To: koan who wrote (1785 ) 6/25/2000 12:43:00 PM From: Brumell Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2255
It truly is intriguing, Koan. There are so many unknowns and the potential high. In an Oct. 18th report, Glenn Brown dates River Valley as being about 2.5 billion years old. That's about 700 million years older than the Sudbury impact basin. If correct, it makes you wonder if River Valley margins on maps are accurately known. Considering what's happened since formation, it's a safe bet areas have been covered with other rock. Then there's faulting as a result of later tectonic events. Might other magmas have been injected into River Valley fractures? The list of questions is endless. These questions are not academic. At this point, exploration has been based on following basal contact of layered intrusive to underlying rocks. However, other mafic intrusives indicate more areas than basal contact zone can be productive. A couple days ago, Hank posted a possible explanation for low-lying ground at AQI's Dana North project. Although most big sulphide bodies in Northern Ont. are thought to have a VMS origin, who can say a sulphide deposit doesn't exist under Mud Lake. Last night, in answer to rumours, I posted some thoughts on SH at stockhouse.com It may be helpful. However, after the big thinking comes the realities. Armchair geology is one thing, working in the field something else. River Valley is hilly terrain covered by foliage and overburden with some swampy sections. Sounds like a winter road report...<ggg>. PFN's task is finding a mine. There has to be balance in time and money spent between understanding overall River Valley structure and their immediate prospects. Lots of fun! Suspect we will be getting surprises as exploration progresses. Regards, Bob