Tomato,
Author: WillP --
Date:1999-02-14
20:29:36
Subject: Small Points and
Bulls :-)
Douglas...The Doc...and
all:
I'm back. Valentine's Day
does play havoc with ones
vocation and avocations.
But of course you are well
aware of this, I'm sure.
Douglas...I do confess,
although the name Tyler
did indeed escape my
failing mind...it wasn't for
long. Indeed, it came to me
as I was typing. Good call.
:-)
The Kalahari 10% was
indeed a typo...I had meant
to type 19%...and my little
stubby fingers miss all too
frequently. However...I
had indeed forgotten that
Kalascary still has 30% of
the McKay property. My
ardor for Kalahari has
cooled over the past year
or two, although not for
any sane reasons. Too may
options, too little cash? :-)
Your reminder serves
notice that one can, should,
and does pick up
information here. Thanks.
Yes...I do confess I (at
least try) to avoid a few
things. Primarily I try to
avoid errors. I also try to
ensure every 'fact' I
mention is verifyable by
information in the public
domain. There are many
logical reasons for this.
Now to your other
questions:
The stone size guesstimates
on my part were just that. I
took my curves, added a
bit...took away a bit...took
the Doc's advice...and had
a bit of fun.
Both 'teevee' and I used
the raw data from the
mini-bulk sample. He calls
them gems...I call them
diamonds. Other than
that...we should generally
concur. This we seem to
do.
Mind you...the difference
was relatively small.
However my stone
distribution curve *is*
based on the mini-bulk
sample...and my numbers
are going to be simple
multiples of what was
found there...more or less a
bit.
You're bang on with your
opinion of my 100 carat
stone guess of 0.5. Bang
on. I had originally
disallowed them in my
model, but threw in a rough
guess as to the possibility. I
don't expect one...but
there's a chance. Not a
Lotto 649 chance either.
So let's speak to that.
There was one 10 carat
diamond in 200 tonnes,
and the popular belief is
that there would be one to
three 30 carat stones in a
5000 tonne sample. This
information was commonly
known and available.
Using just layman's math:
So...using the figure of
one...there is a three fold
increase in size with a 25
fold increase in tonnage.
Keep on going with that.
There should be one 90
carat diamond in 125,000
tonnes. There should be
one 270 carat diamond in
3 million tonnes. If the 75
million tonnes that 'teevee'
talks about were to come
to pass...well, I'll let you do
the math.
This is not mathematically
correct...but many of you
have already made just that
calculation, I'm willing to
wager.
Me? I can see a 150 carat
stone in a 50,000 tonne
sample. *** Based on the
mini-bulk sample results.
***
The bottom line is this. The
mini-bulk sample results
were *so* fantastic...that if
one accepts them...one has
to consider the possibility
of a thousand carat
diamond working it's way
out from under Snap Lake.
I choose not to accept
them. Not yet. So...I
mangled the upper part of
the curve to keep Mr.
"Star of the North" from
making an appearance.
Doing so, lowered the
assumed grade from 1.14
to (I forget and I'm not
looking back) about 1.11
or so. Not a big difference,
due to the rarity of the
event(s).
Predicting large stones is a
'fools game' however. Or
one that otherwise
intelligent folk can have
some fun with whilst still
realizing the foolishness of
it. It's way too
unpredictable. Besides...if
a 1000 carat stone did
come out of a Snap Lake
cone sheet...let's give it a
value of $75 million for the
sake of easy math. That
would only add $1 per
tonne to the ore. :-)
But it's so much fun.
While it lasts.
It's probably another
perceptive observation on
your part, but things do
tend to get busy for me at
various times of the
year...I'll probably be an
erratic poster for that
reason.
If I may close by
paraphrasing the good
Doctor...
Let's have fun!
"Best wishes gentlemen" :-)
WillP |
