Quantec Geoscience Ltd. Fax (416) 306 1949 Geophysical ... · Quantec Geoscience Ltd. 116 Spadina...

Quantec Geoscience Ltd. 116 Spadina Ave., Suite 400 Toronto, ON, M5V 2K6 Phone (416) 306 1941 Fax (416) 306 1949

Geophysical Survey Interpretation Report

On the TITAN-24 Tensor-Magnetotelluric and DC Resistivity & Induced Polarization Surveys GECO EAST PROJECT, ON, Canada for: VISMAND EXPLORATION INC., Toronto, ON, Canada.

E. MartinezJ. DonohueP. Edwards

January, 2007Project CA00443T

.

Quantec Geoscience Inc. VISMAND EXPLORATION INC. DC/IP and MT Surveys GECO EAST Project

CA00443T – January 2007 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 SURVEY OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 GENERAL GEOLOGY AND MINERALIZATION ..................................................................................... 2 1.3 PREVIOUS WORK AT GECO EAST................................................................................................... 3

2. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION.............................................................................................................. 5 2.1 OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 DISCUSSION OF INVERSION RESULTS ............................................................................................. 7

3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 16 3.1 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 16 3.2 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................... 17

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS APPENDIX B: PRODUCTION SUMMARY APPENDIX C: SURVEY DESCRIPTION APPENDIX D: INSTRUMENT SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX E: TITAN 24 INVERSION RESULTS APPENDIX F: LIST OF SECTIONS AND PLAN MAPS APPENDIX G: OASIS SECTIONS AND PLAN MAPS APPENDIX H: BASE MAPS APPENDIX I: DIGITAL ARCHIVE

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Geco East Project General Location Map .............................................................................. 1 Figure 2: General Geological Map with Titan Lines Overlay ................................................................. 2 Figure 3: Drillhole Locations at Geco East............................................................................................. 3 Figure 4: Total Magnetic Field and Titan Grid overlay at Geco East. .................................................... 4 Figure 5: Titan DCIP & MT Inversion models at Geco II (Nama Creek Deposit). Zone I ..................... 8 Figure 6: Titan DCIP & MT interpreted anomalous zones and targets at Geco East. .......................... 9 Figure 7: Geosoft 2D DCIP & MT Sections and Plans. Zone I (L7700E). .......................................... 10 Figure 8: Geosoft 2D DCIP & MT Sections and Plans. Zone II (L5200E). ......................................... 11 Figure 9: Geosoft 2D DCIP & MT Sections and Plans. Zone II (L1500E). ......................................... 12 Figure 10: Geosoft 2D DCIP & MT Sections and Plans. Zone III (L6200E) ....................................... 14 Figure 11: Geosoft 2D DCIP & MT Sections and Plans. Zone III (L1750E). ...................................... 15 Figure 12: Interpretation Plan Map and Potential Targets at Geco East ............................................ 17


CA00443T – January 2007 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The Geco East project is located in the Geco Mining Camp, Thunder Bay District, approximately 20 kms north-east of Manitouwadge, Ontario (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Geco East Project General Location Map

Direct Current Induced Polarization (DCIP) and Magnetotellurics (MT) surveys were undertaken dur-ing October 12th, 2006 to November 24th, 2006, over 36 survey days using the Titan-24 System.

DC Resistivity, Induced Polarization, and Magnetotelluric Tensor Impedance were collected on 23 lines spaced 500-1000m apart, totaling 60.85 line-km for the DCIP and 60.6 line-km for the MT. The DCIP have been collected using a 2D pole-dipole configuration (transmit electrode located on same line as receivers).

The Titan 24 DAS system is a multi-channel, distributed acquisition system, which records full-waveform time series for each geophysical event, enabling the application of sophisticated digital signal processing techniques, ensuring the best possible data quality. It employs a combination of multiplicity of sensors, simultaneous 24-bit digital recording, signal processing, and with 2D-inversion software provides a powerful tool for exploration of massive and/or disseminate sulfide mineralization to depths of over 1km.

This report presents the 2D inversions of the Titan-24 DC, IP and MT data, conclusions, and recom-mendations based on the interpretation from the data and 2D inversions.



1.1

1.2

SURVEY OBJECTIVES

The geological setting of the survey area is similar to the area hosting the Geco, Willroy, Nama Creek and Willecho Mines, located approximately 10-30 km southwest and west of the Geco East survey area.

The ores of these deposits are basically Cu-Zn massive sulfides. The Geco Mine, closed in Novem-ber 1995, produced 58.4 million tonnes of ore at grades of 1.86% copper, 3.45% zinc, 0.15% lead, and 50 g/t silver1.

To date, conventional geophysical techniques and drilling programs have not identified further eco-nomic VMS mineralization on the property. Geco East has not been systematically drill tested at depth so it is considered potential still remains for deep mineralization. According to historic exploration data, dis-crete near surface copper-zinc occurrences have been documented in the central and northeast parts of the property, supporting the property’s potential.

The primary objective of the Titan survey was to identify geophysical anomalies, which could repre-sent volcanogenic massive sulphide (Cu-Zn) mineralization, particularly at depth, in this prospective area.

GENERAL GEOLOGY AND MINERALIZATION

The Thunder Bay District is located on the north shore of Lake Superior, northwestern Ontario, in the Superior Province of the Canadian Shield. This volcano-plutonic subprovince of metamorphosed su-pracrustal rocks (i.e. greenstone belts) surrounded and cut by granitic plutons and batholiths are host to two major VMS districts, Manitouwadge and Winston Lake. To date, seven mines have been developed within the Thunder Bay District (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: General Geological Map with Titan Lines Overlay

1 http://www.vismand.com/Geco.html



1.3

The Geco East Project is located in the Manitouwadge Greenstone Belt of the Abitibi-Wawa sub-province (Manitouwadge Lake district). This area consists of a synformal sequence of felsic volcanics, mafic volcanics and intrusive rocks capped by a Granitic-Tonalitic-Trondjhemite and Granitic-pluton units.

The axis of the synform strikes east-west and plunges to the east. Metamorphism and deformation is expected to be high and several dykes and faults crosscut the area, indicating strong structural control over the geology. The fault and dyke’s trends are basically northwest and north respectively.

Target mineralization at Geco East is expected to occur either:

a) within the felsic volcanics,

b) at the upper contact of the felsic units with the overlying mafic volcanics or

c) at the lower contact of the felsic units with the iron formation.

Non-economic mineralization in these systems may also occur within the mafic volcanic series and mafic intrusives2.

PREVIOUS WORK AT GECO EAST

Previous exploration at Geco East included mapping, prospecting, geochemical sampling, airborne and ground magnetics. Lithogeochemical samples have returned anomalous metal content (south and central portion of the survey area) and Vismand Exploration Inc. believe potential still exists along the Geco Horizon (felsic volcanics) for an economic VMS deposit.

1.3.1 Drillhole Documentation

Approximately 14 shallow holes have been documented at Geco East to date. The majority located in the south-central part of the survey grid (Figure 3). Near surface, discrete uneconomic Zn mineralization and alteration zones were documented in the south of the survey area (S. Clemmer, pers. Comm. 2006).

Figure 3: Drillhole Locations at Geco East

2 “Volcanic-Associated Massive Sulphide Deposits” for Billiken Management Services. M. K. Kearney , June 12, 2003.



1.3.2 Previous Geophysics

The total magnetic intensity (TMI) plan map at Geco East defines the gross geology and structures very well. Several north-west trending lineaments, reflecting diabase dykes and fault systems have been identified across the property (Figure 4).

An interpretation of the magnetic data is not in the scope of this report but should be done to help de-termine if some of the near-vertical anomalies noted in the 2D inversion models of the Titan data corre-late with these structures.

