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 (341)	1/25/1999 2:35:00 PM
From: Flea	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5821

I am confused and out for now. Perhaps someone else can enlighten you.

To: Serge Collins who wrote (341)	1/25/1999 2:40:00 PM
From: BLZBub	Respond to of 5821

Serge, I would conjecture the following: - 99-2 was drilled away from the deposit, from the same coordinates as 99-1, and was probably drilled for information purposes - it makes me wonder if 99-1 was drilled at an angle or straight down (is this stated anywhere). Straight down would be closer to true width due to the alledgedly shallow dip of the deposit - hole 99-3 was testing a completely separate anomoly - I am curious why they would bother with 99-3 and 99-2, when presumably 99-1 would have been drilled first, and would have been really shiny in appearance? Then again, what do I know, I'm not in the industry. Bill.