George,
EC says he would follow the fault line by geochem. Can you
explain that process, please? Given the history of dykes,
length, blowouts possible along the fault into which they
have inserted themselves, would it not be a good strategy
to try to follow a dyke, hoping to find blowouts? If a
dyke is at surface because of the force of the original
intrusion or because of erosion, then following it would
be relatively easy. However, what WSP has isn't a dyke
but a sill--if my understanding is correct--and that sill
lies beneath country rock so establishing its boundaries
and a possible dyke or dykes leading off it along fault
lines could be difficult indeed. Given what seems like an
extensive network of faults filled with kimberlite, I would
think trying to get directional readings would be difficult
if not impossible. With a nice, clean pipe, the situation
is so different. You can track it back to source as the
distribution fan narrows. However, if you have a complex
network of veins of varying sizes, you can have multiple
sources for indicator minerals. If the ice flow has come
from more than one direction over such a field, confusion
reigns. Put a pile of crayon shavings on a sheet of paper,
scrape a ruler across it and you get a nice fan. Put many
piles of shavings on paper, scrape a ruler across it, first
in one direction, then another, and you get non-focused
results.
Until a dyke is clearly established as opposed to the present
sill, I don't see any solution better than the one WSP's
been proposing. That is to do land drilling during the summer
program to try to establish the outer limits of the sill.
If three sides are established and one continues, then one
may have a direction toward a source. Yes? No?
Do you know what particular expertise the German geologist
has? I'm assuming that it must be some expertise that the
present team does not have. If we knew his area of expertise,
we might have a pretty good idea of what they are going to
be looking for during the summer program. |
