KY (Jelly!)...you're awesome! Thanks!! Even though I'm the only non-engineer in my family (I became a shrink instead), I was able to peruse this great document from the link you provided. Several questions/comments to you (a geologist yourself?):
#1 What conductors (elementally speaking) would be detected by ZTEM?
#2 Would VTEM be a next (or necessary or helpful) stage, before actually drilling suspected porphyry targets?
#3 Does Geotech's technology actually give us data up to ~ 9000ft depth? [Figure D4 on page 43 seems to suggest so]. Yet, in the conclusion section they state: A number of successful ZTEM tests were conducted over the Athabasca Basin. The tests demonstrated that ZTEM can easily detect conductivity to 800 metres beneath relatively resistive sedimentary cover. Assuming a 1,000 ohm-metreresistivity, the skin depth of the 30 Hz data is approximately 2,000 metres.
#4 Have AZ been surveyed using ZTEM?
#5 ZTEM been used only since 2007. Is this technology widely appreciated? If poorly recognized, could this explain LBSR's own lack of recognition? The upcoming PDAC conference seems to be featuring Geotech in part because it is NOT well appreciated!
Here's a nice quote that nicely plugs Geotech:
The search for economic uranium deposits
is moving to areas of the basin which are deeper and beyond the detection limits of modern airborne instrumentation.
This creates the requirement for a system which can detect conductivity past the detection limits of modern traditional
EM systems. This was the motivation behind the field trials of the ZTEM system in the Athabasca Basin. Several areas
where known deep conductors (450-600m+) were located were flown. Also, a test survey block in the northern part of the
basin was able to trace a deep and plunging conductor to depths that no other airborne EM system has been able to
achieve.
