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: Abner Hosmer who wrote (10778)	12/22/1998 2:53:00 AM
From: Taz	Respond to of 26850

Thomas: I'll have a go. 1. Check the distance between the holes you are wondering about. The holes that were drilled over the planned bulk sample area are also part of a larger program of definition drilling to prove up a resourse on the NW peninsula. I'm pretty sure there are industry standards applicable for the distance between drill holes when conducting such a program in order to ensure that the information extrapolated to infer the resource is credible. Keep in mind that the bulk sample is supposed to help prove up the resource that the drill holes have inferred. Review Walts analogy of the raisin bread. Gords point as well. If they are going to the expense of taking a bulk sample it would be prudent to ensure that you are going to be sampling ore and not find out the hard way that there was a big chunk of country rock floating in the dike. 2. Yes. At this point in time diamond drilling is the only economical technology we have for getting through this very old and very hard rock and retrieving a meaningful sample. Not only that but this here is the Great White North, wayyy bigger ‘n Texas by a long shot. Up here its just so tough that ya gotta drill with diamonds ta find the diamonds. Thats why we're lookin' - so we can find more diamonds to drill with to find even more diamonds - big ‘uns. Maybe someday we'll use lasers or something, but for the time being diamond drills work just fine. 3. Contamination? Are you suggesting salting perhaps? (shudder! shudder!) Or do you mean cross contamination of samples? The former is always a possiblility but is highly unlikely as it would not stand up under the close scrutiny to which I'm certain this project is being subjected to, ie TSE listing DD, diamond valuations, etc. (Gawd I hope I don't have to eat those words). The latter is also highly unlikely as there are standard procedures and techniques used to ensure that cross contamination of samples (or drill core) does not occur. The company has a vested interest to ensure that does not happen as it can lead to disasterous misinterpretation of the results, not the least of which can result in the expenditure of many thousands of dollars looking in the wrong direction or something like that. I cannot comment on the controls or security arrangements that WSP is using, if I could they wouldn't be working, now would they! Suffice to say that it is certain that they are using industry standard operating procedure to secure samples, core etc. and I'll bet that at this point they are also using diamond industry field security procedures as well. They would have to be in order for the results to have any credibility. Besides which, I would think that it would be unreasonable for a diamond valuation expert from Antwerp to stake his/her reputation on the valuation of a diamond if there was even the slightest hint of a scam. But I could be wrong on that one. NOTE: Mr. EC will have a different take on this one. See his posts from a couple of months ago. He did raise some interesting points but was unable to substantiate them. You should pose these questions to him as well. Ask him to post on his WSP thread. 4. Yes you can reliably extrapolate. Mining results from the Ekati mine (BHP/Diamet, see latest press release) are showing that the grades obtained from bulk samples are being met or exceeded. There are many other examples of bulk sample extrapolation to ore deposit from other mineral development projects around the world as well. Now keep in mind we seem to have the possibility of a different animal here (reportedly a duck), and what holds for the bulk sampling of a kimberlite pipe may not necessarily hold true for this type of deposit. As long as the company proceeds carefully to ensure that the samples are properly taken, conduct all the proper tests of the samples, and check, check and check again against the data in front of them and known occurances, then they should be ok. It would be useful to read over Walts bird seed analogy on the G Tromp 12 picks. Again, there are industry standards in place and you can bet your boots there will be experienced and knowledgeable people checking those results. Remember it's not that far to go to the property, it's not in the middle of some god forsaken jungle half a world away, so far we don't have any armed rebels running around shooting the place up and absconding with the field crew, so you can reasonably expect that there will be many analysts and scientists out there doing their thing. And the last I heard NONE of the WSP geologists were trying to jump from the helicopters. The best part so far is that it would appear from what is known about the Snap data to date, along with known occurances of this type (if it does indeed prove to be a cone sheet) it would appear that there is a high degree of consistency throughout the recovered material that should lend itself well to such extrapolation. Gettin' L8. L8er Regards, Taz