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 : Nuinsco Resources (NWI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 1king who wrote (1216)	3/5/1999 10:37:00 AM
From: BLZBub	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5821

1king, At the risk of stating the obvious... If NWI hits on the both the next 2 holes, then all of us who are long will surely have a window of opportunity to cash in for some nice profit. If that's our chosen strategy, then it doesn't matter if Charters or anyone else is correct about a small deposit.

To: 1king who wrote (1216)	3/5/1999 2:06:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5821

You have to play the percentages or lose. Some people can gamble and win. Others would have you believe that gambling is always a loser's game. The odds in this game as you well know is that the company loses and the nickel body is small. On that alone you would sell about now. Certainly if the stock is weak or too high in volume and too low in price rise before the news is out you would sell. Those are the market realities. You may disagree violently about my VMS vent theories for nickel, but if you were a fairer man you would admit that the serpentine hosted nickel deposits such as the Redstone, were proven conclusively and accepted by all as being intra-flow subaqeuous vent related deposits. What I am stating is that the recent thought about imiscible droplets in a fluid or magmatic segregation, a relatively new or resurrected thinking on the Sudbury and other deposits is wrong. I hew back to the earlier thinkers such as Davidson and Fairbairn who predominated from 1939 to 1961 and who offered hydrothermal and sedimentary theories of deposition for many nickel deposits and particularly Sudbury. As a matter of fact Fairbairn said specifically that the magmatic theory for Sudbury was wholly untenable. I have viewed the Vosiey Bay footwall core and it is clear that the basal rocks are a seabed sediment and juvenile at that. Clast of quartz where clearly visible. The rock below the sulphide contact was brown, totally unaltered and mildly banded like a varve clay. You could run a thumbnail along the fresh contact line of the sulphide layer that did not penetrate one millimetre into the footwall rock. This is obviously a sea bed vent deposit in character. To accept magmatic segregation in face of the obvious geological evidence is pathetic. EC<:-}