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: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (11829)	1/13/1999 2:26:00 PM
From: teevee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26850

Hi Elizabeth, Your post indicates you either don't know very much about diamond exploration, or you are being deliberately misleading. You should be more careful when shooting from the lip. I hope you didn't make your market decision based on what you said in your post. regards, teevee

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (11829)	1/13/1999 4:11:00 PM
From: .Trev	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26850

Now that you are back from your vacation, and have cooled down form all that sun, at least you're asking questions that I can understand. With your usual pin point accuracy you put your finger on the reason that the Caustic Fusion results and the diamond size profile for the 500 Kg bulk remainder and all the drill cores are so important. In a way it's kind of like a fingerprint. If you consider the 500 kg sample as the original a plot of the size distribution including the large stones that were found and All the others too, then you have the dyke's fingerprint. Then by going to the CF and distribution plot for the drill cores where, as you say, there is little chance of hitting large stones, then you get only the lower end of the full distribution curve, but you can still compare it with the FULL curve from the bulk and have a much better idea whether the source was the same or not. At that point it's more reliable to project. And then of course the next step is the larger bulk sample, which is much more expensive. The preparation and analysis of all this data for a large number of drill holes, and the 500kg is a great deal of work,and must be meticulous which has led to lots of time sliding by, and a fair amount of unhappiness from the peasants. On the other hand the company is adamant that it will publish only when it has ALL the data and can present it properly, AND RIGHTLY SO. To my mind it is significant that the company AND it's JV partner, Aber have decided between them to spend 12 Million dollars to follow through to the 6000 ton (approx) stage and are commencing preparatory work leading to the ultimately necessary environmental studies, and permitting. In the words of the Prophet (and I don't mean your friend Slick Bill) " a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse" Regards PS. I don't suppose you read all the back posts while you were away but you might find it interesting to dig up on that I did for Denis de laplante on the Argyle pinks. It gives you some idea of the stakes in this diamond game when a stone of special color wighing only 0.95 carats fetches almost a million dollars. Winspear's bulk sample contained abot 20 stones of, as yet unspecified color that were close to or larger than that. If you want a witten guarantee buy a Timex watch!! PPS. If you want to see a size distribution chart drive down to your local Ready Mix plant. I they are a good legitimate outfit they'll have one for their concrete aggregate. I remember doing them when Jesus and I were young men in college, and again in later years when the small aggregate available on a project in Pakistan wasn' suitable and we had to install a special crushing plant to adjust the distribution curve.