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: Dave Wahl who wrote (2656)	2/5/1999 5:27:00 PM
From: Ptaskmaster	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5143

This was my concern too, and the term non sequitur comes to mind. How can the concentrate be more than an order of magnitude smaller than the bulk sample in weight, but the opt/au grades assayed from the concentrate be the same order of magnitude as those back calculated to the bulk sample? Presumably the stated assay grades were in already back-calculated terms.

To: Dave Wahl who wrote (2656)	2/5/1999 9:10:00 PM
From: Tim Hall	Respond to of 5143

Dave, Welcome to the mysteries of the Desert Dirt press releases. Who knows what they really say or mean. Tim

To: Dave Wahl who wrote (2656)	2/6/1999 2:03:00 AM
From: Ian McCartney	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5143

I would like to ask any company loyalists here to help me understand the recently released cinder cone assays. First lets review the actual wording of the last PR: February 4, 1999 Press Release Reports Confirmation Recovery Assays on Bulk Test … received the first confirmation recovery assays on the 500 pound Sinagua Cinder Cone. Following a chain of custody with only MG management in possession, a composite sample was taken from a one square kilometer area. The sixteen samples were at 250 meter spacings. The chain of custody began on December 9, 1998 with MG management processing the ore utilizing Johnson/Lett technology. On December 30, 1998 the five hundred pounds was gravity and centrifugally concentrated into 157.5 pounds of concentrate. On January 12, 1999, those 157.5 pounds were further table concentrated into 34.846 pounds. Continuing with…. J/L technology, one lab prepared the samples and another performed the assay. The following concentrate recovery assays have been received from a major, registered, certified analytical laboratory: Concentrate #1 0.576 opt/au Concentrate #2 0.605 opt/au Concentrate #3 0.252 opt/au Concentrate #4 0.679 opt/au Concentrate #5 0.705 opt/au These fire assay grades have been back calculated to an average head ore of 0.563 opt/au…. ……………….End of quoted section of Press Release……. The reported back calculated grade is the arithmetic average of the 5 samples. I am not familiar with the assay term "concentrate recovery assays". Would it be correct to take a direct interpretation, that these are the actual returned assay values as reported on the lab certificate, representing each of the 5 concentrate samples submitted? Although I cannot be sure this is what MG meant, my interpretation would lead to the following calculations: Original Composite Sample 500 lbs grav/centrifuge to 157.5 lbs 32% of original weight table concentrate to 34.846 lbs 7% of original weight Final Conc assay 1 0.576 oz/t Au Final Conc assay 2 0.605 oz/t Au Final Conc assay 3 0.252 oz/t Au Final Conc assay 4 0.679 oz/t Au Final Conc assay 5 0.705 oz/t Au Average of 5 assays 0.563 oz/t Au In situ back calc: lbs oz/t concentrate 34.846 0.563 tails 465.154 0.000 assume no Au value (not reported) back calculated oz/t 500 lbs @0.039 oz/t Au metric grade equivalent 1.35 grams/tonne My inquisitiveness about these "semantics" issues is honest and if I have made the wrong interpretation, then I will not be the only one, in which case MG will take steps to remove any ambiguity, using technical arguments clearly elucidated. If I have mis-interpreted the released data, and in fact the in situ grade is 0.563 (as represented in most of the other postings), then given the sample spacing and projected volumes this would represent a geological and exploration breakthrough meriting the highest level of international recognition. Such a noteworthy achievement should quickly progress to market recognition, generating intense interest in the high grade gold potential of Arizona in general, and in previously unrecognized geological environments. In search of the facts, Ian PS/ some of my skepticism in previous posts is related to past releases by the company which compared JL and fire assay technology. As far as I know the variances have not been explained or even discussed in technical terms, a critical requirement for all QA/QC work. I note that every property run with JL has amazingly consistent grades in the ½ ounce range regardless of sample depth in the hole, variation in geological host rock, etc, this constituting a very unusual mode of occurrence for gold at high assay levels. Here is an example of past releases from MG which make my point more clearly: JANUARY 7, 1999 Corporation "Due Diligence" Update STICKLIZARD BASIN - MG Natural Resources Corporation ( MG ) has received 100 certified assay reports from twenty "Chain of Custody" samples obtained at the Sticklizard Basin Property. The twenty samples were obtained from one drill hole (SL-9-98), every five feet, to a depth of 100 feet. Eighty (80) samples were assayed by a major analytical laboratory utilizing the Johnson-Lett technology and produced the following average results: Depth of Hole Average – OPT Depth of Hole Average - OPT 0-5 feet 0.493 50-55 feet 0.493 5-10 feet 0.463 55-60 feet 0.506 10-15 feet 0.443 60-65 feet 0.508 15-20 feet 0.434 65-70 feet 0.453 20-25 feet 0.503 70-75 feet 0.510 25-30 feet 0.469 75-80 feet 0.431 30-35 feet 0.415 80-85 feet 0.611 35-40 feet 0.404 85-90 feet 0.549 40-45 feet 0.425 90-95 feet 0.471 45-50 feet 0.444 95-100 feet 0.361 Average for all above samples: 0.469 ounces per ton The remaining twenty (20) samples were assayed without the J/L technology and all those results were less than 0.003/opt of gold. …..End of PR…..