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: LaFayette555 who wrote (1241)	3/6/1999 12:14:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5821

Well, that is Deitz from 1964. He was called a loon by some then, but it is a viable theory for some of the features of Sudbury. There is sufficient planetary nickel to explain Sudbury though. One might ask why it splashed just at embayments on the basin edge and nowhere else. If it were brick nickel then the motherlode would be on the bottom of the basin. Even if the basin was an Astrobleme then it could still have belched its nickel from terrestrial sources. The only rock explosed when the Asteroid hit would have been the sublayer as it is the only one fractured. Then the ore is older than the sublayer and younger than the norite. Any sublayer rock intruding the norite would have to be remobilized mini-apophyses, probably by the aplites. (It does happen )and sublayer does intrude the norite in a very minor way here and there. Pattison points out in 1979 that the sublayer is older than the norite by many indications. We know know the granophyre to be very slightly older than the norite, or possibly contemporanous, making it not likely an intrusive. this zircon ageing should be taking with a grain of zircon.. the norite was aged at 1850 MA and a dyke cutting it was aged at 1865 MA. The precision is supposed to be far greater than that! Perhaps the zircons in many cases are xenoliths and their dates can lead astray! EC<:-}