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 : ASHTON MINING OF CANADA (ACA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maintenance who wrote (3862)	2/11/1998 12:39:00 AM
From: John Fairchild	Respond to of 7966

Or how about if all four drill holes tested the same phase and came up with the same count as K91-1 for an indicated grade of 136 X 4/100t of macros that did not pass through the .8 mm screen. Or maybe if K91-1 had been moved laterally by 1 cm they would have lost the .14c stone but recovered two more making the count ? Obviously we must wait for the minibulk to get a better picture. By the way we more information rather than less. Don't we? In other words I would much sooner know that K91-1 210k was responsible for 90% of the 4 hole average. John

To: maintenance who wrote (3862)	2/11/1998 12:42:00 AM
From: Jesse	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7966

Hi Maintenance. You're right, if you exclude the NR noted clear & colourless 0.14 and 0.13carat crystals from the K91 sample of 850kg, that leaves you with a grand total of 0.014carat (.301 - .27 = .014). Since the two stones weighing a total of 0.27cts are said to occur in the first hole of 210kg (lending it its high ct/t #), that leaves 0.014ct/640kg. This gives a seemingly isolated occurrence of stones, with the remainder a very low grade. But it's just as ACA said in their release (and why they neglected to give that count in their first report of K91 in Dec.), that the results indicate a population of larger [quality] stones and the need for a larger sample. Remember, any stones smaller that 0.8mm have been excluded this time around (which is unusually strict at this early stage), so we don't know the actual count there. * We do know that these experts see fit to go further. I repeat that this company does not chase rainbows. They're serious here. Keep in mind that when a 0.5mm cutoff was used and a stone count was included (for the first reporting on the K91-1 hole, w/ only a 117kg sized sample, in Dec.), there were present 180 micros(.1mm><.5mm), and 12 macros(>.5mm). So we do know there is a population of other stones showing up. We also know that mostly larger stones are skewing the results (just like the results for K14-C, a phase of K14), with high cross-hole variation; the crater facies drilled (I'm assuming) again are sporadic in their diamondiferosity (phew, long word, if it's a word! :). We further know that all 4 drillholes (3 were angled, as Violetta pointed out) ended in mudstone after at most 110m. This seems to indicate we're still in the tuffistic apron-- meaning, we need more delineation drilling to find the direct pipe (unless, as is likely, after this angle drilling Ashton has better honed in on the pipe's central portion). Again, if this theory holds, the staggered diamond occurrence is somewhat to be expected at this stage, and is all in a day's work. I don't think it's nonsense at all. Auston did explain how the numbers got so high in the NR (just some of us (me) missed it at first!). --This is part of the exploration process, imo. Obviously it didn't serve to pump the stock! Best to you, maintenance-- appreciate your input! :-)) G'nite all, -j :>