RE: RE: You need to read this before buying TRR sh"Credible" and "honest"? You are joking right??? He posts a link to his OWN post which says the 3 most significant holes were drilled in
"close proximity to each other being holes numbered E-10-04 E-10-33 E-10-27". Well, unless
100m spacings between each constitutes "close proximity" that statement is an over exaggeration to say the least.
That's a solid 300m of strike length right there with those 3 holes alone, then you throw in the countless other holes that are nearly as good and you can see just how quickly the tonnage adds up. There is NO possible way you can pigeon-hole this MASSIVE deposit into a handful of good results the way Offshoredonkey is trying to portray. He's blatantly manipulating the information and he has been doing so right from the time he slithered out from whatever rock he came from.
Here is a list of the drill results, I have highlighted all the ones I believe are significant and note worthy and bolded all the ones over 1g/t. Most juniors would be clawing each other's eyes out for results like these, don't kid yourself. I used .85g/t as the cut-off but there are many gold deposits in the world that are feasible at even .5g/t or less.
February 8, 2011 - 8:27 AM EST
-- Hole E10-44 - 192.40 metres of 1.09 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-45 - 141.50 metres of 1.89 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-46 - 388.00 metres of 0.90 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-47 - 243.10 metres of 1.31 g/t gold
January 25, 2011 - 8:58 AM EST
Hole E10-41 - 250.20 metres of 0.90 g/t gold
Hole E10-42 - 95.40 metres of 1.85 g/t gold and 184.25 metres of 0.95 g/t gold
Hole E10-43 - 118.16 metres of 0.58 g/t gold and 236.26 metres of0.76 g/t gold
January 5, 2011 - 11:27 AM EST
-- Hole E10-37 - 125.23 metres of 0.69 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-38 - 28.09 metres of 1.16 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-39 - 30.00 metres of 0.88 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-40 - 334.40 metres of 1.02 g/t gold including 229.40 metres of 1.32 g/t gold
----------------
Side Note: Hole E10-40 is nearly
500-600 hundred metres away from E10-33. How is that "close proximity"???
----------------
November 16, 2010 - 8:09 AM EST
-- Hole E10-32 - 47.50 metres of 1.02 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-33 - 520.28 metres of 1.44 g/t gold (0.92 g/t cut) including 1.70 metres of 199.80 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-35 - 12.00 metres of 8.00 g/t gold and 187.55 metres of 0.61g/t gold
October 18, 2010 - 8:13 AM EDT
-- Hole E10-28 - 119.50 metres of 0.92 g/t gold.
-- Hole E10-29 - 139.00 metres of 1.62 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-31 - 136.95 metres of 0.79 g/t gold
-- Holes E10-29 and E10-31
each represent a 100 and 200 metre step out along strike to the west of previous drilling.
September 8, 2010 - 8:02 AM EDT
-- Hole E10-26 - 292.04 metres of 0.88 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-27 - 137.00 metres of 5.33 g/t gold within a larger envelope of 274.60 metres of 2.99 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-04 extension - 17.90 metres of 8.06 g/t gold
June 21, 2010 - 3:07 PM EDT
-- Hole E10-15 - 50.75 metres of 0.71 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-16 - 202.50 metres of 0.87 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-17 - 13.50 metres of 5.15 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-18 - 36.0 metres of 1.27 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-19 - 115.00 metres of 0.71 g/t gold
May 17, 2010 - 8:01 AM EDT
-- Hole E10-12 - 107.94 metres of 0.90 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-13 - 112.39 metres of 1.65 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-14 - 65.00 metres of 1.62 g/t gold
April 22, 2010 - 12:58 PM EDT
-- Hole E10-08 - 114.00 metres of 0.97 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-09 - 190.66 metres of 1.88 g/t gold
-- Hole E10-10 - 230.60 metres of 0.88 g/t gold
March 3, 2010 - 11:04 AM EST
-- Hole E09-03 - 68.07 metres of 2.04 g/t Gold
-- Hole E10-04 - 107.11 metres of 8.20 g/t Gold (uncut), including 313.55 g/t Gold over 2.56 metres
-- Hole E10-05 - 57.30 meters of 2.49 g/t Gold and 178.80m of 1.45 g/t Gold
Here is a link to the current drill map for you to judge for yourselves:
https://www.trelawneymining.com/pdfs/Cote%20Drill%20Map%20Satellite%20Photo.pdf
Like I said the current measurement for the resource is 400m(wide) x 700m(long) x 500m(deep) and growing. If any (or all) of the holes pending in blue have significant results that could add another 1 million to this already 4-6 million ounce deposit.
And while we on the subject, is it possible mnorth1 that you and Offshore are gettingpoor rankings because you aren't contributing anything useful andare bashing a stock that we all probably own and are here to discuss? BTW that's why I generally say "we" when referring to the company; because I'm referring to us as investors and treating the stock as if we're all on the same side, like a sports team. As in the "editorial we" and "we're" all hoping for this to go up because "we" have put boat loads of money into our decisions and aren't just spouting off without having any real stake in the situation.
Not "WE" as though I'm pretending to work for TRR and am passing along their opinions by proxy, dumbass!
I will tell you directly that I have personally given both of you poor rankings because I don't believe either of you is genuine and are both trying to skew the facts to confuse people. I'm just one person however and if several other people liked what you had to say you would probably have good rankings regardless of my single opinion I'm sure. So you ponder that one.
Cheers.
Gamblor.