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 : Rock Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ceedee who wrote (1060)	4/2/1999 9:00:00 AM
From: the Chief	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1996

Do you know if they drilled on the anomaly and how deep? They did not drill on the anomaly...they drilled near the egor intrusive which turns out to be, in excessive of, over 100 yds from the edge of the anomaly. Were the results conclusive? Yes, the results showed magnetites and carbons, indicating the geological setting associated with a porphry. They drilled four holes but when you read the NR regarding these holes,it does'nt say much! Thats because the holes were "test" holes to determine the geological structure in the area. The release didn't say much because quite frankly the holes didn't intersect anything significant. If you talk to Ostler (geologist) the drill program was a scouting trip to determine where to place the IP. Was any serious sampling done on the surface where they found that big anomaly? Yes and No! They took samples of the anomaly area and could have made a "big thing" about them. They received outrageously high numbers of AU & CU in their grabs..but didn't go overboard publishing results because grabs, by their very nature, are only confirming a "geological structure" theory, anyway. Grabbing at a copper vein just confirms what you already know, grabbing at the heart of the vein would produce high values wit no importance. The "gold discovery area" returned high values...but its also "where" they grabbed...so they automatically become suspect. Ultimately, Rock treated this whole pre-drill program as an exploratory of the property and "quite maturily" didn't go out pumping their own stock on specific grab results. And what did the assays told us? That we have gold on the property and that we have copper on the property. That is all any assay of a "specific area" can tell you. Multiple surface grabs, are totally misleading because the surface of "any" property in Chile was subjected to Glacial movements and scrubbing, this resulted in the surface no longer representing the actual "depth of the property". So you could find 3g/t AU 7% Cu on the surface of a property and then drill it to find nothing, other than the source, which may have been a single vein that had "expulsed" this material and then glacially had surface sediment moved over the property. I talked to a geologist working in South America,he said that you can find an anomaly,but that really does'nt prove anything unless you did some serious sampling on the surface,then the surface would be a mirror of what is laying under... I would question that geologist! He is saying then that, the surface is a representation of what is below.......If that were the case why would people drill? Why not just surface sample the whole area, if you find insufficient values of AU & Cu then just walk away from the property. If he understands how a porphry is formed, and then says, that a serious sample program, is one where the veining and surrounding outcropping and intrusives are sampled to support a "theory of a porphry" than I would agree, with his presumption. We have done that...every indication thus far is that we have a billion tonne+ porphry! You must also look at the property from a "geological area" perspective. We are in an area of Chile that is noted for its world class porphries. We are also on the same fault as two of them. No anomaly, thus far, on this fault has turned out to be a dud! So using some geological continuity you raise the odds of a mineralized porphry. Lastly, the abundant presence of outcropping, intrusives, all showing either visible gold or copper is the largest of indications that both are present on the property...given that, what are the odds those "leachings" came from the primary porphry?? We shall see! Any other questions..please post! the Chief