Strange then ellendale, my customers at WB Clarke Geoscience...

Strange then ellendale, my customers at WB Clarke Geoscience Drill Core Library near Penrith- whom I've been servicing in my capacity as a scientific outside sales rep for 5 years - seem to think there would be no basis for such a statement - eye features by their physics alone result in the localised accumulation of concentrated nicked sulphides (so long as the intrusion had blebby nickel sulphides in the first instance). You are correct in saying that they can easily occur without an eye feature, but their occurrence in an eye feature will leave a high degree of probability that they will settle into an economic deposit as the mafic intrusion cools. Ie - yes the odds aren't certain that the rumble eye formed in the presence of nickel, but if it did, the well-shape of the eye means a discovery would nearly certainly be economic in concentration. The geochemistry of a cooling mafic intrusion is well documented and they laughed when I showed them your post about the irrelevance of eye features. I don't care what Sirius says, I trust 3x 70 year old geologists with two PhDs each and an order of magnitude more experience mapping the entire damn country. So please stop telling me to dyor it's plainly evident i/we do and simply...disagree.