To: ALAN DUBE who wrote (498 ) 7/21/1999 2:20:00 PM From: VAUGHN Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 707
Hello Alan Not really, unless you know something about the Ptarmigan that I do not. The Ptarmigan was well away (over 10km) from most of the other pipes anyway so mining it would have presented transportation problems in relationship to other possible open pits. I think the three positives are: 1. The T-10 apparently still has potential which if ultimately proven out, and combined with say two other small pipes, possibly in the Gooseneck area, suggests that a mine is possible, just based on those three kimberlites, let alone any that may be found beneath one or more of those other 88 targets! 2. The numbers. The rough ratio just south of Yamba is roughly 1 in 10-12 pipe targets proves to be an economic pipe. We have 90 targets and at 1/12 it is possible to prematurely and speculatively (but reasonably) project potential in the 7 to 9 economic pipe range! 3. The repeated references to "very very good geochemistry" not heard before in relationship to this play. Hopefully in future NR's, HB will be more specific. (Eg: J-7? J-9's, etc.) Now I only have to be 33% right for us to still have mine potential, and can you imagine if they are more successful. I think the odds are attractive enough to make this the resource speculator's play of choice for the time being. The down side as I mentioned on the SUF thread, is that I do not get the sense from the NR that we are going to hear the word pipes and drilling in the same breath for at least three or four months and possibly longer. That probably will not please the market right now. You can check out the geochemical trains on the site map attached to todays NR here:southernera.com Regards