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: Tom Cat who wrote (1288)	3/7/1999 8:01:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5821

Yes there are geologists that I agree with. There are several. Where most of them go wrong is in development of coherent theories of ore emplacement. The evidence is inconclusive and sketchy and the models of genesis do not take into account all the factors and account for all the stages and present conditions arrived at. In short their history is poorly developed. Hutchinson is the best with regards to the historical part and accounting for all the strata and their position and emplacement during the paleo events. He was long an arguer for sedimentary origin for most orebodies. He has a book out on the origin of many such orebodies. Most classical geological theory about ore formation cherished for the past 100 years has found to be egregious and wrong. The jury is still out on formation of gold orebodies. I think a fair amount of them will be found to be several hundred million years younger than they were thought to be. I am sticking with hydrothermal on them though and that is the classical theory.