KAT Exploration Inc (KATX)

[ShortonCash]

Couple of Points B402

The post you use to prove CammieCam wrong was a geo newfie reply to one reference to some graduate U of T work some grad student were doing in the field....some of my Cut and Paste DD
which you now and Geo Newfie then tried to use in your proof incorrectly again I might add, read on to the bottom of the post

So after you read through the articles it does appear this can be used in 2 borehole on a camp or district level so work could be done offsite of a claim and with a few boring and the correct model say VB come up with what could preclude the use of assays and drill that you see to want to make your one stand on now...

JMO LOL ROTFLMAO because you and geo newfie are using my Cut and Paste DD incorrectly at that

geo_newfie
Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:09:37 PM
Re: ShortonCash post# 138595
Post # of 161989

From the U of T link you provided:

<For the borehole-to-borehole application, we have successfully mapped conductive zones between boreholes up to 350m apart.>

From the maps it appears that the two drill holes are 1.4 kms or 1,400 m apart. Four times their number

adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010EGUGA..12.6004L

we present our methods on synthetic and real data scenarios from the Voisey's Bay massive sulphide deposit in Labrador, Canada.

A single Earth model consistent with multiple geophysical datasets (from different surveys) is more likely to represent the true subsurface than a model consistent with only a single type of data. This is especially true if the surveys sense different aspects of the subsurface and therefore provide complimentary information. For example, surface gravity measurements can provide good lateral resolution but not depth resolution, and borehole-borehole or surface-borehole seismic data can provide good vertical resolution but not lateral resolution. Seismic methods continue to receive interest for use in mineral exploration due to the much higher resolution potential of seismic data compared to the techniques traditionally used, namely gravity, magnetics, resistivity and electromagnetics. However, the complicated geology often encountered in hard-rock exploration can make data processing and interpretation difficult. Inverting seismic data jointly with a complimentary dataset can help overcome these difficulties and facilitate the construction of a common Earth model. We consider the joint inversion of seismic travel times and gravity data. Over the last several decades there has been a fair amount of study into inversion of seismic and gravity data via joint or cooperative methodologies

http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/mindep/method/3d/pdf/dekemp_3dgis.pdf

Mineral exploration is evolving into a more rigorous quantitative science. 3-D GIS provides support for this activity
through an environment in which a rich and diverse set of exploration-related observations can be analyzed and interpreted.
The core tools for developing and exploiting mine-, camp-, and regional-scale 3-D common earth models for the
purpose of targeting new ore or specifi c geologic relationships are now here. It is now incumbent on the industry, with its
wealth of knowledge of specifi c ore forming processes, its rich archive of 3-D data sets, and with a defi nite need to fi nd
the diffi cult and deeper ore, to capitalize on this new technology. Industry, government, and academia are encouraged to
develop partnered 3-D interpretation teams focused on interpreting multi-scale 3-D maps in mineral-endowed belts. It is
essential that these exercises are supported with appropriate human resources in order for 3-D modelling to achieve its
expected goals of enhancing the mineral targeting process and ultimately increasing mineral wealth

A signifi cant development in the mineral exploration
community in recent years is the notion of a ‘common earth
model’ borrowed essentially from the best practices of the oil
and gas industry (Fig. 4). This is a new paradigm for which
our knowledge of a given deposit is stored in a 3-D GIS so
that it can be used by the explorationist. In essence, it is a
mechanism for attributing the commonly shared 3-D space
with all the relevant pieces of information that are needed to
make a 3-D targeting exercise meaningful. It is a multi-parameter
spatial model that provides the possibility of crossdiscipline
target validation and an easy means to examine
spatial and attribute relationships.
For example, in a common earth model, it is a straightforward
task to see if the results of a geophysical inversion
match the distribution of physical rock properties collected
down a borehole through the model

This
forces all of us in the exploration business to go back to being
geologists, because orebodies are geological features. They
occur in a geologic setting, within a specifi c stratigraphic,
structural, and tectonic environment (Galley, 2003), and unless
we develop a good understanding of the geologic controls
and specifi c spatial distribution of those controls over wider
areas, we will not be very successful at predicting deep ore.
The task of making useful 3-D geologic models beyond the
mine head frames and encompassing a whole mining camp
or a region beyond it represents a big leap forward in helping
reduce risk for brown and greenfi elds exploration projects
(Fig. 9). Camp-scale, regional-scale, and even crustal-scale
studies focused on broad-based resources assessments, tectonic
synthesis, and basin analysis are being undertaken by
governments in concert with academia and industry

3-D regional structural model, Kattiniq (Raglan Mine) region, Nunavik territory of northern Québec. Thrust faults (red surfaces) and
horizon tops (yellow surfaces) developed with SPARSE© using GSC map data and interpreted cross sections. Model is roughly 80 km × 30 km and
8 km depth (de Kemp et al.,