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 : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richnorth who wrote (91683)	12/8/2002 12:36:49 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116836

She just missed being a dead Turkey by a hair. Lakes in the NWT elevation - feet and area - sq miles. The K indicates where kimberlite rock has been found since 1954 (the host rock for diamonds) and the * where diamonds have been found in great quantity since then. The richest kimberlite diamond sources in the world on the average occur in Canada's NWT, exceeding the average grade of South African mines by about 15 times. Lake El. Area Great Bear Lake 511 12,095 Great Slave Lake 511 10,030 * Nettilling Lake 98 2140 Dubawnt Lake 774 1480 K * Amadjuak Lake 370 1203 Nueltin Lake 912 880 Baker Lake 7 728 Lac la Mar 869 685 Yathkyed Lak 459 559 Kasba Lake 118 517 Aberdeen Lake 262 425 Napaktulik Lake 1250 417 MacKay Lake 1414 410 K * Garry Lake 85 377 Contwoyto Lake 1850 369 K * Hottah Lake 590 354 Aylmer lake 1230 327 Nonacho Lake 1161 303 Clinton-Colden Lke 1230 284 Selwyn Lake 1305 277 K * Point Lake 1230 271 K * Ennadai Lake 1020 263 * Wholdaia Lake 1194 262 Tulemalu Lake 915 258 Kamilukuak Lake 873 246 Lac de Gras 1300 244 K * Buffalo Lake 869 236 Kaminak Lake 174 232 EC<:-}

To: Richnorth who wrote (91683)	12/8/2002 12:04:09 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 116836

The report that identified these rocks was based on surface rock collection by government scientists in 1954. It was a GSC memoir (author?) that investigated alkaline volcanic centres in the NWT. In fact the identity of the rocks at the time was as ijolites and magnetite sovites. Looking back on the chemistry published in these "later-to-be-found -diamond-centres", it can be seen that from Mitchell at least, that the magnesium chemistry (+30%), potassium +3%, calcium (low) and aluminum (low), that the intrusive breccia rocks were clearly diatreme facies kimberlites by major element chemistry and not even alnoites, which are higher in aluminum and calcium. So it is a retrospective ID as kimberlite by major element chemistry and not other methods admittedly. Mitchell has said that major element chemistry is NOT the preferred way to ID kimberlite, but it should be minor phenocryst content and phenocryst chemistry (micas, garnets, ilmenite, diallage or pyroxene.) and macrocrysts that ID the rock. I have to say that to be definitive this is probably the case. But alnoite looks almost identical, but is different in major element chemistry and has few non faceted garnets or high chrome pyrope. The jury is definitely out on the newest rock to contain significant diamonds, in Wawa, a lamprophyre. Still hardly a sensation yet in geological circles, the discovery alleged by Mitchell that the diamond bearing rocks at this Ontario location are in fact lamprophyres, which have never previously been accused of containing diamonds, should be front page news. It is a sign of the extreme moribundity of the Canadian exploration industry that neither the sensational staking rush in the Coronation Gulf in 2001 nor the fact of new diamond bearing rocks in Ontario, seem to have awoken more than a yawn from investors.

To: Richnorth who wrote (91683)	12/8/2002 2:00:47 PM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 116836

<<Miss Turkey crowned Miss World 2002>> & think,without a burka.... as I've often said, the problem is not members Islamic lands rather only Islamic extremists who would pit all of the West against their idea of their religion for their own gains - not religious gains.

To: Richnorth who wrote (91683)	12/8/2002 8:50:25 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116836

educational repost Weapons chief censors Baghdad arms declaration By Julian Coman in Washington and David Wastell, Diplomatic Correspondent (Filed: 08/12/2002) A furious row has broken out within the United Nations Security Council over a ruling by Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, denying America and Britain full access to Iraq's 11,807-page weapons declaration, handed over in Baghdad yesterday. White House officials complained that they had been "blind-sided" by Mr Blix's decision, which he revealed behind closed doors late on Friday, to provide only what one UN official called a "sanitised version" of the declaration to the 15 members of the Security Council. Mr Blix, the head of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic), said inspectors would vet the declaration before it is passed on, because of the risk that details of Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes could be used as a "cookbook" by other states or terrorists trying to build their own weapons. He proposed that the most sensitive information should be purged from the text by inspectors, to ensure that it did not leak. To do otherwise would breach international treaties on weapons proliferation, he said. Although Britain and America supported the plan to hold back sensitive information from the 10 rotating members of the council - notably Syria, which Washington has accused of supporting terrorism - they are determined that they, France, Russia and China, as the five permanent members, should see the whole text. Their assessment of the Iraqi declaration will be crucial to the fate of Saddam Hussein's regime. "There was no agreement about who should see what," said a western UN diplomat. "The Americans simply expect to get the whole report. Other countries are determined to see anything that America sees. They'll be arguing about it well into next week. It wasn't just Syria. Mexico and several other countries were adamant as well." UN officials said that in the interests of "equity" all 15 Security Council members should receive the same information. Mr Blix said: "All the governments are aware that they should not have access to anything that everyone else does not have access to." Another UN official said: "It would be quite wrong for some members to get a sanitised version but not others. That is not what was agreed on Friday." American officials were furious at the decision, having been led to believe on Thursday that they would receive the declaration at around 10pm tonight. American intelligence officials are waiting to compare the document with their own information on Iraq's weapons programmes. A White House official privately accused Mr Blix of throwing a last-minute "curveball". The Bush administration said it would wait until Mr Blix reports to America and other Security Council members early this week before making its feelings known. American officials said privately that Mr Blix could not be allowed to have sole control of the Iraqi document. The UN resolution ordering the declaration states that Iraq must provide its weapons declaration to the UN weapons inspectors "and the Security Council". Britain, like the US, wants to see the document in its entirety, and "went along with the agreement" in the belief that it would eventually see the full text, officials close to the Security Council said. The Foreign Office refused to comment last night. The delay means that although the Iraqi declaration will be delivered tonight to UN headquarters in New York and the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Security Council members will not see it until the end of the week at the earliest. Related reports Bush in clash with UN over Iraq dossier © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2002. Terms & Conditions of reading. Commercial information. Privacy Policy. news.telegraph.co.uk