Tad R

Members
  • Content count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Tad R last won the day on December 5 2014

Tad R had the most liked content!

About Tad R

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

233 profile views
  1. Back to the AEM data and maps. Discussion back around post 7 through 20 (or so) implies that using the AEM maps and data was liken to that of a metal detector and with seemingly relative ease one could find valuable prospecting locations, be placed on the gold, and an "X" would mark the spot. I am still having a problem getting my head wrapped around that. In hopes of "getting it" I proposed some locations as examples to apply the interpretation method being discussed in this thread just to see if it were truly that easy. Below is my summary. Point 1: A high grade, well known and published (un-mined) gold deposit was proposed. All the AEM data, maps and report are available and reviewed. But the 39,000,000 ounce AU deposit remains hidden from the data. Point 2: A known placer deposit, at the surface, where the testing of -80 mesh indicates 16 oz/t AU was also reviewed with the AEM data, maps and report, again the deposit can not be identified by interpretation of the data. Point 3: The only anomaly that was identified was a cultural metallic target in the old town of Flat, most likely a bulldozer or the old dredge. I am not really looking to discuss each one separately again, but looking at the totality of the results so far, one has to conclude that AEM is good for defining the Magnetic composition of rock units/OB in 3D, Conductivity/Resistivity of Rock units/OB in 3D, geology in 3D, contact zones, fault, bulldozers, big dredges...etc; but not good at putting 1000's "X"s on a map indicating hidden valuable mineral deposits. As I stated earlier, it is not my intention of questioning the man, but I do question the method. I do not think this interpretation method is a bunch of WAGs, but better described as educated guesses and estimations that require more time honored and proven methods to substantiate.
  2. OK, that's a good explanation I can follow. In General, what is an erosion model, I understand the term and what it implies but is it a software program or what?
  3. OK, The point is not if it can be claimed. The point is to see if you can use the AEM data/maps, and your interpretation methods, to define the placer.
  4. Geo...Thanks, made corrections. New location is accurate. Copy cut paste into GE.
  5. Those look like some good choices. Below is the placer 500ppm AU that was found by USGS. No claims ever filed, I even went to the State Geologic office at Eagle River a few years ago to check the old Kardex files, nothing filed before 1980s as well. GeoChemical ID Number: Location removed by request If you download and bring up the GeoChemical dbase (in goggle earth) for that area you will want sample xxxxxx. Let me know if you have a hard time finding it. What I look forward to hearing is your interp of the of the Mag and Resistivity map for that area and if you are able to apply some of the principles mentioned in this thread.
  6. Is it true, Hoping Chris or Steve have the scoop. MineLab Jupiter GPZ-7000 goggle FCC minelab Jupiter GPZ-700 Look under the Test Report Tab. Are they testing the MD unit or testing the wireless headphones?
  7. OK, you have proven your point, AEM's can find big chunks of metal, not really the metal I was looking for.....just say'n When are you going to do the same for some AU and put us on the gold? If it helps I am willing to disclose the location of a confirmed 500 ppm AU placer (unclaimed), if you are willing to do the same, or at least address how the AEM can detect the conductive overburden at the same location???? Up to the challenge? Will also be interesting to see if anyone throws some claims down on it as well.
  8. Is it possible to post a kml or kmz file here for download? I have a dropbox account but don't know if I am allowed to link here.
  9. Excellent explanation in post 65, I had read about Magnetite Suppression before but did not understand the extent it would effect the measurements. Thanks for the info on the "Exploration Models..." Had not seen that before so I am going to follow-up on some of the projects listed, interesting stuff!! Concerning the GeoChem dbase and assay results. I have seen a couple where the AU PPM were over 500. Seems like they were concentrate samples that had been screened to 80 mesh prior to the two methods used. Due to the screening I would think the "nugget effect" is avoided. What are your thoughts when you see results like that? Looking forward to your "X" marks the spot info.
