Galna Moody 3In May of 1986, Utah Mines Ltd. completed a "helicopter borne magnetometer surveys flown by Sander Geophysics Ltd., Kanata, Ontario over claims referred to here as the ABITIBI DETROYES property". (42A16SW0200/42A16SW0200) It covered all of the RT Mineral's blocks. One thing that I found unusual was that they flew the flight lines at a 300m line spacing. To me, this was kind of wide. However, the magnetic anomalies were intercepted. They are generally either circular (Blocks C & D, oval (Block B) or linear (Block A). They also picked up another magnetic anomaly between Block A and Block B. This anomaly is about 300m in diameter and should be considered as a target to be staked. The location or position of these magnetic anomalies tend to suggest that they may be related to the same structural feature (fault)!! This thought was also pointed out on Map P.3392, at least between Block A and Block B. The missing target between Blocks A & B would also fit right in with this interpretation.
In July of 1986, an airborne magnetic and VLF-EM survey was flown for Don McKinnon that covered mostly Block D (42A16SW0201/42A16SW0201). It also looked like a couple of flight lines were extended south, in order to intercept Block A. I will not comment any further on this magnetic data, as there are better quality magnetic maps available.
In 1989, the Ontario Geological Survey released the Airborne Electromagnetic and Total Intensity Magnetic Survey Maps, covering the DETOUR-BURNTBUSH-ABITIB I AREA. The maps that cover RT Minerals property are (Maps 81242 and 81243). The magnetic data on Block A shows 2 peaks, a western anomaly and an eastern anomaly. The former displays a stronger intensity than the eastern anomaly. Of interest for both anomalies is that there are no EM anomalies on the western anomaly, while the eastern anomaly has 2 flanking conductors. It must be remembered that there are graphitic conductors in the region. My take on this phenomena is that, if there is an ultramafic intrusive underlying Block A, then the western magnetic anomaly has come to surface, leaving no overlying conductors, while the eastern magnetic anomaly didn't come quite to surface, thereby leaving an overlying graphitic schist on top of the intrusive. How else do you explain why one magnetic peak has no conductors and the other one has!!
The same interpretation can be made for Block B. However, Block C does not have any EM conductors associated with it.
Block D has one conductive trend on the northern flank and one conductive trend on the southern flank. It also has one weak EM anomaly correlating directly with the magnetic peak. This anomaly has been classified as 'type of source not clear', so it could very well be overburden. With an Apparent Conductance of 3 siemens, perhaps it is overburden.
I interpret a generally steep southerly dip to these conductors, in the region of all four blocks.
In 1999, the Ontario Geological Survey released 2 geological compilation maps (P.3392 and P.3398). They both show ultramafic intrusive rocks for Block A. They also show east west fault zones that trend through Block A, as well as westerly through Block B. It is very conceivable that both of these blocks are associated with fault structures. At the same time, I'm interpreting that both Block C and Block D are associated with a NW/SE splay fault.