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 (2065)	3/22/1999 7:53:00 AM
From: dave brown	Respond to of 5821

Or of the same source!, your on right track for sure.

To: mineman who wrote (2065)	3/22/1999 9:28:00 AM
From: Brumell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5821

My geo friend agrees with you about the probable size of the plug and the fact that such a small plug cannot generate so much sulfides. Consequently, these sulfides must come from outside the plug or the plug is part of a larger differentiated mafic intrusive which lies down below and brought up to surface by the granite intrusion. Here are some facts and a possible conclusion: 1) This «plug» is located within the granitic batholith; 2) It is not intruding the granite since this granite is the last intrusive in the area, according to government reports (if we forget about the younger diabase dikes); 3) It is differentiated (gabbro/norite) and sulfides too are to differentiated (disseminated to massive); 4) It is too small to have generated that much sulfides; His theory is that it is a remnant of a larger intrusive, probably the bottom of the Rocher-Quenonisca differentiated intrusive. There are many such remnants in the SE part of the batholith. Any comments, mineman?