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 : Winspear Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chas. who wrote (5467)	3/22/1998 11:01:00 AM
From: Walt	Respond to of 26850

Morning Chuck, My assumption is that they would first clear an overburden trench down to the bedrock and it would be bigger then the trench they put into the kimberlite dyke. Im sure there would be a WSP geologist keeping an eye on things. The crew doing the trenching is experienced in this type of work and the material collected would be almost all kimberlite. (A small very small amount of wall rock will get mixed in but Im sure they took steps to insure it was minimal) Im not sure what length of dyke they exposed but the sample will represent the dykes width and length that was exposed. Im sure the geologists will also take a number of representative samples to examine. As for the security, Im sure WSP has taken steps and hired professionals to ensure there is no tampering with the sample.( It would be awfully costly for any one to salt a bulk sample with anything, so I dont think that is much of a concern) But for time and piece of mind flying it out makes sense. Im not sure of the relationship between MPVs WSPs and SUFs kimberlites as to age etc. No doubt in time someone will do a comparative study. regards Walt