To: DIAMOND JIM who wrote (4435 ) 3/14/1998 2:55:00 AM From: Jesse Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 7966
Re. K-14 tonnage formula: Well, let's see (btw, DJ, I know you're baiting me, but I like it!). Ashton has said in their Jan.19/98 NR that the K-14 anomaly is about 400m in diameter, but they also say it's about 15-18 hectares (ha), meaning the anomaly is not just circular but it offers extra surface (otherwise, at a perfect circle of 400m diam., it would yield 12.6ha as our formula to follow will show). As you've hinted, we know that in the 'central zone' of K-14 kimberlite has been measured to at least 200m, so we'll use that depth here (though likely a carrot K-pipe goes as deep as 1to2km). - Now, let's take the smallest area Ashton offers, that of 15 hectares (ha), and make a couple calculations. First, A circle's surface area = pi R squared. Pi = ~3.14 R = radius (or half of the diameter) H = Depth (height) * = 'times' or multiply by, in computer symbolism (the asterisk) 1 hectare = 10,000 square meters 15 hectares = 150,000 sq. m. Formulae : Pi * R*R = Surface Area (SA) SA * Depth(H) = Volume(V) Volume * Specific Gravity(SG) = Tonnage -Note that in AB, Ashton is using a specific gravity ('SG', a measure of density) for kimberlite material of 2.5 (Fagan, 02/98). The SG of water at sea level is considered to be 1.00. We'll treat K-14 as a disc shape to a depth of 200m. This is assuming the upper 200-300meter "crater zone" is relatively vertical in its extreme dimensions (as is average for crater facies). Beyond that crater zone, to the "diatreme facies" or pipe zone, we would need to start calculating in the flare-in of the pipe (averaging about 85degrees, Fagan, 02/98), but we won't here! [For simplicity, look at a kimberlite pipe as a hockey puck sitting on a waffle cone, w/ the hockey puck being the crater zone and the waffle cone being the diatreme]. Thus, (SA*H) * SG , or: (150,000 * 200) * 2.5 = 75,000,000 metric tonnes , and just to 200meters. Obviously, this 75 million tonnes for K-14 increases with depth (to 300m would yield 112,500,000 tonnes, and so on), and remember I used Ashton's minimum est. area of 15 hectares (could have used 18ha, which would have started us at 90mil t . to 200m). This is all just food for thought, largely initiated out of Fagan's Feb./98 "The Fagan Report." NB. I kinda rushed through this, so anyone please point out any errors you find. Best Regards, -j :> PS, in applying these formulae to other Ashton kimberlites, it's easy to see how their large surface dimensions can yield such huge tonnage!