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 : Donner Minerals (DML.V) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: VAUGHN who wrote (9053)	11/12/1998 11:48:00 AM
From: 1king	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11676

Vaughn Sorry kinda verbose in retrospect! uh-oh here I go again! They lay out a loop (thin wire) up to many square kilometers in size to generate the electric field (proportional to the area times the number of turns (1)). This electric field interacts with a body to generate an induced magnetic field (B). The decay of this magnetic field over time (db/dt) is calculated from measurements made in the field. Theoretical values for the ovoid indicated decays greater than 2-3 SECONDS (maybe even minutes). This is "forever" in terms of EM systems with a total reading window of 30-75 MILLIseconds. This decay is proportional to the conductivity of the body. This is basically what a single measurement records and a single measurement includes 10-45 channels (time windows/gates - microseconds wide) of data. The "quality" of a conductor is gleaned from the relative amplitudes of each channel. The phrase "quality of the conductor" usually forms the bridge between "conductivity" and "physical characterization". For example what the hell does a 5000 Siemen (S) body look like versus a body containing large amounts of well-connected sulfide mineralization. The size, shape, orientation, and depth/distance are determined from several readings/stations together (i.e. the shape of the profiles). 1) Yes Yes Yes, for the most part the EM signal is ambiguous across a range of physical entities including formational contacts, graphite, high-grade disseminated mineralization, low-grade massive mineralization etc. The difference is usually possible to extract though some processing, "rules of thumb" and extensive local experience. I can gaurentee you that the EM generated at SVB is unique and new to virtually everyone there. This may be one of the exploration problems. The graphite and ubiquitous disseminated mineralization at or near contacts has reeked havoc on the data and interpretations! 2) This "isolation" implied or referred to in DML PR's is silly. It is a fairytale fertilized by some management so desperate to embrace PR'able technology yet possessing none of the knowledge required to properly use and understand the technique! I pity the GP's working on this data. The concept is discrimination! There are conductors everywhere up there. So what! As you have pointed out the real deal is separating the curds from the whey. It has been my experience that this can be done with a reasonable degree of accuracy (not flawless by any stretch). This may in fact be part of the problem. They may possess the ability to properly analyze the data and find out that it indicates graphite or formational conductors enhanced by disseminated mineralization etc. What to do then? Usually it generates a slow and cautious drill program with sparse and carefully worded PR's. They can't put the sulfide (economic amounts) in the ground but they should know, with a reasonable degree of accuracy before they drilled a single hole. I know last years probe data certainly contained conclusive information on the spatial extent of the massive sulfide mineralization intersected in hole 96! Even before a tap of field work was undertaken this year. The answers are always in the data! I just wish they would give us more info. 1King