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 Diaminds (Bulls Board) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chad Barrett who wrote (74)	1/31/1999 10:44:00 PM
From: .Trev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1172

Fair enough comment Chad and I apologise! I am just heartily sick of the fuss made about JK's words. IMHO if you want to take a conservative approach that's ok but it doesn't take 15 or 17 or whatever pages of accusations made and detailed and then half heartedly withdrawn to do it . My violent reaction was to your seeming repetition and defense of JK's position, which I happen to consider indefensible.His entire presentation was aimed at putting himself in the position to claim "I said it first" no matter which way the results go. I can understand the guy needing to make a living, I just think that's a lousy way to do it.I understand he was at the meeting at Simon Fraser U and had the CF results ex[lained in detail so don't be surprise if he does attempt another swtcharoo. Aparently he also showed up at the reception on Thursday. So I simply reast my case what use is his advice if you can't even count on his negative thoughts? Sorry to upset you unfairly. Regards

To: Chad Barrett who wrote (74)	2/1/1999 5:37:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1172

I am not sure I can easily assess the statistical significance of the results myself. I know that it was a total diamond count and that there were 44 diamonds greater than 1 mm sq in about 59 holes that hit kimberlite. I noted that the tonnage was fairly low, about 1200 Kg. Now I don't know at all what the caratage per hole was. I also do not know if a correlation between small diamonds and large diamonds can be made. I also do not know if any individual hole and its diamond count can be extrapolated back to a grade figure that would tell you what the total grade would be if mined, even if some kind of chemical or statistical count figure can be adjudicated. The threshold values of determination may not be present in each hole. What is more, it is hard to imagine what the relation between small diamonds and large diamonds is. What can you really say about it? Is the existence of the three larger diamonds in the drill holes merely a statistical probability due to the amount of kimberlite taken or did they report to some more favourable area? Is the variance per hole related to large scale variances that we know occur in Kimberlites or is it haphazard? In order to answer these questions one needs more detailed data and perhaps additional types of tests to correlate. If the deposit exhibits high variability in large stones then it may not be that economic. Such a small deposit actually may waste much money in testing. In effect the only way to defray exploration risk in these kind of trials is to have more than one horse running. 20 million has been spent already and it is really just teaching the company how to explore for diamonds. EC<:-}