4aA06SE0157 e.1310 ADAMS

.{31 O

010

RECEIVED

SEP 2 4 1973PROJI CIS faLCTION

REPCBT ON GEM ELECTROMAGNETIC SURVEY

ROZAK CLAIMS

.ADAMS TWP. , ONTARIO

W. BRERETONfor

D. P. ROGERS GRUBSTAKEJuly, 1973

Ottawa, Ontario

SUMMARY

A GEM electromagnetic^ survey on the five Roaak claims^ employing

the "Bhootback'technicue has located three

Conductor l is very weak and is of little interest at present.

Conductor 2 is a high priority, moderately strong feature

extending for a maximum of 1000 ft. on the Rozak ground. A sulphide

concentration could be the causative body.

Conductor 3 extends for a maximum of 13XK) ft. on Rozak ground

and represents an iron formation in part. This iron formation is

known to carry sulphide where it was intersected in a drill hole 500

ft. to the east of conductor 3 Just off the Rozak ground.

Both conductors 2 and 3 warrant follow-up work.

A magnetometer survey covering the entire property is recommended

for the initial step.

INTRODUCTION

The GEM survey was carried out on behalf of David P. Rogers

Grubstake in the period July 13 to July 16. 1972.*-' f J**- — .^.t^iaCLi^M *ai ***miuutu*mmeiM'tMrmt**m~..X m -ftl|BI|)||)|im ,, ffrt'

The five Rozak claims are located in northeast jVdams Township

(Fig. 1) about 10 mi. southeast of Timmins and are numbered:

P 327052 P 327053 P 313481 P 327488 P 327490

The claims are registered in the name of Mr. N. Rozak, 60B Cedar St.

N. , Timmins, Ontario and are in good standing until August 3, 1973.

^P?JfeTJiaX2 assessment credit is required at that time of which the

work outlined he^rein^accomit s f or 20 days.

Easiest access to the Rozak claims is afforded by a jeep road

which turns east off the Papakomeka Lake road 4.5 mi. south of the

Buffalo Ankerite Mine.

Only the baseline on the Rozak grid is cut and chained. Cross

lines were established at ft .nterval8 compass with

pickets every jlgQ ft. The crosslines are well marked with red

flagging and enough cutting has been done to allow moderately easy

passage. The pacing and positioning of lines as shown on the accomp

anying electromagntic plan are acceptably accurate.

1.

J

—4

TA

1170 'j3 327O52.

3I3V8/

\1J2W8

\

\

ADAMS TWP.

,lrig. 1. NK # of Adams Twp. , shov;ing location of Rozak claims.

3.

GEM SURVEY

was used for the survey. This

instrument employs the "shootback" technique. In this method, each

of two coils is used to transmit and receive in sequence. Dip

angles are measured in the vertical plane passing through the axes

of the coils. With no conductor present, dip angles of the transmitted

fields at both coil locations are identical in magnitude but taken as

opposite in sign. Thus the reading recorded for the station midway

between the two coils is the sum of the dip angles obtained at both

positions and is zero when no conductors are present. The presence

of a conductor distorts both of the transmitted fields with the

resultant sums not equal to zero but dependent on the slope

position, and conductivity of the body. Minor deviations from the

zero are due to noise, geologic or otherwise,

The dip angle rneasurements^are ^c^ate^tp^^JL^.* Operating

frequency for this survey was j.800.,Hz,with a coil separation of 200

^ft. Readings were taken everyJiOO^ft^. with intermediate readings

at 50 ft, in anomalous areas, A total of 3 t 6 mi. of line were read

during the survey,

It is claimed that larger responses are obtained with the

shootback EM method as the conductor increases in width, the reason

being that the response from a horizontal conducting surface

(conductor top) supports the response from a vertical surface

(conductor 'sides') with the horizontal shootback method whereas those

two effects might oppose one another in other methods.

The following figures show some responses obtained with the

ehootback method. Figure 2 shows a dipping conductor at depths down to^ , ,.. . ..... -. j'.r.' ,... f r.., . .m-.-Wf* -MJ;UBi,*llri.lB**B.WiM4i:^li'.;., * * * *

^ coil separation. Figjxre 3^ shows a relatively wide (^coil separation)

conductor at ^ and 4, coil spacing depth. Fig^ure^ shows the very largo

response for a wide, shallow conductor. Figure 5 shows responses over

two known orebodies, .The curves in Figures 2 f 3 and 4 are derived from

model studies.

