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: Chas. who wrote (11061)	1/3/1999 11:34:00 AM
From: maintenance	Respond to of 26850

Good question Chuck. I too, was wonder the significance of this. What do you think Teevee? Cheers

To: Chas. who wrote (11061)	1/3/1999 1:00:00 PM
From: teevee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26850

Hi chuck, In responce to your question, there is little data to go on, so I can't be sure, however, the intersection at 150 meters deeper than anticipated suggests either that: 1. there is a fault off set, or 2. As you approach the apex/feeder of the cone (pipe perhaps?) the dip of the cone sheet will quickly steepen. I have previously estimated the depth to the apex/feeder to be about 700-800 meters. Regarding the alteration in the hangingwall versus none in the footwall: I don't have enough data to speculate. On other items: the breccias that occur within the cone sheet. My preliminary thoughts are that they occur in portions of the cone sheet, where there was scaling or spalling of the footwall and or hanging wall, during injection of the kimberlite magma, at or near where the breccias are located. A high degree of roundness to the clasts would indicate that they were entrained in the magma and milled during the injection process. My preliminary thoughts on underground mining is that there should be slight serpentinization of the kimberlite at the footwall and hanging wall contacts-the implication being that the "ore" would break cleanly with little to no dilution. In general, Slave Craton granites should make very sound roof rock. regards, teevee

To: Chas. who wrote (11061)	1/3/1999 4:45:00 PM
From: Sudhir Khanna	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26850

I am enjoying the discussion and would like to add my thoughts from the October 29, 1998 issue (below). We should see some results over the next few days. Other than some European funds, the bigger institutional players have yet to enter the play. I won't be surprised to see another gap up next week. "... * As the search moves towards larger tonnage sources, one should notice irregularities in the cores. Any blows from the gently dipping dykes would have been saturated with fluid. This fluid is caustic and thus would have caused alteration in the host granite. As you get closer to the feeder or blows in the dyke, these alterations should get more common. Winspear has noted that in hole CL98-17, the "hanging wall of this kimberlite intersection is marked by significant alteration of the enclosing granitic rocks whereas the footwall is relatively unaltered". Winspear appeared to have the tale of something but doesn't know what yet. At this point, the above should only be considered a speculation. As I suggested in the last issue "If winter had not set in so quick, I believe WSP would have followed up on this new understanding with a few deep holes in search of the feeder source." * Anomaly CL 186, reported last year, also contained altered granite above the complex kimberlite breccia intersections. Mountain Province has also in the past reported altered granite above large intersections of kimberlite. The above supports my speculation that Winspear is getting closer to a larger body of kimberlite. This may be a blow in the dyke or the feeder source. * As one gets closer to the source, one would also expect a change in attitude of the dyke. The angle of the dyke (the kimberlite contact points) would also change. In the October 14, 1998 news release, Winspear did not report the depth of intersection CL98-19. I was not fully satisfied with Winspear's answer to my inquiry regarding the omission. This leads me to speculate that a change has occurred with this intersection and that WSP may not yet fully understand its implication. Are they getting closer to a larger source? ..." Sincerely, Sudhir Khanna, P.Eng.