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 : Twin Mining (formerly Twin-Gold) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: russet who wrote (64)	1/21/2002 3:20:40 PM
From: bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 613

Boy, are we a cool lot. Stock hits 70 cents, gaps up 3 on opening and holds the gap for the first half hour, and nobody even mentions it. Our success with TWG is already taken for granted. Hmmm, should I be shopping for that little Toyota SUV? Think I'll wait until I have the cash in hand. Noticed that a number of the diamond stocks are moving today.

To: russet who wrote (64)	1/21/2002 3:24:44 PM
From: Valuepro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 613

russett, I am attempting to construct a chart of indicator mineralogy for Canadian explorers (where the information is avaliable). If you have any, other than what's below, let me know. Otherwise, I'm sure you've seen the indicator studies by twin. For pipes 1-5, diamond inclusion chromites ranged from 24 - 59%, while G-10s rated 16.2 - 76.8%. Drop the 16.2 and G-10s rated from 25.8%. Over 13 pipes and 1.6-2.0 tonnes, chromites rated 46.8% and G-10s 28% Compare these to Aber's A154-S at 28.1% chromite & 23.5% G-10s (yield 4.4 c/t).

To: russet who wrote (64)	1/21/2002 4:05:03 PM
From: VAUGHN	Respond to of 613

Hello Russett You are quite correct,... you shouldn't presume anything and no, the experts do not have all the answers, nor, I suspect, they ever will. I therefore can't answer every possibility you pose. All I can do is tell you what I know and show you what experts know. If we are both proven wrong someday, then that's how science progresses. Regarding some of you postulations, allow me to respond with what I know. 1. The % of Chrome in a G10 and Chromites has absolutely nothing to do with ore grade or diamond quality as far as I know. 2. G10 (low Calcium high chrome) garnets are important indicators only because they are formed in the same depleted mantle as are diamonds (diamond preservation field). Over a certain threshold, they are classified G10's, under a certain threshold - G9's, etc. 3. G9's would tend to be formed at a shallower depth (less than 100km) in less depleted mantle, and therefore less likely to indicate being sourced from rock that contains economic quantities of diamond. 4. I have never seen any schematic that has ever categorized garnets as G11's, G12's, etc. 5. Garnets that might have existed below the diamond preservation field are to the best of my knowledge destroyed by the heat in the same way diamond is (which is turned into CO2). 6. When TWG reports a % (such as 48%) of G10's while not stated very clearly, a local expert and I interpret that to mean the % of G10's or Chromites, etc. found in a given sample size/weight. Lakefield and TWG compared these %'s to numbers recovered from Ekati or Diavik (can't recall which). If our interpretation is correct, the implication is that those JI pipes scoured a cratonic diamond preservation field that had the same, similar or higher concentration of G10's and Chromites than did the magma that formed the Ekati or Diavik pipes. There is of course no guarantee or assurance that the diamond preservation field scoured to form the JI pipes also contained the same concentration, size or quality of diamonds but statistically, it is more likely that one or more of these will be the case. 6. To date, only very VERY small samples have been tested at JI. Even the ones we currently await from Lakefield are not only extremely small but not representative of the entire diatreme therefore extrapolating final grade from the results to be released next month will be a fools exercise. While the market may focus on the micro/macro numbers, knowledgable investors will ignore them. The Freightrain pipe is over 500metres in diamater. That's a 66,000,000 tonne pipe. More than all of Ekaties original five pipes put together. A representative grade will only be established from the Freightrain after at least a 10,000 tonne bulk sample and only then if it is taken from all points and depths to 250metres. Kennecott called DO27 uneconomic, but when you look at how it was sampled, (underground all from one level) you have to wonder. Anyway, I digress. What Lakefield's lab report will tell me is the size range of macros over a given sample size and their apparent quality. Even then, this will not be representative, but it will suggest the size potential of the macro poulation. Look at the size of the macros ACA reported last week for that sample size. Now compare them to the macros sizes found at JI for their sample size. See any difference? High carrats/tonne numbers can be achieved with smaller stones and of lessor quality such as at Kennedy Lake or of better quality such as at Snap or of exceptional quality such as at Ekati or of poor quality such as at Diavik. Low carrat/tonne numbers can be realized but with larger stones of exceptional quality such as at Premier or to a lessor degree Finsch. The issue is not carrat/tonne or micro/macro ratio, it is $$/tonne and that is only determined after a great deal of sampling. Geochemistry will not tell us that. It will only tell us that the diamond preservation field was sampled and how preferentially it was sampled. 7. High numbers of high sodium high pressure eclogitic diamonds tell us three things. a) That there are a large number of or very large, (or both) eclogitic nodules (xenocrysts) (depleted mantle-diamond host rock). b) That there are probably larger numbers of eclogitic diamonds (formed from biologically derived carbon sandwiched/trapped in subducted oceanic basalt). c) That any diamonds may (MAY) tend to larger sizes (but not always). Simplistically, these some of the things that I know about kimberlitic geochemistry and for which we should watch. As regards Snap. DeBeers calls it a typical kimberlite dyke like many in the RSA and while its diamonds were partially sourced from a deeper depleted mantle root melt, the uniqueness of the deposit for all intents and purposes appears to stop there. I have to go now. Regards Vaughn