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 : BET YOUR ASSAY - Mining Terms Explained -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Terry J. Crebs who wrote (360)	3/20/1998 4:35:00 PM
From: Winer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 463

Whoa, duelling Geophysicists!! Way cool!!!!!!

To: Terry J. Crebs who wrote (360)	3/21/1998 10:07:00 AM
From: Walt	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 463

Always remember, exploration failures are always "orphans", but major discovers have many "fathers and mothers" This is a very sage and true observation about mineral exploration and I wish that more projects had a master log of just what went on and who did what. Not only would they be fascinating reads but great learning tools. Alot of times a company will aquire a property and someone in head office will compile all the data know about the property and then draw up an exploration plan. A grew will be hired and sent out to the field to carry out this master plan. Some times, many times, far too many times they will do exactly what they are told. Yet in the field one often finds that the original data is wrong in some or several ways. The original grid may have been put in wrong, drill holes may not be where they are suppose to be, some of the geology may be mapped wrong, there are a whole range of things which may be incorrect. Sometimes when you discover the errors and report back to head office they will listen, sometimes they dont. It is imporant to always field test the existing data to make sure it is correct. Here is a quick example. A number of years ago I was sent out with a grew to trench the supposed extension of a gold zone prior to drilling. After we had started work in the field, I noticed things werent quite right so we re chained the grid which turned out to be badly put in. Rechaining the grid and replotting it changed the map of the property quite a bit. Next several of the original drill holes were not where they were plotted. There locations had been changed in the field for topographic reasons but not replotted. When that was done things changed even more. It became obvious the original zone had been faulted and the extension we were looking for was a good hundred feet west of what the map showed so we started a new set of trenches and sure enough found it. Mistakes like that occure all to often. I worked on another property that had alot of pyhrrotite so compass readings were very deceptive and it was a complex geological structure we were chasing. It took alot of argueing before the company would bring a surveyor onto the property. I also argued that the zone was alot more complex then they thought and they needed a good structural geologist. They were getting good drill results so they never did bring a top not structural geologist aboard. Personally I think that cost them a mine because when they went underground a few years later they didnt find what the drilling had indicated. They did a whole bunch of work over four years and I still think there is a mine there but unless you do the work carefull and in detail results can be quite deceptive. Unfortunately schools teach geology and geophysicts etc but they dont teach mineral exploration so alot of mistakes get made, which is why properties are always worth a second or third look. regards Walt Humphries

To: Terry J. Crebs who wrote (360)	3/21/1998 1:59:00 PM
From: 1king	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 463

Thanks Terry, You always agree with me! The first "five of six" did not "miss the ovoid"! My point exactly. How could they, the geophysics covering the ovoid did not exist. Your discussion covers holes six and seven only, erroneously spotted by a geophysical consultant from St. John's (I have that report). A miss of one of two perhaps. You mean to say we should fire the geologist for listening to the consultant geophysicist. Hmmmmm? And the maxmin (HLEM) was used to spot the hole, not your silly north/east/south/west side mag low story. Thanks again, that was to be the point of my first post! <<Always remember, exploration failures are always "orphans", but major discovers have many "fathers and mothers" (and many of those dudes/dudettes like to tell stories to the "newbies")>> A self portrait I presume, Terry. and on that thought Would that be like the geophysicist at the shareholder's meeting standing up and announcing to all the discovery of the next "ovoid" just a few kilometers to the northwest. Yet the "Zorba" conductor - ("the next ovoid") was also located in the same place as Bruce Ryan mapped an occurrence of graphitic nodules. The map was on the wall of the office in Nain (less than 6.82 feet away, due west). That shot the stock up $4.80 the next day. Thank-you stock options! What is the definition of that trading thing where you are on the inside? Indeed we're all human! Holy schmolly Terry, July! I was running the geophysics for several months by then. But of course you were very busy with the airborne program and by all accounts doing a top notch job. Ah, me thinks thou doth protest to much! And I bore easily. 1King P.S. Re: credentials Chief Geophysicist of a Freidland "promotional" Junior is akin to Chief of Neurosurgery for the Beverly Hills Weight Loss Clinic. Sorry couldn't resist :-) To Walt: Point taken. If only we geophysicists were not so immature, egotistical, and petty. You are eloquent and correct. I will try to stick to mining terms from now on. 1King