I just heard someone hit up MH at the RUI conference about the...

I just heard someone hit up MH at the RUI conference about the E_W offset of Bullhorn IP anomaly from the Bullhorn Mag anomaly, as I pointed out in my post. https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/72273414/single. The explanation given was that the Mag Anomaly is presented 'at surface' whereas the IP anomaly is presented in depth slices down to 450m, therefore the mag anomaly doesn;t move with dip at depth where the IP does... and thus the 'apparent offset' between the two.

A possibility for sure, but does it actually stand up to logic? We know that the Antler stratigraphy stikes ~NE and dips ~NW, with the Antler MS deposit stratabound (ie parallel to the stratigraphy). That is why all holes (historical and new) try their best to drill ~SE to hit the stratigraphy perpendicular. That is why the first drill hole at Bullhorn is collared to the west and orientated at ~50% dip towards the SE as per this picture (Mountains to the NW behind rig, flat alluvial plain dropping away behind photographer)

So the stratigraphy, mirrored by Antler deposit, dips ~55deg to ~NW, which plugged into a right angle calculator shows that at 450m vertical depth, assuming stratigraphy still dips at ~55deg NW, that the Mag Anomaly associated with magnetic stratigraphy will shift 315m to the NW over that 450m drop.


That meeans the mag anomaly already off-set west of the IP anomaly at surface, will be another 315m further offset to the NW at 450m depth, given the IP Anomaly clearly is semi-vertical from 250m-450m depth (as per below image where I moved the mag anomaly ~315m west as an example...)



In summary, already offset mag-ip anomalies become even more offset at depth if the stratigraphy continues to strike SW and dip NW as it has all the way down the Antler trend. Clearly NWC think the stratigraphy dips ~55deg NW, otherwise why would they collar so far east with a ~50dep dip on the drill mast adding much more meters to reach target depth of the IP anomaly (and drill through less of the Ip anomaly than a steeply dipping hole)??

Answer is they obviously wouldn't unless they agreed with the simple geological explanation, which makes a mockery of MH's explanation that the Mag-IP anomaly offset is only 'apparent' with dip, because the mag is at surface and IP at depth. The offset gets larger and larger at depth... concerning levels of ignorance or spin imo.

GLTAH