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 : BET YOUR ASSAY - Mining Terms Explained -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 1king who wrote (368)	3/21/1998 4:51:00 PM
From: Walt	Respond to of 463

Geophysics has become such an important part of mineral exploration these days Im sure lots of people appreciate the input on this and other threads, of the geophysical point of view. When I started in the buisness geophysists were few and far between so in the field we would be sent the instruments, run the surveys, plot up the results, read the manuals and do the intreptation. (not necessarily in that order) Vast improvements have been made in the geophysical instruments and methods of interpretation since then. So by all means continue to post on any topic, most of us are here to learn and thats why polarbear set this thread up. One of my "classic" geophysical memories was a company sent out a radon gas detector which measured the radon trapped in water for us to use(we were doing a project on a uranium prospect out on the barrens). None of us had ever seen or used the machine befor so we read through the manual several times. We collect the gas sample and prepared to run it through the machine. It had a bicycle pump with it you were suppose to pump ten times to create pressure, this was used to create a vaccum so the gas would bubble through a glass bulb full of water. The instructions said to open a value. When we did gas rushed up through the bulb which promply bust and water went shooting through the machine. Neither of which was suppose to happen. The manual forgot to say you were suppose to SLOWLY open the value. At this point, there wasnt much we could do other then advise head office either to send out a bunch of spare parts or should we send out the machine. We were advised to send back the machine for repairs and the survey never got done. I dont know how much the machine cost the company but we managed to destroy it in a matter of minutes. I always wanted to get my hands on the fellows who wrote the manuels because they always seemed to leave out an important detail or two. regards Walt

To: 1king who wrote (368)	3/22/1998 8:56:00 PM
From: Allan Bailey	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 463

It's pretty hard to imagine a better example of what SI is all about than the incredible geological/geophysical give-and-take that has held centre stage on this thread over the past few days. This chippy but extraordinarily well-informed exchange between Mr. Crebs and Mr. King about Diamond Field's discovery of the ovoid, communicated more to me about the technical complexities and more about the nature of the confounding intellectual challenges facing field geologists in Labrador than anything I've read in the press, newsletters, or professional literature. I was initially cool to the argumentative tone of the exchange. I soon came to realize, however, that in fact this is where SI really excels. Here you have two experts duking it out without the moderation and interpretation of an editor or TV/radio host. If the discussion can just stay within the fringes of civility, it reveals a great deal more about the subject matter than would be the case if a reporter/host were in some way controlling the tone, direction, or intensity of the debate. I mean, think of CBC Newsworld nightly Business show. IF - and that's a big 'if' - they would even touch a topic of such complexity, they would invariably hand over the mike to some well-meaning Bay Street or Howe Street analyst who would give us a hazy, third- or fourth-hand account of what he believes is happening in the field. Can you imagine Newsworld even talking to geologists, much less allowing free rein to these well-informed, iconoclastic mavericks. It just wouldn't fit the journalistic mold to listen professionals who have spent most of their working lives in remote and hazardous environments most of us would not be caught dead in? I for one, thank the both of you (and others such as Walt and POLARBEAR) for giving us very useful insights into the geology, geophysics, and professional challenges facing the mineral exploration professionals. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. One of the things this debate impressed upon me was that you guys have more than just an understanding of the science of the region, you also seem to be intimately familiar with the personalities involved in the current exploration efforts-specifically, the new brain trust that has been hired by Donner Resources. On paper these guys appear to look great. But how good are they? How talented are the new team members Kerry Sparkes, Harvey Keats, and Rex Gibbons. Have any of you had direct experience working with them? What special talents do they bring to the play? Your debates revealed to me that any discovery in the land of Donner will, in the end, have a great deal to do with professional traits, skills, insight and intuition that these men possess and which cannot readily be described on a curriculum vitae or a press release. How about it guys? Any revealing stories from the field? Any anecdotes that might help us better assess the likelihood that these new hires by Donner have the right stuff to hit the mother of all ovoids if it exists? I realize this is not a topic directly related to mining terminology but it is a topic inspired by the same purpose--to help investors, untrained in the area of mineralogy and geology, to better understand what is going on. (Perhaps the Donner thread would be a more appropriate venue for the responses since they would apply specifically to that particular play?) Whatever... I'm sure a great many of us would be very grateful for any insights or enlightenment from those experienced and knowledgeable field professionals in our midst. Thanks again, all of you,for shedding a little more light on these complex issues and technologies. Al

To: 1king who wrote (368)	3/25/1998 1:39:00 PM
From: Terry J. Crebs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 463

Not very nice, Mr. King. Dag-burnit, I now have to respond to an "insinuation" that "some GP" could have engaged in illegal and unethical activities for personal profit. All posters should be cogniscent of U.S. SEC (and maybe Libel) codes. My DFR stock options were not awarded/recorded until May/June-95. Other than those shares, I never "bought" any DFR stock at any time. To imply DFR's 3-April-95 press announcement (i.e., when Zorba was noted AND an airborne-EM/Mag response extended almost 7-km west from the Ovoid) was "insider" manipulation is not nice. I never purchase client stocks by any method other than the exercise of a stock option; I believe it is unethical (as well as illegal under US-SEC-codes) for me to do so. I made no appearances (or presentations) at any DFR shareholder meeting, ever. I don't recall ever calling Zorba "the next Ovoid". Ryan's Map #90-44 (1:500,000-scale geological) shows Zorba's magnetic-conductors at/near the contact of Makhavinekh Lake granite and Bird Lake massif-anorthosite--according to the map's legend, neither unit contains graphitic nodules. Hey dude, remember DDH-37 (13+00E;2+00E) and DDH-40 (13+00E;2+50E)?? These vertical holes intercepted over 35 meters of massive sulfide Ovoid ore beneath the easternmost "orignal" Maxmin Line 13+00E--me thinks you forgot my original Maxmin report dated 17-Nov-94, ha, ha. I used BOTH the Maxmin and Mag to spot DDH-7 in my report to DFR and Archean dated 12-Jan-95; but, you're right that the esteemed St. John's wizard only looked at the Maxmin. FYI, DFR also contracted an Arkansas-based "geoconsultant" (besides me and the very expensive St. John's geophysicist) to interpret and 2D-model the origianl VB ground magnetics during the DDH-6 fiasco; his 41-page report (dated 17-Jan-95) generally concurs with my Maxmin interpretation, but "Arkansas" recommended drilling DDH-7 at 14+50E;2+50S on the contoured crest of the magnetic high. He also predicted a depth-to-top of magnetic unit of 15 meters which was a bit shallower than my prediction. Because DFR never received his report until after DDH-7 commenced, I think his report and recommendtions were ignored by most of us--I didn't get a copy of Arkansas's report until July-95--betcha "someone" forgot it too in the 1995 assessment report <grin>. I think the history and "myths" about the discovery holes are indeed illustrative. Yeah, it's very true this geezer-wizard is a GD'ed "prima donna", ha, ha. Regards, T.