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: Tomato who wrote (1826)	1/2/1999 3:40:00 PM
From: Diamond in the Ruff	Respond to of 2251

>Come on, y'all. What say you to these possible impediments? That would suck.

To: Tomato who wrote (1826)	1/2/1999 4:01:00 PM
From: teevee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2251

Hi Tomato, I will go on record now and say that IMO, the diamond counts for the holes which penetrated breccia will be lower than the kimberlite. This is because the breccia is comtaminated/diluted with clasts of country rock (granitoids, metasediments, metavolcanics etc.) Thankfully, there hasn't been alot of it hit on the NW peninsula, where the drilling density is very high, or elsewhere for that matter. Should the results be reported in sufficient detail, factors like what I just mentioned have to be carefully considered. You can be sure that breccia will avoided where possible when the bulk sample is collected.