1king, regarding your questions about the Marum Website AB anomaly graphics-- Here is a direct copy (with permission) of an informative response, from Richard Boulay, the president of Marum Resources:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jesse:
Thanks for passing on Mr. 1King's comments on our
website graphics. I don't view them as negative at all.
Here are some brief comments:
1King asked for an explanation of "structural density".
It's the amount of cracking, faulting or shearing within
a geological area. It is usually approximated from remote
sensing data such as air photos or satellite datasets.
The raw data usually consists of visual or computerized
counts of linears (i.e. line traces) either as gross counts
or including sub-samples defined by linear orientation,
linear length statistics, color if possible and thickness
if possible. This can be quantified on digital datasets
by superimposing grids and examining the intersection
characteristics of the linears. What does it all mean?
On the simplest level the data is useful because more
fracturing is better than less fracturing, whether you
are looking for gold, diamonds or other minerals. In
the Chinchaga area the number of linears is very high
as we would expect since it lies on the northern flank
of the Peace River Arch. This is desirable because
it indicates a highly fractured area which was probably
generated by repeated flexuring of the northern hinge
area as the Arch vibrated up and down over a span of
a billion years. We also use the linears as one of the
data sets in our target stack. That is, if we have a
cluster of linears which coincides with other anomaly
types, for instance magnetics, then that location gains
in priority in the race to achieve drill target status.
1King comments on our 3-D representation of anomalies
and the isolation of one anomaly with a circular vegetation
feature. He notes that the graphics represent two different
data sets which are "contradictory". His comment on band-pass
characteristics are correct, sort of. What we have done is
to represent the data in a useful way - the objective being
to help us in prioritizing drill targets. In order to achieve
this we can superimpose data sets to maximize the information
visualization, and even "fly-through" the data with 3-d glasses.
In one example, showing an anomaly cluster, we took a total field
magnetic layer and draped it over the basement elevation contours,
then we moved the entire basement-total field assembly up about
5,000 feet so that the anomaly clusters could "penetrate" the
basement surface. Does this really happen? No! Is it useful?
Definitely! We can also superimpose bandpass filter products
on the same image and move them around to squeeze more information
out of the data. 1King's criticism may be rooted in the fact
that the data is not presented in the old fashioned single dataset,
2-D format. Our targeting software is leading edge and allows us
to visualize data in innovative and very useful ways. We just
thought that our shareholders would be interested in seeing some
of the graphics. We disagree with 1King that sharing a few
snapshots of our work detracts from the credibility of the play.
Best Regards
Rick Boulay
President, Marum Resources Inc.
marumresources.com
----------------------end-----------------------------------
The anomalies being discussed are here (I see more has been added):
marumresources.com
-j
:> |
