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 : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JACK R. SMITH JR. who wrote (9923)	4/5/1999 10:20:00 PM
From: Ptaskmaster	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Jack, Higher Thomas report values "are resident in the 'reduced iron complexes'." If the samples in the Thomas report represent accurate assay values of opt grades in rocks on GPGI's properties, why has not some major bought in to these prospects and built a mine or two? If I am correct in my reading and interpretation of the Thomas report, none of the assays from the random rock samples specifically collected by M. P. Thomas and J. Kurtz occur in "Set II. Fe - Complexes (Metallics)." I'm amazed at what I regard as a lack of rigor in the current releases. The news release this morning I think stipulated that the listed assay results were ounces per ton -- the version of the letter to shareholders posted on the website does not. It would take a semanticist to unravel whether: "pre-treated" ore was always completely screened; "partial pretreatment" may or may not have included screening and/or other concentrating procedures; why rock from the Oro Grande, with no pretreatment other than screening, was not called "ore" like Hassayampa head ore presumably from the screened pile; et cetera and etc. It would be useful to see a company-supplied map, perhaps also posted on the website, showing locations of samples from identified rock units, a reasonable description of the procedure used in taking, handling and processing the sample, and assay results from more than one lab on splits of the same sample. (The Hassayampa screened ore pile should be treated as a separate 'rock unit' and sampled in the same manner.) The company has worked on these properties a number of years, and issued millions of shares. Nearly 10,000 Silicon Investor posts have been expended talking all of this to death. Wouldn't it have been more cost efficient to have assayed a few well documented grab samples and a couple of drill hole cores? Ptask PS: Who gets GPGI post #10,000?