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 : SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: .Trev who wrote (2338)	1/8/1999 2:54:00 PM
From: VAUGHN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

Hello Trev *OFF TOPIC* The simple answer is I don't know and there is not yet enough drill information to truly support the cone or champagne theory any more than three or four others. Right now a number of scenarios could reasonably and plausibly be argued and until more drill information is published we won't know. Rock, even granite is rarely homogenous and has zones of weakness and fractures. Those fractures, especially along a fault would probably not be symmetrical and the kimberlite could easily have blown laterally into any zone of weakness at any level it found it. Keep in mind, that this all could have occurred 300 meters to three kilometers below ground (70 million years ago). The deeper north shore intersections could be a sill emplaced into a lower fracture or simply the deepening extension of a plunging sill which may or may not rise again if sourced from some diatreme beyond, there is just no way of telling. Even Walt's suggestion of the sill being faulted and off set is possible although I don't think that is likely based on the information available so far. You should also keep in mind that kimberlites typically undergo multiple intrusive phases, which could span a considerable period of time. A graphic example of that is available on the SUF web site I believe, where the Camafuca drill cores are displayed. You can see considerably different patterns of brecciation and kimberlite compositions. One eruption might fill a fault going in one direction while a subsequent eruption might widen the previous dyke/pipe or find another fault or fracture perhaps created by the previous eruption and blow into that in another direction. There are just too many variables just yet to subscribe to any one theory. I would imagine WSP will simply adopt one that fits the current drill information and geology and attempt to drill widely spaced holes where and to the depth the theory suggests kimberlite will be found. If it is, then repeat the process until a dry hole is logged then take the data and propose a new theory that fits and repeat the process. To some degree, that is what Howard is doing at Munn Lake although in that case it's less a theory being followed than geochemical and geophysical data and in the coming year some geomorphology as well. If I were a WSP shareholder however, I would be more interested in the company exhausting its options with regard to finding a pipe especially along that SC fault/basalt dyke. That is where the real $$ is to be made and where the market will truly reward your loyalty. Good Luck Regards