Silver Falcon Mining, Inc. SFMI

RE: Assays- The Truth

[Sinbob]

As per my earlier post, the detractors who work for the shorters never quit. This "Griim" persona is merely the rebirth of a former basher who must have at least ten different names over the last few years here. In order to answer questions such as that posed by the poster...that have been answered here many times before...I now merely cut and paste all the inform. in my arhcives in order to quickly reply to the BS.


TAILINGS information from the website:

“In Addition, SFMI was contracted by GoldCorp Holdings Co. to assay and, if worthwhile, mill the 16 piles of tailings (dumps) on the 172 acres on War Eagle Mountain … After assaying 6 samples taken at random on the properties, it was determined that average quantities of 5.1 G/T Gold AU and 72.7 G/T Silver AG were present in the Tailings and warranted the building of a small temporary mill at the foot of the mountain to begin pulling in revenue in the earliest possible delay and allowing the underground mining to proceed at a sure and secure pace. “

While SFMI has not done the drilling required, for example, to meet the stringent technical requirements of the Canadian 43-101 (which don't apply to this company anyway), there is no doubt that historic reports and present day evaluations, samplings, and assays show without a doubt that SFMI is sitting on a tremendous reserve of gold and silver. and silver.

The reserves are there, as documented in many ways, including an official report from the Idaho Bureau of Mines. From a previous post by goldchaser (emphases mine):
There's a few reports out on War Eagle mtn. There's one from the Idaho Bureau of Mines which is a 2 page summary of the veins. There is also a 125 page detailed report available from the Idaho Bureau of Mines detailing everything including all the historic drilling numbers, it can be obtained for a fee of about $20.. There is also a 125 page detailed report available from the Idaho Bureau of Mines detailing everything including all the historic drilling numbers, it can be obtained for a fee of about $20.

From Oryx: Historic reserves ARE reserves.

There are now uniform standards that define exactly how to "prove up" different kinds of reserves BASED ON THOSE STANDARDS. Before those standards existed, there were any number of ways to prove up reserves to varying levels of confidence. The new standards don't make those old reserves go away, they just mean that you can't claim those reserves under the new standards unless by happy chance the old resource evaluations happened to conform to the standards. They also don't change the degree of confidence in the resources of a specific site generated by the historic records, drilling, assays, financial records, etc., combined with modern geological surveys, assays, and reports. In the case of SFMI, the available information generates a high degree of confidence in all but a few intransigent naysayers. The degree of confidence is demonstrated by SFMI's ability to obtain financing based on future earnings and production of gold.

BTW, I've written scientific standards, and know how the process works. Many of the requirements are arbitrary, simply because at some point you either have to pick a number or use wiggle words like "appropriate", "sufficient", or "reasonable". Check out the wording of the 43-101 standard (43-101). It's amazingly loose in how resources are defined, as well as being dependent on a number of other documents. Even then, the rules are not written in stone, as the 43-101 has already been revised once since it was issued in 2001, and is already in the process of being revised again. Does that mean that all the "reserves" claimed under the older standard now disappear? Under the twisted logic of some, they do. But obviously not. Reserves that have been proved up to a significant degree of confidence do not disappear. And the evidence for significant reserves at War Eagle Mountain is about as good as it gets. of confidence do not disappear. And the evidence for significant reserves at War Eagle Mountain is about as good as it gets.

Tidbits from the Idaho Geological Survey report : Spiny

posted on May 05, thanks to “Spiny”.

I went through the recent report from the Idaho Geological Survey. Some interesting stuff in there. Following are some notes. I recognize many of the mine names as SFMI properties, some I didn’t, though that doesn’t mean they aren’t SFMI’s. If someone wants to go through and match the site locations with SFMI’s properties, be my guest!

