HIGH-GRADE NI-CU-PT-PD-ZN-CR-AU-V-TI DISCOVERIES IN THE "RING OF FIRE"

NI 43-101 Update (September 2012): 11.1 Mt @ 1.68% Ni, 0.87% Cu, 0.89 gpt Pt and 3.09 gpt Pd and 0.18 gpt Au (Proven & Probable Reserves) / 8.9 Mt @ 1.10% Ni, 1.14% Cu, 1.16 gpt Pt and 3.49 gpt Pd and 0.30 gpt Au (Inferred Resource)

Free
Message: Re: Good point JD... dony-bentonstocks
6
May 27, 2008 11:26AM
8
May 27, 2008 11:38AM
10
May 27, 2008 12:14PM
8
May 27, 2008 01:01PM
10
May 27, 2008 01:06PM
1
May 27, 2008 01:09PM
1
May 27, 2008 01:30PM
2
May 27, 2008 01:34PM

Good to see that your confusion is gone now Geo. Thanks for all the help today and it just goes to show you. Here Bentonstocks' father was a GEO. You are a GEO in touch with him on a regular basis. I guess Bentonsocks, should not have used those terms.

So now I am enlightened with the fact that "massive" is an adjective. Well gee, thanks a lot.

Tell me why massive is used in that NR in simple english. Does it not say massive sulfides? If it says Massive sulfides what do they mean? Do massive sulfides hold minerals? More specifically do the massive sulfides in this case allow one to believe this is not bad news? Will you give us that?

Massive sulfide is a mineral occurrence. You state it yourself...Don



7
May 27, 2008 02:37PM
5
May 27, 2008 05:32PM
12
May 27, 2008 06:08PM
8
May 27, 2008 07:51PM
11
May 27, 2008 09:16PM
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply