Walt does simplify matters., here is my interpretation., and how it relates to Teevee and Walts analolgy. First I think we have some merit with Teevees cone theory., here is how I visualize it using Walts
plastic funnel model. Stack a minimum of 3 or 4 cones inside one another., then space the stack., the very upper most cone is gone.,
eroded., hence the wide indicator train., and dispersed diamonds.
Where the outcrop hits the NW dyke system, this is the remnant
of what was not eroded off the top funnel. Now take the funnel.,
put a bend on the spiget., the furtherest drill holes and deep intersections represent the pitch of the spiget., maybe it is 45 or 60
degrees or less offset from the main cone., there were multiple emplacement
events., the upper layer being represenative of Group 1 kimberlite.,
consistant., large distribution of stones., and a few whoppers to boot.
Now drop down to the second layer., which the Diatreme (brecciated
bodies., and 290kg boulders represent.) (We dont know the depth of the deposit on those holes cause Winspear hasnt released them.)
Now layers 3 and 4 could be the intersections below 200 meter level
Layers 5 could be the feeder conduit or another layer. If teevees theory of multiple conduits is correct., the diatremes bodies could be
along a fault line. So take the funnel put 4 or 5 layers stacked into
each other., separate them by the country rock between the layers.,
off set the spiget to the North. If it is faulted., then vision the funnels
after heating., with partial showing a 12 or 13 degree gentle drop., towards the center of the funnel., and part of the fold on the funnel
towards the North., with a bend down and a fold running radiating out
but at a lower emplacement level. This is why I choose to formulate
a segmented view of the sytstem. First the diatreme or hypabysmal
kimberlite., is probably related to the 290Kg samples., where hypabymal kimberlite is also mentioned in the deeper kimberlite in the
last release. So 186 is a blind chamber., diatreme material., unvented., the breeciated bodies and the boulder areas are related.
The reason the diamond counts in the upper areas of 186 were not
as good as the other areas in one drill hole., the upper., is the diamonds were not eimplaced at the proper temperature., sort of like
having the magma caught in a pressure cooker., and reabsorption
took place. However., if one perceives the boulder area of 290KG
similiar., it has already exhibited micro/macro relationships better than
the NW dyke. (3 stones as well of size). However it doesnt imply that
stones of extraordinary size will be found., because the kimberlite
was emplaced in different transport speeds., and emplacement temperatures. One small key which people havent considered., is the
2cm pyropes Winspear announced with the 290Kg boulder samples.,
this would indicate that emplacement in size of diamonds would be
prevelant as well in the 22 drill hole area. But I agree with Walt., they
probably wont show in this set of results., due to scatter effect. and
statistical chance of hitting one of those stones., what I would expect
to see if those boulders are brothers to the small diatreme bodies
a few stones approaching or exceeding commercial cutoffs.
If the model of large pyropes., and diamonds is consistant with a Mir
type diatreme emplacement throughout the tonnage., regardless of
the emplacement vehicle., both the diatreme and the group 1 kimberlites represented by the NW Penninsula should reflect previous
micro/macros relationships., that being consistant hopefully thruout
the 71 drill holes. Go back and check the 290Kg samples for micro/macro relationships., then check the percentages for the 13
drill holes., and tell me which one is better.
Sincerely
GJT |
