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 : Canadian Diamond Play Cafi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WillP who wrote (432)	12/22/2002 4:52:21 PM
From: teevee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 16206

The central and south Slave diamond districts are getting fairly mature. Since WSP was bought by DeBeers, I have avoided the junior diamond explorers until now. Being early days in the Coronation district (north slave?), I have gone long on SWV - all the buys at $.12 back in early to mid October were mine:-). There is nothing wrong with the DSP "peregrine" land up there, but DSP has been much more expensive that some of the other juniors so I got exposure here through NEM. I expect many more diamondiferous kimberlites will be found in the Coronation district in 2003. Regarding other areas, the recent news by NEM and SRM on their Churchill diamond project is noteworthy. I am left with the impression that a new kimberlite pipe field in Canada will emerge here so I will be following this play with interest. Given the previously reported kimberlite float and "good" chemistry turning up at such an early stage of exploration, this area may also generate some excitement in 2003, in addition to the Coronation Gulf area. cheers, teevee

To: WillP who wrote (432)	12/22/2002 6:25:46 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16206

The best indicator mineral is diamonds (where the grade is over 0.10 cts per ton) No, the best indicator is still garnet, either calcium/chrome in pyrope by microprobe or nickel in any garnet by proton probe. The reason is that garnets vary less than diamonds in distribution, and are far more plentiful. They also, by the chemistry, lead to an estimate of probable carat grade, and thus are a useful economic bellwhether, whereas a diamond itself does not have this telltale indication of carat grade. There can be some argument here, but the diamond is still for the most part "mute" of its number of fellows, whereas the garnet is telling you how many gems live at the hotel. Admittedly the diamonds tells you quality, in some cases, and this can clue you in a bit but between, 100 CTS per ton and 0.10 cts/tonne, you are still wondering. With a garnet population the wonderment is starting to decrease with confidence. To get your garnets, the sample size need be a fraction of the sample size necessary for diamond. Refusal to look at garnet chemistry by unknowing companies has ruined pipe sampling and diamond field exploration. It is a criminal waste in Wawa and Kirkland Lake, and underscores the need for senior judgement in the business where it has been lacking. In the end I heartily disagree. I must, and there is no politically correct way to do this so that it lets one down easily. Diamonds by themselves are a poor indicator of raw grade. The trouble with all indicators is that a phase of the pipe that is low grade, will also have low grade indicators. There is a need to be pervasive in sampling. The wide sampling needed makes sample sizes small, and thus increases the need for "leads" as a guide to further bulk type sampling. These leads are a combination of methods including all atomic analysis methods of a variety of minerals including diamond, if present. EC<:-}