Well, I don't know much, but I do look forward to the coming drill program to tell us more about the presence of a "common progenitor." We do know that “Mineral replacement in rocks consists of growth of guest mineral and dissolution of host. The two reactions are coupled by the grain–grain stress generated by growth of the guest grain in a rigid or very viscous rock in which it has initially no available room. This stress self-adjusts to make the volumetric rates of guest growth and host dissolution equal to each other, which accounts for the volume conservation typical of replacement. Volume preservation during replacement is required by conservation of mass and momentum as well. The two reactions are also simultaneous and proceed by a sequence of many tiny alternating increments; where these increments are small enough, internal textural details of the host grain or grain aggregate are morphologically preserved (as ghost textures) by the replacement. The strong variation of mineral reaction rates with stress required by replacement is evidenced also experimentally. Reported widespread replacement in many rocks (laterites, diagenesis of siliciclastics and carbonates, metasomatic ores, metamorphic rocks, and hydrothermal alteration) warrants creating water–rock reactive transport models that predict when and where in a system replacement should take place.” -Journal of Hydrology Volume 209, Issues 1–4, August 1998, Pages 137–146
Bottom line is, yes, we will have to wait for results from the extensive drilling program (set to begin very soon) to prove or disprove the applicability of the Stilltoe model to our Porphyry formation and resultant peripheral mineralization. Regardless, I feel that the original pluton must have been responsible for the majority of subsequent mineralization on the plateau, notwithstanding later geologic events. This statement precludes any more detailed analysis of the effect of host rocks on these later hydrothermal flows .
