Making Sense of It AllFirst off, I wanted to start off by thanking Hiker and Scottiepimps for their various recent posts containing all kinds of information on our little gold mining gem, GSR. Lots of information there; so much, in fact, that I found it really tough to absorb it all and perhaps grasp the main points. Both of you have since posted more information perhaps trying to summarize the more important points, and for this I thank you, but I still have questions.
But before I get to that, anyone else think it's pretty darn impressive that Trevor Bremner himself is helping out with inquiries sent to the company? Wow, we all know he is pretty busy yet he's still willing to help out curious shareholders. Just another sign this company is top notch and cares about it's shareholders.
Alright, so to the questions. Hopefully I don't come across as slow, because I didn't see anyone else post any questions, so maybe I'm the only one not getting it. But perhaps there are others here who would benefit from more clarification, so I'm putting my pride on the line and posting them anyway. I'm looking at you geo folks out there as this is not my background and expertise (although I'm trying to learn as fast as possible).
To start, regarding the gold nuggets. So it's been stated that larger, angular nuggets implies they haven't travelled far. I just wanted to clarify that this conclusion comes from the fact that the smaller and rounded they are, the more likely they were probably exposed to glacial erosion or meltwater erosion and thus the higher chance they have moved farther away from whence they initially came, correct? (Someone correct me if I'm wrong). So the fact that we have these large and angular nuggets means the source of those nuggets is close. Furthermore, the fact that the nuggets are so large should excite shareholders because it means the source of those nuggets is potentially quite rich, correct?
And now to the streams. So what I got from all the posts / info was that it's important that the streams be transverse (perpendicular) to the flow of the ice. Because if they're perpendicular, there is less chance the nuggets were carried far, because there was more chance the nuggets could have been trapped in lower areas (i.e. small valleys) and thus not be carried away with meltwater long distances away. If the streams were parellel, then that means there is a good chance the meltwater could have carried them long distances, and they would have been less protected from the general movement of the glaciers, which would be away from the original source. Long story short, streams running transverse to the ice flow containing gold are one of the best indicators that the gold is quite close, correct? Again, if I'm not interpreting this right, I'm hoping someone can correct me and steer me straight.
Now, keeping on this topic, when I looked at the maps that Hiker / Scottie provided, my interpretation was that the two placer streams that seem to come from the bottom left (south-west?) section of the GSR property appear to be in fact parallel with the glacial flow, as opposed to transverse. Or am I reading that map wrong? In contrast, the stream on the top left of the property (north-west?) does appear to be transverse. So am I missing something about the two parellel looking streams that still means they are good indicators that the gold i near? Do nuggets in these streams mean that we can not trust these indications as much as the gold found in the transverse streams? Or is there something else, geologically, about the nature of these two streams, that aside from their direction, still means they are a strong indicator of a nearby deposit.?
In looking at the map, my interpretation would actually be that Northern Predator appears to have the best position in the Livingstone area, based the number and direction of the placer streams. However, as Scottiepimps mentioned, it would also depend on the size of the nuggets found too. This leads me to believe that there may be something else besides the stream placer deposits that lead GSR to stake where they did. Mag surveys perhaps? Is anyone with a better geology background seeing something else there that would be favourable to stake in that location?
And lastly I guess, just a general question about glaciers. Would it be fair to say that glaciers act as our friends in a way because they scrape the ground and unearth these nuggets that can then be trapped reasonably closeby provided there are areas along the path of motion that facilitate this (i.e. valleys, etc.)? However, if this entrapment does not occur, then the gold can be taken very far away by a combination of glacial movement and meltwater erosion. In the case of meltwater and erosion, it is probably the worst culprit for moving things quickly, right, as water flows much faster than ice? So only when we have streams with sharp banks (i.e. 90 degree or more bends) or other characteristics that would change velocity (such as small waterfalls, which would be prevalent on steeper streams), can we trust these placer deposits? Is this right? I guess when you have steep streams then placers could get concentrated and trapped at the bottom of a waterfall versus on a more "horizontal" stream that could potentially carry things great distances. I guess, getting back to the nuggets issue, the larger the nugget means not only less water erosion (so likely less time spent in a stream), but also the bigger nuggets would be more resistant to actual movement, unless the water velocity is really fast.
So am I kinda getting at the key points, or am I out to lunch? Would love to hear what some of the more knowledgable people have to say, and thanks in advance!
BUMBLEBEE