From sterling's board.. this guy makes some sense:
CMKX: Statistics in Exploring. It doesn't matter if you are sampling for fisheries statistics, or variations in diameter for ball bearings in a manufacturing process stream, or searching for diamonds among millions of acres. Regardless, the science and methods of statistical derivation must be applied to the degree that it is practical, possible, and economically feasible.
"The problem involved with diamond grade estimation is due to the typically small number of (usually small) particles per unit volume (or mass). It is basically a SAMPLING PROBLEM WHERE THE LARGER THE SAMPLE, THE BETTER IS THE GRADE ESTIMATE- BUT THE HIGHER THE COST. A balance must be struck between the cost of the sample collection and processing, and the accuracy of the resulting estimate."
"The preferred size of the sample can be estimated by statistics. A sample size that returns about thirty diamonds (or "stones") will give a "statistically significant" result (THIS IS TRUE OF SAMPLING FISH IN A LAKE, THE HEIGHT OR WEIGHT OF GIRLS AND BOYS OF A GIVEN AGE IN A PARTICULAR SCHOOL DISTRICT, OR WHATEVER) but this may be impractical at the early stages of an evaluation program. In a preliminary sampling program, where there is no past data on the grade of the deposit, a useful starting point could be to use the world average for commercial diamond mining operations as follows:
1) average grade of 50 carats per hundred tonnes (cpht),
2) average diamond size of 0.1 carats per stone (ct/st) and
3) average diamond value of 50 US$/ct.
"on average, in the above example, 5 diamonds should be recovered from each tonne of processed source rock. To recover 30 diamonds we would therefore have to process 6 tonnes of source rock."
We are not there yet with the Smeaton Kimberlite Formation, so far as we know. However, Kensington and/or Shore Gold has sunk some shafts already in the Fort a la Corne area, in order to gain access to several tonnes of source rock, in order to gain a greater statistical sampling base. They would not have done so had their initial drilling results pointed the way to spending that amount of exploration money to further the data base of sampling results. Remember that most of the exploration money for diamonds in the world is going into Canadian exploration. And for good reason.
"Typically, a deposit with a high stone density will be easier to evaluate than a deposit with a low stone density because the sample size required to recover a significant number of stones will be smaller. At the very high grade Argyle Mine in Western Australia, where the mean stone size is small (» 0.08 ct/st),and the stone density is high (» 60 st/t), samples of only one tonne were more than adequate to obtain an initial grade estimate."
"The number of diamonds recovered from a sample will also depend upon the smallest size of particle recovered. In pipe evaluation, the macrodiamond is usually considered to be of a commercial size, ie. greater than about 0.5 mm, and below this size the diamonds are considered microdiamonds and are not usually recovered during commercial mining operations, except in the Sakha (Yakutia - Russian Federation) diamond mining operations."
"However many exploration companies use different definitions of what is a macrodiamond or microdiamond and care should be exercised in using this term; unless it is clearly defined. Australian and North American exploration companies usually use the term microdiamonds for diamonds less than 0.4 or 0.5 mm in size AND USUALLY RECOVERED DURING EARLY STAGES OF AN EXPLORATION PROGRAM".
TAKE CAREFUL NOTICE, FOLKS: WE ONLY HAVE THE RESULTS OF A FEW KILOGRAMS FROM A FEW SMALL DIAMETER DRILL CORES. THERE IS NO WAY A HIGHLY ACCURATE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT EVALUATION CAN BE DERIVED FROM SUCH A SMALL SAMPLE. ONLY UNTIL WE HAVE PROCESSED AT LEAST 6 TONNES OR SO CAN WE EXPECT A BETTER SAMPLE BASIS FOR STATISTICAL EVALUATION.
Further consider this: If my estimate of a Fort a la Corne Kimberlite formation consisting of about 450 acres and 390 million tonnes is even close, and considering the geological fact that kimberlites occur in clusters, then which of the two following scenarios would you like to find yourself in, if you were a mining company:
1) 54,000 acres of mineral rights....
versus
2) 1.4 million acres of mineral rights.
Even if only 10% of the 1.4 million acres has economically attractive, relatively "accessible" diamondiferous kimberlite near the surface (about 400 feet below the surface or so), then we are talking about 140,000 acres of kimberlite. If I am even close in my estimates of the tons of kimberlites that kind of territory represents, then we are talking huge amounts of diamonds, potentially.
Not to mention the gold, platinum, palladium, rhodium, and other valuable minerals that are often associated and occur along beside diamondiferous mineral formations.
Locked and Loaded and Ready to Rock.
Tally Ho!
Wellmetfellow
I do believe that even finding the smallest chip of a diamond in a core sample of that size is unbelieveably good. The sampling was for kimberlite, not diamonds.
1. Drill core samples for kimberlite presence.
2. Test kimberlite for quality and whether or not it is the type that typically contains diamonds.
3. Once good quality kimberlite is located, either drill a larger diameter core sample or excavate a small test mine.
4. Test larger diameter core sample for signs of diamonds or check excavation effluent for traces of diamonds.
5. Once a promising site is located, begin excavation on a larger scale now with a goal of finding discernable diamonds.
6. Once discernable diamonds are secured, test for color, clarity, and size.
7. If excavation remains promising, begin full-scale mining operation.
The way I see it, CMKX made it all the way through step 5 with just a 2" core sample. Hmmmmm....I'm not going anywhere.
