News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Er0ck

06/09/10 2:34 PM

#60129 RE: snow #60120

You got two things that matter in the value of a property. The amount of gold or what ever metal per ton, and the total reserve of the property. You can have high gold per ton with very small reserves which would not make for a very valueable property.

In Handcamps case it appears to have extremely high gold per ton, and while it's a "small property" in terms of overall size, the gold area is quite large, and should go 100s of meters into the ground.

We should have a very high level of gold per ton and a very good reserve.

In comparsion, our copper properties deposits go for as much as 8 miles, and are 300 feet thick in places. They also have decent to very good amounts of copper per ton there too.
icon url

relikwie

06/09/10 2:46 PM

#60144 RE: snow #60120

Snow, I think you cannot judge the reserves beforehand. KAT staked more around Handcamp after the excellent sample results.
I believe Handcamp is 54 square kilometers in total and the hot areas go for hundredths of meters.
You really should look at an existing mine that shows all similarities as Handcamp does and yes, this existing mine is found in the same
volvanic rocks "Buchans and Roberts Arm belt" Handcamp should do even better since it is of the felsic type.

I expect small areas with very high grades of gold, copper and zinc (in lenses) and larger areas with less grades and who knows what else. There is a reason they added to Handcamp.

btw, the mine you should check for similarities is Buchans mine.

http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=41439607&symbol=KATX
icon url

pro-trader

06/09/10 2:51 PM

#60147 RE: snow #60120

SNOW you are acting in your posts that you do not understand and hold shares
very smart play
continue the game but it is the longs fault keep answering your posts