Duke, there are two problems with interpreting the maps. The...

Duke, there are two problems with interpreting the maps. The first is the obvious one, of correlating the different scales used, so that we can tie the two little black spots to any specific geological feature or structure. Are they at the edge of the Mt Coronge granite? Or are they associated with one of the boundaries of the late-stage pegmatite? From these maps, I can't tell. But that doesn't really matter a great deal.

The primary issue is the presumption that an aerial survey showing two small, radioactive locations, taken in isolation, actually means very much at all. It's very common for aerial surveys to locate areas of interest, and. sadly, most of them turn out to be blue ducks. The automatic reaction from a mining company office is to send geologists out in the field to these locations, and get them to sample the rocks, and have a good look at what is there. (Occasionally, they get lucky!) In this case, it appears as if the "Go have a look" order was issued at least twice, with different companies. The result was, as is the case with the vast majority of such searches, that nothing meaningful turned up. What else is new?

Geologists are a philosophical bunch. When one potential location fails, off they go to the next. Very few of them stub a toe on a Welcome Stranger nugget, or find a hill where the Geiger counter goes off the scale. The real stuff almost always is located by a combination of geophysical surveys (by air or otherwise), footslogging and a whole lot of luck.

If you think that I'm being negative in saying this, talk to a mining company. They'll probably tell you I must be drinking too much whisky, as my view is far too optimistic!

Cheers, Prime1