Outlaw
CMKX data vs. qbid data
Cmkx data
Date Close Volume
06/15/2004 0.0005 1,085,696,143
06/14/2004 0.001 1,662,583,371
06/10/2004 0.0006 602,275,516
06/09/2004 0.0007 -,741,743,369
06/08/2004 0.0008 1,390,057,011
06/07/2004 0.0008 -1,456,821,015
06/04/2004 0.0004 -,685,407,087
06/03/2004 0.0003 1,317,885,781
06/02/2004 0.0003 885,582,403
06/01/2004 0.0002 -,423,357,720
05/28/2004 0.0002 132,437,199
05/27/2004 0.0002 1,920,434,429
05/26/2004 0.0002 1,751,933,236
05/25/2004 0.0002 -2,112,989,793
05/24/2004 0.0002 1,046,216,132
05/21/2004 0.0001 1,889,962,595
05/20/2004 0.0001 1,617,862,828
05/19/2004 0.0001 1,558,520,537
Qbid data
Date Close Volume
06/15/2004 0.0121 222,182,712
06/14/2004 0.0139 260,143,846
06/10/2004 0.0128 102,671,142
06/09/2004 0.0124 141,624,937
06/08/2004 0.0128 135,472,348
06/07/2004 0.0121 230,287,785
06/04/2004 0.0129 171,961,952
06/03/2004 0.0132 268,420,060
06/02/2004 0.0125 236,376,662
06/01/2004 0.0134 169,023,981
05/28/2004 0.0148 194,398,844
05/27/2004 0.0144 145,033,791
05/26/2004 0.0128 380,036,038
05/25/2004 0.0147 286,169,115
05/24/2004 0.0133 109,600,112
05/21/2004 0.0129 165,276,103
05/20/2004 0.0131 322,520,318
05/19/2004 0.0108 319,672,459
05/18/2004 0.0118 433,851,387
05/17/2004 0.0143 346,717,874
05/14/2004 0.0156 677,246,049
05/13/2004 0.0106 229,473,128
05/12/2004 0.0113 597,818,347
05/11/2004 0.0117 1,623,194,757
05/10/2004 0.0124 340,088,050
05/07/2004 0.0137 126,904,721
05/06/2004 0.0137 212,268,155
05/05/2004 0.0133 352,545,458
05/04/2004 0.0144 418,658,902
05/03/2004 0.0166 237,994,963
04/30/2004 0.0178 194,756,224
04/29/2004 0.0176 198,735,215
04/28/2004 0.0181 184,181,657
04/27/2004 0.0192 260,209,678
04/26/2004 0.0186 379,926,803
04/23/2004 0.0171 889,938,882
04/22/2004 0.0147 498,534,639
04/21/2004 0.0164 589,684,656
04/20/2004 0.0183 539,701,874
04/19/2004 0.0194 570,833,821
04/16/2004 0.0178 791,558,168
04/15/2004 0.0138 1,436,485,157
04/14/2004 0.0155 1,825,717,714
04/13/2004 0.0101 1,567,453,255
04/12/2004 0.0056 769,049,254
04/08/2004 0.0042 308,533,728
04/07/2004 0.0042 536,184,748
04/06/2004 0.0043 650,973,663
04/05/2004 0.0039 634,953,791
04/02/2004 0.003 148,265,559
04/01/2004 0.0029 323,945,054
03/31/2004 0.0027 239,528,656
03/30/2004 0.0028 130,527,690
03/29/2004 0.0029 216,997,723
03/26/2004 0.0029 197,483,669
03/25/2004 0.0029 284,606,079
03/24/2004 0.003 334,626,267
03/23/2004 0.0031 310,986,203
03/22/2004 0.0029 255,066,856
03/19/2004 0.0027 155,694,366
03/18/2004 0.0025 190,554,983
03/17/2004 0.0026 344,578,974
03/16/2004 0.0025 485,581,330
03/15/2004 0.0029 626,867,909
03/12/2004 0.0031 581,602,744
03/11/2004 0.0029 830,693,231
03/10/2004 0.0034 681,442,836
03/09/2004 0.0029 683,065,190
03/08/2004 0.0022 530,799,489
03/05/2004 0.0017 397,262,166
03/04/2004 0.0016 274,069,639
03/03/2004 0.0015 263,160,072
03/02/2004 0.0016 316,700,921
03/01/2004 0.0015 287,318,337
02/27/2004 0.0015 274,147,832
02/26/2004 0.0015 328,037,396
02/25/2004 0.0018 962,323,645
02/24/2004 0.0013 805,312,688
02/23/2004 0.0015 472,549,947
02/20/2004 0.0016 606,179,247
02/19/2004 0.0019 880,976,119
02/18/2004 0.0022 511,850,993
02/17/2004 0.0024 801,015,264
02/13/2004 0.0022 964,772,169
02/12/2004 0.0018 577,084,556
02/11/2004 0.0021 1,352,267,695
02/10/2004 0.0018 -1,144,356,111
02/09/2004 0.0023 -1,687,394,158
02/06/2004 0.0014 -1,779,330,164
02/05/2004 0.0007 -1,265,852,994
02/04/2004 0.0003 1,187,103,617
02/03/2004 0.0002 1,022,443,004
02/02/2004 0.0004 -1,461,179,144
01/30/2004 0.0001 74,932,999
01/29/2004 0.0001 62,096,000
01/28/2004 0.0001 307,994,999
01/27/2004 0.0001 79,568,997
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