RESULTS

Three de^inj^e^^condustors^were located by the survey, numbers

l, 2 and 3.

Conductor l - The conductor axis is interpreted as crossing

ISfi at S+50S. The conductor does not extend to I^W and would pass

south of L12W so it is of unknown length. The conductor appears to

represent a case intermediate between the two extremes shown by the

shootback curves in Figure 4 f ie. the conductor is 50 to 70 ft, or so

subsurface and narrow. Conductivity is low. Conductor i is of minor

interest at present.

Conductor 2 - This crosses lines SB and 12S at about 7+50S.

The extrapolated westward continuation passes off Rozak ground before

IAE so strike length is unknown.

The response on L8E best approximates case (3) in Figure 3

and is not unlike both examples in Figure 5 The response hero

suggests a relatively wide (25 to 50 ft.?) vertical, tabular body in

the area of 75 ft, subsurface. Conductivity is moderate. The response

5.

NARROW CONDUCTOR

oo CONDUCTIVITY

LENGTH- 4o DEEP- 2 ,

-\J

,rx

',

^

1 t

1 f 1 'j r ~ j

j?

jT*

'

S m

m

—

O

*^~

"^

SO

^

—

' -r

-2

5:

o~~

-*-

^

v^

^r-

'

r~

. 0

"H

f*

Z

0 o

-{

Ci

-C

O o

O m m i o

t p ''J m.-

mw r*N o ,

~-T

' d

!~ CO Q

6"1

"" 1 p p ^D

(S^

^ 6 PI

— .

6'^

0 o

•z. o ^

,—[

CI

o

ro.

6

•x -o •^

RE

SU

LT

AN

Tj.

io

o

o

DIP

A

NG

LE

-

IN

DE

GR

EE

Sw C

iro o

C"

F1CUREMODEL TEST., COM?AR!SO,M OF NARROW AND WIDE CONDUCTORS 'WITH HORIZONTAL LOOP AND SHOOTBACK E.M. SYSTEMS

207o

IZONTAL LOO? E

FIGURE 7. MODEL TEST, COMPARISON OF MARROW AND WIDECONDUCTORS 'WITH HORIZONTAL LOOP AND SHOOTBACK E.M. SYSTEMS

207o

-40

O

DEPTH *0-!25a

KCRIZOMTAL LOO? EM

ri oo O

o ?

i'H":

^:i"-

Vio -

*- - -

: -^

.'

-0.o 3

5 I:

-!

/Nl-

'.O

^

P .-jo

L'f-'i

r^

l-'c;

^

u r

n r-i

c.-

N-

O

-,

;'

S

iS

:'.

C3

^

iJT y t c.

M

o

r-

O "

* c- r

;p o

C?

iJ o

o

?j

t -iC)

-;

^

CJ

~-

";

co

^

8n .

o -C" ^J

r-j

9.

on 112E clearly indicates a south dip, probably in the 50 to 700 range.

The width hore appears to be somewhat less than on L8E. There is no

indication that depth to conductor top or conductivity is any different

on 10.2.

Conductor 2 is given high priority in that a sulphide concentra

tion could be the causative body.

Conductor 3 - This follows much the same pattern as 2. The

response on Dine 18E suggests a narrow, vertical body of relatively

low conductivity. The conductor appears to be somewhat wider (30 to

40 ft.?) on I20E and a south dip, again probably in the 50 to 700

range, is indicated. A very strong, off-scale response was recorded on

L2/1E. The off-scale response suggests a magnetite-rich iron formation,

the strong magnetic field associated with which gives the response of

a very strong conductor. That is, the iron formation reads on this

particular instrument as an excellent conductor because of the distort

ing effect of the strong associated magnetic field even though the

conductivity of magnetite, per se, is not that high. On the other hand,

this response could be indicating considerable width to a moderate

conductor as in the middle illustration on Figure 4 , The best inter

pretation is that the response represents a relatively wide iron

formation. This is probably accurate as iron formation enclosed by

ultrabasic was intersected in a drill hole 500 ft. east along the inferred

eastward continuation of conductor 3. The response on lines 20E and

18E probably represent progressively leaner iron formation or, possibly

a facies change to sulphide iron formation. This is not unlikely

considering that some sulphide is associated with the iron formation

10.

in the above drill hole. Overburden appears to be shallow here,

probably less than 50 ft.

