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 : A CANADIAN DIAMOND HUNT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chas. who wrote (570)	1/8/2002 1:05:47 PM
From: jpthoma1	Respond to of 930

I hoped someone else would bring this «touchy item» on the table (don't want VAUGHN think I just bash TWG!! LOL). This is another reason why I don't like the way Hermann manages this company. I just don't trust that kind of report. Diamond Trading N.V is a major shareholder. Do you really think they would have issued a negative report? If this company is paying Hermann a quarter of a million dollars a year, it can afford to pay for an independant report, don't you think! Hermann has surely received a copy of Norm 43-101. JP

To: Chas. who wrote (570)	1/8/2002 3:32:40 PM
From: VAUGHN	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 930

Hello Chuck I seem to recall that Diamond Trading N.V. was one of the Belgum/Dutch firms retained by BHP/Diamet to provide an initial valuation of Ekati goods for mine planning/taxation purposes. You should be able to confirm this and if so, consider that BHP would not select a firm who's opinion would be subject to question. To the best of my knowledge, DTNV are highly reputable and while I certainly understand any mistrust, it should be considered that old world diamond trading/cutting firms like DTNV live and die by their reputations. When they offer an evaluative opinion they are leaving themselves open to industry censure if found to be anything but, dare I say, kosher. Regardless, I wouldn't put too much store in this evaluation at this time anyway. That was a very small parcel of very small diamonds taken from a very small sample of two pipes (if I recall). This opinion is simply an early indication to management of whether further sampling is warranted should grades be low. Lets not get overly pessimistic or optimistic at this stage. It is very early days! Certainly a healthy degree of skepticism should always be applied, but lets not get carried away. There will be plenty of opportunity for flamers to short TWG as news will inevitably be good and bad over the coming year or two, but give it a chance boys. So on the negative side some don't like the President's salary, some question the reliability of an evaluative opinion and some don't like all of the time and money spent evaluating Torngate. Ok, I can live with that. I mean if we want to find negatives we can find them on every company out there. Anyone want to take a shot at ACA, DML, DB's, Kennecott, MPV, SUF? There is plenty of grist for the mill. But what are TWG's positives? What do we know that no other Canadian diamond mining junior can duplicate right now? 1. Jackson Inlet geochemistry is good to outstanding, matching and in some cases exceeding not only G-10's & Chromites recovered at Ekati, Diavik & Kenady pipes but almost all major African mines as well. 2. Two pipes appear to contain larger than average stones of consistently good quality, clarity and colour. 3. An unusual number of fancies have been identified from a limited sample size. 4. There are at least 14 pipes, two of which initially appear to be 7-8 times larger than Lac de Gras pipes. 5. TWG does not have to spend years and huge sums looking for more pipes to establish sufficient reserves to make a mining decision. 6. Jackson Inlet pipe targets magnetically and visually stand out clearly against light limestone host rock. 7. Jackson Inlet pipes are on craton adjacent to one or more grabens. 8. Of only two lightly sampled pipes so far, both are almost entirely intact (uneroded) brecciated soft tuffacious and diatreme kimberlite making mining easy but also making potential economic mining depth at least 1,000 metres or deeper, considering their size. Further, this suggests that the ore reserve potential of Freighttrain alone exceeds the sum of Ekati and Diavik's pipes. Pipe #5 is larger still with better geochemistry and there are 14 more yet to be evaluated. The tonnage and mine life potential of Jackson Inlet is outstanding. 9. Jackson Inlet can be resupplied in bulk by ship more economically than can Lac de Gras mines by truck. 10. Ore to waste ratios of larger pipes like Freighttrain and pipe #5 would be at least 4 if not 7-8 times higher than are Lac de Gras pipes. 11. The nearby Nanasivik mine will close soon making their "TRAINED" labor force and possibly some of their infrastructure available. 12. Pipe wall rock and kimberlite rafts are limestone not granite, making drilling, blasting, mining easier, faster, with less wear and tear on drill bits, machinery, equipment and crushers. 13. Due to 8/9/10/11&12 operating / mining costs per tonne would be considerably lower than they are at Lac de Gras allowing either lower grade and/or lower value ore to be profitable but also allowing higher grade and/or higher value ore to be exceptionally profitable. 14. Land in the area has already been selected for environmental reserves and other than possible dust concerns, there are few environmental issues to mining in this local. 15. The same firm that provided BHP with an opinion of the run of mine value of Ekati stones provided a positive opinion on Jackson Inlet goods. Gentlemen, in the balance, I don't see too much to complain about. Regards Vaughn