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: Valuepro who wrote (180)	2/5/2002 1:25:57 AM
From: russet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 613

Vaughn implied the opposite of a tout for me,...I merely stated the reverse for Vaughn. Who went first? What you call a hype generating contest, I consider a game to pass the winter away. Too bad you don't care to go on the record. What I'm claiming could be responsible for the apparent coarse diamond curve seemingly present in samples taken from the top of the pipe in Jackson Inlet is eluvial concentration. Because diamonds are dense they concentrate at the bottom of active zones of moving sand and gravel. This action does not have to be restricted to the top few meters of a pipe. It could stretch many tens of meters down from the surface depending on what has happened over the 100 million or so years the pipe has been in existence. Rock can be broken up, then reformed by sedimentation and pressure to form new rock. Studying the core will give indications of what part of the pipe may contain the best grade of diamonds, as most pipes the size of Freightrain have many phases containing different grades of diamonds. Grade and diamond value usually drops the further down a pipe you mine,..any pipe. Part of the explanation can be this eluvial concentration but there are other reasons. Sometimes the top of the pipe is the only economically mineable part. The possibility of eluvial concentration is high at Jackson Inlet, given the fact that limestone surrounds this pipe on all surfaces,...suggests it came up beneath a body of water. How long did the water act on the pipe? The core will tell the answer,...and nobody is better at reading that core than the scientists at De Beers. That's why we want information on the core, and why we want them to release those results. You brought up Kaiser as an expert. I discussed De Beers to suggest that you would be better off learning about their methods and analysis, and making your own decision based on information from the company. Kaiser usually holds shares in the stocks he profiles. Highlighting the positive, and ignoring or downplaying the negatives are to his benefit if he holds the stock. Nothing legally wrong with what he does, or how he does it as he always states his interest and assumptions. It does help to know he is wrong a lot though,...that is my point. The point about mentioning money is that TWG are quickly burning up what's in the treasury. They had 4.1 million on Nov 29/01 but $7.4 million on Nov 20/00, but there have been and will be some big bills to pay in the near future to process the core and bulk sample so they will soon have to do a financing or take on a partner. Both actions need favorable results from the present processing or neither is likely to happen. If your long, you better have your fingers crossed. The PDAC and the CIM conventions in Canada offer many courses and technical sessions where a lot of this geology stuff is presented and discussed in open forums. It is unfortunate you will miss them. There is no standard or law that says that companies must release the results from their cores immediately. They can spend weeks analyzing the numbers and preparing tables, charts and whatever. They can wait until the last core of a series is analyzed before presenting the summary of the data, or they can release the results piecemeal. If the company gets a good core, lots of companies will quickly send out an NR to tout it. If they get a few bad ones they are under no obligation to immediately release those. Too bad they aren't consistent. That's why the saying "Good news travels by jet plane, bad news by mule train". We have a good core that had its results released immediately. We are now waiting longer than is necessary for further core results. You can decide whatever you think is responsible for the delay,..I merely pointed it out. According to the Dec 13/01 newsrelease, two cores were processed by Dec 13 newsrelease, but only the results from one was released,...why? I have also pointed out that due to the possibility of effluvial concentration, these cores may mean more to this story than the bulk sample taken from the surface of the pipe,...250 tonnes is superficial to the main bulk of the diatreme, and a small amount of kimberlite compared to what will have to be taken to eventually prove up this pipe. If shareholders become aware, they perhaps will contact TWG and ask these questions. If enough people ask, the company may feel some pressure to release further results, or let it be known why there are delays in releasing the information. I think I've covered everything.