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: Midas who wrote (2956)	4/6/1999 1:59:00 AM
From: Brumell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5821

Interesting! You may well have the answer, Midas. Perhaps there are a few other considerations that might be worth looking at. On NWI's web site, they have always shown 2 airborne magnetic maps of the area. If I recall, the lowest one called Airborne 1 has the tighter scale but in any case, clearly shows what I took to be a large batholith to the south running up to the southern shore of Lac Rocher. This was later clearly confirmed when I saw government maps. From this I assumed Lac Rocher was the edge of the batholith and had probably been formed by erosion of the softer rock adjacent to the granite. The question naturally was how could an outcrop of mafic rock appear not at the edge but apparently on top of or at least 3 kilometers or so into the batholith. That's where the idea of a possible remnant or granulite came from. However, at NWI's booth at PDAC, they had a large geological map at the back of their booth that was virtually identical to gov't geological maps with one very big exception - the edge of the batholith had been moved south so that it now intersected their discovery area. Only two formations were marked - the batholith to the south and Troilus Group Volcanics running along the contact SW to NE parallel Lac Rocher. If correct, much is answered but it really does contradict government maps and perhaps more importantly the airborne magnetics. Whatever the answer turns out to be, I get the feeling that we are looking at a true anomaly in that the mafic rock identified by the bulls-eye anomaly is unique, unusual and very localized. Hopefully depth can be discovered but my impression to date from drill results is that it may turn out shallow and faulted. Like you, I thought it appeared to have turned. The section at 11+00N reminds me of a sailboat resting on its side with the high-grade nickel lying at the bottom of the keel. Whatever the answer, it's going to be interesting to watch. If discretion is the better part of valor, think I'll be doing most of it from the sidelines. Naturally, that's always subject to change. Thanks very much for your thoughts. Much appreciated. Regards, Bob