“The only mill site in the area with a significant amount of tailings is at the Dewey Mine.” p 19

This report considers “tailings” in the correct sense, material discarded after it was run through the stamp mills used at the time. If the Dewey mill site is the only one with significant tailings, then that implies that most of the surface material in the area is unprocessed ore, probably discarded because it did not meet the criterion of visible gold, which produces a cutoff grade of ~ 2 oz/ton. From the location description, the Dewey does not seem to be one of SFMI’s properties. This may mean that most of SFMI’s material is indeed ore, and not “tailings”. The descriptions in the report bear this out, since most of the “waste dumps” are at mine sites where there is no mill. Many of the War Eagle mine sites were “in good ore” when they closed, meaning they still had visible gold and were probably still in grades near the 2.5 oz/t that the War Eagle mines averaged. I have noted this information when I found it. In many cases, the history of the mines was not complete.

Oro Fino- One of several ore dumps at this site is 60 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 20 feet high. p 56

The Ida Elmore and Golden Chariot were both in good ore when mining was stopped. p 66

“A dispute developed between two of the rich mines, the Ida Elmore and the Golden Chariot. These mines were located 75 feet apart, on the surface, on the same ore vein and underground; a single rock partition separated them. In early 1868 the partition between the two mines was broken through, and the miners came face to face. A fight commenced because both mines had rich ore deposits and competing mine owners. The miners fought each other in order to protect their livelihood. The miners, while underground, tried to drown and burn each other with steam hoses. During the exchange, 40 shots were fired killing two Golden Chariot miners and wounding an Ida Elmore miner. A few days after this underground war, a shooting occurred in Silver City directly related to the dispute. One man, from Idaho City and a supporter of the Ida Elmore, was killed outright while the other, a famous Pacific slope Indian fighter and a supporter of the Golden Chariot, was wounded and died later. These deaths brought the hostilities to a conclusion.” p 67

One ore dump at Ida Elmore/Golden Chariot is 60x30x10 feet.

Minnesota Mine (Oro Fino Group)- in good ore when it closed. One ore dump is 150x100x20 feet, another 50x15x10, another 75x15x10-15. p 86-87

South Chariot (Oro Fino Group)- An ore dump is 215x25x80 feet. p 94

Mahogany Mine (Oro Fino Group)- In good ore when it closed. Ore dump 90x50-75x20-30 feet. p 100

Mountain Chief Mine- Ore dump 100x85x15 feet. p 105

Red Jacket Mine- Ore dump 100x80x80 feet. p 109

Illinois Central Mine- Ore dump 120x60x40-50 feet. p 249

Belle Peck Adit of the Poorman Mine- Ore dumps are 240x10-70x30 and 60x25x70-85 feet. p 328

These are just some of the dozens of sites described in the report (over 400 pages of it).

