Lom - to sell, buy, hold, page-35

Sorry TT, I just can't understand it when someone gets shown where they are wrong but just just sticks to their guns in the face of the evidence presented? You are not the only one that does it, it is quite common but I still don't understand it?

Elluvial diamonds are located at or close to the primary source. If those diamonds are transported and deposited somewhere else by erosion and water movement they are now considered Alluvial.

You base your argument that the pipe could be "hundreds of Km's away or further" on the definition of Alluvial. I just pointed out to you (if you read the company announcements) that the company talks about deposits that are elluvial and alluvial in nature. Do you just want to ignore the elluvial component because it does not support your argument? As another poster said, why would you ignore the opinion of an expert in his field that says the source is located very close by based on his observations of these indicators?

You are right about nothing in the article saying we are close "beyond reasonable doubt". But we have a geologist who has been on site and studied the ground that these diamonds are being pulled from and he is saying that he believes the nature of the ground lends itself to a close proximal source. But if we look at the deposit as being alluvial with no elluvial nature to it, then we ignore our expert, maybe you are right? You could be, but all the evidence provided does not support your position.

I think any reasonable person analysing the facts without already having a polarised viewpoint would agree?