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

To: Mike Gold who wrote (719)	1/23/1999 9:57:00 PM
From: the Chief	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1996

Dissappointed that the thread is mostly discussing the B.C. thing-boring! Unfortunately ..you need money to drill...so you go where the money is ..hopefully Chief-I am still wondering why little minerlization was found in the previous drilling-I will have serious concerns about this if the IP shows the principle anomoly was where it was drilled before! Would you expect to be alone? What was found was indicator minerals that showed the property had significant potential, the fact that true mineralization was minimal was not surprising to Mr. Ostler, He didn't want to drill that area in the first place!The Chilean partners wanted the "obvious and leaching" copper intrusives drilled first. It was really a stupid thing to do (IMHO) If you have a drill rig perched on an outcrop and you decide to angle your drill to 50 degrees. One of two things may happen! One, you hit indicato minerals to show you that all the right geolgics are their. Or you follow a vein perfectly for 400 meters and report fabulous figures!! In both cases they do not represent the mineralzation, one is of no more use than the other..without further supporting holes. Theoretically they could have travelled directly above of a downdipping section of mineralization. If I have any critisism, it is that we did not just do the IP first, it was part of the Geological study, it was strongly considered the right thing to do...but I think "share price appreciation" drove this strategy!! Well it didn't work. The obvious conclusion...in hindsight was that the BC settlement was "far in the offing" so cash was needed and it was hoped at higher levels!! This now is "old news" the IP was suggested in consultation with the Placer geologist and the sections to IP was a collusion of interested parties. So we have to have the faith, they know what they are doing!! b)Why no resitivity survey? Can't they only determine if the minerlization is likely in the form of silification from restivity? Why in this case did they do magnetic survey? Is the minerlization going to be in the iron? The IP was chosen in consultation with the interested parties, it was there choice, I guess we will have to wait to se if it was the right one! c)Was soil samples taken of the main target area? Anomolous? Yes, an per usual they should high levels of AU! But we already know what I think about grab samples(remember...geologists don't grab dirt!!) d)Is there end of the drill season in this part of Chile or is mostly too dry for snow? ie-Can their drill program go into June? FOrtunately elevation and latitude allow drilling 12 months of the year. There are periods where Coiron gets a "skiff" of snow, but even during El Nina' they received so little that drilling could have been done. e)Is the drill program going to be diamond or RC? That would be a conclusion drawn from the geological study and the IP but I would suppose it would be Diamond as it has been in the past. There is no logical reason to go to RC f)Share diluation-how much share diluation will we see if no JV and court settlement? significant but you knew that! Just as MDIN will be dilluted to the point of stupidity if they don't receive JV's and have to pay the $33,000,000US they have agreed too, for their properties. Its a hypothetical that both MDIN and RKR cannot afford!! g)If JV-what % of the property to you think will be left that is owned by the ROCK? My Guess: Rock would retain 40% with an option on the Chilean 30% and the JV partner would hold 30% with an option on a further buy-in! Good Luck with MDIN, sounds interesting ...but as I have mentioned before I don't play non reporting NASDAQ OTC BB stocks, they give me an allergy!!<ggg>. the Chief