Explor Resources Inc. (fka EXSFF)

[gharma]

Thx Str8, and as you know, even what I sketched is simplistic.

For all here let me say that yes of course I feel that there is a lot of potential in TPW. In fact my gut tells me that somewhere down there still hiding there is probably some very rich, high if not bonanza grade, veining that is not so narrow and few and far between, that maybe could be followed back as they thicken and join up toward source.
Regrettably that does not mean I think we will find this, only that if it is there then there is a chance we stumble upon it with these tiny little peek-holes (drill cores).

My recent posts were just a reaction to D's reply to me about the chances of there being the pot at the end of this rainbow, saying

When you have $2.5 billion worth of gold inferred or indicated in just a small part of a porphyry that is 4.5 to 5.0 times the size of a similar porphyry that produced 30 million ounces of gold (or $48 billion in today's gold price) just 14 km away, I don't see any odds in Vegas coming close to the odds offerred up by Explor Resources TPW Bristol porphyry.

as this appeared to me to expose clearly the main fault in the thinking being used, as it tied the gold to be expected to the size of the porphyry because the gold is in porphyry (and apparently because the characteristics of the two porphries being compared are believed the same). If those assumptions were in fact the case I would be on board with the 5 times therefor 5 times.
The fact is that there is a lot of conjecture about the geology and only limited vision into the depths, so most is unknown. But "in", as in the mineralization CD chases is distributed throughout the Bristol porphyry, is incorrect, and so scaling up numbers based on the relative sizes of these intrusives is simply not justifiable. Too much else comes into the equation.
As I understand things the intrusives provided the faulting, the tears so to speak, for the solutions to have routes to flow, and provided the heat and probably some of chemistry to make dissolving gold possible, and may have provided trace gold to dissolve. The long hole showed fracturing across the porphyry, which is a positive. But the minable gold mineralization that is sought depends on more than routes for, and that solution did actually flow through, and heat and adjustment of the solution chemistry so it can dissolve the gold, and passing over enough gold laden host rock to dissolve gold. It also depends on the solutions flowing with the dissolved gold into volumes favorable for the gold to come out of solution in sufficient amounts, or volume concentrations, to be economically minable where it is depositied. This is all clearly not a 5 times therefor 5 times affair.
So does the size of the porphyry have importance? Yes of course. But is it the dominating consideration? IMO it is too early to say, too little is yet known of what exists at depth and of which roles the porphyry filled (was it the dominant source of the gold that got dissolved or was it the mafics or the ultramafics or . . .), how much flowing solution was present anyway, etc..
Hopefully things are put to rest and D will in future share opinions and DD that in the broader geologic context are imo more sensible, and I will not get triggered into this sort of exchange again.