Bill, I think it's a combination of MEO's work in AB to date (fieldwork, airmags/ maps, and drilling) used as a valuable reference, and Kennecott's expertise, of course (oh, & their big money!), in the pursuit of diamonds. And yes, I believe MEO did have ACA's known kims flown (as it is legally permissable in AB), and apply that as part of their schema. Further, reportedly, Kennecott spent 1-2 months on the ground (on the Legend block) with follow-up work before they agreed to the proposed deal and went in and drilled.
But I agree that it def'ly seems like Kennecott has figured things out, esp. given today's anncmt that a weaker mag (a magnetic 'low') has also shown to be kimberlite (the 'Dragon' anomaly, altho at a depth of 136m, or 442ft), now 3 for 3 targets. Kennecott has thus announced plans to expand their drill program. It really is good news, and I am happy for Patrick Power and the Montello gang, and all us ADP diehards! I have been, and remain, behind this play for several years now!
Just for comparison, Kennecott/ MEO's news report today stated,
Palynology has been received from mudstones extracted from the Phoenix pipe. They returned Upper Cretaceous ages ranging from Campanian-Maastrichtian, which suggested a maximum age for the kimberlite of 82 million years. Preliminary heavy mineral chemistry has also been returned from a 15kg sample of the Phoenix kimberlite. Abundant olivine and ilmenite along with rare chromite were reported. No garnets or clinopyroxene were reported. The ilmenites are high in MgO and as such suggest good conditions for the preservation of diamonds. The chemistry reported that the olivine levels (Fo 88-92) are typical of kimberlite pipes.
Refer to others' NR's from the area, and make your own judgments as to who has potential! ;)
-- Further, I am sure real experts can glean more from the above, as to its significance, than many of us. Any out there willing? ...
--------
You made the comment,
I've asked before, if ACA and now Kennecott, have figured out the key to identifying kimberlite as opposed to the myriad results that mimic kimberlite magnetics....
This really seems to apply more to anomalies with heavy overburden. Targets close to the surface are much less prone to such erroneous readings than those deeper, such as magnetic sands giving a false anomalous magnetic reading. But you make a good point.
And incidentally, though I really don't know, I've read elsewhere on SI that it apparently is not quite as simple as merely flying known anomalies (i.e., one must consider flight patterns, orientation, line spacing, etc etc). I don't mean to simplify, as you've indicated, the complexity of all this.
======
Back to Marum, from what I hear the targets online tbd (to be drilled) are of a considerable prospective nature. A lot has so far been learned in AB, and much encouragement has been realized to date. These kids are on it!
- -
It is a good day, and more to come, for the ADP, as more such announcements trickle in!
Time to hit the hay,
Best Regards,
-j
:> |
