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 : Maxam Gold Corp. OBB:MXAM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tim Hall who wrote (7444)	3/2/1999 9:31:00 PM
From: Chuca Marsh	Respond to of 11603

Glory hole...two sources meeting ....under pressure, I found one in Diamond Hill, Rhode Island; you, I suspect -didn't. Chuca

To: Tim Hall who wrote (7444)	3/2/1999 9:42:00 PM
From: Richard Mazzarella	Respond to of 11603

Tim, <<Is Maxam sending samples there for testing?>> I don't know what Maxam is sending Hewlett, if anything. The COC assay splits don't come anywhere near Maxam. I believe that portion of splits that Maxam is allowed will be tested at Maxam's lab in AZ, both internally with aqua regia digestion/AA and external fire assays at registered labs. I understand that we will get some assay results from the internal assays and external lab assays before anyone even knows the COC results. If people do the testing right the results should all agree, Maxam's confident of the corroboration.

To: Tim Hall who wrote (7444)	3/2/1999 10:12:00 PM
From: Alan Vennix	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11603

Tim, The Maxam PR states the following: "These mineral deposits are identified by USGS in the following nearby mountains: Sauceda Mountains Sand Tank Mountains 2-porphyry copper deposits 1-skarn and porphyry copper 1-stockwork molybdenum deposit related deposit 1-rhyolite hosted tin deposit 1-gold and silver quartz vein 1-volcanic hosted disseminated deposit gold and silver deposit Are you saying that this specific information is not in the reports, or that you don't give it much significance? I'm not sure how to interpret your comments. While the overall USGS report covers 12,000 sq mi (an area roughly, 110 miles by 110 miles), from the maps I have, it appears that the Sauceda Mtns stretch from about 3 miles southwest to 10 miles south of the Peoria properties and the Sand Tank Mtns are an equal distance to the east and southeast. This puts the Peoria claims in the area between two mountain chains where the USGS has identified remnant deposits of gold and other metals (if indeed the reports so identify the deposits as such.) Since you have access to the reports, Tim (and most of the rest of us do not), my earlier question is pertinent (to me at least), that is, whether the info in the PR is not supported by the reports or whether it has less significance in your eyes. Thanks for your response, Alan