Thanks for the interesting Odds ‘n’ Sods article about the Crater of Diamonds deposit in Arkansas (T.N.M., Dec. 26/03-Jan. 1/04). The idea of turn-of-the-century industrial sabotage by De Beers and Oppenheimer is the stuff stories are made of.
Unfortunately, it is just a story — there is no basis in fact or science. I don’t know if sabotage was involved or not. I was not around at the time, and neither was the author.
Most often, the truth as to why many deposits fail to become mines is lack of grade. This has proved to be the case at Crater of Diamonds. In the early 1990s, modern testing was completed by a consortium of companies including Ashton Mining. Bulk samples were processed in a DMS/X-ray diamond recovery plant. The grade established was abysmally low.
This is reported by the Arkansas Geological Commission and expanded upon in papers by Dennis Dunn of the University of Texas. The samples were certainly not taken in the geological units that I would have sampled, but they were sufficient to kill the project.
The article quotes mineralogists, geologists and engineers of the time, saying that the deposit is sure to be a rich mine. This is “substantiated” by the U.S. Department of Justice (are they known for their expertise in diamond deposits?). Having diamonds in surficial deposits, or even in the rock itself is no more a sign of an economically viable diamond mine than the presence of gold or copper in a porphyry. Shame on all for believing that mining is so simple!
The final demise of this diamond prospect does not speak to diamond potential in neighbouring prospects or elsewhere in the U.S. The U.S. boasts a significant portion of the favourable North American Craton, many kimberlites and lamproites (some with significant mineralization) and diamond finds and headless placers with stones in excess of 30 carats. Only time and investment will see commercial diamond mining in the U.S. — then we will worry about sabotage by the “Syndicate.”
Howard G. Coopersmith
Fort Collins, Colo.
Be the first to comment on "Letter to the editor: Diamond story a ‘story’ indeed"