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: jpthoma1 who wrote (391)	3/28/2002 9:48:59 AM
From: Artie	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 613

This 1997 examination of the Zulu (Freightrain) kimberlite may help explain the variations in the results announced yesterday: emc.biol.sc.edu

To: jpthoma1 who wrote (391)	3/28/2002 3:08:13 PM
From: WillP	Respond to of 613

WillP's last StreetWire is a very interesting and well balanced document. Thanks. That's what I was trying for, of course. Very good point in establishing relations between yesterday's results and the geology as described in the previous drilling results. Matching these things up is usually important, and always interesting. That was a quick effort on my part, and there is likely more information to be gained. I too was a bit disappointed by the last results (was anticipating larger diamonds (re: crater facies)) and questionned the sample locations: Message 17251533; But Will's comments make me realize that if samples were not taken mid-way between the center (and richer) part ot the pipe and it's border may be cause by the fact that there is no near surface kimberlite there!!!!! The easy part of testing this kimberlite are over. The harder, and potentially more expensive parts lie ahead. Geology seems to be very complex. I would have loved to see the pits located on a geological map and not a geophysical map in Twin's PR. The geophysical map seems to suggest a regular circular/oval shaped body of kimberlite, but I don't think, as Will said, that it is the reality! That's what I spent about 90 minutes searching for yesterday, to no avail. I'll try to spend a few hours to try to find out geological details in previous drilling and mapping results and may be back with more in-depth comments in the coming weeks. So will I, as time permits. I look forward to your findings. Take care, WillP