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: VAUGHN who wrote (475)	1/15/2003 7:08:24 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 16206

Well, let's have a flame war about it. Why be shy and retiring? I think everybody who does not believe in the Sobolev criteria probably drinks too much, believes in the tooth fairy and thinks a deux chevot is a hot car. But quite aside from that, people who adhere to G10/G-9 ratios being success predictive have terminal halitosis and their closest friends eat out of dumpsters. Confirmation of criteria for CDN diamond producers would have to come from an exhaustive study of the pipes that have passed feasibility in the NWT and the ones that did not make it. Both down ice and pipe garnets, pyrope, and sodic-eclogitic should be studied and statistics compiled. As far as I know this has not been done where you could quote from a study. On the other hand in the Yakuts platform, Vladimir And Nikolai Sobolev did do such a study of all Yakuts platform producers and non producers as well as comparing chemistry of other pipes worldwide. As well Griffin and Ryan of CRA in Australia did a test of nickel thermometry for worldwide pipes as well. In the absence of exhaustive statistics that show a clear demarcation point between producers and non producers in the pyrope and chromite make-up that is indicated in the Russian work, and clearly absent in any Canadian work so far, I would have to say that I would ignore such ratios and other mentioned indicators until more can be said about them. You really should get ahold of the paper by Griffin and Ryan on nickel thermometry and the studies by Sobolev and give them a good look over. So far I have not talked to a single Canadian geologist who had even read the work let alone applied it to the field rigorously. Every exploration program I have seen could have saved millions by application of these simple and time proven statisitcally rigorous criteria, gathered as they have been over the last 40 years in the study of perhaps a thousand pipes. The paper by G and R is 70 pages and will take considerable ponderation to understand what they aver about the ability of pyrope nickel and chrome proton-probe to elucidate the geotherm by a sampling of a population of garnets froma pipe. Once you draw a few graphs and think on it,it will become clear. The Sobolev work will take looking over his papers. It is quite simple really. He goes into detail debunking the G10 curve in fact. Remember that Gurney developed his curves after the Russians heave the South african's out of Russia and developed their own geobaryhtermometry and found their own mines. The South Africans have largely believe it or not, copied the Russian work. It must be remembered that Russia is the world leader in Gem and Industrial diamond production and has been for many years. More Canadian geos should study nickel thermometry. It is evident they do not understand it or trust it. Without it, the Argyle pipe would not have been found. With this tool you do not need pyrope to test geobarythermometry, but can use any sort of garnet. So pyrope poor pipes can be tested. In addtion proton probe is extremely accurate in detection of grade. It can tell you why a pyrope rich pipe is poor in grade and predic the exact grade in carats to a fine degree. Anyone who doubts this just has not studied enough of the techniques that are available. The trouble with proton probe is you need the curves and here you are at the mercy of CRA unless you can find a lab who can use the technique in a predictive manner. I would run a field test by doing chromite, pyrope and other garnet tests to figure whether or not to test pipes by just the techniques I have mentioned. I did such work in Wawa to predict the exact distance up ice of the first pyrope found, an in situ diamond field would be found. Unfortunately the Canadian investor and the average geo is so abysmally ignorant of this type of work, that it was a waste of time. Investment could not be enticed to believe the allegations before the fact. After the fact is seems the situation is even more barren of believers. I can only sit ans shake my head. I read 3000 paper son diamond exploration and formed correct theories of exploration only to throw the whole string of diamond before a herd of swine. Since the Misty Lake samples were found in drift, the one pyrope that represents the possibility of economics can be seen as positive. The others that are not that good, are either from a other non-productive pipes, and some other low grade ones are from a productive pipe. There is a chance of this. EC<:-}