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 : MARUM RESOURCES ON ALBERTA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuca Marsh who wrote (2209)	11/2/1999 12:21:00 AM
From: Jesse	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2514

Howdy! In kind, I received a couple comments from Marum president Rick Boulay: ================================================ Thanks for bringing to my attention the interesting comments comparing our Chinchaga project with the northeastern Alberta "Prairie Gold" exploration projects. Both the Chinchaga project and the Prairie Gold (PG) models are interesting and hold potential for large precious metals deposits. As far as I can tell the geological mineralization processes and rock environments are radically different and I would hesitate to call them similar. The PG mineralization occurs primarily in carbonate rocks (limestones) while the Chinchaga mineralization is in clastics or volcaniclastic rocks with almost zero carbonate content. The ages of the primary PG host rocks are Devonian compared to upper Cretaceous for the Chinchaga rocks (i.e. 350 million years old (I think) vs. about 85 million years old). The source of the PG mineralization is thought to be minerals leached from nearby basement rocks whereas the Chinchaga rocks are over 2Km above the basement complex. The PG mineralization mechanism is thought to be evaporative mobilized fluids (I think) whereas the Chinchaga mineralization agents were probably hydrothermal volcanics. And, the list of differences goes on but it gets very technical. Although 600KM apart, the mineralized rocks are in Alberta and are in the western sedimentary basin. These are the only similarities that I can identify. These are two very different exploration plays and each has to be evaluated on its own merits. Obviously, we have tried to "borrow" exploration ideas from the PG model to help us out, but nothing seemed to fit so we went our own way and decided to focus on our structurally controlled hydrothermal "highways" to identify mineralized locations. As to the similarities hinging on the need to establish analytical protocols, I would caution comparing the geology of the two projects on that basis. The common need for analytical protocols is probably more related to the fact that both projects started out as reconnaissance projects rather than small property projects. In our case, the need for assaying protocols is not so much for technical reasons, although those are very important, but for financial reasons since the nature of our exploration involves the collection of very large sample inventories and we need protocols to manage the costs associated with analyzing this material as well as prioritizing the processing of samples. As to the nugget effect business, this is a routine "rogue" factor that has to be tamed at the beginning of any large project where samples are analyzed without being able to refer to an established reference sample database. Good discussion....feel free to post this. Best Regards Rick Boulay president@marumresources.com +++++++++++++++++ Marum Resources Inc. marumresources.com ================================================ Again a great forum here! Cheerio, -j :>