Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: teevee who wrote (6192)	8/29/2000 2:28:51 AM
From: VAUGHN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7235

Hello Teevee I cannot think of a reason unless DFO is concerned that it might scare a few fish. However, why would you put a geophone effectively parallel to the sill/dipping dike rather than simply employ surface O&G seismic and get a picture perpendicular or cross section to the deposit? As you know, essentially, that is what the Lithoprobe is, albeit longer wavelengths I believe. I asked WM essentially this same question two years ago at the NWT Geoscience Forum and he could not give me an answer. Why CJ does not consider such a survey first is unclear based on published information, unless SUF's southern border claims are heavily faulted/fractured greywacke? Snap Lake is mostly granite isn't it or is the area a jumble of terrains? If I am not mistaken, seismic would be cheaper and cover more ground than drilling one hole? As an aside, it was interesting to see those resource maps WSP put up on their last few NR's documenting the depth and extent of their drill intercepts. Especially their deepest intercept (18m) appears to exactly correspond with the east lake fault mag low I pointed out to WM on WSP's total field mag map he displayed at the GSF two years ago. One of the abstracts I came across was about using seismic to map hard rock deposits, but I do not believe I copied it. Have good one. Vaughn