This note is addressed to Peter Bullock: It is nice Peter that the major
players have finally realized the difference between group 1 kimberlites and group 2 kimberlites, anyone who had had the gumption to get off their unadulturated asses when the stock price was trading in the south of the dollar range, could have figured the
scope and geologiical significance of the Snap Lake Deposits, well
before the general market. Maybe this is why my personal wealth has
increased five fold Hence
1. Predicting the grade and value before the hoards
2. However some general assumptions can be made about group 2
kimberlites, as well. One can be move forward with preconceived notions about Group 2 kimberlites and make blanket statements which can and often do prove wrong.
3. If you will recall, some time back on the Winspear #1 thread before
I was so ruthlessly and vehemently attacked by the boo birds, I had
started to make the distinction between Group 1 and Group 2 kimberlites. The conversation was cut short, and did not ensue any
further.
4. Winspears classification of kimberlite as alluded to by George Albino can be verifed thru Isotopic analyzation. Group 2 kimberlites are akin to Lamphroites. Sr ratios and Nd ratios ie. group 2 kimberlites
are mantle rich . Group 1 kimberlites are usually associated with depleted mantle sources.
If one studies the minerology of the six major dyke groups in S.Africa
he can as well make some comparisions and distinction between both
Winspear deposit and the S.African Group.
1. First long ago, Winspear was enamored with the thought that the
Mir signature was prevelant, this however has changed. Lamphroites
and Conventional Diamond pipes like Mir dont mix in my opinion.
Secondly, the similiarities betweent the 6 dykes studied show one
contiguous factor, rounded olivne, AND less abundant phlogopite
macrocysts.
2. A second dissimiliarity in reviewing both types of deposits, is that
Diatreme venting events took place, hypabysmal kimberlite was emplaced as well in Snap Lake, this shows a mixed bag of deposition,
thus my layered theory of both diatreme and lamphroite deposition in
the host rock lithology. This is not common if one analyzes the prospect of a major pipe occuring on Winspears Group 2 deposit,
usually major pipes wont be prevelant. Host rock structure dictates
whether the deposition was pipe enhanced or dyke enhanced, in
Winspear case dyke enhancement took place in a sedementary enviroment.
3. If the dyke system were emplaced in uniformity, then the outlying areas would show a distinct lessening of grade as grade deposition
diminishes the further one tranverse from the main feeder. The fact that similiar diamond counts were prevelant in both the diatreme breeciated bodies suggesting venting, as well as the NW penninsula
dyke system and the 3 additional dyke areas one would believe that
multiple emplacement events occurred maybe spanning 10 to 20 million years with multiple events. A mixed stew preferrably pea, with
boiling venting emissions. If you will notice breeciated kimberlite has
been present near almost every drill hole encountered where diamond
counts were prevelant. Please see individual grids and drill hole referenceds. The key to whether Winspear produces widespread deposition of the deposit, IMHO is directly proportional and dictated by the host rock lithology of emplacement. Would Winspear care to
disclose publicly now the reasons why the diamond valuations breakdowns were held from the market for 6 months, or why they have refused to release grades (2000ton) per area when processed.
I do not see the big secret point of view, Debeers has as likely a bigger headache developing with Rex Minining in Mauritania.
Hee., hee, hee.
George Calling it the way I see it, give my regards to the Brits and the
"Crown Jewels"
Oh BTW the stock price is reflective of what has been proven thus
far, those that sucked into the 5.00C movement and promoted it ought to be ashamed of themselves, tsch, tsch, it is hard to be honest
when surrounded by thieves. |
