Dr. Mungall
in response to
by
HIGH-GRADE NI-CU-PT-PD-ZN-CR-AU-V-TI DISCOVERIES IN THE "RING OF FIRE"
NI 43-101 Update (September 2012): 11.1 Mt @ 1.68% Ni, 0.87% Cu, 0.89 gpt Pt and 3.09 gpt Pd and 0.18 gpt Au (Proven & Probable Reserves) / 8.9 Mt @ 1.10% Ni, 1.14% Cu, 1.16 gpt Pt and 3.49 gpt Pd and 0.30 gpt Au (Inferred Resource)
Message: Having trouble
Dr. Mungall:"The large amounts of sulfide and of ultramafic cumulate make it absolutely clear that the Eagle One deposit has formed in a magmatic conduit. No magma could have carried the observed amount of sulfide in solution, therefore the sulfides have been left behind by a through-going volume of magma much greater than what presently remains in the intrusion."Dr. Mungall goes on to state "If the intrusion is accepted to be a conduit then it must be continuous over considerable distances likely measurable in kilometers. Since diamond drilling has shown that it is surrounded on all sides by older felsic intrusive rocks at surface, logic dictates that it must continue at depth. The prospects for continued extension of the mineralized body to depth are excellent, as long as it is not lost in a fault zone&. Although the rapid deepening of the conduit is somewhat discouraging, the presence of a weak magnetic feature south of the Eagle One deposit, that connects to the much more prominent magnetic feature to the south, may indicate that the plunge shallows at depth."In conclusion and with reference to scope of the project he continues with "The origins of the sulfides are slightly problematic. It is generally accepted that in order to form a mass of immiscible sulfide liquid on the scale observed at Eagle One, a mafic or ultramafic magma must become contaminated by sulfide-rich crustal rock. At its present level of exposure the mineralized intrusion is entirely surrounded by sulfur-poor felsic intrusive rocks, leaving the origin of the required sulfide in doubt. I suggest that the presence of abundant magnetite-rich xenoliths in the intrusion records a previous episode of assimilation of iron formation, which has added sufficient sulfide to the magma to induce sulfide liquid saturation. The conduit has carried the slurry of sulfide droplets and small xenoliths to their current location, requiring transport over considerable distances. This in turn suggests that the Eagle One deposit resides within a large magmatic system with lateral extents at least as great as the distance to the nearest iron formation, which may be represented by the very prominent magnetic lineament to the south of the deposit."Dr. Mungall:Regarding the extension of the deposit “at depth”. How deep? Would the deposit be mineable at that “depth”? (Some Sudbury mines are approaching 8,000 ft. now.)How likely is it that the ore may be lost in a “fault zone”? How likely is it that the other side of the fault will be found and therefore the possible “fault” will not pose a problem?Regarding the “weak magnetic feature south of Eagle one”, how deep is it likely to be? Even if it is deeper than that is it still mineable given again that Sudbury mines are approaching 8,000 ft. down?How far is it from the Eagle one deposit along the “weak magnetic feature south of Eagle one” to “the more prominent magnetic feature to the south”? Is this the distance “likely measurable in kilometres” of which you speak?Dr. Mungall, given the assay results to date and your analysis which includes a conduit “continuous over considerable distances likely measurable in kilometres”, do you think the use of the word “disappointing” is appropriate?How much mineralization would you anticipate finding in this “conduit” “continuous over considerable distances likely measurable in kilometres”, given the results to date?Are you saying that the “prominent magnetic lineament to the south of the deposit” is likely an iron deposit? Would the “prominent magnetic lineament to the south of the deposit” then likely not be mineralized with ni, cu, etc.? Given that you have stated the “conduit” is likely kilometres long what does this (a possible” iron formation) do to possible economics of the project?Dr. Mungall, given your use of the words “discouraging” and “problematic” do you find anything at Double Eagle that is in fact encouraging?
8 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply