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 : SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gemsearcher who wrote (6164)	8/21/2000 11:34:26 PM
From: VAUGHN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7235

Answer is yes, very much so Gemseacher Teevee, WillP - good tech chat, nice to have for a change. By the by, some time ago (I am sorry, but I can't remember the authors), I read two papers discussing age dating difficulties with NWT kimberlites. The two or three standard methods used, garnet in diamond, zircon, and graphite I believe, were providing significantly different ages. Differences of as much as 40 or 50my seem to ring a bell. Point being, Snap may not be as old as suggested. If however, Snap is that old (which I find very difficult to believe), then I would have to return to the original suggestion that it is and must be a root zone. Rates of erosion and deposition generally have been suggested in Canada of as much as 1 mile per 10 my. Even if such rates are off by a factor of 4 on the craton which has been subjected to the deepest ice scouring, can you imagine how much kimberlite and surface rock have been eroded over the suggested age of this deposit? On the other hand, if it is a root zone, then the lateral emplacement is easier to visualize as it would have occurred at depth and therefore probably represents either a feeder system to multiple, long since eroded pipes, or conversely, intrusions that explored dead end weak points/fissures but failed to find their way to the surface when a weaker less resistive fissure opened relieving the emplacement pressure. Given that scenario, my reading on dike emplacements suggests that relative width continuity of the dike can probably be anticipated over considerable distances, which may be why CJ is prepared to pursue this dike. Can anyone confirm whether there were modest ratio's of G10's vs G9's plotted for Snap Lake? If G9's are significantly more numerous, then I believe this suggests that there was a higher rate of reabsorbtion which may be suggestive of deeper solidification, heat retention hence probably a root zone. Again, a lot of supposition, but food for thought. Regards and thanks