Datasets:
redmoddata
/
lines_train_2M

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
1
text
stringlengths
1
330k
prospective drill targets from its extensive 2011 trenching program.
Guyana Frontier successfully encountered gold mineralization at Marudi
North within quartzite-metachert rocks (the host rock), interpreted as
similar in composition to the rocks known to host gold mineralization
at the Mazoa Hill target area, located approximately 1.6 kilometres to
the south. Results of 6 holes from Marudi North yet to be reported are
currently being compiled and interpreted.
For maps and photos depicting the 2012 drilling, please visit Guyana
Frontier’s website at www.guyanafrontier.com
The technical disclosure in this news release was reviewed and approved
by Mr. Tim Carew, P.Geo., of Reserva International LLC, a Qualified
Person as defined in N.I. 43-101 and an independent contractor to
Guyana Frontier.
About Marudi Mountain
Marudi Mountain consists of one Mining Licence totaling 13,502 acres
(5,464 hectares) located in southern Guyana approximately 500
kilometres (330 miles) from the capital city of Georgetown.
Guyana Frontier also holds the adjacent Paint Mountain property (“Paint
Mountain”). Paint Mountain consists of one Prospecting Licence totaling
8,848 acres (3,581 hectares) and remains largely underexplored. Guyana
Frontier recently commenced surface exploration at Paint Mountain,
including trenching, prospecting, and geological mapping. A portion of
the property has been selected for trenching, detailed mapping and
sampling on the basis of favourable geology and the presence of
artisanal alluvial gold miners. Airborne geophysical surveys are
planned for both the Paint Mountain and Marudi Mountain properties in
About Guyana Frontier
Guyana Frontier is a public mineral exploration company listed on the
discovery and development of precious metals deposits within Guyana,
South America. Guyana Frontier began acquiring interests in Guyanese
exploration properties in 2007, and now holds various rights to obtain
working interests in approximately 342,000 acres (138,400 hectares) of
prospective lands. Guyana Frontier’s goal is to develop a significant
gold resource at Marudi Mountain, and to explore its other Guyanese
projects using funding from exploration partners.
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider
accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
applicable Canadian securities legislation.  Forward-looking statements
events or developments that the Company expects or anticipates will or
may occur in the future, including such things as planned exploration
activities at the Marudi Mountain and Paint Mountain properties, the
establishment of an NI 43-101 compliant resource at the Marudi Mountain
property, future business strategy, competitive strengths, goals,
expansion, growth of the Company’s businesses, operations, plans and
with respect to exploration results, the timing and success of
exploration activities generally, permitting time lines, government
regulation of exploration and mining operations, environmental risks,
title disputes or claims, limitations on insurance coverage, timing and
possible outcome of any pending litigation and timing and results of
future resource estimates or future economic studies.
assumptions, including, the result of drilling and exploration
activities, that contracted parties provide goods and/or services on
the agreed timeframes, that equipment necessary for exploration is
available as scheduled and does not incur unforeseen break downs, that
no labour shortages or delays are incurred, that plant and equipment
function as specified, that no unusual geological or technical problems
occur, and that laboratory and other related services are available and
perform as contracted.  Forward-looking statements involve known and
unknown risks, future events, conditions, uncertainties and other
factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements
to be materially different from any future results, prediction,
projection, forecast, performance or achievements expressed or implied
the interpretation and actual results of current exploration
activities; changes in project parameters as plans continue to be
refined; the existence of weather conditions suitable for exploration
activities; future prices of minerals; possible variations in grade or
recovery rates; failure of equipment or processes to operate as
anticipated; the failure of contracted parties to perform; labour
disputes and other risks of the mining industry; delays in obtaining
governmental approvals or financing or in the completion of
exploration, as well as those factors disclosed in the company’s
publicly filed documents. Although the Company has attempted to
identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or
results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking
as actual results and future events could differ materially from those
anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place
undue reliance on forward-looking statements.
SOURCE Guyana Frontier Mining Corp.
Source: PR Newswire
A Nobel Letdown in Economics
It's customary, when the Nobel Prize in Economics is announced each year, for the members of the economics profession to gather around and proclaim how deserving the winners are and how important their research is to the field. I have to say, however, that this year's Nobel Prize in Economics, given to two game theorists, brings up mixed feelings for me.
Since I'm a journalist with a PhD in economics, I will go half the distance. I agree that Robert Aumann and Thomas Schelling, this year's Nobel laureates, deserve their awards. Schelling, in particular, wrote two of the best economic books ever, The Strategy of Conflict and Micromotives and Macrobehavior.
CONSISTENT WITH MANY OUTCOMES. In my opinion, however, game theory represents an evolutionary dead-end in the development of economics. Game theory tries to use the principle of rationality to explain conflict and cooperation in a wide range of economic and social situations. For example, game theory has been used to analyze why the apparently insane buildup of nuclear weapons in the postwar period was actually a rational method of deterring war, and why aggressive price-cutting by airlines was an effective means of deterring competition.
To put it a different way: If the world had been blown up during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, game theorists could have explained that as an unfortunate outcome -- but one that was just as rational as what actually happened. Similarly, an industry that collapses into run-amok competition, like the airlines, can be explained rationally by game theorists as easily as one where cooperation is the norm.
FRESHER THINKING. Rationality only gets you so far in terms of predicting behavior. In the aftermath of Katrina, news reports of widespread looting and crime in New Orleans were perfectly plausible. After all, it would be rational for criminals to take advantage of the absence of effective policing.
But now that we know that criminal activity after the hurricane was relatively rare, well, it also seems rational that everyone would band together in the face of a common disaster. Similarly, in Iraq today, either of two polar outcomes -- civil war or cooperation between the Sunnis and Shiites -- is perfectly compatible with game theory.
Instead, the real progress in economics these days is coming not from game theory, which has been around for 60 or more years, but from the much newer fields of behavioral and experimental economics. Behavioral and experimental economics don't start with the assumption of rationality used by game theory. Rather, as the name suggests, the focus is on looking at how individuals and organizations actually make decisions in practice, including systematic biases, misperceptions, and just general all-around bloody-mindedness.
DEFYING EXPECTATIONS. In fact, Daniel Kahneman and Vernon Smith won the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics for their work on behavioral and experimental economics. The writeup that accompanied their award observed:
In a series of studies, Kahneman -- in collaboration with the late Amos Tversky -- has shown that people are incapable of fully analyzing complex decision situations when the future consequences are uncertain.
SAYING TOO MUCH. In other words, Kahneman and Smith won their 2002 prize precisely for showing that people mostly don't behave the way that game theory assumes they do. Game theory is based on a finely honed sort of reasoning: "If I do this, then he'll do that, then I'll do this" ad infinitum, assessing the probability of different final outcomes. In reality, though, that's not how most people think or make decisions.
Now, nobody forces the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which awards the Nobel Prize, to worry about intellectual consistency. But I do object when the Nobel Prize press release asks "Why do some groups of individuals, organizations, and countries succeed in promoting cooperation while others suffer from conflict?" and then calls game theory "the dominant approach to this age-old question." That's just overstatement.
Mandel is chief economist for BusinessWeek
The Epic Hack
(enter your email)
(enter up to 5 email addresses, separated by commas)
Max 250 characters
blog comments powered by Disqus
Stuart Goodman
Publication Details
• Chronic antigen-specific immune-system activation may potentially be involved in the loosening of cemented acetabular components JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH Farber, A., Chin, R., Song, Y., Huie, P., Goodman, S. 2001; 55 (3): 433-441