Conductor 3 is also given high priority because of the proven

sulphide association with the magnetite iron formation which is causing

at least the east end of the known conductor. The occurrence of iron

formation associated with ultrabasic is geologically favourable. The

Noranda-Inco mine in Langmuir Twp. and other noneconomic Ni deposits in

the area are in this setting.

There is an EM build up going north on Ufti, This probably ref

lects a very lean sulphide iron formation which is known to strike

through this area. The line did not extend far enough north to

completely cross the conductor.

Very weak responses at 1+508 on IO and &J-50N on L16E are

attributed to geologic noise,

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conductors 2 and 3 definitely warrant follow-up. Initially,

this should consist of magnetometer coverage of the entire grid with

detail in the area of the conductors. Additional work can be better

recommended when the results of the above are known.

The magnetometer survey should require no more than two man-

days.

Respectfully Submitted

W, E. Brereton

11.

CERTIFICATION

I do hereby certify that:

1. I reside at //14j 73 Woodridge Cres., Ottawa, Ontario and am an employee

of Driftex Ltd., 1342 Bank St., Ottawa, Ontario.

2. The survey described herein was performed on behalf of D. P. Rogers

Grubstake, Ottawa, Ontario, by U. Pandolfi, Timmins, Mr. J. Tower,

Ottawa, and Mr. S, Averill, Ottawa.

3. I have no interest, express or otherwise, in the Rozak property.

4. I have been granted the degree of Bachelor of Science with Honours in

Geology and Physics from Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario in

1971 and have been engaged in my profession since then.

W. E. Brereton B.Se. (Honours)

RECEIVED020 SEP * 4 19/3

REPORT ON MAGNETOMETER

ROZAK CUIMS

ADAMS TWP., ONTARIO

W. BnililETONfor

D. P. ROGSRS GRUKJTAKEJuly, 1973

Ottawa, Ontario

SUMMARY

to complement prev

ious EM work on the Roaak claims outlined three ultrabasic bodies under

lying the northeast, southwest and southeast portions of the five claim

property and gave additional information on three EM conductors.

An 800 ft. conductor, no, 3 in the southeast corner of theB ,.^jar.. ..... - -,.,.*.,*,,-,, 1.^,,,r-.r .-- . -../' ia^*.*Xw.**'"'-*

property has a magnetic correlation of 1000 to 3500 gammas. This conduc

tor is presently open to the east, A magnetic anomaly with maximum

relief of 16,000 to l?, 000 gammas was outlined on the inferred eastward

continuation of the conductor 400 ft, east of where the conductor was

last recorded. A previous drill hole which intersected this anomaly Just

off the southeast corner of the Rozak ground cut magnetite-rich iron

formation with some associated sulphide, the iron formation enclosed by

ultrabasicB, At least the east part of conductor 3 is the same iron

formation. The west part of conductor 3 may represent a separate body

northwest of the above iron formation,

The geologic sotting of iron formation associated with ultrabasic

is highly favourable. Further work including detailed geophysics and

possible diamond drilling is recommended for this corner of the property,

Another conductorj .,.no,^2^ has no magnetic correlation but

appears to be located at or near the magnetically inferred north contact

of the south ultrabasic and so is favourably located geologically,

A weakly conductive feature on L8W has a small associated 3000

gamma magnetic anomaly. Ultrabasic is again the host rock,

Additional geophysics is recommended for these two areas.

INTRODUCTION

The semi-re connaissarice magnej^n^ei*8urvey on the Rozak claims

was carried out by the author in 2 days from July 9 to IQth to complement

a previous GEM electromagnetic survey (see accompanying report "Report

on GEM Electromagnetic Survey, Rozak Claims" by W. E. Brereton).

