Hi Folks. A couple qualified comments/ responses, from MMU president R. Boulay:
==================================
I agree that some of the excellent questions deserve some answers or at least
comments. Feel free to post this.
One commentator mentioned that we have lots of overburden in the Chinchaga area.
This is incorrect. In one of our holes we have about 20 metres of messy stuff
due to bad drilling conditions and some of it could be overburden but generally
its very thin, one metre to two or three metres.
Re: magnetic signatures, my guess, just a guess is that 20% to 30% of the pipes
ultimately found in Alberta will have useful magnetic signature, most will not.
I understand that very weak mag signatures on strong linear structures are now
being prioritized by Ashton as pipe targets in advance of stronger mag
signatures which do not lie on good structure. Thats what I hear. In any event
our mag signatures are relatively weak compared to the ACA and MEO/Kennecott
biggies. This is not particularly bothersome to us because we would expect
weaker signatures along a shoreline where the waves chop up the volcanic
superstructure, whereas to the east in ACA and MEO land the volcanics vented
into relatively deep marine water well below the wave action.
As to tracking down diamonds in the volcaniclastics, we just don't know at this
stage. We expect that longshore currents will be the controlling factors but we
don't know. That's why we have sedimentologists working on the matter. We also
have a few other tricks to use in locating them.
Where are the pipes? Good question. Don't know yet except that they can't be far
away. We have had some lively internal debate as to whether Hole 7-D has punched
into a pipe's crater facies. We have compared it to core from other northern
Alberta pipes and conclude that it compares well texturally and mineralogically.
This combined with a coincident and remarkable deep vertical disruption to the
basement 2.5 km down, and deeper, argues that it has most of the geological
elements required to be awarded the "P" word. But we operate on the basis that
we must never, ever be forced to back down on a technical announcement, and so
it remains problematic in my opinion. I can hear it now.... they can't be very
smart if they can't tell if they have a pipe or not! Well the operational
reality is that it not as easy as some players would have you think. Besides, we
don't really care at this stage since we have much larger targets to go after.
Another thing about pipes, we believe that one or two of the ACA pipes probably
have geochemistry that qualifies them to be technically called "kimberlites" but
we think, on information and belief as the lawyers would say, all the others in
northern Alberta are probably not kimberlites. We don't particularly care since
both Ashton and MEO/Kennecott have reported diamonds from some of their pipes
and that is all that matters. The Alberta diamond play is far more interesting
and has far more potential than most observers can now imagine. Stay tuned.
Diversification into metals.... Its frustrating that this impression is being
created by our necessity to sample for metals before we sacrifice the core to
diamond analysis. We are still primarily a diamond play but we have to
investigate the discovery of the high metal content of the volcaniclastic rocks.
It looks really interesting and has generated a lot of interest in the nickel
and base metal exploration community, and we intend to develop this new "play"
in a professional manner. We also intend to pursue the diamond play according to
plan by initiating a bulk sampling program as soon field conditions allow.
Regards, Rick Boulay
==================================
---------
I sure appreciate your taking the time Rick. Certainly well above your call of duty!
____
S'long,
-j
:> |
