Ah, TGIM, bill, but concerning your post:
>> There is nothing to stop them from overflying ACA property and doing the aeromagnetics of the known pipes. That would give them the signatures of the ACA pipes. Why wouldn't they then be able to apply those figures to any anomolies that appear on their own surveys?<<
1) "Rumor" has it at least one Vancouver-based group has overflown (and re-surveyed magnetically) some ACA kimberlite clusters. They are "selling" these data to "selected" juniors.
2) ACA has published and presented both ground and aeromagnetic contoured-map signatures of several of their kimberlites--they do "blank-out" the contour labels so that "magnetic magnitude" is apparently held confidential by ACA at the present time. ACA has also presented the very diagnostic "seismic" response over their K7A kimberlite. Therefore, there is really little reason to "overfly" ACA because most geophysical anomaly "signatures" are readily available.
3) Problem is that each kimberlite aeromagnetic/groundMag/seismic signature is "unique" in many respects--being dependent upon many variables including kimberlite source geometry, depth-to-top, magnetization/lithofacies, etc. as well as aircraft flight-, survey-, and magnetometer-sampling-specifications. Even the flight-line direction and flight-line separation can be extremely important in correctly identifying kimberlite response "signatures" within the noise created by magnetic overburden- and clastic-sands, bridges, oil wells, etc. (I think its the wise geophysicist who flies "near-up-down-declination" when looking for kimbs <grin>.)
4) Since January--many juniors are discoverying just how difficult it sometimes is to correctly do geophysical interpretations. To date, simple "signature" correlation or comparisons has apparently not proven effective for any junior trying to emulate ACA's kimb-finding success.
Good Luck, T.
P.S. Correct spelling is "anomaly". |
