Ann: Ground geophysics identify robust conductors at Mt Isa East, page-104

You might prove to be right.

However, as opposed to focussing on the faults in the region, I was merely pointing out that for the first time, CNB geologists have publicly released what they have identified as an interpreted structural corridor, ie, it’s not a fault.

One thing we can say for sure is that the geology of the region has not been cracked and geologists are still working it out (if they can).

Thus far, CPM have identified that the Python and King Solomon prospects plunge from a major northwesterly fault that may have hosted the mineralisation. Even if that interpretation turns out to be correct, it still may not identify the fundamental corridor(s) responsible for the mass movement of minerals. Only how they may have got to the surface.

Faults are generally a byproduct of these underlining structural and functional corridors. If you focus solely on the faults to interpret the geology, it seems to me to be too convenient and narrows the higher conceptual modelling needed to make real discovers. Any way you want to look at it, a conceptual understanding is an interpretation dependant on the ‘scale’ of observation, ie, how deep underground do you want to go? Which corridors are fundamental to underpin the geological settings? How far should one step back?

Ultimately, the only thing that matters is the ‘preservation’ of the minerals. So far, this part of the Mt Isa inlier region is proving that it has the capacity to contain and preserve multiple world-class tier1 IOCGs. Yet, predicting the potential migration path of mineralised systems is another thing and then drilling it out to discover whether they have been economically preserved or not is another thing altogether. This is the real quest and hope of any exploration program.

Ultimately, Mother Nature will define what has really been going. However, at this point in time, everyone holding tenure in the region is a potential winner.

All IMO, DYOR, GLTAH