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: mineman who wrote (2044)	3/21/1999 12:26:00 PM
From: Midas	Respond to of 5821

Mineman and Gary: I suggested using an S.G. value of 3.2 because the rock density should be about 3.0. If you then allow for 10% sulfides throughout the zone (5% can be accounted for by redistributing 3m of massive sulfide over 60 m, the other 5% from low grade mineralization in the other 57m) with a S.G. of 4.6, you get an overall S.G. of 3.2. Using the correct S.G. value can be critical to determining the viability of a mine (recall the Canamax deposit in the Yukon) but will be nearly irrelevant if the massive part of the zone doubles in width in the next few holes. Midas

To: mineman who wrote (2044)	3/21/1999 12:26:00 PM
From: Gary Nash	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5821

To all: I think this has to one of the most respectful and informational base metal threads ever! We are all learning on this thread and it is wealth of information to new comers in the junior market.Thanks to all for their input, and keep the OBJECTIVE information and criticism flowing.

To: mineman who wrote (2044)	3/21/1999 12:40:00 PM
From: Brumell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5821

A question for you, mineman. A geo friend of mine in the Quebec City city area who knows the area well has followed your comments closely. He tells me you know what you are talking about. However, he has a question about your description of the rock as a plug. << How come does he think that it is a small gabbro «plug». This «plug» is differentiated. A small plug can't differentiated since it will cool fast. Only large masses of mafic to ultramafic have time to differentiate. This is why I think that that gabbro-norite «plug» was part of a larger mass of rock before. The only one in the area is the Rocher-Quénonisca differentiated intrusive which is very very large. >> Any thoughts, on the above? Regards, Bob