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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Winter in the Great White North -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tyc:> who wrote (6887)	8/16/2005 8:40:33 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8273

A few geologists departing from the usual crowd that considers gold to aggregate in the presence of felsic rocks, from which it gets it silicic ore bearing fluids presumably have noted that mafic rocks are more often a host for gold as the felsic set. It is true that intermediate to mafic hosts are preferred to rhyolites or granites as hosts for gold. The Motherlode area of California was granitic, but most ore packers in Canada seem to be andesite-diorite, to mafic carbonates. The dolomitic green carbonates that host Timmins gold deposits are a mafic rock. Most pillow lavas are intermediate to mafic composition and pillow lavas are an ubiquitous rock nearby gold deposits. However just as close are the felsic porphryries, which are a Timmins staple as well. The spatial association of mafic rocks have been noted, but attempts to associate the rocks as a structural, geochemical host, or as a genetic source one has not yet been drawn successfully. EC<:-}

To: tyc:> who wrote (6887)	8/17/2005 9:30:38 PM
From: tyc:>	Respond to of 8273

Re Lake Shore Gold LSG.v The news report I linked in my last posting contained the following paragraph; "Timmins West Gold Property Pre-Feasibility Study Update "Work continues on the Timmins West Gold Property pre-feasibility study (see January 6, 2005, news release) ..........(cut) Preliminary engineering estimates for mining and milling costs are considerably better than expected and support a lowering of the resource cutoff grade (currently using 6 grams gold per tonne)." Here is the comment of a poster on the Stockhouse thread; "In 1997 Holmer confirmed 1.48 million tons (prior to discovery of the ultra mafic zone)grading 7.98 grams p/t. This was based on a 3 gram cut-off and a mining width of 6 feet. The price of gold crashed from $385 per ounce to $250 per ounce and consequently, Watts Griffis McQuat(WGM) increased the cut-off grade to 6 grams per ton. LSG has indicated they are reducing the cut off grade from 6 g/t. It would not be surprising that by reducing the cut off grade back to 3 g/t, the tonnage will increase exponentially, and the # of ounces could double to 2+ milion. This of course does not include the new properties".