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 (1009)	11/3/1998 11:55:00 PM
From: Check	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3282

I am long the stock so it's no fun to ague but "the deposit as described by the Chief" is a lot thicker than that desribed by the company and the drilling results. Hence my assertion that you are both right.

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (1009)	11/4/1998 1:24:00 PM
From: Leigh McBain	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3282

Elizabeth, you yourself stated that the 2.6 factor you were using is a grams per cubic meter measurement, that inherently means that what you calculated was a bulk grams value. As I stated in my post to "the Chief" I am not certain that the number (1.347) he is using as a multiple is correct. However, if your value of 2.6 is correct and you are using it as a result of the table of values, you gave as examples, then you would have the correct result for the wrong reasons. Volume (cubic meters) * X g/cubic meter = total number of grams - not tonnes, every time. Salut, Leigh McBain