Mark Arundell - Stop Sampling Rubbish!

Collection of appropriate, consistent, non-contaminated samples is critical to an exploration program but is potentially done “sub optimally”. Given that our predictive capacity to determine cover depth is low, is a surface “soil” a valid sample? Let’s explore what are the key components of a successful sampling campaign.

[karhukivi]

A shallow 3Mt Cu deposit at 6 metres depth under glacial overburden in Ireland gave no soil-sampled geochemical anomaly at all. Deeper sampling at about 2-3 metres showed sulphides in the coarse fraction. It was geophysics (IP, VLF) that revealed the presence of the deposit.

[deanwilliams]

Same idea, just a different environment, a orientation survey over the Navidad deposit in Patagonia, Argentina tested five size fractions (−12 to +40; −40 to +80; −80 to +140; −140 to +200; and −200). The survey discovered the coarser faction (−12 to +40) consistently produced the greatest background to anomaly contrast for Ag, As, Cu, Pb, and Zn. Then compared weighted averages of the finer soil fractions, within the anomalous stations of the orientation survey, indicated coarser fraction produced Ag values 374% greater than −80-mesh fraction. The speculative reason is related to the removal of volcanic ash derived from active volcanos in the Andes to the West. Changing the soil sampling protocol from the fines to the coarse fraction produced Ag anomalies up to 10x wider using the same threshold levels. Data from 2010 SEG conference paper.

[aliakbardaya]

To understand fully, you must fist understand golf game. But I have never ever played golf in my life.