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 : ARP - V Argentina Gold -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (993)	11/3/1998 7:51:00 PM
From: Famularo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3282

Interesting, I followed your posts back and forth with the Chief with hope that I would learn what u folks were doing. No Luck... ))) I am glad you guys know what you're doing. )) regards Fast Frank

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (993)	11/3/1998 8:09:00 PM
From: the Chief	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3282

Still not sure you are right. g/cm3 is grains/centimeter cubed! not grams per cubic meter!! However, I have asked Claude Cormier to sort this out....because you say tomato..I say tomato!!!! the Chief

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (993)	11/3/1998 8:50:00 PM
From: Leigh McBain	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3282

Elizabeth, you are working with a gram per cubic meter value, which means that what you have calculated equals 46.8M grams of acid intrusives or extrusives NOT 46.8M tonnes of earth. What the Chief was calculating was the bulk tonnage of the deposit. This can then be multiplied by the grams of gold (or equivalence) per tonne, in order to evaluate an approximation of the actual gold (or equivalence) in the deposit. Unless I have missed something here, you 2 have been arguing about quantitative oranges and apples. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think so. Salut, Leigh McBain