Bishop Diamond Property

Download High Resolution Images

Left Figure: The sketch of the Nipissing Diamond was downloaded from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines website . It appears beside an American five cent piece was used as a scale reference.

Newspaper articles in the July 26, 1906 issue of The Gazette Montreal and the November 12,1906 issue of The Montreal Herald state a settler found a large, slightly yellow diamond about the size of a hen's egg. Historically this has been called the Nipissing Diamond. At that time M.P. Mr. A. O. Aubin purchased this stone. Also in 1906, the Tiffany Diamond Firm launched an expedition of geologists and diamond experts to the area to identify the source of the Nipissing Diamond. The August 1, 1906 the Jewelers Circular Weakly quotes the Reverend Father Paradis stating "I myself have seen the stone. It is as large as a hen's egg and has a rough surface and a yellowish tinge". The sketch shown on this page was drawn Father Paradis.

Since that time prospectors and exploration companies; including DeBeers, have searched for the bedrock source of this gem stone. A local prospector-historian has researched the historical and geological data and tentatively located the likely source this stone. This is an intriguing story that he would be pleased to tell how identification of the 1906 trail system and the local settlement was key to finding this location.

He collected a till sample from the probable location where the settler found this large diamond. This sample produced many Kimberlite Indicator Mineral grains (KIMs), a 0.5 mm clear dodecahedral crystal that appears to be a diamond, and a 0.25 mm gold (see photo below). These samples are located down ice (glacial transport direction) from the probable kimberlite numbered 14 in the following photos. Other samples from nearby produced many KIMs as well as transparent colourless stones that fluoresce blue-white under a LW ultraviolet lamp, and others that fluoresce green and orange.

Photos Above: 1.0 mm gold grain from Sample T13, and a 0.25 mm gold grain from Sample T14 Two views of 0.5 mm dodecahedral crystal from Sample T14.

This site and 15 other probable kimberlite pipes in close proximity were staked. He conducted glacial till sampling for KIMs in the down (glacial) ice direction from the kimberlite targets. He found rich to very rich concentrations of KIMs at 12 sites numbered 2, 3-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15-16 directly down ice direction from the inferred kimberlite pipes. Three apparent closely spaced pairs 3-4, 8-9, and 15-16 were sampled as individual sites representing the down ice direction of these three paired kimberlite targets.

Site 1 remains to be sampled. Site 8-9 was difficult to sample due to swampy conditions. This site produced significant KIMs that appear to have come from kimberlite targets 8-9.  Hand auger sampling is warranted to collect a more representative sample at this site.

Tony sampled a few background samples beside and up ice from the kimberlite targets. These samples had very few or no KIMs. OGS-Open File Reports also reported KIM testing in and near the staked ground. Most of the OGS sites had no or very few KIMs. The GSC study found isolated G10 garnets.

Logging the soil type as till was based on the many pebbles and boulders in the soil. One sample may have had a significant stream sediment component.

KIMs were found in the size fractions 0.25-0.5mm, 0.5-1.0mm, 1.0-2.0mm, and 2.0-3.0 mm. The presence of KIM in the +0.5-3.0 mm fractions appears to be indicative of a proximal bedrock kimberlite source

Representative pictures of the KIMs are included in the photographs below.

I followed the progress of Tony's work as it developed and reviewed the validity of his research data. Target site 14 (+/-1km) is an excellent match for his research and field investigations relating to the Nipissing Diamond. If this is not the site actual where the Nipissing Diamond was found, that diamond was probably found within the kimberlite field he has staked.

I have not been able to verify a story that Tiffany Diamond Firm purchased the Nipissing Diamond; however, the Montreal Herald article dated November 12, 1906 clearly states Tiffany launched an expedition of geologists and diamond experts to the area to identify the source of the Nipissing Diamond.

This webpage avoids identification of minerals in the photographs. Expert experience is required to identify minerals that can mimic small grains of similar appearing minerals.  Also, subtle, very important differences in chemical composition determine the identity of the various sub varieties of these KIM's and the equivalent minerals not related to kimberlites.

No attempt was made to distinguish clear forsterite olivine.

The following photographs speak for themselves. The colour of the white KIM picking plate is a decent indicator of the accuracy of the colours in the photographs.

