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: Paunch who wrote (7447)	3/2/1999 11:17:00 PM
From: Tim Hall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11603

Paunch, <<Specifically, USGS has reported an enclosed, structurally controlled basin, and seven separate ''source'' mineral deposits that have been eroded and transported into the Peoria Seven mining area. The ''source'' mineral deposits referred above were discovered by USGS resulting from their field geological mapping, geochemical sampling surveys, aeromagnetic and gravity geophysical surveys, and their remote sensing data. The seven identified mineral deposits lie just to the south of the Peoria Seven mine site and are the ''sources'' for eroded mineral deposit detritus transported north into the Peoria Seven mine area. These mineral deposits are identified by USGS in the following nearby mountains: >> The report did not identify nor did the USGS claim to have discovered any mineral deposits in the Sauceda Mountains or the Sand Wash Mountains. After the USGS completed their investigation they identified potential areas that might contain mineral deposits. Now if Dr. Hewlett can look at this data and determine that these areas are actually mineral deposits, then the NR should state that it is Hewlett who determined such, not the USGS. In the area of the Peoria 7 mine site, the maps show nothing with the possible exception of the potential for an evaporite deposit. Does that answer your question? Tim