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 : Trump's 12 Diamond Picks, Discussions Limited -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: George J. Tromp who wrote (983)	6/28/1998 3:58:00 PM
From: Tomato	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2251

George, I was wondering about the tonnage in 186 and whether it is possible or probable that it has the same value per tonne as the dyke. I think they reported it as being approx. 66 million years old. Do you know the dimensions of 186 other than the 107 meter intersection of kimberlite? I can't seem to find it in the NR section. Do you have any apporx. figures for tonnage? Any reason if the dyke is economic why they can't mine 186, too, if it's got decent valuations? In testing 186's valuations, would they have to use RC drilling to be a mini-bulk sample? With those 22 intersections of kimberlite (I think that was it), are they going to do mini-bulk samplings now or wait until they know more about the shape of the dyke/whatever before doing going ahead with that? The odds and ends seem like they could add up to a lot of tonnage.