The lab results required to identify a kimberlite take time.
None of you people know what a kimberlite is besides "it contains diamonds" or what you can ferret out on Wikipedia inside 5 minutes. Be as that may, there are well known mineral tracers with well-studied trace element compositions, which identify diamondiferous and non-diamondiferous kimberlites. Not all kimberlites contain diamonds, which is obvious, but worth repeating.
The problem you guys have in interpreting when to ramp, when to dump, and when to get on here and tell people fibs, is that you have no idea of the iterative nature of exploration. If the pitting programme doesn't return a positive result, there will be as many slashed wrists as people claiming to be backing the truck up.
The reason LOM is testing their old samples is probably because,
a) they would waste a lot of money drilling only one hole into that one kimberlite
b) they have positive indicator minerals from some pitting samples in other areas, and suspect multiple potentially diamondiferous kimberlites
c) in alluvial and eluvial systems, streams wash back and forth; tracing particular diamonds to particular targets is not as simple as you guys think, so they have to refine their data before drilling
Indeed, you might find that the lab results are inconclusive, or unintelligile to you anyway. This is very specialised work, which is done by specialists, who can interpret precisely what the data means. If LOM rage-dumped all the lab results on the ASX you'd be completely baffled by the numbers and wouldn't be able to interpret it.
So you sit about slinging mud at each other and casting aspersions and seeing shadows where none exist. its kind of hilarious, kind of pathetic and 100% shadenfreunde.
LOM Price at posting:
29.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
