In the end I heartily disagree. I must, and there is no politically correct way to do this so that it lets one down easily. Diamonds by themselves are a poor indicator of raw grade.
You may disagree all you wish, heartily or otherwise. There's also no politically way to say this, but say it I must:
You seem to have fully misunderstood my statement, which was referring to kimberlites that have already been minibulk tested, producing grades in excess of 0.10 carat per tonne.
That value is subeconomic, but it is still rare company, and you "don't need no stinkin' garnets" to tell you the pipe might be diamondiferous -- at that stage of exploration.
Otherwise, I'll agree with you. Diamonds are a poor diamond indicator mineral if you are hunting diamonds from scratch.
To wit, I can think of several plays that were derailed because one or two diamonds were found in the surface samples, and a few more that were intentionally crafted into little more than promotions.
If I'm hunting diamonds and have only one tool to use, yes, I'll take garnets.
But within limits. A number of plays come to mind where the garnets are still touted as a sign -- good or bad -- when detailed sampling has quite clearly indicated otherwise.
So again, here's my point:
If you've sampled two or three kimberlites in a district and arrived at a grade over 0.10 carat per tonne, you're in a pretty good region to look for an economic pipe.
Remember, I'm a big fan of proximity. ;-)
Regards,
WillP |
