I put this excerpt on earlier today from the 2005 tech report, now I am gonna expand on it;

"The northernmost part of the S1 vein is exposed in a small window of diorite poking
through surrounding volcanics. Within this window, an unusual style of quartz
veining was observed in what was initially interpreted as subcrop. Veining occurs
as knotty “blowouts” and micro stockworks of milky quartz in muscovite-bearing
diorite. Grabs of this material across 27m assayed 1.75 ppm gold in sample
253259. This assay was confirmed by a check sample of the rejects. However, the
outcrop source of this material was not encountered in the three deep trenches that
were excavated at the site of sample 253259. It can only be concluded that the
interpreted “subcrop” is actually transported colluvium, and that the source outcrop
may be buried beneath the volcanics."

So, it appears that Brophy thinks it may have came from the depths. So, I looked under that area , which I plotted onto the Titan slide L3250-3000 N, AT THE 950 M mark. It got more interesting when I looked below the surface there an see the anomaly responsible for the ovoid, T-8 lying right there. I also see that hole 15 is gonna be in this general area when/if drilled. It will be a very important hole, IMO. I compared the high chargeability readings slightly below the surface, starting at around 75 m, to the signiature we get from the C-1 adit. They are very comparible. I also compared the HIGH RESITIVITY for both images and see that they are similar. They say that high chargeability and low resitivity is what you want to see on these slides, to have good mineralization. But for me, that doesn,t add up on the Tesoro. We know the signature for the C-1 is plotted accurately to the Titan image, we know we have gold grades there from 1-5 ounces per ton with coinciding sulphides of 3-4%. For me, on the Tesoro, it seems that when the sulphides are present, we need to see high chargeability with high resitivity at depth. This doesn,rt seem to be the case at the A-4, and I would guess that the main reason for this is because of the limonite that has low resitivity because of its oxidized state.

To sum up, if the subcrop they found above, belongs to the ovoid, and somehow got pushed to the surface or hinged up from the ovoid, then we will have some very interesting mineralization there, maybe to the tune of ~ 1 g/t in the diorite.

We missed this before when doing DD awhile ago, and may have been able to use this to further our argument on maybe the anomaly being economic.

IMO