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 : Winspear Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (13063)	1/21/1999 10:14:00 PM
From: Rocket Red	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26850

"Marco's its not about finding big rocks" Thats what everone said after the mini bulk sample and when the results came out they found more large stones 1 to 5 carats. These are drill holes from last years drilling that are coming out don't forget that when they reported the colored stones last year the carats per ton were over 3 carats.This 500kg sample is coming from around the same area and some core from the middle of the lake. Don't be surprized if you get surprized.

To: marcos who wrote (13063)	1/21/1999 10:24:00 PM
From: Chad Barrett	Respond to of 26850

To be accurate within 2%, 19 times out of 20 means that you can be 95% confidant that the true value lies with 2% of the estimated value. An example would be a political poll. ie. "Bill Clinton's approval rating is currently at 55%. This is accurate to within 2%, 19 times out of 20." What that is actually saying, is that if they did the poll over and over again (taking a random sample of US voters of the same size), the result would fall within the range of 53% to 57%, 19 times out of 20 (or 95% of the time). 95% confidence intervals are probably the most commonly used for the purpose of a poll. Chad

To: marcos who wrote (13063)	1/21/1999 10:40:00 PM
From: teevee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26850

Marcos, In primary diamond deposits such as kimberlites, stone sizes AND stone values are lognormally distributed. This means that a small percentage of the stones are large AND a small percentage of the stones are responsible for most of the value (apparently neither Kaiser or Bishop appreciate this fact). Other important factors are stone density (# of stones per tonne) and grade variation. Prior CF results already suggest high stone densities, and more importantly, low variation in stone density(from this I infer low variation in grade and value), in addition to high grades in terms of carats per tonne. With the CF results from the 70 or so holes drilled last year, the more homogeneous (or less variable) the CF results, the higher the confidence limit will be in the grade(I would guess that acceptable confidence limits would be at the 90% probability level or higher). The nature and design of the program for 1999 infers that the variability in the CF samples is low and that the confidence limits are high. Without question, the probabilities of repeating or exceeding the results from the two 100 tonne samples are very high. IMO, the bulk is just empirical confirmation of what we already know. What does all of the above mean? Its really quite simple: hold on to what Winspear you have, and if you can, buy more.