Some comments about the AEM 2019 results and targets.2017 AEM,...

Some comments about the AEM 2019 results and targets.

2017 AEM, pre-Winu, didn't come up with any high priority targets. There is a hint that the cover rocks may be masking EM responses. Something that apparently happened with IP in the area as well.



2019 AEM
The data in the announcement are somewhat difficult to assess.

1. There is no obvious location reference for the Target ID's that I saw.
2. There is a mention of E1 - don't know what it is (may have a chat with Roger Mason if he is available.)
3. The scale of these images is such that only approximations are possible. Thus there is a combination of rough scaling and manual transfer to the various images that results in very rough approximate location.
4. The map provided could not be scaled to match tenements with drill holes from Wamex/Geoview. I was hoping to see how the reported historical drill holes were located to the AEM anomalies. Since most DH's are well over 1 Km away from anomalies the maps below are sufficient.
5. The three 2018 GT1 look like they have come close to testing the AEM anomalies. All holes are vertical or sub-vertical so they may only have tested the margins.
6. 
   

Annotated images.
Point 1 above means locating the Targets is not easy. The lengths may be unique for some and this gives one possible "solution" for those ranked 1 or 2



I believe Late-Time anomalies tend to be better responses than Mid to Early Time ones. GT1 is probably bumped up in Rank because of the associated geochemistry and perhaps other factors.

As mentioned above my attempts at overlaying AEM with government data was poor at best. Note how the claim boundaries don't line up across the image which is lined up on the boundary near GT1

AEM targets manually transferred to First Vertical derivative of Airmag. Rough AEM anomaly transfer. Anomaly rank colour code as for original.


Manual transfer of data onto Airmag for GT1 area.


The "folds" in Target 3 are interesting. There does appear to be some magnetic anomalies that could be folded or faulted. Could be worthwhile doing more detailed geophysical surveys in the area to fine tune drill targets. Even at this resolution the airmag looks like a reasonable interpretation could be made.

Just for interest sake this is a radiometric map that probably shows the complex palaeo-drainage channels that are reported to be masking some of the AEM.


Gravity available to me is probably not of much use.



===================
GT1 ASSAYS 2018


Patchy Cu and Tungsten others geochemical anomalous and could be a good start.
Depth of cover ?105, 106 21m?; 107 32m?. Could be some "weathering related enrichment" for Cu (+-) at or near Permian/basement contact.
===================
Final musings for tonight.

• BHP regional drilling did a good job of missing these AEM anomalies and most Magnetic ones as well. Did show up Magnum and so focused more attention on the area in which case it was successful.....
• GT1 area looks to be structurally complex. Folds/Faults? Probably some NNW/SSE trending stratigraphic unit that is irregularly conductive.
• How this compares to Winu????
• Have some weaker anomalies been upgraded because of Rio's experience at Winu.
• How to these anomalies compare in strength to those reported by AZY on their 100% ground. Haven't checked but suspect they may be somewhat weaker on Citadel. Real or masking effects.
• The nature of geophysical anomalies is such that they need drill testing to show what is actually there. What appears to be a formational anomaly gives Winu. What these ones give.....hope for the time being.