The 5 claims are located in northeast Adams Township (Fig. 1)

about 10 mi. southeast of Timmins and are numbered:

P 327052, 053 P 333481 P 327488 P 327490

The claims are registered in the name of N. M. Rozak, 60 B Cedar St, N. ,

Timmins, Ontario and are in good standing until August 3* 1973 at which

time 40^da^g,of assessment credit is required. The work outlined herein

accounts for 20 days.

Easiest access to the Rozak claims is afforded by a jeep road

which turns east off the Papakameka Lake road 4.5 mi. south of the

Buffalo Ankerite mine,

MAGNETOMETER SURVEY

,, JijSfoaTffQ :,J^^ was used for the survey.

This Instrument measures the vertical component of the earth's magnetic

field relative to some base. Background for the Rozak survey is about

Only the baseline on the Rozak grid is cut and chained. Cross

lines at Jj^Q(J^t.,^ns|jgrvja2^ were established by pace and compass with

pickets every JLCXDJX A total of 5.2 miles of line (including Jeep

road and claim lin*) were road.

•IKt517053 327OS2

3i3Ve/

1317468 \

3^,7*70I

A DA AA S TWP.

1. NE fi of Adams Twp., showing location of Rozak claims.

3.

The cross lines are well marked with red flagging and enough

cutting has boon done to allow moderately easy passage. The pacing and

positioning of lines as shown on the accompanying magnetometer plan are

acceptably accurate.

Four base stations were established on the grid at

L/tE and LVW. Checkins were made when convenient (not more than l|hr.

apart) to monitor diurnal variation. This was not excessive and no

diurnal corrections were made. The survey then is best described as

semi-reconnaissance.

RESULTS

The magnetic survey has outlined three areas overlain wholly or

predominantly by ultrabasics on the claims - the southeast quarter and

the northeast and southwest corners. The ultrabasics are characterized

generally by a magnetic relief of 500 to K)00 gammas. The remaining

area is underlain by rocks of lower susceptibility than the ultrabasics.

These are known to bo a mixture of talc-carbonate rock and metavolcanics

from previous geological mapping. A lean iron formation exposed in a

pit on 10 at the baseline is seen to trend NW, The mapping showed that

the magnetite is replaced by hematitic material where the iron formation

crosses IVjE, This corroborates the magnetics which show no anomaly

here.

A northeast-trending fault is inferred between lines 1& and 8E,

This is based on a magnetically suggested westward truncation of the south

ultrabasic body and an EM conductor and on previous geological studies

of the area.

The correlation between the magnetics and the previous EM

survey is important. Jhj:ee (iej^-ni^

magnetic plan ? nos t i^^g and^,t

Conductor l has been interpreted as a narrow, weakly conductive

feature at a depth of 50 to 70 ft. subsurface occurring within a

magnetically inferred ultrabasic body. The magnetic survey shows a

small, oval anomaly with a maximum relief of about 3000 gammas immediately

south of the conductor. This zone is of some interest and should be

investigated further by additional geophysics on intermediate lines.

Conductor 2 crosses lines SE and 12E, There is no magnetic

correlation. The conductive feature occurs at or near the magnetically

inferred north contact of the south ultrabasic; in fact, the conductor

appears to cross this contact at about 7+50S on UL2E. The lack of mag

netic correlation is not encouraging however some detailed work should

be done on the conductor before it is written off entirely,

The magnetic anomaly in the extreme southeast corner of the

property was the strongest recorded with highs up to 17,000 gammas above

background. As seen on the plan, this anomaly is almost definitely

associated with gonductor ^ , The drill hole 100 ft, off the southeast

claim post showed this magnetic high to be representing a magnetite-rich

iron formation here. There is some sulphide associated with the iron

formation. The host rock is described as serpentinite. Conductor 3l ii,

was not traced east of 12/jE but it is certain that an EM traverse alongi i (i l li.

the claim line would show a very strong conductive response coincidenti .. i .li, t . . . i

with the magnetic anomaly.

The steep magnetic gradients indicate shallow overburden in the

5.

southeast corner. Rough calculations by Peters Rule (Mining Geophysics,

Vol. l, p. 42?) suggest 50 ft.

