RE: Barker Discovers GOLD at Kangarootafactjack, you are WAY off base here. You clearly misunderstand some basic concepts of geophysics and geochemistry. I will attempt to enlighten you...
Firstly, on the topic of geochemistry, techniques such as enzyme leach soil geochem CAN detect mineralization several hundred metres below surface. However, that is several hundred metres through OVERBURDEN (i.e. soil, glacial till, etc.) but NOT through hundreds of metres of BEDROCK. The principle is that mineralization that occurs at the bedrock-overburden interface contributes metal ions into the pore waters in the overburden layer and these ions get carried up closer to surface by capillary action where they are weakly bonded to soil particles. So if there is mineralization exposed at the top of the bedrock, then this type of technique has a good chance of seeing it. If the mineralization is 150 metres down into the bedrock then there is almost NO chance it will be seen by soil geochem. I am not saying that there IS NO mineralization at the top of the bedrock at Kangaroo, but if there WAS, then why haven't BML shown us maps of the geochem results (I agree with NewKid on that one - the BML website is horribly out of date with no recent maps or photos at all).
Secondly, IP geophysical techniques can see down to 200-250 metres depth, but there has to be something for them to see - such as reasonable amounts of disseminated sulphides. Puny quartz stringers with small amounts of sulphides generally don't cut it. And IP cannot directly see the gold mineralization (there's just not enough of it) - IP usually sees the sulphides that accompany the gold, and in this case there doesn't sound like there is much sulphide content. And besides, the deeper you go, the more sulphides you need for IP to see anything i.e. the deeper you want to look, the more sulphides that need to be present to give a geophysical response.
If you are still unclear on these concepts I would be happy to discuss further.
Now...you stated "There is NO such terrane as Barkerville Terrane". This is NOT TRUE. You accuse others of "distorting", yet you cannot even get the facts straight yourself. You continually post links to articles that you clearly don't even read or understand, including ones by Fil Ferri of the BCGS. Here's another one titled "Barkerville Terrane, Cariboo Lake to Wells:A New Look at Stratigraphy, Structure and Regional Correlations of the Snowshoe Group" :
https://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/DL/GSBPubs/GeoFldWk/2002/07_PSp77-96.pdf
Heck, Barker's own website even talks about the Barkerville Terrane:
https://www.barkerminerals.com/s/Properties.asp?PropertyInfoID=631&_Name=REGIONAL-GEOLOGY&_YMD=20071105201248
You might want to get in touch with Dr. Ferri and let him know that his research is moot since your exhaustive work in the region shows that the Barkerville Terrane doesn't exist. Please do your research before you mouth off on this board about distortion of facts!
I am also a little concerned about some statements in the Barker news release, particularly relating to the "nugget effect" and analytical techniques. They mentioned that they used both fire assay and neutron activation techniques to detect gold. This is fine since these are good techniques for detecting gold. However, they also stated that using the two techniques showed that there was a "nugget effect on the property" because one technique detected the higher grade gold while the other technique did not. First of all, that only demonstrates that there is possibly a nugget effect in that specific sample or in that particular pod of mineralization and has no bearing on the rest of the property. Furthermore, they state that the neutron activation technique "analyzes the entire sample". This is NOT TRUE. Most geochem or assay techniques, including fire assay and INAA, only use a small subsample of powdered rock for analysis - often no more than 30 grams for a sample of possibly over 1 kg. It is true that INAA will see all the gold, but only the gold in that small subsample (the same is true for fire assay). The "normal" technique used if there is a suspected nugget effect for gold is the full screen metallics assay. Acme Labs' website provides a good description of this technique:
"Samples of 500 to 1000 gm are crushed and pulverized then sieved to -100 mesh. The total coarse (+100 mesh) fraction is fire assayed (Group 6), a one assay ton sample of the fine fraction (-100 mesh) is also fire assayed. The results of both fractions are reported as is the grade based on the weighted average of the two fractions. Detection limit is 0.01 gm/tonne. This is the most suitable method for determination of ore-grade concentrations of Au in rocks and drill core where erratic distribution of coarse Au results in poor reproducibility in routine fire assays."
There is nothing particularly wrong with the data presented in the news release. I just think it might have been better to use the metallics assay technique to assess the nugget affect. Conventional fire assay and INAA techniques might demonstrate that there IS a nugget effect, but they still don't give you an accurate analysis of the gold content if there is nuggety gold.
If anyone has experience in this area as well I would appreciate your comments.
gm2