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 : SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: VAUGHN who wrote (2281)	12/14/1998 12:02:00 PM
From: Valuepro	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7235

Thanks for the response, Vaughn. I appreciate your perspective on the 4-8:1 ratio. I might present an argument, though, about lesser quality stones being destroyed as they are transported from their source. Generally I would agree, but the concept, I think, is largely based on alluvials transported many kilometers, even hundreds of kilometers. In this case, I think we are talking in terms eluvials transported but meters to a few kilometers. I notice from photos of the M-1 area including the subject gravels, we appear to be in piedmont environment (eluvial/alluvial mix) and not one of paleo-gravels deposited from streams and rivers (alluvial) - though I'm not entirely sure about this. Such erosion should be a little more gentle on transported stones, and they may be less likely to occur in finely sorted patches. ...probably not enough inferior stones to be of concern anyway given the yields and grades from the M-1. I'm not too sure of the topography and drainage, but could it be that M-1/M-3 gravels drain onto 100% owned KLP claims, and then for what distance? I think I'll now go look for some maps. VP