Hello VAUGHN:
We probably should move this over to A Canadian Diamond or the Twin thread before we PO folks.
Yes, true enough. Consider it done.
However, those numbers are what first caught my eye and these:
Hah! I thought so.
MagneticAnomalies ApproximateDiameter (m)
Freightrain (formerly Jackson) 500
Ano 1 150
Ano 2 100
Ano 3 140
Ano 4A 240
Ano 4B 150
Ano 5 600
Ano 6 300
Ano 7 300
Ano 8 150
Ano 9 30
I believe Ano 5 is Pipe 5 on the chart you reference....
Ummm...I'm not so sure. I'm pretty sure that Pipe 5 and all the other pipes referenced in "my" chart are now combined into the one Freightrain anomaly. Therefore, these other ones are all separate, new targets.
I believe that ANO-3 is now known as Cargo-1.
There are now 14 separate anomalies, some with large diameters, in the general area. That's not counting the -- what was it -- 14 "pipes" that were initially identified, but are now referred to as Freightrain.
That geochemistry is incredible isn't it?
Umm, that's a good word for it, yes.
However, I was also interested to read the reference to 5% Eclogitic garnet on another NR. That often indicates the potential for larger stones.
I recall that as well, but I can't find it in any news release. I did find it in a TWG annual report however: "Even though garnets are more readily destroyed by caustic fusion than chromite, the preserved population contained 5% G10 sub-calcic pyrope garnet derived from potentially diamondiferous garnet harzburgite source rocks and 5% G3 eclogitic garnet derived from high pressure eclogitic source rocks, of which 17% of the six analyses are compositionally similar to eclogitic garnet from diamondiferous eclogite xenoliths."
While I doubt TWG will report it, it would be interesting to know how many macros are eclogitic rather than peridotitic?
I doubt it too, but it will be a good question in an interview, or at PDAC, etc.
In that respect, I finally found something that JK and I agree on.
Yes, John is on a crusade on that, and I can't disagree with his position. I had one guy tell me that Kaiser "goaded him into" releasing his 2-D macro numbers, so it is working.
Nevertheless, any data is better than no data, as long as you clearly understand the limitations. There are potential problems with 2-D counts as well, they're just not as great as the problems with 1-D counts.
In TWG's/Lakefield's upcoming sample results I suspect that that the market will do its usual over reaction to what might appear to be low numbers and not pay the attention it should to the division of the macro categories. Anyway for those in the know it should result in another good buying opportunity.
I can't help but think that as well. The grade will be low, but I'm more interested in the size distribution, as you probably know.
Regards,
WillP |
