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

Hi Reddy. But.....the September 25th 8k states...."management of Golden Eagle has concluded that the techniques used by Mr. Paravicini were insufficient to justify the calculations made" How did they do that? Leaves much open to interpretation eh? It appears that the management of golden eagle without the advice of knowledgeable consult, since they do not reference any, came to a conclusion based on "feelings"!?!? 1)Quite easily actually! 2)No I don't believe that it is open for interpretation. 3)Don't agree! The only interpretation is that when the "grid" was studied in coincidence with the geological continuity, it was quickly determined that the sampling did not conform to IMS. This had to be stated at the onset so that the SEC wouldn't find out first!! I am not trying to start an argument with this statement, but it lets you know the way I feel geologists must do their work! First and foremost any geologist can go into a piece of property and do slipshod work. The majority don't! The majority do fine work and produce well thought out, well constructed reports of the geological setting. We also don't know what guidelines Mr. Paravicini was operated under to produce the report. The only guidelines a geologist MUST follow when doing his work is "never sign a report that he believes is untrue/inflated or under/overstated"!! There is no excuse for ANY geologist to sign a document that describes a proven reserve, if that document does not adhere to IMS!! We have no way of knowing whether or not his conclusions are outside the IMS guidelines with the information we have to date. Yes we do. TT has stated that the reserves may not be as stated. We also know there is question of his "technique"! S o I can say categorically right now, that to get back the original claimed 6.2mm ozs of gold further sampling in accordance with IMS is required!! this is not a postulation, but an accurate interpretation of what the company is stating! You cannot "question a geologists "technique" without questioning his "sampling process" and the way he "derived his numbers!! the two cannot be seperated!! You also cannot say that the reserves may be overstated or not properly represented unless the appropriate standard has been violated making the original process and calculations suspect and "virtually useless"!! Now in saying all this, I don't believe that all this gold has just "vanished" its there! How much I have no idea! Neither does Guido!, TT, GE or the rest of us! All I can say right now is.... "what is there" is an incomplete process that must be augmented or redone!! ALL my opinion only!! the Chief