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: Ian McCartney who wrote (2670)	2/6/1999 10:58:00 AM
From: Karl Zetmeir	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5143

Hi,Ian ... and welcome to the thread. I'm not a geologist ... but as I'm interpreting a couple of your questions: 1.)The concentrate recovery assays are the assays performed by the refiner on the concentrate. Essentially, these are the grades they expect to obtain in the extraction, and I think they may keep anything over and above these numbers. 2.)I haven't followed through the calculations myself, but I do recall they were back calculated to the head ore. So indeed the opt reported are the head ore grades. I think the 500# bulk test might have actually be a few pounds over which could affect the calculations people are following. The important thing is now the bulk assays have been made ... we are surely just days away from pouring a dore bar. For our friends not familiar with a dore bar, it is a bar of metal t containing all the metals recovered from the concentrate. That dore bar will then be drilled to obtain small cores. There will be 3 cores taken from the same dore bar and I think those samples are sent to 3 different labs. Finally getting to pour metal, and produce a dore bar is a major milestone for MG and my congratulations to Mike and Jeanne and the Crew for nursing this project along. And for Mr. Desert Fox (aka Laser) and Tim Hall ... don't you agree, in keeping with Valentine's Day ... that this is simply an a-dore-a-bar<G> event? I know you'll be toasting MG's efforts along with the rest of us come 2/14!

To: Ian McCartney who wrote (2670)	2/6/1999 7:22:00 PM
From: Dave Wahl	Respond to of 5143

Ian, Semantics certainly are one of the problems. If the reported concentrate assays are truly values representative of the final concentrates only, then back calculation reflecting original total sample size ore would be required to obtain head ore grade. Based on ratio of final concentrate to original sample size, the average ore grade would be the ~ 0.039 oz/ton Au (~1.35 grams/tonne) that you mentioned. The way I read the press release suggests that such a dilution should be made. Clarification of the press release is certainly required, and further information of the sampling program itself should be released. What is the size of each sample used to make the final Sinagua composite? Were they panel samples, grab samples, or channel samples? What was the material sampled? Is there any depth associated with the samples? Has correlation been made between sample sites? Etc, etc. In my opinion, such disclosure is required; especially when dealing with a deposit that many consider unconventional. I haven't kept up on the Sticklizard project, but I have questions about the MG marble quarry drill results. I see that numerous relatively high-grade gold assays have been reported from 6 drill holes. A short MG consulting report mentions overturned beds, a dike and possible faulting at the quarry site. Although I'm not sure that it was stated in the MG report, I assume the holes are vertical (at least a photo in the report shows a more or less vertical reverse circulation drill operation in progress). Although numerous assay intervals of ~0.5 oz/ton Au are reported, no explanation of the marble quarry assay mineralization is given. For example, do the assays in hole MGNR-6-98 from 95 feet to 120 feet represent a true 25 feet mineralization thickness, or does 25 feet of vertical drill hole intersect a narrow, steeply dipping zone? What is the mineralization developed in --- reactive strata, fault zones, dike selvages, etc.??? What is the spatial distribution of the drill holes? Can mineralization between different drill holes be correlated? I‘m sure that you realize narrow zones of discontinuous mineral offer a much lesser mineral potential than thick, continuous zones. And, has anything ever been said about recovery parameters for the reported mineralization? Also waiting for the facts, Dave Wahl