Figure 4: Total Magnetic Field and Titan Grid overlay at Geco East.



2. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

2.1

OVERVIEW

This section presents the interpretation of Titan data in context with the known geology, survey objec-tives and significance to future exploration for volcanogenic massive sulphide (Cu-Zn) mineralization at Geco East.

Appendix E provides pseudo-section plots of the DCIP and MT data used in the 2D inversions along with a more complete description of data preprocessing. In section 2.2 “Discussion of Inversion Results”; the 2D inversion results are presented graphically, along with an interpretation and comments on the most significant results. Geosoft Oasis format plan and cross-sectional plots of the DC resistivity, charge-ability and MT models are also provided in Appendices G, H and I.

Prior to discussing the interpretation results, some general comments about the DCIP & MT methods and inversion methodology are provided.

The Titan-24 system acquires three types of geophysical data –direct current resistivity (DC), induced polarization (IP) and Magnetotelluric (MT). The DC and MT data both measure electrical resistivity, and the IP parameter measures “chargeability”. All the parameters together provide valuable information on the potential for sulphide mineralization. Other minerals are also conductive and “chargeable” as well, most notably graphite and clays.

The DC/IP technique injects a current into the ground and measures the resulting electrical poten-tials to determine subsurface resistivity and chargeability distribution. Depth of investigation depends pri-marily on the array geometry, injected current magnitude, and sub-surface resistivities.

MT measures broadband tensor ground impedances from telluric currents induced by natural time variations in the Earth’s magnetic field. This enables an estimation of subsurface resistivity to large depths. The depth of investigation is determined by the frequency of the measurement and subsurface resistivity. Depth estimates from any individual sounding may easily exceed 10 km for low frequency data. However, the data can only be confidently interpreted to a depth comparable with the length of the array.

For a “typical” Titan-24 survey, the DCIP data can potentially contain responses from conductive and chargeable features to a depth of more than 500 meters, while the MT data images resistivity to over 2 kilometers, depending on the target size and physical property contrasts.

The primary tool for evaluating the Titan-24 data is two-dimensional (2D) inversion. The critical points are that an inversion models depends on the data signal-to-noise ratio, but also the data errors, and the “model norm”. The inversion models are not unique, may contain “artifacts” of the inversion proc-ess, and may not accurately reflect all of the information apparent in the actual data. Inversion models need to be reviewed in a context of the data, geology and all available geophysical and drill hole informa-tion.

In this section of the report only the final models of the inversion results are shown. It is useful to re-view the actual data input into the 2D inversion (Appendix E) and all the raw data, which is available in the Logistics Report submitted previously3.

3 Project: CA00443T “Geophysical Survey Logistics Report on behalf of Vismand Exploration Inc.” E. Meade, E. Martinez, J. Donohue & P. Edwards, Dec,06.



2.1.1 2D DC Resistivity & IP Unconstrained Inversions

Pre-processing of the DCIP data involved adjustment of data errors and removal of poor quality data. For the DCIP inversions, the UBC DCInv2DTM 2D algorithm was used (Oldenburg & Li, 1994). Several inversions were generally run with successive removal of poorly fitting data or error adjustment before arriving at the final 2D models.

The DCIP data quality in general is good to excellent. Some data on a few lines at larger n-spacing was not as high quality and were removed prior to interpretation.

In some instances, using the DC inversion models as the resistivity distribution for the IP inversion produced models with abnormally large chargeability amplitudes coincident with high resistivity zones, that are not consistent with the data.

In these instances, more realistic IP models were derived by inverting the IP data assuming a con-stant resistivity distribution (half-space resistivity). Despite the IP models derived this way being an ap-parent chargeability, it was felt they provided a better representation of the subsurface chargeability.

