Thanks for your as usual, great reply.
My terminology, eg "puddle" is more a description of the style of this type of formation and was just to promote thought more than anything literal.
We are on the same page and I agree in principle with all that you have said.
My only variation is still the target distances. I have seen targets missed by "that much" as Maxwell smart would say and have been expected to pinpoint targets within metres at those depths. My argument was always that if the target is that small then its not worth hitting, ha ha, but if the model indicates a certain feature at a certain spot, then it is good to get the correct core to give the geos the accurate feedback to make the next assessment even more accurate.
The armchair comment once again was not meant to be literal and certainly not aimed at you. Just a term to provoke some thought and illustrate a point. Its hard with no emotion on line and a dozen ways to interpret and a weird sense of humour or thought processes.
Keep up the good work. Would be good to catch up if this ever pans out. I have no doubt it is there.
We live in hope.
MPJ Price at posting:
0.6¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
