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 (2594)	3/30/1999 1:10:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5821

hmmmmm.. well I see you are professional wet blanket but as I cannot say for certain you are wrong as I have not seen the results of the holes you purport to be able to predict but I can say for certain you are not right. There is no trend line analysis in geology that allows you to predict the results of holes to come in. Your analysis of what is too low grade and too deep is only valid if you are talking open pit mining and you restrict the analysis to the particular hole. This is far too facile a feasibility to be trusted. Let us step back an think for a minute. If high grade can change fast in 50 metres or fault then what is to prevent it coming back in a few more holes? Ah hah.. then assuming the negative has no factual base? I thought not. Actually the ore is behaving like any other body of sulphides. They do vary. Grades I had not expected to always top out at above 2%. That is rare. 1% nickel is the norm over any amount of width and these days they do like width don't they? Back in the 40's they would have been tickled dimethyl pink to get 30 feet of 1.5% nickel. Now they sell the stock if they get 150 feet of 1% and .04 platinum. Too bad. Spoilt children never find ore. You are conversant and quick to make a picture. I presume you have played the numbers game underground like many a recent generation geologist. But you need more experience I think. Even if you had years underground at Inco on staff I still think you need to look further afield. Most massive sulphide bodies are small. So negativity without thought could be correct very often. But there are no factors that allow intelligent prediction of the size and grade of an orebody unfortunately. You have to test with a drill. Otherwise we could just hire you to talk about it. The mag anomaly is huge. The Geophysics extends for 1 kilometre. Now I don't have clue what will happen. But I would not be statisfied unless I had tested at least 50% of the anomaly negatively. So far the are at less than 10%. And I don't see anything that is particulary negative. As a matter of fact it is very consistent. EC<:-}