ECHARTERS Message Board - Msg: 27335730

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : ECHARTERS

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Breccia who wrote (3441)	4/26/2011 10:51:40 PM
From: E. Charters	of 3744

What you look at in geochem and geofizz is the ratio of orebodies to anomalies. Or anomalies to orebodies. Downhole geofizz has the best ratio of all the geofizz methods. IP is fairly good where there is disseminated sulfides and gold. (Hemloid). Most base metal orebodies are also VLF anomalies in Ontario. TDEM has a very poor ratio of successes to failures. Self Potential is surprisingly good as it is fairly discriminatory. Ronka EM14 is also very discriminatory. Vertical derivative mag says a lot about gold ore often. Much geochem is fairly fuzzy, but sampling A horizon and biogeochem is very predictive of gold ore horizons. Sampling A horizon worked very well in North western Ontario for decades. MMI is still in a hung jury. EC<:-}

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next