Thanks again Blythefan.
I have had a quick look at some previous reports on drilling at Forrest and Wodger in order to see what was said about the geology where mineralisation had been found. Having read some of the reports, it's the case that the interpretation has evolved as time went on, but basically it hasn't changed much.
This is an extract from the 23/11/17 ann in re Wodger:
'The copper mineralisation drilled at Wodger is interpreted to be epigenetic, associated with quartzcarbonate breccias and veining, along the eastern limb of the Wodger anticline (defined by the prospective Naracoota Formation). Geochemically, the mineralisation has some affinities with a typical VMS deposit (e.g., anomalous Au-Ag-Bi-Te-Se-Ba) and a possible interpretation is that it represents re-mobilisation from a nearby massive copper sulphide deposit.'
NB - 'epigenetic', 'VMS', 'remobilisation'.
The same report, re Forrest this time:
''Copper-gold mineralisation intersected previously at the Forrest prospect is interpreted to be structurally controlled within a strongly sheared talc-carbonate schist"
NB- 'structurally controlled.'
So, on the one hand we have 'epigenetic' and 'structurally controlled' - and on the other we have the interpretation of the mineralisation being the result of a remobilised vms deposit. If that interpretation is correct, then the assessment of structurally-controlled epigenetic mineralisation emanating from a vms deposit somewhere has validity. In other words, there can be remobilised vms- created mineralisation that has been deposited in spaces or channels in older rocks that are geologically unrelated to the vms event. Do you disagree with that?
That has been the hypothesis for over 4 years. I found this in the 1/9/14 report about Forrest:
View attachment 1483159
