“If Peru is a duster then little faith should be given in the 3rd party consultants now conducting the same analogy on Frewena Group & Mac Creek AMAGRAD for those drill targets.
We might as well put all they say in the bin if that happens and consult the tea leaves.”Well there is at least one geologist who posts on hotcopper who view geophysics as black magic so consulting tea leaves is an apt image for their mind. Personally I am not of that mind - how else are we going to explore economically for prospects under (deep) cover?
I also disagree that a duster at Riqueza would be reason to discard our consultants work here in Oz. It’s not a logical corollary to me. Estimates of exploration success vary but could be as low as 1 in thousands of programs finding something economically valuable (let alone true tier 1). In the Gawler Craton of South Australia, Olympic Dam (1975) was found through geophysics, as was Carapateena (2005), and recently Oak Dam. It was a long time and many many millions of dollars and disappointing campaigns by heaps of explorers between them but the work, with geophysics, continues to look for more. Gawler Craton is arguably tougher than where we’re heading in the NT.
Basically failure is the rule of success in exploration. Geophysics helps shift the odds but they remain large, especially for porphyry hunting whose mineralised halos can extend for kilometres from the core and before the problems geological time introduces moving things around. It’s entirely feasible to me that we could prove there’s a porphyry that sits outside our ground - which isn’t all that large when you compare with tenement size we can get here in Australia.
Let me assure you though, we are on the same side, I am definitely not barracking for failure at Riqueza. It would be a fabulous outcome to hit big and early there. Then they can sell it for lots and go nuts exploring the NT.
