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: BLZBub who wrote (1851)	3/17/1999 8:23:00 PM
From: Buckey	Respond to of 5821

well I have my keepers and I lost a littke today playing with the big boys but I held my own. The more I look it over the more I like it ( bad sign) I can wait. AND I will buy more on weAKNESS as those bonhead newletter writers aalways suggest.

To: BLZBub who wrote (1851)	3/17/1999 8:48:00 PM
From: Brumell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5821

Something odd about results for 99-04. The "footwall" has always been gneiss but read about hole 99-04. The high grade nickel is not on the bottom as in Hole 99-01 just 25 meters away. In today's hole 99-4, after the high grade ends at 128.35, there is low grade section of 0.31cu and 0.92ni to 143 meters, then we hit a granite dyke and re-enter the gneiss again. Typically, dykes tend to be vertical as shown for example in their hole 98-10. I'm wondering if the presence of the granite dyke might have depleted nickel from rock close to it. And don't forget, the drill probably ran at an angle almost parallel and down the dyke. In otherwords, 99-04 may not be representative of typical conditions at the bottom contact with gneiss. The high grade started at the right depth but petered out as it approached the granite dyke. It would explain the completely different results at bottom of hole from 99-01. I'm presenting this as Brumell's Theory of Inconsistency. That has a classy ring to it. Bob