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: Letmebe Frank who wrote (930)	6/10/2003 10:46:38 PM
From: jrhana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16206

I will get those books Thanks A lot of money will be made and lost but maybe if we help each other out we can be winners.

To: Letmebe Frank who wrote (930)	6/10/2003 11:18:07 PM
From: Rocket Red	Respond to of 16206

Pyrope Chemistry is a big reward when looking at juniors in the diamond plays. If Chemistry is low then the odds of success of very low. The Better the chemistry the higher the success rate Right Now SRM rates very high till proven otherwise with there chemistry. Yes thats one downside on diamonds stocks far too few labs in Canada to get results back on a timely matter. SEason are short but srm seems to be doing fine here. With BHP supplying the cash for bulks things look good here for now

To: Letmebe Frank who wrote (930)	6/11/2003 8:17:23 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16206

I hope it's well written. I have met the people and dealt with them. Always interesting to read where you know something about it. Too bad Hugo Dummet is not still with us. Car accident in Africa. I read much about Ken Darke and the discovery of Texas Gulf and the subsequent lawsuit by the SEC that changed the whole business of material change, and introduced material fact as the portentous issue. I found that knowing the real story of the discovery and what was known from a geologist's perspective -- hearing it firsthand from all the players, gave me a much different perspective. The writers usually missed the most important stuff. I think that due to their lack of knowledge about what really drove the play. In TG's case it was a whole new interpretation of the cause and diagenesis of sulphide deposits. Their relation to sea bed volcanism and the subaqueous component led the TG people to look for them in ways that had not been done previously. The relation of the sulfur beds in the states they made their money from, and the massive sulphide deposits being associated with felsic extrusives and porphyries, were the keys. This exciting story, that had so much to say about the Sullivan mine, the Bathurst Camp, and New Guinea all in one, was missed entirely and the true authors of the discovery were not credited. To me, it made it clear that iron formation, both oxide and sulphide, cold sedimentary deposits, Besshi deposits, the Sudbury nickel deposits, are all the same origin. Wolfe hints at this too. Even Agricola knew it in 1450. Parke and McDiarmid point to it as well when they discuss the "volume problem" of replacemnt deposits. The ore deposits mentioned all form in the quiescent period of a volcanic action proximal to vent systems. People like Sangster and Franklin who wrote memoirs on the subject of contemporaneous observed deposition of sea bed ore, and the ubiquitous relation to "mill rock" (volcanic bombs) came along 20 years after Texas Gulf. TG was found in part by its relation to a certain phase of felsic volcanism and the ores likleu proximal relation to sulphide clasts. The volcanic history is the key. In other words, they knew this vent was cupriferous by the nature of the regional clasts they were finding, and from that they could go back towards the vent source with some confidence. The TG people used copper indicators from volcanoes, much like the diamond explorers are using kimberlite indicators. Ken Darke and I discussed the Sudbury Ores at length, I put forward the theory, in opposition to Naldrett but supported by Hamilton(1960) and partly Hutchinson(1980) that the ores in Sudbury are not fortuitously emplaced at "a plane of weakness" around the rim of the basin by sulphide melt injection, but like their copper-zince counterparts, now well established, were hydothermally emplaced into veins, or extruded on the surface by vents, and then covered with the norite, and then the interior basin volcano-sediments. Darke in general agreed with the water borne hypothesis and also offered his observations of Sudbury ores from the Creighton, that seem at first to be inescapably formed as intrusives with silicate hosts, but strangely, possess sulphide spheres with radiating fractures that are identical to quench structures of sulphides found in sea-bed deposits, whose formation is known to be of molten sulphide nodules or ejecta being quenched rapidly upon hitting seawater. The explanation of these quench-structure sulphide nodules' existence in Sudbury, by the sulphide ores being purely deep magmatic injection, is not tenable. With this piece of evidence alone, the sub aqueous extrusive hypothesis would have to be embraced. EC<:-}