~*~Mining and Metals Du Jour~*~

[oryx]

investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=50751052

See the above link for the quote below. Cannon's web site has very little substantive information, and what they do have seems to be quite suspect. The one historical "gold mine" on their property doesn't seem to be the "gold mine" Cannon is reporting.

Cannon's web site says "an English mining syndicate sank an 85 foot shaft and milled 18 tons of ore, grading 16.6 ounces of gold." That would be 16.6 oz/t. I don't know how that reconciles with the historical report in the ibox, which mentions "18 tons of the ore treated, producing $16.00 per ton in gold." (Back then grades were typically reported in $/ton, not oz/t.) That would imply 16.6 oz = $16.00, or 96 cents per ounce of gold. The price of gold at that time was about $20/oz. $20/oz would imply a grade of 0.8 oz/t, which is more reasonable, and typical of those times, but low. It would have been low enough that mining it would have been economically marginal, which may be why mining was not continued. Grades like that are economical today, though. I think Cannon has made a serious fundamental mistake in their calculations. The grade was 0.8 oz/t, not 16.6 oz/t. And the 18 tons of ore at 1.6 oz/t yields a total of about 29 oz of gold.