RE: fact vs fictionNice try xela1 but the real fact is that there just are not enough sulphides in the soil to cause the anomaly. Here is what Mosher had to say:
'Contamination by sulphides, either tailings or concentrate, as the most probable source of the anomalies is also refuted by the ratio of metal to sulphur that is indicated by the soil sample analyses. In the E-1 North anomaly, zinc values in excess of one percent are associated with sulphur values of between 0.2% and 0.4%. Stoichiometry requires that considerably more sulphur must be present to account for the zinc alone if it is present as sphalerite. The discrepancy becomes considerably greater when the presence of lead as galena and iron as pyrite is added. The bulk of the metal is therefore not present as sulphides and therefore cannot be reasonably assumed to be attributable to the presence of either tailings or concentrate, both of which are essentially comprised of sulphides.
This must be so despite the recognition of lead, zinc and iron sulphides in the scanning electron microscope analyses. The observed presence of sulphides in the soil samples is problematical but, as noted above, sulphides account for a relatively minor proportion of the metal present and so do not represent a “fatal flaw” to the assumption that the metals were derived from a bedrock source. Further, the electron microscope study identified platy sphalerite. It is improbable that fragile plates of sphalerite, 25- microns in diameter, could sustain much physical transportation. It therefore
seems more probable that sulphides were deposited in-situ. The lack of an explanation does not negate the possibility that the process occurred. It is also noteworthy that the same study also identified zinc-silicates, chlorides and carbonates, including some zinc-silicates that rim rock fragments, a relationship that suggests those minerals were deposited on the enclosed cores.'
Here are some of the actual data. You can get a lot more on the PLY website. Sorry about the formatting but the first 3 numbers are copper, lead and zinc and the last is sulfur (in %, btw 1% is 10,000ppm)
Cu Pb Zn S in %
2.5 1.0 3.8 0.72
0.2 1.0 2.6 0.39
0.1 0.9 1.6 0.29
Pure sphalerite is zinc sulphide it is composed of 67.1% zinc and 32.9% sulfur. This is the stoichometry that Mosher is referring to and this is a fact. As you can plainly see the ratio of zinc to sulfur in sphalerite is close to 2 to 1 (it is 2.04 if you want to be precise). This means that if the zinc in the soil was sulfide (sphalerite)and you have 3.8% zinc then you must (by the laws of nature) have 1.9% sulfur and then there is the copper and lead and iron sulfides. 0.72% sulfur just doesn't make it for an example. Likewise 2.6% zinc in the form of sphalerite would have 1.3% sulfur not 0.39% and 1.6% zinc would have 0.8 %sulfur not 0.29%.
Just go to the E1 South soil sample data on the projects page of the PLY website and look at the numbers for yourself. I just picked the first high ones but they are all the same. Check for yourself.
Nice try xela1 but NO CIGAR. The very small quntity of sulfides that are present are fresh and unweathered and not present in sufficient quantity to cause the anomaly. If you take away the sulfides the soil anomaly will not 'go away with it as you suggest'. Analysis of the size and amount of sulfides does NOT nicely account for the values found in the soil anomaly. Look at the results for yourself they are on the PLY website. This is not to do with companies A, B and C.
But xela1 there is one good thing we won't have to wait much longer for the drilling and then we will see. By the way, what other source for the gravity anomaly do you suggest. Quite a coincidence the gravity anomaly being in the same place as the soil anomaly isn't it?
Owl