  10. I think using the Donlin project as an example in this thread is a good idea. As far as I can tell, none of us has a vested financially interest in the project. Also based on the publicly available NovaGold report, the deposit is possibly open to an unknown extent north and east of the current claims and leases. Just maybe we could collectively refine a prospecting method to identifying interesting areas just outside of the Donlin project. Not for our own personal profit mind you, but for the benefit of those who will visit this forum in the future as they seek to understand what it takes to prospect in a modern educated manner. I for one would like to step back slightly from focusing the current debate solely on the role that AEMs play when looking for "buried treasure" (valuable-viable deposit) and take a closer look at some of the other clues mentioned by Chris. For a couple years I have used the Geochemical dbase the State of Alaska maintains as a research reference and was curious if others here do as well and if they find it usefull. I am curious what others think about the dbase and if there are limitations in the data provided. I really like the way you can download portions (or all) of the dbase as a Goggle Earth file and save it for future use. Does anyone else do this, or does anyone want to know how to do it? T
  11. Geo...Welcome! OK I had to sleep on what you stated above about Donlin. In all your math you end up with a one ppm AU figure and state that the AEM survey would not detect that amount of AU but an IP survey would. I thought AEM and IP surveys could not detect gold? I went back and reread chapters 7 and 9 of the NovaGold report on Donlin. The AU deposit is in dikes and sills with a smaller amount distributed in the surrounding sedentary rock. Some drill intercepts of the dikes, sills and stock works assay as high as 19g/t but the average is around 4g/t. I want to believe that AEMs and other forms of remote sensing will put us on the gold or put an "X" on a map but the more I read case studies, such as Donlin, the reality is it takes a combined approach where additional methods mentioned by other posters on this thread are employed and carry more weight. (no pun intended) Your thoughts.... T
  12. Not quite the response I expected so let me clarify. The beginning of this thread was great, discussing the research approach, availability of data, other methods/tools, opinions...etc. Somewhere around entry 18-22 we went astray. Overly touting and defending a specific research method and applying a layman's interpretation above others is well within all of our rights to free speech. But with any group of semi- intelligent/experienced folks we have to expect someone will have a different opinion and will want to share it. Chris has posted a couple entries in this thread that I believe enables many to envision the totality of the endeavor. My entry concerning Donlin was not meant to be a dagger into Geo's professional opinion but merely an attempt of identifying an unexpected result (anomaly) from the specifically touted Geophysical method. I am still hoping someone addresses Donlin. We should remember that more knowledge leads us to more "whys", such as "Why didn't it work?". I hope this thread continues. I think there is still much to discuss and I know there are others on here that want to learn more. Tad
  13. Chris and Rod, you guys are spot on. Charles, I enjoy your posts and hope you update some of your other threads soon. ***To those who come across this thread in the years to come*** The Airborne Geophysical Surveys the State of Alaska contracts out and then provides to us for free are a great resource. But beware, when viewing the pretty colors and interesting shapes, locating a viable deposit takes a lot more work. The surveys are but one small tool in a very big tool chest and should never be the primary source of information when deciding to fund an exploration project, stake claims or worse, buy claims from someone else. Case in point, Donlin is a 39,000,000 (million) ounce AU deposit constrained to a relatively small area. Within the deposit anomalous AU is in the overburden, quartz veins and sulfides. A few years ago the State of Alaska contracted out an Airborne Geophysical Survey of the region. Later they published all the maps that were a product of the survey. The state also wrote and published an Interpretation report that contained detailed EM Anomaly maps. Question?, "Shouldn't such a large and varied AU deposit stand out like a "Smoking Gun" in at least some of the various maps?"...lets take a look and see. When viewing the various survey maps one could easily come to the conclusion that the area of the Donlin Ultimate Pit is unremarkable...no "Smoking Gun". Attached are some of the maps referenced, you be the judge. I have overlaid the outline of the Donlin Ultimate pit in each map. In some maps the pit is outlined in red, in other maps the pit is outlined in black. Tad Ref; Alaska State Geophysical website and Novagold report
  14. Dick, sounds like lots of fun!! Geo, got it. Couple years ago found over 100 photos from the 1970's to 90's. They were listed in ARLIS. Covers from north of Dikeman all the way to Moore creek and beyond. Plus has photos of the old cabins and roadhouse ruins that could still be located. Have you ventured south on the Hunters trail towards Iditarod ? Condition? T