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 : Gallery Resources (Alberta GYR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 1king who wrote (1254)	6/2/1998 11:17:00 AM
From: Kent C.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1829

Hi 1king, The geophysics being done this year are: Okak Bay UTEM 3 (80 kilometres of grid lines) BH-UTEM 4 (Probe used in drill holes) Harp Lake 2 (36 kilometres of grid lines) Max-Min / Horizontal Loop Electromagnetics (HLEM) VLF-EM and Magnetometer That bullseye you are referring to (I guess its the anomaly on Okak) is a large silicate cap that we drilled into last year. We should be putting the BHUTEM 4 probe down it Wednesday/Thursday. Here is some information about Borehole Geophysics: Lamontagne Geophysics Ltd> (LGL) has seen the first year of field application of its downhole, three-axes, BHUTM 4, a high resolution, large loop EM system with simultaneous measurement of all three components. Auxiliary parameters measured include three-axes magnetometer data, and a temperature profile of the hole. LGL reported that the system has already contributed to the discovery and delineation of several mineral deposits such as the new Kelly Lake discovery recently announced by Inco.

To: 1king who wrote (1254)	6/2/1998 6:37:00 PM
From: Wesley Barbowski	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1829

Hello 1king, Excerpt from your post #1254 on June 1, >> Spent about an hour or so checking out the Gallery Website. Sorry >> to say the MT was a waste of cash but it was a waste of cash. >> These were the aims quoted on the site: >> "A. to determine if a previously outlined airborne magnetic >> anomaly was associated with enhanced conductivity at depth >> B. secondly, if enhanced conductivity was detected, to provide >> an estimate of depth and area extent of the anomalous region" >> Large Loop TEM would do this far better far cheaper. Due to results from their geophysics, Gallery included the possibility of having a deep conductor on their property. See their April 17, 1997 news release. gallery-gold.com Large loop TEM is apparently only capable of detecting mineralized zones down to approximately 2100 feet (See post #1253 by Kent C.) siliconinvestor.com As per this post, Gallery is now planning to do a LL TEM survey after finding that the conductor is not as deep as previously thought. Being a novice at this game I'm not aware of all the advantages or disadvantages regarding technical details of geophysical techniques - I just absorb what a few people have to say, do a lot of reading, and come to my own conclusions! IMO, The MT survey was ideal as per reasons outlined in the two links above. My opinion is shared similarly by Terry Crebs. See post #573. siliconinvestor.com Something that's been bothering me and I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet is the fact that the MT survey outlined the larger, more conductive body to be at a depth of approximately 2700 ft and stacked below the smaller, less conductive body which they have already found. The borehole surveys done have now found a "good quality" off hole anomaly at 1730 feet, corresponding to the mineralized zone they have discovered. My question, Does this off-hole anomaly at 1730 feet correspond to the larger, more conductive body outlined in the MT survey? If so, then why was Gallery so "off" interpreting the MT data? If not, then I guess the larger conductive body "disappeared" when they conducted the BH surveys as they have failed to mention anything about it. Maybe Kent C. can shed some light?