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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : ABFG - AMERICAN BENEFITS GROUP, INC. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbIII who wrote (1283)	4/16/1999 9:03:00 PM
From: DoubleOddBuck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4128

please forgive me, remove the i. Placer is the correct spelling.

To: jbIII who wrote (1283)	4/17/1999 9:42:00 AM
From: ColleenB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4128

Why thank you. By these definitions stated, the deposits described could not possibly be placer deposits. As the source for these gem stones is from clay and not gravel, per the company write up. This is extremely significant and important to note. Particles in geologic terms are sorted by grain size, boulders, rocks, pebbles, gravel, sand, clay and not composition. This is because the larger rocks beget smaller rocks via erosion, and clay is the finest end product. This is why you don't find clay at the beach, it's sand. The pounding by the waves is constantly sorting out the particle sizes. Of course the distance from the source must be noted as well, as some beaches are rather rocky. Now, an alluvial plain describes this setting. And I would further guess that this is a flood plain, kind of an ox bow lake type setting. Where only during floods, does/did this area get additional deposits and by the smallest particles, clay. And on occasion larger "storms" might have deposited the gemstones. By the photo they appear to be pebble sized or smaller, so this would support my hypothesis. If this was the case, then this area would not be the best source for gem hunting. Sure, they could be found but in what quantity? Especially if you are depending on storm surges to have deposited gem stones in this flood plain. This area, the flood plain is also about at the end of the erosional cycle, so, the gems that are found here, would also have suffered erosional effects. The better gems would be found updip from this location. Larger gems and ones that are most likely of higher quality would be found closer to the source. Why? Again because of erosion, but not of the gem itself, of the surrounding parent rock it is found in. These particular minerals are very resistant to weathering but the source rock is less so. With this in mind, the rock with the smaller gems, and ones less likely to have formed crystalline structures befitting gem "quality" are the ones that would be weathered further down stream, where we are located. Has anybody posted a link to the topography of the area? Of other mining camps in the area? Further analyses could be concluded by this information. In much of geology for these types of processes, sheer animal cunning works best, and is fairly accurate. Also important to note is where is their water source for this operation. A lot of water is needed to sieve this much material. And where is this "sludge/slurry" being redeposited? This type of operation if done on a large enough scale could really scar the area. I hope the local governments have some environmental impact laws to protect them from such operations.