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: E. Charters who wrote (1242)	3/6/1999 1:35:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 5821

Make that the ore is younger than the sublayer and older than the norite. Law of superposition. Ahemmm we can easily see why this relates to the amount of ore at Lac Rocher. If I am right and the ore is VMS as it is in Timmins, (Eldorado Township) by wide acceptance, then the model for the intraflow ryholite and gabbro associated nickel is a small rich orebody. There is nothing stopping it from being large, but the usual is small. Examples of similar orebodies are Loon Lake, Fawcett Township and Timmins nickel (Eldorado Twp). The gabbro-serpentine ore on the edge of the Kamiskotia complex near the rhyolites too is the Otukumpu Oy Montcalm deposit. Now that one is humungous, maybe 25 million tons. So you could hope for something there. Of course the Kamiskotia Gabbroic complex is huge. These gabbros in Quebec are a string of smallish bodies. If we use the Lynn Lake model or the Thompson model, there is no need to have a large gabbro to have a large orebody. Why do I say it is small? Where did I say that? I didn't. I just said based on the law of averages it is usually small. I believe it has been widely observed the lack of relation of the gabbroic body to the size of ore. If we accept the magmatic model then we have to have a large body of intrusive to have a large orebody. Not so. EC<:-}