US Precious Metals (fka USPR)

[gnolfinvestor]

more irrelevant bs

it was grams X meters ... already had this conversation ... a typo error ... OLD NEWS !!!

let me get this straight ... current management is using correct terminology ... and now you are claiming BECAUSE THEY ARE USING CORRECT TERMINOLOGY they are illegitimate because they are reading message boards ... EXTREMELY PATHETIC !!!


THREAD FROM GRAMS X METERS CONVERSATION:

usprinvestor Member Level Wednesday, 09/02/15 04:53:48 PM
Re: None
Post #
15738 of 16088 Go
spoke to my geologist friend ... showed him the pr .... etc. ... his reply:

obviously, grams/meter is a typo !!! should have been grams X meters !!!

and he stated that g X m above 25 should get some attention (assuming gm/ton is above a certain base number - depends on cost of mining).

yes, could have .2 g/ton X 500 meters = 100 - but any geologist would look at g/ton first ---- the table g X m is simply doing a simple math calculation - anyone can do it.

g/m would indicate division - not multiplication