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 (1277)	6/10/1998 11:43:00 AM
From: Kent C.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1829

Hi 1King, I hope this answers your question: Remember this was on done last year with a BH-UTEM 3, this year we are using a BH-UTEM 4: Survey Design The transmitter loop was configured in consultation with Gallery Resources personnel. For the proposed target ~1400m depth and modest dip to the WSW - a loop to the WSW of the collar is preferable. The transmitter loop was laid out with this in mind. In a BH UTEM 3 survey the axial (Hw) component of the electromagnetic field is measured at each station. The following survey parameters were employed: -10 channel data -a base frequency of 31 Hz (30.9743) -station spacing of --50m or 40m for the top section of the hole --20m for the bottom portion of the holes --20 (or less) metres in the vicinity of anomalous zones -a minimum stack of 2,048 half cycles at every station Interpretation In general the data quality is good and sveral anomalous responses are evident. Little response of note, however, is present in the deeper portion of the hole. Three anomalies are seen in the upper portion of the hole: -The most prominent anomaly is the 6% off-hole Ch1 anomaly centered at ~530m. It is a small anomaly of good quality. Note that the primary field is nearly horizontal at this depth - not optimum for detecting a conductor of shallow dip. The survey was designed to optimize detection at considerably greater depths. --This anomaly may represent a good quality conductor 100 to 200m from th hole with a size between 100 and 200m if the conductor is equidimensional. Possibly lens or ribbon shaped. The size potential is moderate for a lens shaped conductor and could possibly be greater for other shapes. This conductor might be worth following up. Modelling may resolve the feature better. --The sharp off-hole polarity early-time (to Ch3) response @~540m is likely related. It is roughly the same size and strenght as the in-hole anomaly @480m (described below) and represents a near miss of either: - the poor quality extension of the Ch1 feature or - another poor condutor of small size. -There is a ~2% off-hole Ch1 anomaly centered (broadly) at 320m. This feature is less certain due to the marginal amplitude, however, the proximity of the Ch1 feature @~540m means that it may be of interest. -The in-hole (intersection) early-time (to Ch3) response at ~480 metres is a poor conductor of small size. The response seen on Ch1 only from 700m depth to the bottom of the hole - Ch1 is more or less steady @-4% - can be explained by either: i) that the dip and azimuth tests taken in the hole are off, buy up to 5 and / or ii) a magnetic susceptibility anomaly. The negative polarity is correct for the hole passing inside a susceptible body. This response has the opposite polarity and the wrong shape for an off-hole conductor. The shape is also wrong for an in hole conductor.