DIGHEM Interp...

[Micropedes1]

Chuck, what are the PLSS coordinates of that anomaly? My UTM coordinates are taking me to a different section. Also unable to find the LAS conveyance of the property to the mental trust (only found the GS patent transfer from BLM to state of Alaska).

Might be computer problem brought on by last 9 days of flooding!!

[Jim_Alaska]

Now the charts are starting to make more sense to me, finally. Thanks Chuck.

I have run into MHT lands before. Just because it is in this classification doesn't mean its off limits. Those lands were given to MHT so that they could benefit the recipients, the only way they can do that is if the land is developed, sold or possibly leased for some purpose. Mining could be that purpose. I had wanted to look into this land classification when I was there, but it was too close to the time of my leaving Alaska, so I never got to follow through.

[Jim_Alaska]

Caribou Creek was bucket dredge mined. I have flown over the creek in the past and noted that they dredged the whole creek as far as they could go. The dredge is still there.

Here is a link to information on this creek for Mindat: https://www.mindat.org/loc-196806.html

[Geowizard]

- Geowizard

[Micropedes1]

I am going out on a limb here....and disagree.

What I am finding does not agree with the Level 7 anomaly. First, I verified that the anomaly was on L10150 <J> at fiducial 5305.4 as per gpr2000_006c_sh001 of the Salcha-Pogo survey. Although the corrected conductivity is in the 600 range, the survey classifies the anomaly as a Level 1.

So, I started crunching numbers. What I am seeing is that there is an overall low degree of response from both CPI and CPX. CPQ 7200Hz is zero. That, or a negative reading, likely indicates magnetite. If the deposit is high in magnetite, the depth to the top of the ore body will be inaccurate, but what is there is likely deeper than indicated (signal suppression). Without more data for DIFI or DIFQ, I cannot do more than approximate the magnetic tilt derivative, but what I am seeing does not make me hopeful.

I guess that what I am indicating is that you cannot go on conductivity alone. There is a reason that the geologists analyzing this makes big money.

Let the rebuttal begin as I am but an amateur here.

[Micropedes1]

I offer for your consideration: L10090, Fiducial: 604.2. A minor little deposit with but a 3.2 conductivity. But tilt angle calculations indicate that there is strong near-surface deposit.

[Geowizard]

The art of interpretation;


- Geowizard

[Geowizard]

Note also;

Geologists can only see the same as everyone else. There's a green rock. Look it has spots.

- Geowizard

[Jim_Alaska]

Jim,

Here's a link to MHT policy.

https://alaskamentalhealthtrust.org/tru ... materials/

Read down to "Salcha Block"

My experience in watching others get a lease is that the process involves; Lease payment, Cash Bond, Exploration guarantee in Dollars, Production Royalty, 4. Reclamation Bond.

They have a link to the leasing application - be sure to include the $500 non-refundable application fee.

- Geowizard

Thanks for that Chuck. But still, like I said before, just because there are hoops to jump through, one of them being money, still doesn't put this off limits.

If you are a serious miner or company, things of this nature are expected and penciled in to your overall plan.

[Geowizard]

Jim,

Yes, that is very true.

- Geowizard