SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  For example, here is how to disable FireFox ad content blocking while on Silicon Investor.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Geodex Resources - GXM.V (was Agate Bay ABE)
GXM 0.130+4.0%Nov 3 5:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: E. Charters who wrote (184)11/15/1999 11:00:00 PM
From: E. Charters   of 210
 
I don't mean to HARP oon on it but why would graphite have been ignored in EM signatures or if seen in geology? Well in EM, long strike length, very high Parts per million Input conductors that have very sharp edges but low decay constants are universally written off as "graphite" by signature and graphitic schists are not explored as unproductive of economics.

YET.

The very environment that gave rise to graphite produce the same massive sulphides we may seek.

It is true that very good analysis of the IP will reveal even a mixed graphite-sulphide conductor but it is not guaranteed to detect it or give any indication of economics.

So any purely mixed graphite and chalcopyrite environment would have gone completely unseen by geophysicists looking at data and spurned, or at least its environment spurned by geologists.

So there may be few carbon-copper orebodies out there.

I think I know where one or two may be. Copper in the sediments. SEDEX. Not volcanigenic. Could be big as SEDEX often is.

And as I indicated we have the evidence.

EC<:-}
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext