Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Kensington Resources Ltd. (V.KRT) * Diamond in the rough! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jimmy willett who wrote (4355)	9/10/1999 9:49:00 PM
From: Sieg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5206

This is only speculating, (what's new?) Am I correct in my thoughts? If a Kimberlite body averaged .25Kt/t at $0.50/Kt based on previous results. Then the gross income would be $12.50/t less a cost of $13.00/t gives a loss of $0.50/t This is not viable!!!! no mine!!!!! If we have only recovered half the stones then, 2 x 0.25Kt/t x $50.00/Kt - $13.00/t = a profit of $12.00/t @ 40,000 t/d = $480,000/d Can some one comment? Am I mad. Am I missing something? I hope this pans out for us. If I'm close to being correct and if I understand what might be , THIS IS VIABLE!!! $$$$$$$.

To: jimmy willett who wrote (4355)	9/11/1999 8:44:00 AM
From: maxed	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5206

Hi. Jimmy. This is just another typical KRT news release that tells you nothing. Lets see our new PR guy try to hype these numbers or I should say lack of numbers. If you do a little reading on the problem DeBeer's had with SA the excuse for the delay is crap also. The problem was that the gov. of SA thought the value DeBeer's was putting on diamonds mined in SA was too low and therefore they were getting screwed by DeBeer's. Diamonds mined in Canada and only sent to SA for evaluation had nothing to do with the dispute and should not have been delayed for that reason. If I am wrong then give me facts to the contrary. Tom don't give me the this is great news speech because I am not in the mood. I bet AJ was up all night going over the drill site with a flashlight looking for diamonds they left behind. Eddy

To: jimmy willett who wrote (4355)	9/12/1999
From: Falcon095	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5206

Hi Jimmy and Fellow KRT Stalwarts! It appears that the "CODE OF SILENCE" which has hovered over the exploration/development of one of the largest kimberlite clusters in the world is continuing to unravel, albeit ever so slowly. WE are now beginning to understand why the Mad (minibulk samples) processing has so dismally underperformed that of the Mida (small samples) processing. The latter were treated by caustic dissolution, which recovers all of the diamonds. KRT marathoners caught an early glimpse of potential problems in Dr. J.H. Montgomery's January 15,1996 report to Kensington Resources. He stated the following: "The discrepancies in diamond recoveries between the two sample types appear too large and consistent to be solely a result of a 'nugget effect.' It appears that processing differences may be affecting the results, for example, the processing of the smaller samples may have been more efficient in recovering macrodiamonds." (p.44) Macrodiamond recovery for the small Mida samples (core holes 1992-1993) was 2 to 4 times greater than in the minibulk samples. Furthermore, the recovery of macrodiamonds from the small Mida samples (large diameter drill holes 1994-1995) was 13.7 times greater than in the minibulk samples. (p.43) A real mind-blower, to say the least! :))) This report, which is in the public domain, sounded the alarm that continues to this day! Initially, after a quick read, the numbers just released seem disappointing and disturbing. However, after further study, I believe that the importance of this news release SHOULD NOT BE MINIMIZED!!! In my view, THE MOST IMPORTANT SENTENCE in this news release is "buried" in the fourth paragraph, which states: "In view of these encouraging results, the joint venture partners have agreed to visually re-sort all Sortex concentrate tailings from 1990, 1991 and 1997." This is a real tantalizer, as Dr. Joe Montgomery's report also documented the overall potential of many of the pipes (the categories were Nil; Low; Low-Moderate; Moderate; Moderate-High; and High). Some of the pipes that I definitely want to see revisited are as follows: 1990 Drill Program Kimberlite Body 120 (Moderate-High Potential) Kimberlite Body 169 (Moderate-High Potential) Kimberlite Body 150 (Moderate Potential) 1991 Drill Program Kimberlite Body 169 (Moderate-High Potential) Kimberlite Body 122 (Moderate-High Potential) Kimberlite Body 147 (Moderate Potential) Of further interest, is the fact that the 1992 Drill Program also designated a Moderate-High potential for Kimberlite Bodies 140, 141 and 174. Kimberlite Body 145 was only given a Moderate Potential, although it has "flashed signs of potential stardom" at times. Clive Newall reported that it is "considered to have the greatest potential for economic diamond grades" (April 18, 1996 News Release). The astute may have also noticed that Kimberlite Body 147 was only rated as a Moderate Potential - and yet it has become one of our top targets. NOTE: THIS REQUIRES SOME DEDUCTIVE REASONING - PLEASE DO YOUR OWN! The 1997 Drilling Program Results were reported in a March 30, 1998 News Release that was titled as follows: "ADDITIONAL RESULTS FOR THE 1997 DRILLING PROGRAM HAVE INTERESTING IMPLICATIONS AT THE FORT A LA CORNE DIAMOND PROJECT." Interesting implications??? A comprehensive tracer program revealed that there were major problems hindering the maximization of diamond recovery. The 1999 Drilling Program Results - now it's the Sortex! Anything less than a 50% recovery is a significant problem. Are these stones not luminescing, or what is the problem? In conclusion, the big question that I wish to pose is this: "WHAT OTHER PROBLEMS EXIST???" A solid quality control program operated by a competent and accountable operator is required to "clear the air", as the tracer recovery and Sortex problems all point to significant problems. Blanks, standards, and duplicate samples are crucial!!! Are we getting them??? A competent quality control program could answer the vital question, once and for all: "Are the diamond grades economic???"