To: The Osprey who wrote (560 ) 4/13/1998 12:40:00 PM From: Jesse Read Replies (1) | Respond to
Thanx again Doug. I was glad to see that when I read his report too-- Of course he had better arguments to back things up! Khanna (of TRI) can be considered somewhat of a pioneer here, in that there are still doubters out there. IMO he is one of the smart ones, as you put it, who is not 'missing the boat' here.Target seven... intersected some bedrock impenetrable by the auger drill in two holes. The 'impenetrable' bedrock cannot be a boulder as the holes were ten metres apart (and besides, there are no known large boulders in these rock units). Also worth noting is that the hard unit lies under green-black sands. At the depth indicated, volcanic material is the only explanation I can come up with. Also, as noted in earlier Alerts, the host kimberlite in Alberta is denser than the surrounding sandstones and thus harder to drill through, especially with an auger drill. These are speculative comments at this point...Target seven yielded about 7 metres of till, including a basal till, and about 13 metres of green sand and mixed mudstones.