2.1.2 Tensor Magnetotelluric (MT) Unconstrained Inversions

The MT unconstrained inverse models were calculated using the Geotools MT data processing and model-inversion platform. The initial data input into the Geotools database were line-station data, taken directly from the EDI archive

TM

4. The impedance tensor data span from 0.1 to 10000 Hz, with a data density of approximately 8 points per decade.

One-dimensional (1D) inversions for each mode (XY and YX) of the processed data were generated at each site. 1D inversion is used to make interpretative decisions about how to “best” fit the data, and ensure that the apparent resistivity and phase data are geophysically consistent. The apparent resistivi-ties and phases from the 1D models are then interpolated to obtain 12 frequency responses per decade.

2D models were constructed either using stitched 1D sections of the Determinant or smooth “RLM” models (Rodi & Mackie, 2001) as starting models for the PW inversions.

The inversion models were calculated using the interpolated resistivity and phase curves, in the 10kHz to 0.1Hz bandwidth, assuming a 5% error for the resistivity and 3 degrees for the phase, at 4 to 6 equi-spaced frequencies per decade.

Several 2D-PW unconstrained inversions were investigated using different combinations of datasets (TM phase, TM resistivity, TE phase and TE resistivity) before arriving at the final 2D models. Details on inversions parameters and models are presented in Appendices E and I.

Generally the MT data quality is good to excellent, including the frequency range from 1 KHz to 4 kHz (dead band).

4 Data Archive contained within “Geophysical Survey Logistics Report- Project CA00443T; Written by: E. Meade, E. Martinez, J. Donohue & P. Edwards, Dec,06.



2.2

DISCUSSION OF INVERSION RESULTS

This section presents a description of the most significant geophysical anomalies and potential tar-gets from the final DCIP and MT inversion models.

The interpretation results are presented in sets of 2D views of the 2D DCIP and MT inversion models and plans in Geosoft format. In this section of the report, the set of figures5 show an overlay of the final Titan interpretation (including Total Field Intensity), with the available borehole database (collar location and drill hole trace).

The most promising target areas and Titan anomaly trends are then presented in a three-fold view of Geosoft cross-sections, one section for each of the DC, IP and MT parameters. The Geosoft cross-sections are screen captures with no vertical or horizontal exaggeration.

A 2D interpretation plan map (final compilation of the interpretation) is also presented showing the target areas. The inversion models are provided in Geosoft Oasis format as scaled plans and cross-sections in Appendix G and digitally in Appendix I.

The interpreted Titan anomalies were classified in priority targets according to:

a) their amplitude;

b) the vertical and horizontal extent and

c) a consistent multi-parameter IP, DC and MT Resistivity association as following.

• High priority targets: Strong IP response (>20 milliradians), low DC and MT resistivity asso-ciation (Rho <100 Ohm.meters)

• Moderate priority targets: Moderate IP response (~15-20 milliradians), moderate to low DC and MT resistivity association (Rho ~100-5000 Ohm.meters).

• Low priority targets: Weak IP response (<15 milliradians), high to moderate DC and MT re-sistivity association (Rho >5000 Ohm.meters).

A brief description of the most significant responses, including targeting recommendations is also provided in this section.

5 It is strongly recommended not to use this set of figures for accurate positioning as they represent screen capture pictures with hand sketches overlays. Geographically referenced Geosoft Sections and Plan Maps are available in Appendices G, H and I.



2.2.1 Titan DCIP & MT targeting

Comparing interpretation results with previous Titan surveys at Geco6, a lower overall potential for economic Zn-Cu VMS is assigned to the Geco East survey area.

Titan DCIP and MT results from Line L250E, across the Nama Creck Deposit, (Figure 5) were used as a “calibration target model” for identifying significant responses and potential mineral occurrences within the Geco East survey data.

Nama Creek consists of a 4.3 millions tons, near surface Li O deposit hosted within felsic volcanics that has been mined out since 1957.

