Hi Kent, thanx for the nice comments but concerning your:
" I would assume that all the majors would have on-staff geophysicists, and a more advanced project would probalby warrant one. (ie. if a company pulled several DFR style cores)"
DFR hired me in Jan-95 after they missed "massive-sulfide intercepts" on Drillholes #1, #3, #4, #5, and (especially the very deep and very barren) #6. DFR started drilling the +100-meters of massive sulfide only AFTER they hired a geophysicist and got rid of a certain geologist <grin>; (e.g., our DDH-7 is credited with discovery of the Ovoid orebody, while another GP's DDH-2 tagged the "then-uneconomic" Mini-Ovoid mineralization). Re-read INCO's 27-Oct-97 release, the geophysicists are still discoverying all of the new orebodies in Labrador, while strict geological analysis/interpretation has-to-date always been less successful at VB. (IMNHO, Exploration Geochemistry has been a real disappointment too in Labrador.)
Gallery's earlier press release stated Phoenix had already conducted and was interpreting Borehole-EM. Therefore, using Lamontagne afterward is probably not DD--I'm speculating Phoenix may have told Gallery something it doesn't want to hear. Changing Borehole-EM geophysical contracters is often done when a geologist (or manager) is confused with geophysical results or interpretations.
Yes, Yves Lamontagne did excellent surface and borehole UTEM work for us at DFR; and Phoenix (formerly McPhar) has done excellent MT, EM and IP work for me in the states since the '70's--both are excellent Canadian geophysical contractors. Good mining geophysicists can be hired for as little as $350/day in Canada--I think Gallery could hire one and maybe their intercepts and grades will improve <grin>. How much are they spending on their geologist(s)?
I've seen some of the geophysics at Okak; it looks to me more like the uneconomic anorthosite-pyroxenites we drilled in the Kiglapait's in 1995 and 1996. Low grades and small tonnages were all we found there. I have seen quartz-chloritic-zones with anomalous gold/silver assays within the anorthositic-troctolitic giant-dikes in Greenland's Gardar Complex--none were economic there either. I have not ruled out a discovery at Okak; however, it seems to me unlikely. BTW, Okak is also very different than the Sudbury Irruptive--very different rocks and ages and structures.
Gallery's recent press release was not positive to me; I believe visual descriptions of core (with no assays) should never be condoned, especially after Cartaway's May-1996 Okak Bay/Cirque fiasco.
Good Luck and have a nice Thanksgiving weekend, T.
P.S. We plan to present INCO's latest discovery geophysics for VB at the Dallas SEG convention in September, 1998.
P.S.S. It is also possible that Gallery's "Monster" MT Anomaly is caused by just what they drilled--very conductive (and interconnected) disseminated sulfides. Lamontagne's Borehole-UTEM data should be very telling.
P.P.S.S. Jacquie McNish (X-Wall Street Journal) hopes to finish her book on Voisey's Bay discovery/Diamond Fields in early 1998. I guess four books now out on the Bre-X scam makes for a crowded genre. |