In the photographs watch for:

  1. Fractured KIMs that remain intact indicating a proximal source.
  2. KIMs with sharp, natural crystal faces indicating lack of glacial rounding and a proximal source.
  3. Rounded KIMs, which can be rounded by absorption within the kimberlite magma or by glacial abrasion.
  4. Sharp angular fragments of KIMs that have not been rounded by abrasion, indicating a proximal source.
  5. Watch for Olivine (transparent grains ranging from colourless to various pale shades of yellow and green) and dark green chrome diopside. These two minerals tend to survive only proximal to their bedrock source.
  6. Watch for mineral inclusions in transparent and translucent KIM grains.
  7. Observe if thin rinds or coatings are restricted to KIMs or are on all mineral grains.
  8. Watch for high index of refraction minerals that have a bright appearance and an almost three- dimensional appearance that make them stand out among the otherwise plain mineral grains. The high index of refraction causes very bright areas and dark to black areas due to internal refraction of light within the mineral grain. These dark areas are distinctly different from black inclusions that are common in the transparent minerals.
  9. Watch for kimberlite fragments with or without KIM grains. Most kimberlite fragments would have been discarded from the screened products before concentrating the KIMs.

Be aware a sample can have KIMs from both proximal and distal sources, with the KIMs from the proximal source dominating the distribution.

 

Photo Above: T02: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 02.

 

Photo Above: T04: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of twinned kimberlite targets 03 and 04.

 

Photo Above: T06a: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 06.

Photo Above: T06b: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 06.

Photo Above: T07a: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 07. The large orange-red colored grain in the upper right could be a fractured orange garnet or ruby crystal. Ruby grains have been reported in kimberlite near Matheson Ontario. (Personal communication with MNDM geologist Gary Grabroski).

Photo Above: T07b: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 07. The rock chip appears to be kimberlite.

Photo Above: T08: Kimberlite(?) from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 08 and 09. This sample site was swampy and an inadequate sample was collected.

Photo Above: T10: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 10.

 

Photo Above: T11a: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 11.

Photo Above: T11b: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 11.

Photo Above: T11c: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 11.

Photo Above: T11d: Heavy mineral from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 11.

Photo Above: T12a: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 12.

Photo Above: T12b: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 12.

 

Photo Above: T13a: Top heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 13. Lower left grain fluoresces orange. Lower centre yellow grain, Lower right large blue grain. Circa 2004 a transparent blue some of similar color intensity was found in the samples from the A4 kimberlite pipe in Arnold Tp. See third photo below.

Photo Above: T13b: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 13.

Photo Above: T13b: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 13. Note 1.0 mm gold grain in left photo.

Photo Above: Blue mineral grain recovered from a rotary drill hole into the diamondiferous A4 kimberlite pipe in Arnold Tp. This kimberlite pipe is also available for option from A4 Diamonds. Color similar to blue stone recovered in sample T13

 

Photo Above: T14: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 14. Left photo is shows a 0.25mm gold grain.  A clear dodecahedral crystal is shown from two orientations.

 

Photo Above: T14: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite target 14. Left photo is shows a 0.25mm gold grain.  A clear dodecahedral crystal is shown from two orientations.

 

 

Photo Above: T15: Heavy minerals from glacial train down ice of kimberlite targets 15-16.

Kimberlite pipes typically erode into depression with no bedrock exposure. High concentrations of KIM's down ice from twelve of the kimberlite targets confirm the proximal existence of these a short distance up ice from the sample site. The very low KIM concentrations beside and up ice from selected sites increases this confidence in the existence and location of the recessively eroded site.

It is Tony's expectation to option the property to a company that has the capacity to explore this large, high potential diamond property. Interested companies can contact Tony or Doug through this web site.

Upon contacting Tony or Doug; we encourage prospective optionees to verify the encouraging results by sampling tills, both down ice and up ice directions from the kimberlite targets. KIM concentrate preparation is best prepared if the pebbles are removed and the very fine fraction be washed from the sample. Most effective gravity concentration of KIMs is performed on sample fractions with 2:1 limits for effective recovery and concentration. The +0.5mm size fractions produce significant KIM's.

Tony can supply a riffle sample splitter at the sample site to blend and split multiple samples for testing

We believe it is highly probable the Nipissing Diamond came from this kimberlite field, most likely from site T14.

Douglas Robinson P. Eng (Geology)