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: Just G who wrote (2946)	4/5/1999 8:43:00 PM
From: Brumell	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 5821

I'm getting a bad feeling about this one Gopher. I sold out today. This weekend I had a chance to look over things again and can't say I liked what I saw. On section 11+00N, they've essentially tried redrilling the discovery hole 99-01 another 3 times and produced either zip or mediocre results. Now we find ourselves waiting for further assays which should have been completed by now. Are they attempting to drill a good hole to compensate for a bunch of bad ones? I'm also reading their reports about now looking for deep and rich feeder zones. Possibly but this concept has always concerned me as mentioned in posts going back several months ago. I'm not a geo but the area looks to me like a high-grade gneissic terrain. In such areas, it is not uncommon to find granulites (or remnants as my geo friend calls them) of mafic rock. In high-grade (high heat) gneiss terrains, water in minerals such as biotite and hornblende is expelled so that anhydrous minerals such as pyroxene crystallize in their place. We seem to have lots of pyroxenite shown in section 11+00N. It is commonly thought that granulites may be sections of deeper rock within the earths crust that have been uplifted and in this case, to the surface. If the bulls-eye anomaly is caused by the mafic rock hosting NWI's nickel prospect, it means the prospect is probably limited to the area of the anomaly. If the mafic rock is a granulite, there will not be any deep and rich feeder zone of nickel because it was absorbed by the molten rock surrounding it. Any structure within the mafic rock will also be hard to find because it probably won't exist having been so highly metamorphosed. A rich nickel deposit would be possible but it would be confined to the area of the granulite. Once again, I'm not a geo but this is basic geology. Most of it comes literally from geology textbooks about 20 years or more old. I first mentioned these possibilities about 8 weeks ago based on reports from a geo friend in Quebec City who had worked the area although a bit more to the east, for Falconbridge. None of the geo types then active on this thread picked up of the idea although Crebs possibly came closest when he referred to the find as a "cooked archean deposit." My bet was that a smallish high-grade deposit was possible but to beat a retreat when they starting looking for deep feeder systems. Hate to be a downer. Maybe others on this thread have some thoughts. Regardless, for the next while, I'm going to the sidelines where I can watch without getting hurt. It's been fun but no sense getting carried off the field. Regards, Bob