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 : Nuinsco Resources (NWI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Serge Collins who wrote (314)	1/25/1999 9:55:00 AM
From: Gord Bolton	Respond to of 5821

Serge some companies release drill results saying that they intersected 2 feet at 10 grams per tonne, 4 feet at 5 grams per tonne, and 8 feet at 2.5 grams per tonne, 16 feet at 1.25 grams per tonne and so on when they really only intersected 2 feet of mineralization. Claudes point is that the 3 meters at the bottom may be included in the average for the longer section. It's hard to say.

To: Serge Collins who wrote (314)	1/25/1999 10:00:00 AM
From: Claude Cormier	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5821

<<"The lower 19 meters (62.3 ft) assayed 3.68% nickel within a longer section of 37 meters (121.4 ft) that ran 2.47% nickel." Is that so difficult to understand? >> Clear. Very Clear. And it is exactly what I meant. If the 10.8% 3 meter intercept is include in that 37 meters above..it implies that the remaining 33-34 meters run near or 1% nickel plus or minus. I didn't make the calculation...(But I see that Eric did) In the same manner if the 10.8% 3-meters intercept is include in the 19 meters, again it implies that the lower grade 16 meters section is near 1% nickel. Now, this is still very good and I am not a detractor like our red friend implied. Simply discussing the possibilities. CC