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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (18024)	7/11/2001 9:51:23 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Scientific analysis depends a lot on honesty. In 1987 two rock collectors brought a friable rock into a local professor to get some kind petrographic analysis. He proudly proclaimed "garnetiferous ultra-mafic breccia" which of course is very boring to a rock collector. He could have told them it is probably kimberlite a volcanic rock that sometimes, but very rarely, is valuable because it comes from the upper mantle and carries with it diamond. They could have staked it and sold it to some mining company and made a little bit of money. Instead the academic gave a call to a large mining company who promptly staked it next day. The assessment report Introduction starts as follows: "Regional prospecting during the summer of 1987 led to the discovery of a small kimberlite body which outcrops sporadically in a gravel pit located just north of a sharp bend in X Lake. Laboratory analyses of the material revealed that a few, very small microdiamonds were present." Uneconomic but it sparked a huge exploration initiative and the people responsible got zero credit.