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: EricE who wrote (14786)	11/14/1998 7:18:00 PM
From: the Chief	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

Hi EricE and jon Matz. IMO, the answer to this question is $. Producing is not cost-free, profitability at this low-scale is questionable, and the money, limited as it is, is best spent proving up the claim so that someone who has the resources and knowledge to run this operation can do buy in and so. True, producing is not cost free, however, Guido says that theres 12-14g/t in Cangalli. Just slightly over two tonnes and you have an ounce of Gold! Lots of companies are working placer depsoits with far less content, in fact down to 1 g/t. So the question is still a valid one, IMHO. Why is GE not working the deposit in areas where, there is "certain ease" of extraction, ie. alluvial pools?? These type of questions confuse and add concern to the existence of the "motherlode". Hi jon. Sorry I took so long to get back to you, I think I clicked thru the post without looking at it!!! BD said there was "significant gold mineralization". That must be within the confines of profitable mineralization. Why? Because unprofitable mineralization would mean it was insignificant. IMHO the two must remain seperated for the time being, "significant" and "profitable", that is!! That is too large a leap! Significant mineralization is not a IMS term. Or was it a word, carefully chosen, because it has no legal repercussion? That is more accurate! its like saying you have discovered "massive sulphides". The first questions that leaps to mind is "how massive", and whats your definition of massive? Significant mineralization can mean 2g/t however only a "pre-feasability study and finally a Bankable feasability study" can determine economics. But prior to reaching those lofty heights one must define the deposit. This is not bad news "significant mineralization" would mean to me that by standard mining jargon, that there is gold there and that there is gold where they tested for it. Continuity/depth/recovery rates etc. etc. cannot be established without appropriate work. This will take sometime! So I suggest all of you just slide your GE shares into the "dresser" and wait for next summer! Hope this helps. Sorry I took so long, but I have been switching computers and software for the last week! the Chief