Author: WillP -- Date:1999-02-23 18:11:38
Subject: Geological Jeopardy :-)
Teevee:
Well, that was suitably quick. I had actually watched a bit of the action on SI...before I wrote the 'question' post. As I recall you already answered one of them there. :-)
I'll make a few quick obserations:
#3. I think the definition of 'hypabyssal' is a good one to keep in mind, is it not...when looking at Snap Lake. If I recall correctly, the term means simply put...crystallizing occurs near the surface (0-2 km)...and yes, lower than the diatreme pipe.
#4. Well, I agree, but it could be argued that the presence of 3 large gems *is* an indicator of a nodule. At least, I think that *might* have been Kaiser's point.
#5. Exactly so, in my opinion. I confess to playing set-up man on that one. Maybe a few others as well, eh? :-)
#6. Ahhh, yes the multiple cone sheet. I'd forgotten about that part of the theory. Fair enough. I had been alluding to the multiple placement within the NW dyke area as known to date. And you're (probably) correct in your assumption as to why I asked. :-)
#7. Any comment I might make here...would not be unfavourable. You, umm...might just be correct about the breaking part. Ya never know, eh? :-)
#8. Don't know either. It would make sense that there would be pyroclastic twos, I *think*.
As to the 'esoteric' comments about statistical evaluation...I may just have a word or two about that. I'd been waiting patiently for a few days...but I've never been described as a patient man. This *is* after all a speculative play....lol!!
Regards,
WillP |