The magnetics indicate that the relatively rich iron formation

extends westward from the Inco hole to L2^E at most. It was our

previous interpretation based solely on the EM that the conductive

features on lines 18E, 20E and 24E represented the same body. An

examination of the magnetic pattern and response indicates that this

may be incorrect. Magnetic relief is relatively low on L18E and 20E

(1000 to 2000 gammas) and the closure is well to the north of the conductor

on L2AE, The conductor which crosses KL8E and 20E may be a separate

body and that on L2AE the tail end of the Inco iron formation. The

approximate location of another Inco conductor is shown on the magneto

meter plan.

Detail geophysics is essential in this corner of the property

as a prelude to possible diamond drilling. The geologic setting here

is especially favourable being similar to that of the Noranda-Inco

mine in Langmuir Twp. and other Ni deposits in the area.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Further ground geophysics should be undertaken in the following

areas: 1) I^W to L12W south of the baseline

2) Ly3 to KL/^E from 5KX) to 1OKX)S

3) U.6E to southeast corner of the property from 8+OOS,

Small grids should bo cut to cover these areas. Fluxgate magnetometer

and horizontal loop are recommended for the survey. About 4 Hian days

will be required to complete the work.

6.

Follow-xip diamond drilling may be warranted contingent on

the results of the above,

Respectfully Submitted

W. E. Brereton

r,vvfi7

P-M272

STRICT OFIMISKAMING-

PORCUPINE -DIVISION

SCALE: MFICH ' CHAIN

uctr,'si .or c r.r-viONLY •:^mv-,

KING'S HIGHWAYS RAILWAYS : POWER LIWES "

WARSHMINES CANCEUED

File r? I

TO KK ATJ i2A06SEei57 z . 1 310 ADAMSFACTS Sil

TECHNICAL KKPOKT MUST CONTAIN INTERl'Khl AllUiN,

'J'y})c of Survey. _...,.

Township or Area___A4i!?!Ls ^TV5'.t .._.......

Claim holder(s)_——

. ..._ 3Q. JLCedar St. N., Timmins, Ontario

Author of Report...^VL* .J?.. Ilrereton _^ ^-—

Address... .^ - MJi --73 .Wppdridge Cres Aj Obtawaj Ontario

Covering Dates of Survey.July 12-3,6^ 19-20/1972, July 16-1?, 2(liuecultiiif; to office)

Totiil Miles of Line cut___..—.. .p,re.YlQliSly..filfld.————-———

SPECIAL PROVISIONSCREDITS REQUESTED

ENTER 4 1) days (includes line cutting) for first survey.

ENTER 20 days for each additional survey using same grid.

Geophysical

Electromagnetic

- Magnetometer

- Radiometric __ 1

Geological.

Geochemicnl

DAYSper claim

i

————

-—— l

AIRBURN]'. CjRl'iDJ J S ( Special pjiivisinn credits (lo not apply to airborne surveys) t

Magnetometer. . Kleclromagnelic _____ Radiometric(enter (lays per cl.'iirn)

TK:-.——.-_-__...__ SKIN ATI IRKi (A ) ^ .Author" of Report or Agent

PROJECTS SKCTJON

Res, Geol. __ __......

Previous Surveys L.^_nr

6w

w y

Checked by_.__-- ^ __________

GEOLOGICAL 15RANCI l _____...,

.date.

Approved hy-.— .

GKO1.0G1CAL15RANCII —

Approved hy. -date.

900

MINING CLAIMS TRAVERSKD List numerically

(picfix) (number)

P327490

l OTAL CLAIMS.

^ ^ l

1 Show instrument technical data in each space for lypc of survey submitted or indicate "not applicable'

GEOPHYSICAL TECHNICAL DATA

GJUMJNp SURVEY'S

Number of Stations_______?±y_________ ____________Number of Readings S t a t i o n i ut e r val ........ ^.. ..JL

Line spacing______,_..___4DO—iCt.__.—^-Profile scale or Contour intervals____l inch ~ 20 degrees

(specify for each type of survey)

MAGNETICInstrument _________-..__ -—————————-———————————Accuracy - Scale constant ______.—^ Diurnal correction method-——..—-.—-..—. Base station location_____________.