2

Figure 5: Titan DCIP & MT Inversion models7 at Geco II (Nama Creek Deposit). Zone I

6 Project: QG364 & 380 “Geophysical Survey Interpretation Report on behalf of Vismand Exploration Inc.” E. Martinez, J. Donohue, W. Qian & E. Data, January,06. 7 In the figures, for the DC cool colors represent resistivity highs and warm colors resistivity lows. Alternatively, for the IP cool colors represent chargeability lows, warm colors represent chargeability highs. Unless specified otherwise, all resistivity plots are in the 100 – 100000 Ωm color range and the chargeability plots in the 0-30 milliradians.



At Geco East, the interpretation results have identified three anomalous trends (referred to in the text as Zones I, II & III); and five discrete anomalies within these zones for potential follow-up: GE-1, GE-2, GE-3, GE-4 and GE-5 (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: Titan DCIP & MT interpreted anomalous zones and targets at Geco East.

Zone I. This anomaly is observed in the south and central part of the Titan grid, and strikes east-west from line L5200E (station 2000N) to line L8200E (station 1900N), see Figure 78.

The Total Field Magnetics depicts a moderate east west magnetic response (~900nT) associ-ated with this IP anomaly trend, suggesting the source of the IP anomaly is associated with magnetic minerals (i.e. magnetite).

A north-west magnetic dyke crosscuts this zone on lines L6700E (station 2200N) and line L7200E (station 1600N). Immediately east of the dyke, the apparent resistivity increases con-siderably, correlating with the Zn mineralization encountered in the drilling. To the west, a more conductive association is observed; furthermore the chargeability response is weaker.

The geology indicates this zone is potentially intermediate to mafic metavolcanic rocks.

The most interesting feature within this zone, anomaly GE-1 is observed at line L7700E (station 1900N) and it is characterized by a moderate IP response (~20-25mrads), and coincident mod-erate resistivity (~4000 ohm-metres). See Figure 7.

This area has been partially explored in the past and future potential is considered limited.

8 The figure depicts only a portion of the anomalous Zone I at line L7700E. More detailed views of the anomaly extent and charac-teristics are available in the Digital Archive, Appendix I: “Gocad Models”.


CA00443T – January 2007 10

Figure 7: Geosoft 2D DCIP & MT Sections and Plans. Zone I (L7700E).


CA00443T – January 2007 11

Zone II. This zone is located in the central part of the Titan survey area, and strikes east-west from line L1250E (at station 2800N) to line L14950E (station 3000N & 3500N) (see Figure 89). This is a weak to moderate IP anomalous zone (5-25mrads) associated with high to moderate resistivity responses (from ~5000 to 100 000 Ohm-m).

It appears that this trend is closely associated with the foliated trondhjemite unit, which is con-sistent with the magnetics.

The most promising features for this zone are observed at line L5200E (station 2500N), and at line L8700E (at station 3400N). These are referred to as GE-2 and GE-3 respectively.

GE-2 is characterized by a moderate IP response (~20-25mrads), and coincident low to mod-erate resistivity (~1000 ohm-metres). See Figure 8.

GE-3 is characterized by a weak to moderate IP response (< 20mrads), and coincident moder-ate resistivity (< 5000 ohm-metres). See Figure 9.

Figure 8: Geosoft 2D DCIP & MT Sections and Plans. Zone II (L5200E).

9 The figure depicts only a portion of the anomalous Zone II at line L5200E. More detailed views of the anomaly extend and charac-teristics are available in the Digital Archive, Appendix I: “Gocad Models”.


CA00443T – January 2007 12

The amplitude of this Titan IP anomaly and moderate DC and MT resistivity association make this zone, and features low priority.

Figure 9: Geosoft 2D DCIP & MT Sections and Plans. Zone II (L1500E).


CA00443T – January 2007 13

Zone III. This zone is observed in the northern part of the survey area between lines L4050E and L12100E. It strikes east west from line L4050E (station 3600N) to line L12100E (station 4550N).

The geology indicates that Zone III is associated with the contact between mafic metavolcanic rocks (to the north) and the foliated trondhjemite or granitoides (to the south).