, as the 43-101 has already been revised once since it was issued in 2001, and is already in the process of being revised again. Does that mean that all the "reserves" claimed under the older standard now disappear? Under the twisted logic of some, they do. But obviously not. Reserves that have been proved up to a significant of confidence do not disappear. And the evidence for significant reserves at War Eagle Mountain is about as good as it gets. . BTW, I've written scientific standards, and know how the process works. Many of the requirements are arbitrary, simply because at some point you either have to pick a number or use wiggle words like "appropriate", "sufficient", or "reasonable". Check out the wording of the 43-101 standard (). It's amazingly loose in how resources are defined, as well as being dependent on a number of other documents. Even then, the rules are not written in , as the 43-101 has already been revised once since it was issued in 2001, and is already in the process of being revised again. Does that mean that all the "reserves" claimed under the older standard now disappear? Under the twisted logic of some, they do. But obviously not. Reserves that have been proved up to a significant of confidence do not disappear. And the evidence for significant reserves at War Eagle Mountain is about as good as it gets. , assays, and reports. In the case of SFMI, the available information generates a high degree of confidence in all but a few intransigent naysayers. The degree of confidence is demonstrated by SFMI's ability to obtain financing based on future earnings and production of . BTW, I've written scientific standards, and know how the process works. Many of the requirements are arbitrary, simply because at some point you either have to pick a number or use wiggle words like "appropriate", "sufficient", or "reasonable". Check out the wording of the 43-101 standard (). It's amazingly loose in how resources are defined, as well as being dependent on a number of other documents. Even then, the rules are not written in , as the 43-101 has already been revised once since it was issued in 2001, and is already in the process of being revised again. Does that mean that all the "reserves" claimed under the older standard now disappear? Under the twisted logic of some, they do. But obviously not. Reserves that have been proved up to a significant of confidence do not disappear. And the evidence for significant reserves at War Eagle Mountain is about as good as it gets. evaluations happened to conform to the standards. They also don't change the degree of confidence in the resources of a specific site generated by the historic records, drilling, assays, financial records, etc., combined with modern geological , assays, and reports. In the case of SFMI, the available information generates a high degree of confidence in all but a few intransigent naysayers. The degree of confidence is demonstrated by SFMI's ability to obtain financing based on future earnings and production of . BTW, I've written scientific standards, and know how the process works. Many of the requirements are arbitrary, simply because at some point you either have to pick a number or use wiggle words like "appropriate", "sufficient", or "reasonable". Check out the wording of the 43-101 standard (). It's amazingly loose in how resources are defined, as well as being dependent on a number of other documents. Even then, the rules are not written in , as the 43-101 has already been revised once since it was issued in 2001, and is already in the process of being revised again. Does that mean that all the "reserves" claimed under the older standard now disappear? Under the twisted logic of some, they do. But obviously not. Reserves that have been proved up to a significant of confidence do not disappear. And the evidence for significant reserves at War Eagle Mountain is about as good as it gets. . The new standards don't make those old reserves go away, they just mean that you can't claim those reserves under the new standards unless by happy chance the old evaluations happened to conform to the standards. They also don't change the degree of confidence in the resources of a specific site generated by the historic records, drilling, assays, financial records, etc., combined with modern geological , assays, and reports. In the case of SFMI, the available information generates a high degree of confidence in all but a few intransigent naysayers. The degree of confidence is demonstrated by SFMI's ability to obtain financing based on future earnings and production of . BTW, I've written scientific standards, and know how the process works. Many of the requirements are arbitrary, simply because at some point you either have to pick a number or use wiggle words like "appropriate", "sufficient", or "reasonable". Check out the wording of the 43-101 standard (). It's amazingly loose in how resources are defined, as well as being dependent on a number of other documents. Even then, the rules are not written in , as the 43-101 has already been revised once since it was issued in 2001, and is already in the process of being revised again. Does that mean that all the "reserves" claimed under the older standard now disappear? Under the twisted logic of some, they do. But obviously not. Reserves that have been proved up to a significant of confidence do not disappear. And the evidence for significant reserves at War Eagle Mountain is about as good as it gets. standards that define exactly how to "prove up" different kinds of reserves BASED ON THOSE STANDARDS. Before those standards existed, there were any number of ways to prove up reserves to varying levels of . The new standards don't make those old reserves go away, they just mean that you can't claim those reserves under the new standards unless by happy chance the old evaluations happened to conform to the standards. They also don't change the degree of confidence in the resources of a specific site generated by the historic records, drilling, assays, financial records, etc., combined with modern geological , assays, and reports. In the case of SFMI, the available information generates a high degree of confidence in all but a few intransigent naysayers. The degree of confidence is demonstrated by SFMI's ability to obtain financing based on future earnings and production of . BTW, I've written scientific standards, and know how the process works. Many of the requirements are arbitrary, simply because at some point you either have to pick a number or use wiggle words like "appropriate", "sufficient", or "reasonable". Check out the wording of the 43-101 standard (). It's amazingly loose in how resources are defined, as well as being dependent on a number of other documents. Even then, the rules are not written in , as the 43-101 has already been revised once since it was issued in 2001, and is already in the process of being revised again. Does that mean that all the "reserves" claimed under the older standard now disappear? Under the twisted logic of some, they do. But obviously not. Reserves that have been proved up to a significant of confidence do not disappear. And the evidence for significant reserves at War Eagle Mountain is about as good as it gets.