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: mineman who wrote (12882)	1/20/1999 9:12:00 PM
From: Rocket Red	Respond to of 26850

Next

To: mineman who wrote (12882)	1/20/1999 9:40:00 PM
From: mineman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26850

Sorry, I have to re-post as the previous post contained mistakes?? Until management says different I will assume none of the 22 stones from 1 to 5 carats are GEM quality and so all value below $50/carat. Cts. --- U.S.$ per ct. 10.8 --- $1,500 8.4 ---- $3,000 6 ------ $1,500 4.6 -- less than $50 4.2 -- less than $50 3.5 -- less than $50 3.2 -- less than $50 3.0 -- less than $50 2.6 -- less than $50 2.4 -- less than $50 2.2 -- less than $50 1.9 -- less than $50 1.9 -- less than $50 1.8 -- less than $50 1.7 -- less than $50 1.6 -- less than $50 1.5 -- less than $50 1.4 -- less than $50 1.4 -- less than $50 1.3 -- less than $50 1.3 -- less than $50 1.2 -- less than $50 1.1 -- less than $50 1.0 -- less than $50 1.0 -- less than $50 Carat weights from 4.6 to 1.0 are estimated as management only said they recovered 22 stones from 1 to 5 carats averaging 1.9 carats. Possible reasons the top 3 stones are valued at so much more than the bottom 22 are: 1. The dyke is different from any other dyke or pipe in the world in that the few large stones are top Gem quality and the remainder of stones under 5 carats are industrial grade, or 2. The sample just happens to include 3 top-quality gem-grade stones and is not representative of the remainder of the dyke, or 3. The 3 large stones did not originate from the Snap Lake dyke. Please include any other explanations!!

To: mineman who wrote (12882)	1/21/1999 12:17:00 AM
From: Walt	Respond to of 26850

NEW RESULTS:From Fridays Press Release Coarse Diamond Size Distribution: The value of kimberlite comprising the mini-bulk sample from the NW dyke is enhanced by the presence of three large gem-quality diamonds weighing 10.82, 8.42, and 6.04 carats respectively, two of which were recovered from Pit 2 and one from Pit 1. Furthermore, an additional 22 diamonds were recovered that weigh between 1.01 and 5.00 carats. Seven of these 22 diamonds were recovered from the Pit 1 sample and the remaining fifteen were recovered from the Pit 2 sample. The combined weight of the 25 diamonds that weigh more than one carat is 67.72 carats; this represents 29.8% by weight of the total parcel. These weights were established in the process of obtaining a detailed study of the diamonds by Dr. Malcolm E. McCallum, results of which are reported below. The three large diamonds contribute approximately 10% of the weight and about 75% of the value of the total parcel. The balance of the parcel exclusive of the three large stones is valued at US$83.26 / carat. This distribution of values is in keeping with results that would be expected from an occurrence with a significant population of large, high-value gem stones. Ok mineman, that is what the news release says. It says the parcel of 1 to 5 carat stones is worth $83.26?carat US dollars. That is a great value. It includes 22 diamonds between 1.01 and 5 carats. So some or all of the stones are gem quality. Even at $50US/carat which is mineable some or all of the diamonds would be of gem grade. They did not list every diamond, its size, its gem quality (1 of 2000 classification) nor the value per carat per stone. How can you possibly explain the value per carat without some or all the stones being gem quality. Non gem quality diamonds are almost worthless. Your post bothers me because of its distortions. You make up a chart of numbers and ask how can it be. Well it cannt because you made it up and it doesnt reflect reality, I assume it is done to purposely distort things. Read the press release and assume what you want. regards Walt