Peter,
I had knowledge that up to about a year ago, no Group II kimberlite was known (or at least reported in the diamond exploration community) outside of South Africa. Also, there are no known Group I kimberlite dykes exploited for their diamond content. Group I dykes associated wih major pipes are essentially ignored in terms of providing additional tonnage to a large existing mine. Otherwise little is known of Group I kimberlite dykes, which suggests they are less common, less extensive along strike, and/or sub economic. As a result, and in conjuntion with scant data coming out of the eastern end of the southern slave pipe field, I guessed that the kimberlite at Snap lake was Group II kimberlite. The significance of that, and from an investment perspective, was not lost on me.....especially after I realized that the kimberlite dykes at Snap Lake do not appear to be typical Group II dykes in terms of the morphology and tonnage potential. I then asked RT if they had classified the kimberlite at Snap Lake as Group II (on a compositional and petrographic basis) and he confirmed that it indeed was.....Peter, many have taken my posts to be (from their perspective) over enthusiastic....from my perspective, I have not been......
regards,
teevee
|