The western portion of the IP anomaly (from line L4050E to L9750E) is moderate to weak (15-25mrads) associated with low to moderate resistivity responses (<5000 Ohm-m) in the DC and MT.

To the east, the IP response is stronger within a higher resistivity as depicted in the DC and MT resistivity models.

The most promising areas, GE-4 & GE-5 are observed at lines L6200E (station 3550N), and line L11500E (station 4700E). In both cases the anomaly amplitude in the IP model is relatively strong and remains untested (see Figure 1010 and Figure 11).

Few drill holes are documented in this area. S-225 is located in the northern portion of the anomaly; the drillhole log for S-225 intercepted intervals of chloritic and siliceous Iron Forma-tion from 100.9m to 104.7m, and from 112.3m to 115.8m respectively (pers. comm. S. Clem-mer, December 2006), which probably explain the source of the anomaly.

This anomalous zone, particularly around the selected target areas, may represent sulphide mineralization or alteration within the intermediate to mafic metavolcanic rocks and/or the un-derlying Iron formation.

Zone III (including target areas GE-4 & GE-5) represents a higher priority than zone I and II.

10 The figure depicts only a portion of the anomalous Zone III-N at lines L8700E and L11500E. More detailed views of the anomaly extend and characteristics are available in the Digital Archive, Appendix I: “Gocad Models”.


CA00443T – January 2007 14

Figure 10: Geosoft 2D DCIP & MT Sections and Plans. Zone III (L6200E)


CA00443T – January 2007 15

Figure 11: Geosoft 2D DCIP & MT Sections and Plans. Zone III (L1750E).


CA00443T – January 2007 16

3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 CONCLUSIONS

The most significant (recommended) Titan anomalies that represent targets for follow up at Geco East are:

First Priority Targets

1. Zone III (northern part of the survey) from line L4050E (station 3600N) to line L12100E (sta-tion 4550N). Target @ line/station: GE-4 @ L6200E/ 3550N and GE-4 @ L11500E/ 4700N.

Low Priority Targets

2. Zone I (southern part of the survey) from line L5200E (station 2000N) to line L8200E (station 1900N). Target @ line/station: GE-1 @ L7700E / 1900N.

3. Zone II (central part of the survey grid) from line L1250E (station 2800N) to line L14950E (station 3000N & 3500N). Target @ line/station: GE-2 @ L5200E / 2500N and GE-3 @ L8700E/ 3400N.

General Remarks

• The DCIP and MT data quality in general are good to excellent

• The Titan-24 survey has demonstrated the capabilities of the system to map geological struc-ture and mineralized zones at depth.

• The survey interpretation has delineated three anomaly trends and detected five target areas (Figure 12), which correlate well with prospective geological horizons (felsic volcanics and Fe Formation), and known mineralization.

• The deep anomalous resistivity lows in the MT models are weaker than those seen in the Geco I & II survey and subsequently are not considered targets.

• The anomalous IP response at Geco East varies between 5 and 50mrads (in the inversion models). No shallow model anomalies were observed comparable with the Nama Creek re-sponse. Anomaly GE-5 (L11500E, station 4700N) shows a strong IP response comparable in amplitude to Nama Creek, but the DC and MT resistivity is not as low as seen in the Nama Creek model.

• Both the DCIP & MT inversions maybe affected by the structures, which run parallel and/or sub-parallel to the survey lines (e.g., magnetic dykes and fault systems). No 3D inversions were carried.

• Several MT inversion models were produced using different inversion parameters, input data and starting models. Only models using unrotated data (TM Rho+Phs & TE Phs) are pro-vided in this report (Appendix E). Other inversion models, along with the inversion logs are available in the digital archive, Appendix I.

• For the DCIP inversions only smooth DC resistivity and sharp IP chargeability are provided in the report. Smooth and sharp IP models assuming half space (null) conductivity were also produced.

