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 : Precious and Base Metal Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geoffb_si who wrote (126)	10/11/2001 5:51:38 PM
From: jpthoma1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

Thanks Goeff for your appreciation. No, it is not a coincidence. These fractures were formed at the time of the intrusion and the up-lifting and seem to be related to the mineralization (they served as channels for mineralized fluids). Since there were rocks where there is now «air and loess», these rocks were also fractured by the same mechanism (intrusion and uplifting) and some of them were also mineralized. So, it's normal that some of these anomalies are related to the «formerly overlying» (and probably underlying) regional fractures. In fact, I definitively agree that these anomalies may be the surface signature of deposit. But since they disappear 20 to 30 cm below the surface, I just think that these deposits were formed above surface, not below and have disappeared with erosion. If they are located below the surface, the anomaly would continue in the soil down to the rock basement. But I may be wrong too. Geologists use a lot of interpretation you know!!!!!! Regards. JP