Hello Gemseacher
My apologies to all. I have been swamped here and today the computer was down for the count as well.
To some degree the nature of SUF's NWT NR Monday is similar to several that proceeded it and is distinguished in a number of cases more by what is not said than what is. In that light, I have attempted below to offer my perspective on what information has been provided and what we need to know beyond the obvious.
Munn Lake Kimberlite Area:
--------------------------
WE KNOW:
1. SUF appears to have probed the bedrock up to 150meters up ice of the “sill” and no other kimberlite was discovered,
2. The sill width fluctuates between .25 & 12meters,
3. The strike is open beyond 300 meters,
4. There is an extremely high % of eclogitic xenoliths,
5. There are extraordinarily large Chrome diopsides,
6. 40% of the recovered pyropes are G-10's,
7. There is some extraordinary and detailed geochemical information,
8. SUF still believes that the sill might possibly still have economic potential.
WE DON'T KNOW:
a. If any evidence of any other kimberlites was found in Munn Lake?
b. If the sill in any way followed the bedding or a fault or diabase in the host rock?
c. The average width of the sill?
d. If the strike is open beyond 300 meters in both directions or just one?
e. If either of the two holes that missed the sill, were drilled on either end of the sill strike, or simply down ice?
f. Whether the extremely high % of eclogitic xenoliths refers to the % of eclogitic vs peridotitic xenoliths, the actual % by volume of rock tested, or something else? What exactly is meant?
g. SUF's implied importance of the extraordinarily large Chrome diopsides?
h. Whether the large Chrome diopsides and other chemistry matches the Yuri chemistry? Note: no 8cm Chrome diopsides were reported from the Yuri, why?
i. SUF's implied importance of the 40% of the recovered pyropes being G-10's?
j. The quality of G-10's is not given, (# of J-10's down to J-2's)?
k. If any micro or macro diamonds were recovered?
l. If SUF will be conducting any further drilling in 1999?
m. SUF's theory of why geochemistry sourced from beyond 300 metre strike did not show up on fence sampling assuming the Yuri's 25meter boulders were sourced from Munn Lake? Does the sill change direction or could there be a 25m blow that SUF did not find in the sill?
n. Whether the sill width fluctuates along strike, down dip, or both?
o. If SUF has a revised theory of the source of Yuri's 25meter boulders?
p. What was the progress at Margaret Lake if any?
q. What are SUF's remaining 1999 Back Lake play exploration plans?
For what it is worth I will again repeat and stress, that I am not by any stretch of the imagination an expert in any way about exploration geochemistry, or diamond exploration for that matter, however, for what its worth, this is what I inferred by the reported data.
Firstly, I have never heard of CD crystals close to this size in NWT kimberlites and the implications are presumably significant and may include one or more of the following; firstly, little reabsorbtion may have occurred, secondly, less emplacement trauma may have existed to damage crystals, and thirdly if CD's of this size exist, there should be an increased possibility that larger diamonds also exist especially if located in large eclogitic xenoliths.
The presence of a high % of Eclogitic Xenoliths suggests to me that the host kimberlite was very deeply sourced, much more than typical. It should also be noted that high eclogitic content typically can result in and is suggestive of larger, and for what its worth, harder diamonds.
Finally, the high % of G-10 Pyropes assuming we are talking about J-5's or better is suggestive of higher diamond content kimberlite, that is high grade ore.
The question is, will there be enough of it to be economic to mine? Unfortunately, there is nothing in this NR to suggest that we will absolutely know the answer to that question any time soon, or even this year, but I certainly do not gain the sense that economics despite possible high value tonnage, are likely from this sill.
In addition, there are several issues to consider. On the negative side, the fact that SUF did not state that further work would be done this year implies to me that it will not. At least, field drilling very probably will not, and that is what most investors are concerned about. Also, while SUF suggests that the strike remains open, I infer that that it must be cut off on one side at least, or it would have outcropped on land. Thisrdly, unless the strike changes direction up ice of the proven sill exposure, I can not account for two things, a) the lack of indicator minerals beyond the proven sill exposure along strike, and b) the failure to find an opening wide enough in the sill to have birthed the 25m Yuri boulders.
On the positive side, a) Margaret Lake to the east of Munn has not been drilled and has geochemical trains flowing from it (if ice direction is still presumed to be established). b) Unless the Munn Lake sill opened to birth the Yuri, then closed (unlikely), then the Munn sill is not the source of the Yuri. c) The Yuri was found on the eastern shore of Munn and while glaciation for whatever reason, must have suggested to SUF that it was sourced from the west (Munn Lake), logic would now suggest that it was sourced from somewhere else, with the most probable source in my mind at least being Margaret Lake to the west. If the 8cm sill CD's don't match up with the Yuri's CD's, then for sure the sill was not the source of the Yuri.
Finally, on the face of the information provided, I suspect that SUF is completely reevaluating the glaciation research on this property. If the Yuri did not come from Munn or possibly even from Margaret, then just how far might it have traveled from its source and in what direction? That may also explain CJ's denial of issuance of any maps with geochemical data on them. It may be possible that SUF may be considering the possibility that the Yuri was sourced from another direction/property which HB may be attempting to secure. CJ certainly would not want to give away any hint of that prior to gaining control.
Time does not permit me to offer further comment on the remainder of the NR this evening, but I will try to post again as soon as I get a chance.
P.S. The best hard copy claim/relief map combos I have seen are/were available from Enersource(403) 269-7877 / e-mail enersource@cadvision.com
Regards |
