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 : Nuinsco Resources (NWI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mineman who wrote (2145)	3/22/1999 9:25:00 PM
From: 4TNiner	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5821

Mineman. I think someone who is skilled can start a rumor that can start a stock moving either way. i will detail this to you privately.

To: mineman who wrote (2145)	3/22/1999 9:29:00 PM
From: Buckey	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5821

I think you are saying that the market has evaluated the public info including this thread and concluded we have a 1.70 and likely lower priced STOCK. I completely disagree - there is info out there I am not privy to that has driven this stock down significantly. If we get a bad NR the NWI has 100% failed in this security measure. 2.4MM shares traded hands - Ther is nothing publically different today than last week except for the NR - Its out there SCULLY - THE TRUTH and we wil be, as usual, the last to find out.

To: mineman who wrote (2145)	3/22/1999 9:33:00 PM
From: Brumell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5821

Thanks for the reply mineman. Interesting as always. Here are a few more thoughts: << Mapping was done in 1996 and published in 1998 at 1:50 000. I would not argue with you for the 3 anomalies within the volcano-sedimentary rocks. They could be related near surface gabbroic intrusions. But the one in the granite batholith (the NWI one) is difficult to correlate with the others since the granite intruded millions of years later and only diabase dikes (and possibly kimberlites) are the only post-granitic intrusives in this area. From the description made by NWI, it is not a kimberlite nor a diabase dike. This is why I think it is a remnant of a pre-granitic differentiated intrusive. >> If it is as suggested, the implications for additional discoveries at depth are positive. The question, of course, is how deep could they be? Regards, Bob