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 : Royal International Venture RIL.V (was Labrador Int'l LAB) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ed Pakstas who wrote (1527)	11/20/1998 9:10:00 AM
From: 1king	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3380

Ed, What channel are we looking at is still important. What component is it (X assumed) but Z Fraser Filtered can look better. It is good that it is across 40 channels but that could mean a barely detectable response on many channels. I meant what was the data, why was it different in each map? It does not look 2x background (on what channel). It is not broad in the E-W direction. Note: I was wrong last night, not yellow (bigger anomaly) but the thin cyan band around the bullseye. It is highly unlikely the body causing the bullseye is 400m deep. Is is virtually single line (200m line spacing) sharper contact to the west and more gradual to the east, maybe dipping east or more disseminated halo to the east (and north and south) The EM plot is totally fuhucked. They included the extreme response from the loop edges (narrow e-w features on the top and bottom of the map). This sucks up the available colour spectrum for the real data and it should have been clipped. It was either plotted this way out of complete deference of convention or to enhance an otherwise subtle anomaly. If the data was clipped and re-plotted the colour spectrum (see scale bar) would expand over the REAL data range and this anomaly would not appear so dramatic but interpretation would be more accurate and detailed. Translation on Bullseye Poor EM plot and still confusing gravity data Not really deep (400m) Not really big - thin lens or classic "cigar" More massive mineralization within other disseminated mineralization without other info (channels to compare to each other) impossible to tell if it is massive sulfide or graphite. May be tough to intercept with drill. Small and "at some depth". If indeed real and sulfide look for a couple of disseminated (~5-8m) hits unless they are lucky (i.e. close but no cigar <GGGGG>). Just guessing without seeing all the data! Is this clearer? A good hit would get us to 0.50 but they would have to drill solid millerite (high-grade Ni sulfide) to get into a buck plus range. IMO. 1King