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: WillP who wrote (247)	2/7/2002 8:32:50 PM
From: Letmebe Frank	Respond to of 613

Will - Given the dimensions for the largest diamonds: "The two largest stones measured 2.05x1.43x0.21 and 2.08x1.43x0.94 mm", doesn't the 0.21 dimension seem awfully small, perhaps indicating breakage? Do diamond occur naturally in these odd sizes? ACA just reported "Artemisia is at least 150 m by 140 m in size....In a mini-bulk sample weighing 1,157 kilograms....an estimated diamond content of 17.3 carats per hundred tonnes...The largest diamond recovered was a colourless octahedral aggregate measuring 2.25 x 1.75 x 1.35 mm. The next two largest stones are whole colourless crystals and measure 2.05 x 1.93 x 1.00 mm and 2.05 x 1.38 x 1.20 mm, respectively. These data suggest that larger stones may be present." Like JI FT, see low grade, large macros. ACA needed 5 times the material to get their 3 stones. On the surface, I say Freightrain results superior to Artemisia. But just watch the bounce in ACA's price after the spin machine starts touting! JMHO