RE: RE: RE: 3D Chargeability Model - Wow!!!Chappy,
Thanks again for your amazing analysis, but I'm sorry, I just have more questions!
1. I'm still having trouble cross-referencing the post 2007 info with the mineral reserves referenced in the 2007 43-101 report. Can you help?
a) Am I correct that on your picture here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60356448@N04/5506099457/in/photostream/lightbox/
that the area cross hatched in dark blue is the zone which was assessed in the 2007 report? If so, it seems to be about 1 km North-South (6360000N to 6361000) and about 300m East-West?
b) In the Interpreted Cross Section of 6360900N (www.copperfoxmetals.com/s/Image.asp?i=maps/Figure-1-Interpreted-X_Sect_6360900mN.jpg&id=444009), we see a shallow light purple zone, which several drill holes go into (CF398, 142, etc). Would this again be the area covered in the 2007 mineral assessment? So, then, in this vertical slice at 6360900N, the 2007 report included the minerals roughly in the "box" from 379250E to 379500E, and down to a depth of about 750mRL?
c) If I'm on the right track in b) above, then would you have any ideas why DH 142, which went right through the centre of the "purple zone" had relatively poor results (0.2-0.39%)?
2. Now onto "Big Red", ie the zone from 379750E to 380000E on the Interpreted Cross Section.
a) We've all been assuming that the "Big Red" zone contains high levels of minerals, but is that a fair assumption, given that the drill results from the "purple zone" that DH142 went through didn't find a terribly high a grade of copper?
b) Why is the new Chargeability Model so preoccupied with the Titan24 findings that are North and South of the 2007 assessment area, when "Big Red" is clearly to the East of the 2007 assessment area?
c) According to the Interpreted Cross Section, the drill hole that came closest to "Big Red" was CF405. Yet when we look at the earlier 3D Geophysical Model (www.copperfoxmetals.com/s/Image.asp?i=maps/3D-GEOPHYSICAL-MODEL.jpg&id=428531) we see DH405 marked, but there is nothing on that model to suggest that it intersected anything interesting?
3. Your picture
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60356448@N04/5506099457/in/photostream/lightbox/ shows a high chargeability zone which you've marked with a pin at 380000E, 6361000N, which I assume is "Big Red" seen from above, since your pin is just 100 meters north of what the Interpreted Cross Section is showing. If this is so,
a) What is the "Bigger Red" area that is 1km to the south of "Big Red". Is it indicated in any way on the most Chargeability model?
b) As I take a final look at the Chargeability model before posting this message, I just suddenly wondered whether I've made a critical mis-assumption. I've been assuming all along that the underground structure shown stretching North-South in the Chargeability model lies approximately underneath the area covered in the 2007 Resource assessment, ie, on a North-South plane situated at apx 379400E -- but is it really situated further east than than that, say, at 380000E, ie, right under the mountain range?
Thanks for your thoughts, friend!