My apologies for the late reply to this... I had to step out for the afternoon yesterday.
"I will just describe just one known new Geological "FACT" I outlined/explained...
My post has dispelled your erroneous assumption, that the minerlization of NOT's E1,as the result of the "overturning" of the peridotites RIF, went directly South to FNC claims....We now know that in "FACT" the Cu Ci mineralization intensifies and extends NORTH, and North West, towards the "mother" feeder zones contained within the Granodiorite to the North...so much for your theory that the extensions of NOT's E1 etc, extends directly South, as the 'motherload" is in FNC's claims....
JD*"
First of all, you have not come up with anything new here - what you say, as with rest of your post, can be read from or directly interpreted from the NRs of May 27th. However, you failed to reiterate the complete contents of the NRs on this issue, and have left out some key points. I am assuming that was just a careless mistake, and not because you have been having difficulty understanding the NRs...
The NR on the sulphides states:
"- Using the conceptual model, the Eagle One deposit would be interpreted to occur within a conduit feeder, at some distance from the RFI. The Eagle Two discovery on the other hand is interpreted under the conceptual model as occurring within the "throat or mouth" portion of the conduit where it empties into the RFI."
They clearly state that the E1 deposit, which is pool of high grade sulphide and PGE mineralization, is said to exist within a conduit and not at the end of one, as they state is the case with E2 where it was first discovered.
So, the question you should be asking yourself, and you too BK, is where does this conduit, that E1 exists within, go (continue), and where does it come from? If E1 exists within the conduit, then clearly there is more of the conuit to be found than just the E1 occurence... Where does it go and where does it come from? I don't know, but I do know which other ROF companies have properties adjoining both the east and west sides of the NOT propertry that contains E1, and therefore they remain good bets in my view. Iam not stating that these comnies must have part of the conduit, but we do know that E! dips to the northwest as per the NRs describing E1, and we also know who owns property to the southeast of E1.
Finally, what makes you think that E1 comprises all of the original pool that formed athe point along the conduit, if that is in fact what transpired? It is possible that the original pool is much bigger and was broken up due to shearing, folding, or whatever. Maybe E1 is only a piece of the orginal pool...
Anyway, John, I was also wondering what happened to the 1.5-2.5% Ni and the 10g/t PGM 'guesstimates' you gave based on the early visuals of E2?
Regards,
B.
