If I had a nickel for when you and I have been wrong all your lives, I would stop looking for money my friend.
It doesn't matter. Nobody speaks or acts based on they might be wrong. They think they are right, or it's worth the candle as they say.
You have to damn the torpedoes and act on your best bets. The spoils go to those with the best and most pervasively attuned instincts.
If you are saying that the Tasiuyak gneiss does not go to Ungava Bay, then you are stating a "non-fact" that is routinely denied by the geologists who mapped your province. The gneiss does go there. And it is the host of most of the nickel occurences in Labrador-Quebec. You can prospect by that. Is that what you are arguing about? Then argue about it, and stop making yourself out to be some kind of expert, and me the fool, as that is called ad hominem. It is a sad trait of puffery of authoritarian minds who, no matter what other qualifications or reasons they may have, completely dilute their argument by trying to depreciate the other person, rather than their point.
Now I may have different beliefs than you. I may believe that most VMS and nickel sulphide occurences have a sub aqueous sedimentary or near surface hydrothermal origin, just as the vast majority of copper-zinc occurences do. Their suspicious proximity to all manner of near surface rocks within hundreds of feet, not thousands, in the temporal sucession, may give that away. It is a montrous penny that has not yet dropped in the minds of the slavish replacement-intrusive camp who claim a geochemical basis for their fractionation and magmatic theories. Alright, I only have 20 or so PhD's in my camp, and you may have 100 or so loud obnoxious PhD's in yours. So what? Does that make you right? Did you know that 1964 PhD theses claim the Sudbury camp as entirely sedimentary or hydrothermal, and this squares completely with the most routinely and widely quoted theories of the camp -- from the 1948 reports. Reports which I might add are called the most scholarly and unarguable of all the work done on Sudbury. All the original work on Sudbury said hydrothermal origin was undeniable. Only since 1970 have people been saying magmatic. In fact the 1948 reports argued persuasively that Sudbury was only possibly a replacment or magmatic deposit if it were overturned, because of the nature of the embayment mineralization character.
I don't think so. Deal with the issues. Does VB nickel differ markedly in origin, age, or host rock from the Cape Smith Belt, Thompson, Timmins or for that matter the Qullinaaraaluk rocks or what have you..?
It's no big deal. I know geologists who will tell you that no matter how much the nickel and chromite likes peridotites and mantle materials, the source of many of the concentrations of metals of that type may in fact be just heat sources remobilizing the surficial sedimentary nickel into the intrusive. Reason? The intrusives are sadly undersaturated with respect to sulphur at depth and cannot carry that much nickel with them in their silicate masses. |
