IMO there is only limited comparison between Luni and Perce from a geophysical perspective.
[Data come from multiple surveys with different parameters and comments from a Geo not Geophysicist so....just an opinion.]
Main similarity is in gravity signature with both having strong features.
I don't know much about the nature of the gravity signals other than geophysicists might be able to use subtle variations to differentiate between apparently similar highs/lows or in-betweens. The nature of the inversion below could be one - haven't seen an inversion model for Perce.
Available gravity data for Luni is government regional and WA1s ground survey
s (infill ann 7/3/23) and subsequent processing of said data
Two annotated EARLY images from the announcement.
Visible on the Luni plan view are magnetic contours.
Luni does have a partial magnetic signature.
Perce does not have one at all at the scale of ENR airmag.
Western ENR magnetics with targets and rough gravity highs (orange dashed) for reference
At this scale Luni has a wispy magnetic signature. Not certain if the data for Luni/Urmia is from the ENR survey or stitched on from WA1 data.
Surveys done at different levels of detail and with differing sensors produce different results.
Eastern area with targets on magnetics
.Perce has only subtle marginal magnetics.
From conversations at meetings Perce is an intense magnetic feature of some 6 mgals, almost on par with Olympic Dam albeit somewhat smaller and perhaps not under 300m of cover. The absence of an obvious magnetic feature may be due to hematite alteration rather than magnetite. I had the impression that they considered it a weird beast worthy of some drill testing.
Perce is in sand dune country east of outcrop/subcrop. How deep the target is will only be known from drilling. Lack of magnetics may suggest deeper.....
Eastern targets on Gravity (orange outlines for reference - I wonder why some of them were included.
Apparently ENR geophysicist(?s) considered Wordie to be one of the more likely candidates for a carbonatite based on the annular gravity feature (only partially supported by magnetics if at all).
============
At last year's AGM the topic of targeting came up. No panacea with some magnetic targets having carbonatites and some not. Ditto for gravity so it was a matter of feedback from drill results that were still outstanding at the time.
Emily turns out to be in a magnetic low with marginal gravity. Structure is probably important and these observations are reflected in targets added this year.
High magnetics/gravity at Caird are probably ga*bbroic. Southern Crean has magnetic lamprophyre which probably correlates to a gravity feature [note a survey margin exists between the falcon (east) and earlier surveys (west ?ground based, WA1 ground based to south stitched on by me].
.
Always been intrigued by the Shackleton target but this appears to be low on priority.
======================
WA1 have billions of IGV Nb +-credits near to a maiden resource and readily mineable if the stars align. Stars = the myriad of issues that can make or break a project. Will not be the resource but markets and geopolitics that tip the scale.
A concern that CBMM could readily flood the market and lower the price. Unlikely to happen but a supply/demand balance will be needed for Nb which is still a niche product.
A hundred years ago the nickel market was consolidated by such tactics leaving two main players in Canada. New uses for Ni were developed helping supply demand over the decades.
===============
Welcome to ENR
@inkblot.
Good Luck to you and all holders.
(20min delay)