I certainly understand your point HC that chances are it is...

I certainly understand your point HC that chances are it is graphite as that is what a lot of what they find in this area is (I wonder if any of the companies have thought of a graphite mine?).

It was FLTEM they discovered the EM anomalies with, there were also a number of weaker ones around, I don't think I asked about the depth or location of these other ones, it was just one main one reported. From memory I think they now think it was a couple of those that they hit instead of the main one, when originally they thought they had explained the target. The DHEM has given a number of other minor conductors of small size that they are not planning to do anything with, expecting them to be graphite, or too small etc. A couple of the small DHEM conductors do correspond with what they have already in the pyrrhotite/iron sulphides. I didn't talk about the graphite at all.

I just found this on p8 of the 'duster' announcement.......

"The EM anomaly was interpreted to be flat lying and reference to core bedding angles of banding and foliation suggest a flat lying orientation."
.........amongst the stuff nobody bothers to read.

If the bedding angles and foliation is flat and the DHEM conductor is at a steeper angle, does that change the odds for an intrusion? I would have thought it did. Also the flat lying angle of the pyrrhotite and iron sulphides could suggest that they were part of one of the other conductors (weak ones) but from FTLEM with the angled EM below, made the original conductor look flat when it wasn't? Especially if it as dark an art as you say it is!!