quackaphobe,

I found the wording of your post a bit... well... odd. You need to be aware that there is a difference between VTEM and AeroTEM geophysics, specifically the former being more suited to detecting deeper structure, and the latter at detecting near surface structure.

"All of the helicopter EM systems use a vertical transmitter and measure the z-component response. The current HoisTEM and VTEM systems measure z-component data only. AeroTEM also measures the x-component, whereas ExplorHEM and THEM also measure the x- and y-component responses. Recording components other than the z-component helps substantially to resolve the geometry of subsurface conductors. Recording the full waveform of the EM response during the transmitter on- and offtime, as done by AeroTEM, ExplorHEM and THEM has a number of advantages: (1) the full data bandwidth is recovered, with the high-frequency information recorded during the turn-on and turn-off ramps improving the resolution of near-surface structure; (2) the data can be converted to B-field responses, which makes profiles easier to interpret and high-conductance bodies easier to detect (Smith and Annan, 1998; Wolfgram and Thomson, 1998); (3) the detection of “perfect” conductors, which have no offtime response, becomes possible. "

The geophysical data do not become null or extinct because a different survey renders different data, particularly when the data are generated from equipment designed for different objectives in data collection. Arguably, VTEM will not as easily detect near surface structure as AeroTEM systems. They are both quite reliable in the differing areas of 'expertise', so despite the sales pitch (your 'privilege' of seeing data) you may have received in Calgary, the fact remains that the AeroTEM and earlier Airborne data-generated targets are still valid and in existence.

The fact is that geologists will always sound very excited and enthused about whatever project they are focussing - they have to be. However, despite their invariable exuberance, even with promising geological and geophysical data, many of their projects turn out to be duds, or derive results that are less than anticipated. You can walk through the PDAC and at just about every booth, you will hear geologists gushing about how a particular company stands a great chance at finding the next deposit of mineral X, Y, or Z.

I have no particular allegiance to any company at Mc Fauld's - my allegiance is to money, and I go where I think mine has the best chance of growing. However, it is true, and its an old adage in the mining industry, that the best place to look for new mineral deposits (mines) is beside or under known ones (mines). This is not based on some delusional and limited shareholder mentality derived from pie in the sky dreaming, but based on the empirical evidence of years of collective mining industry experience.

We must also consider that the existing and old fixed-wing and AeroTEM airborne data resulted in the discovery of Eagles 1, 2, and probably a third. The VTEM surveys have not yet generated similar success. This is not to say that it will not, as it seems the VTEM surveys have picked up some interesting anomlies on the permits of at least a few companies, but rather that the results of the old fixed-wing and AeroTEM airborne data can hardly be disregarded in favour of the VTEM results given the successes to date. In fact, I would argue that they are complimentary, not competitive types of geophysical survey.

Therefore, before we dismiss the "closer is better theory" derived from years of empirical evidence, in favour of your views based the 'sales pitch' you received at the Calgary show, I think its prudent to consider that you may have been looking at geophysical data derived for different objectives, who results cannot be qualified as better (in terms of effectiveness) or worse than the other, but simply different, and by virtue of the fact that they are different, we should not expect the results (the anomalies/targets they detect) to be the same.

Finally, I suggest that a less cavalier approach to generating your conclusions is in order, so as not to confuse and scare those who read the forums that do not beneifit from enough technical knowledge to properly evaluate or critique your conclusions, possibly causing them to make investment decisions that are misguided.

Regards,

B.