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: Alan Vennix who wrote (7450)	3/2/1999 10:28:00 PM
From: Tim Hall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11603

Alan, <<These mineral deposits are identified by USGS>> The USGS did not identify mineral deposits unless they had exploration or production data. In other areas such as the Sauceda Mountains and the Sand Tank Mountains, they drew a circle around the area and gave it a number such as C-7 or M-6. The C is for Copper and the M is for Molybdenmum. In the text they explain that there is certain criteria necessary for drawing the circle. I am talking from memory now but some of the positive criteria were things like distance to producing copper mines, rock types found, geophysical data, etc. The negative criteria is the same stuff ie rock type found not associated with deposits of this nature, distance from producing mine etc. I could find no discussion related to any of the areas in either mountain range. In a summary table they simply list the criteria with an X. As I recall there were as many positive as negative apsects about these areas. No where did I see either of these areas described as deposits. They only talked about potential and there were many areas higher than these. If you want more detailed info, let me know and I will go back and look some more. Tim