Timmins6The RT Minerals Timmins Twp property is divided into 2 blocks, a West Block and an East Block. The following will be a few comments for each block.
East Block
a) there has been no historical drilling in the East Block.
b) the Dighem airborne survey results in the East Block were Grade 1 anomalies. There was one lone anomaly near the west boundary of the East Block, with a second trend located near the southeastern corner of the block. Conductive overburden is thought to be the cause of these EM responses (Assessment File 42A07SE2003/42A07SE2003).
c) there were 2 conductors picked up with the GEOTEM airborne survey, one a definite bedrock conductor, and the second a weaker, possible bedrock conductor west of Greenoch Lake. Both are striking in a NW/SE direction. The stronger conductor has direct magnetic correlation, while the weaker trend is located in a magnetic low (Map 82047). The DIGHEM system picked up neither of these conductors.
d) referring to Figure 4 of OFR 6042, it would appear that the conductors are located on the western flank of an anticline, thus suggesting a west dip to the conductors. Does this indicate an easterly dip for a drilling direction?
e) Looking at Figure 3 of VVC Exploration's 2018 report (Assessment File 20000003134/20004796), it is noted that the main magnetic anomaly in the middle of the block, actually forms an X, a cross over of two trends instead of a single trend, as indicated on Map 82053. It is also noted that the NW/SE trend also contains the strong EM conductor, leaving the NNW-SSE magnetic trend as probably related to a diabase dyke. Where the 2 magnetic trends criss-cross and meet, it not only results in a higher intensity magnetic response, but it also seems to have disrupted the conductor, producing rather poor conductivity. So what came first (time wise), the conductor or the diabase dyke? At this point in time, I'm not sure about an ultramafic intrusive in this area. There is the fact that the magnetic anomaly at the junction of the 2 magnetic trends is also much wider than any other parts of the remaining sections of the magnetic trends, and the high intensity magnetic feature is perhaps due to the combined effects from the two cross cutting magnetic trends. It should also be noted too, that fine gabbroic and dioritic dykes were intercepted deeper in most drill holes on DJ's property to the west. There are also a lot of similar rocks located near the southeastern corner of Timmins Twp. So anything is possible!!
f) the MaxMin HLEM results ( IP/Quad ratio profiles) are extremely weak and I suspect this to be a function of the lack of penetrating ability of the frequency domain system. With a coil separation of 150m, the depth of penetration would therefore be roughly 75m (half the coil spread)(Assessment File 20000019174/20000019174_01). As mentioned previously, the GEOTEM EM survey data shows a depth of between 73m and 101m to the top of the conductor.
g) there are 2 other MaxMin conductors outlined within the East Block (VVC Exploration, Figure 3), but they are so weak, that I would not have any faith in their existence.
h) with respect to VVC Exploration's soil sampling program (Assessment File 20000019174/20000019174_01, it would appear that they were only targeting the strong magnetic response (Figures 4 and 5) in the center of the East Block, as opposed to going after the strongest part of the conductor instead. In my opinion, the lines should have been done between lines 350E and 600E (MaxMin grid).
i) the soil sampling results show that most metals are elevated over the magnetic anomaly, as well as being over the conductor. In a future soil sampling program, it is suggested that three lines be sampled, one more over the magnetic anomaly, and two lines over the strongest portion of the conductor, which would be to the north on Line 350E and Line 600E. I suggest using either the MMI method or the SGH method. I have nothing against the Aqua Regia method, but a second reliable method should be carried out in order to confirm the Aqua Regia results. The lines should extend well outside both the conductor and the strong magnetic anomaly, both to the east and to the west (for a good background average).
j) I am not an expert in geochemical soil analysis, but doesn't manganese oxide act as a scavenger for these other metals such as Ni, Cr, Co, and Cu, and if so, wouldn't that affect the values of these other metals? With respect to an ultramafic intrusive, I'm not sure at this point. I thought about the NW-SE conductor, plus the long coinciding magnetic trend being an ultramafic sill, but more work on the ground would have to be carried out, before this could be confirmed. The scavenging of the metals could be from a komatiitic basalt?? as well (are we near the Upper Tisdale Assemblage rocks?), which could result in high Ni, Cr, Co and Cu values. The conductor therefore, with the correlating magnetics could be related to base metals, including pyrrhotite. That's where the MMI soil sampling of several lines would come in. Anyway, that's my take.
k) the highest soil values are generally concentrated around the conductor. Away from the conductor, and yet still over the strong, large magnetic anomaly, the values are much lower.
l) is the conductor near the top of the Tisdale Assemblage?