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.

Technology Stocks : Xenolix Technologies (XTCI) 'Ecstasy'(Formerly MGAU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Laser who wrote (2446)	1/26/1999 2:34:00 PM
From: Thor Carlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5143

No need for musical labs. Not when using the J/L technology. This proven method of turning dirt to gold is all a mining company ever needs. This J/L technology has been around the block it seems. Perhaps it goes around so fast that companies just can't get a grip on it. But as soon as someone can pin this down and put a name on the person who will claim responsibility for the 'success or scam' of the century we will all stop guessing what this 'news' means. How come Aunties and Uncles are not scooping this 'golden goose' up? Thor

To: Laser who wrote (2446)	1/26/1999 2:39:00 PM
From: Karl Zetmeir	Respond to of 5143

If there are two more labs to report ... then I suspect they'll be coming along in their own sweet time. From what I gather, the assays from Martin's Peak was a straight fire assay performed by a certified lab: >>The samples were processed, certified and reported by a major, registered, certified analytical laboratory.<< If these results were using a SFA ... I doubt the other labs will be much different. It will be interesting to see how much difference the J/L process has on this same material.

To: Laser who wrote (2446)	1/26/1999 3:32:00 PM
From: Tim Hall	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5143

Laser, I notice several peculiarities with this NR. There is no mention of chain of custody. They don't say that the samples were fire assayed. Since this is a very traditional deposit, it could be fire assayed. They then mention that J/L was not present during the assay and that makes me wonder if the lab was using a J/L assay. They also say that J/L is developing a recovery process but if this is a conventional deposit, a conventional process should work. I am also struggling with the actual drill results. From the geological inferences in the past this is a vein deposit. It would therefore be just as important to note the true width of the vein in the assay results. I find it hard to believe that they drilled a 1000' hole and hit the vein throughout the whole length and that the grade was so consistent. That is unless they were lucky enough to keep the hole in the vein for the full 1000'. If the vein is only six inches wide, then with a 4' mining width, the mining grade will only be .063. Just another typical DD news release that results in more questions than answers. VBG Tim