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 : MARUM RESOURCES ON ALBERTA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jesse who wrote (1022)	11/16/1998 11:24:00 PM
From: Gord Bolton	Respond to of 2514

It is not like I am a great geologist or anything like that, but I have been following the "overburden" arguements with some interest. I found the comments from Marum very interesting. I would propose the following and invite authentic geologists to comment. I understand the Kimberlite decays, so to speak into a slimy clay material--especially in swampy environments. Some or perhaps a great deal of the overburden may in fact be decayed kimberlite. And if the pipe was diamondiferous the diamonds would remain in the overburden. I also understand that separating the diamonds from the clay muck may be a problem. I read a recent news release from an Alberta Company who have apparently just patented a process for separating diamonds and precious metals from clay. I don't know if this process would help the prospects for the Alberta diamond play-but what the 'ell do I know. FWIW.

To: Jesse who wrote (1022)	11/17/1998 10:21:00 AM
From: Stew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2514

Thanks Jesse.

To: Jesse who wrote (1022)	11/17/1998 1:44:00 PM
From: Leigh McBain	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2514

Jesse, thanks for your response. When you stated: "Beyond that, which as you point out is of utmost importance, is the presence of a diamond host rock!" I think this is still the key to be watched, so far we have seen good indication that there is reason to continue working on this project. I was in no way suggesting that the OB issue was not of significance, just pointing out that it is irrelevant if you do not actually find the appropriate host rock material. There is a rationale for staking and exploring low OB first before moving on to thicker OB locations, BUT only when the indicators of a potential strike are equal, or at least similar. You drill low OB first (less cost to drill, read - less risk to a junior) and yes I am aware that the lower OB being encountered, in Alberta, is an advantage over the NWT, as is the rest of the infrastructure in the province. I am NOT making an evaluation of what property has been staked by the company, just commenting on the use of the OB as one factor, in the exploration process. Indicators so far is that they have indeed staked some low OB targets, WITH potential, that is a GOOD thing. Rick, I would also like to thank you again for taking the time to continue the dialogue with the investor base. Not that you have any particular reason to require my approval, but thanks anyway and good luck with the program. Salut, Leigh McBain

To: Jesse who wrote (1022)	11/17/1998 3:28:00 PM
From: Pete Mimmack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2514

More thoughts on the OB issue: First, my thanks to you and Rick for all the info. Second, apparently not everyone agrees with his assessment that you want nothing to do with OB > 50 metres since all of the MEO/Kennecott cores pulled this fall have OB in the 100-150 metre range. Granted, open pits are a lot cheaper, but they evidently believe that you can go underground and still be profitable. Third, while I sure don't know, I doubt that "the Alberta diamond mining advantage over the NWT is greatly diminished when OB greater than 10m is encountered." Maybe I missed the post where the details are laid out, but any mine that is so much closer to major infrastructure and located in a comparatively mild climate has got to be significantly cheaper to run. Certainly, the underground would reduce the benefits over NWT, but still leave a substantial spread. That's my two bits. Owning MEO but not MMU, I certainly don't want OB to be an issue! And I know that K likes open-pits, since I live within sight (40 miles) of the largest open-pit Cu mine in the world, their Bingham Canyon mine in Utah. Pete