Instrument^^..^^.^Crone GEM Coil configuration___Coil separation______200 ft. _____

Accuracy.-__——.——JMethod: L'J Fixed transmitter E Shoot back CD Inline CD Parallel line Frequency_______JL8QOJZ____.___.—

(specify V.I. .K. station) Parameters measured _ . _____ ..... __ . __ ... ___ —————————,—.—

Instrument _____ . Scale constant ____ Corrections made _ ..

Uase station value and location.

Elevation accuracy____—-—.—-—^—.—-—— INDUCKl) POLAKI/A'J ION KlSIS'UVl [T

Instrument__.-..^..._. — __._—. _______Time domain____^_______.________________ Frequency domain.Frequency__________—______-____________ Range.————.——— Power,_._____..,.___.—..—__.._________ ___________________ Electrode array___________-—————.—————-—————.^.——--—^-——-—. Electrode spacing____________________. __.——----—-—.—-,-——.^— 'J'ypc of electrode ___________________.___________________

Kii- ca/3/Q

GEOPHYSICAL GEOLOGICAL - GEOCHEMICAL TECHNICAL DATA STATEMENT

TO HE ATTACHED AS AN APPENDIX TO TECHNICAL REPORT .**FACTS SHOWN HERE NEED NOT BE REPEATED IN REPORT

TECHNICAL REPORT MUST CON'l'AIN INTERPRETATION, CONCLUSIONS ETC.

^P a ^ i973PROJECTS

SECTION

. Magnetomeisr ——-.Type of Survey-^....^.

Township or Area _ ..

Claim holdcr(s) ____ JsJ9QJ3 Jtedar St, N. j

Author of Report.^ . W, E. Brereton Address^ . MA ~..73 ...WpodridcQ.. Cr^s, , _

Covering Dates of SurveyjMj. 9-^LQ, .18=20.,. 26 , 19?3{liiici ulli?i{; to office)

Total Miles of Line cut ___ Previously n ],e d ^ -—--

SPECIAL PROVISIONS DAYSper claim

KN'l'KR 'l O days (includes line cutting) for first survey,

ENTER 20 days for each additional survey using same grid.

Geophysical

Electromagnetic____

Magnetometer. /' 20

liadiomelric.-—

(ieological_..__

Geochemical ———

AIRBORNl'i CRl'jDJ i S (Spwial provision credits do not apply to airborne surveys)

Magnetometer l''Jectromagnetic . _ ___ Radiometric(enter clays per cliiiiu)

D ATI', : -. _ ^^ ^^ ^ SIGN ATL1 RI', : 2 iAu mor ofkep'ort or Agent

PROJECTS SECTIONRes. Gcol.___ ___.

Previous Surveys _.._

Qualifications.

Checked h y__ ..^^^..^__^ —-—

GEOLOGICAL IJRANCIl __^._ ^W*"*

tt*^ Approved by__ ^, ^^^ .......

GEOLOGICAl . J iRANCI l

Approved b)'--___...___

MINING CLAIMS TRAVERSED List numerically

(prefix) (number)

P327052.......................

.....mw.........................?327488

H 3? i ( \ ;ii)Tirrir.i!o 'D

Li^ii L..:.^-:-.i.^:.:. !^;:;;:7"]"T^;;'^;;:^

TOTAI, CLAIMS.

1 Show instrument technical data in each space for type of survey submitted or indicate "not applicable"

GEOPHYSICAL TECHNICAL DATA

^^_..^..^: YEYSNumber of Stations_____2ojj ^_________ ____________Number of Readings 263____Station interval-__...._. .AQQ. JJl* . .....—____ ____________________________________

i (\r\ -p-f Line spacing__. —^ _-.-l* .Jl'^^_^..^ . __________________________________I o

Profile scale or Contour inlcrvals^^J^JM!'!:?__________________________;________{specify for each type of survey)

.MAGNETIC

Instrument^_____..__Sjiarpe.MFrl_______________________________________ Accuracy - Scale constant_—______lO^ganimas_________________________________ Diurnal correction method_____ k base stations established - no corrections made

