About Torngat, you wrote, "4.5 feet, not 4.5 metres." I saw on SH where you mentioned 1 metres. You spoke of this as if a complaint. Actually, the company's Web site indicates Torngat1 as 1-to-4 metres in width. This is typical of the world's producing kimberlite fissure/dyke systems. While you are marginally correct, based on world standards, that Torngat narrows with depth, this is also typical. However, commercial extraction from such occurrences typically extend to around 1,000 metres down. Another thing to consider is that their yields, unlike pipes, tend to be consistent both at depth and along strike. Therefore, and again quite unlike pipes, they tend to be producers over several decades. They are also cheap to mine compared to the typical pipe where costs increase quite dramatically with depth. This is accomplished by mining, say, only the first several metres of material along the length of the system, and starting over again. Also unlike pipes, dykes can be mined in several (or more) locations at once with special emphasis at the "blows."
In summary, I don't quite get the same sense in regards to your complaints (both here and on SH) about management, Torngat geology (a "flop," you say), and the lab reports on Freightrain. I could be very wrong, of course, and am open to hearing other of your observations. |