Base station location_.__....______not used __________________________________

Instrument __.___ ... __..—..._________ _______________________________________ Coil configuration______.— ....... — .. ^-.^——^ ..._^_____________________________^^^__^^_____Coil separation.___...___......_.. ..._______ ————^————————.^—.—..—..^—. ———————————————Accuracy___^.__.__...^_____......________._______________________________________Method: LD Fixed transmitter CH Shoot back CD Inline CD Parallel line Frequency___._—_...._______.._______________________________________________

(specify V.L.F. station)

Parameters measured____________.....^. ——---———^—.^—-———.^——-———^—.^-——.—————.—..—^—.^.^—— UKAV1TY

Instrument____..^^_...^.__.....—__ —__._,.____. -—-——————^^.^————.^—^-———.^-——————-.————.Scale const ant —__..____...... ..^. -...- ,..._....__. _______________________________________Corrections mack'______...,,_-i...__.,.____-—————————-^—————————————^—--^-———.^———————

Base station value and location ._^^^^^..^^^^_^^^,^^^____^^^^_^^^^______^_^^^___^___^______^^_____^^.^

Elevation accuracy_____,.,. _______________-——————-——.————..-^.^—.—--^^————^.^.^——————————1NDUCE1.) PO1.ARI/AJ10N RKSISTJATIY

Instrument__....__.,^^......^.^_...— .—-.—-—..^—.—-————.———-————^—.—.—^—-—.———-—.^———^-———————.—-Time domain^._.__________.______________ Frequency domain .—^--—————^.^—————^ Frequency'__.__^._^ ._. T_^.^_______________ Range—-——————————^—^———.—.^————-.—Power__._.__.____......._...,._—._,.^^^^^^-^^~^^---^------——-^—--———^——-———^—~—---—^—-—Electrode array.^.____.__..___________.. .—-..-M-———.——-,.————-———^———.—.————-————-——Electrode spacing___________________..._______________________——————————————— Type of electrode ______________—.____________________________________________

VDVI

N3 1

Mb

18S

.M

ro o o

Pric

e Tw

p.-M

.307

O ro CO oo

— -U

---J-—

----

i5

IST

ffi o tp w w o ro

1 **

"1

5sv

*

-DI *

""l

U1 *

(f,

01

lo1 f

.It

1 V

\

c

tXU

^C

*—

J--

BT

-—- ^ ^

— ^- -

•tt"

ip

-oil*

II*

fJf

Ol

1 ff

i.a

n

'ro

1 -4

1

O

*F—

-J

**^

•o

J*ff '*

o,

i

y

' t \ *

-0\

11

(O

\ 10

x " M"

)L

K)

l ^

\ 01 l 0 ,w

•D l

(O to

l f

l **

^l

w 91I

(V iS----*---~

'.

w l "

'I\ K

5)

a ?L o -^

o i1 •o ro

-J

ro

Eldo

rado

Tw

p.-M

.276

"D l— Z

Oo •w Z 70 r

CO rn

—

~O

"* 2

M o|

^

-II -

3c m

CO

^3-

Qo

q.w

en^

c oQ

O

Q 5

o 3

O.

-T :* CO (D

O -l

m

enO

) *

-i

Q

W

O 3

"S

S'D

^^^

20"

5>

:iS

Qto

—

S

ac

2

HO

m

m

ssi

r*"

^A.

^.^

12

r-

r-

o

T)

m

o

C

m

o

mo

x

o

^

*2

m

tfl z

^111

so

a

r

3—

—

o

i—

*——

O

T

t j,

Z

p.

5? x.

,-, z

o t-

o z

-oz

r-

**l-

-^

H-*

o Z

i m : m

o

rr. a

o b

b

O > l— rn o xo

oC

C3

T*;

O

7X

^

X

m Ho o 00 x

OCO

8MA

QA

TasM

Qltl 'Z

z t A/

s wA j.

SMVQV aici'2

a'

4V

42A06SE0157 2.1310 ADAMS

LEGEND

E N/I. dorvduc.

, mode^^'ft., -5+vonq)

/v

D. P ROGERS GRUBSTAKEMAGNETO ivi e TE

ROHAKADA M 5 TWP

SURVEY

aeo - l" ^200'

z.