• Only, the IP models that best match the geology and correlate with the DC and MT are pre-sented in the body of this report (section 2.2 “Discussion of Inversion Results”). Refer to ap-pendix I for alternate inversion models.


CA00443T – January 2007 17

Figure 12: Interpretation Plan Map and Potential Targets at Geco East

3.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Consider testing Titan targets GE-4 & GE-5, and maybe test the lower priority Titan targets GE-1, GE-2, GE-3 & GE-4 if favorable results are encountered.

2. Review and evaluate all available data in the vicinity of the target areas identified in this re-port.

3. To better understand the Titan interpretation at Geco East, other inversion models supplied within the digital archive (Appendix I) and the raw data available in the Logistics Report should be reviewed.

Evelio Martinez, M.Sc., P.Geo. John Donohue, BSc. P.Geo. Geophysicist Interpretation Manager Interpretation Group, QGL Interpretation Group, QGL

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE INC.

Toronto ON

January 2007

Quantec Geoscience Inc. VISMAND EXPLORATION INC. DC/IP and MT Surveys Geco East Project

APPENDIX A

STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS I, John Donohue, declare that:

1. I am a Geophysicist, with residence in Toronto, Ontario and am presently employed in this capacity with Quantec Geoscience Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.

2. I obtained a Bachelor’s Degree, with Honours (B.Sc. Hons), in Geophysics, from the University of

Queensland, Australia. 3. I have practiced my profession continuously since July 1994, in Australia, and the Americas. 4. I am a registered geoscientist, since 2006, with license to practice in the Province of Ontario.

(APGO Lic. # 1440).

5. I am a member of the USA Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) and the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists (ASEG).

6. I have no interest, nor do I expect to receive any interest in the properties or securities of

VISMAND EXPLORATION INC., its subsidiaries, or its joint-venture partners. 7. I am the Professional Geophysicist and Senior Interpreting Geophysicist responsible for the data

acquisition and quality (QCQA). I oversaw the 2D DCIP and 2D MT inversions and Interpretation performed by E. Martinez, and the preparation of the final interpretation report. I reviewed this report and can attest that these accurately and faithfully reflect the data acquired on site. The statements made in this report represent my professional opinion based on my consideration of the information available to me at the time of writing this report.

Toronto, Ontario

January, 2006

John Donohue, BSc. P.Geo.

Interpretation Manager Interpretation Group, QGL

CA00443T– January, 2007 Appendix A1


APPENDIX A

STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS:

I, Evelio Martinez del Pino, declare that:

1. I am a Geophysicist with residence in Hamilton, Ontario and am presently employed in this capacity with Quantec Geoscience Inc., Toronto, Ontario.

2. I obtained a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering Geophysics at ISPJAE University in La Habana,

CUBA, in 1993, and a Masters Degree in Applied Geophysics (M.Sc.) at the ITC in Delft, The Netherlands, in 2000.

3. I am a registered geoscientist, since 2004, with license to practice in the Province of Ontario,

(APGO Lic. # 1058). 4. I am a member of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). 5. I have practiced my profession continuously since September 1993, in Cuba, The Netherlands,

Portugal, and Canada. 1. I have no interest, nor do I expect to receive any interest in the properties or securities of

VISMAND EXPLORATION INC., its subsidiaries or its joint-venture partners.

2. I am the Professional Geophysicist responsible for the presentation of this Project. I have reviewed the survey results and I am responsible for the data quality and 2D DCIP and 2D MT inversions, compilation and interpretation of the current report. I authored this report and can attest that these accurately and faithfully reflect the data acquired on site. The statements, conclusions and recommendations presented represent my professional opinion based on my consideration of the information available to me at the time of writing this report.

Toronto, Ontario January, 2006

Evelio Martinez, M.Sc., P.Geo. Geophysicist

Interpretation Group, QGL.



APPENDIX A

STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS

I, Philippa Edwards, declare that:

1. I am an Interpretation Support Technician with residence in Oshawa, Ontario and am presently

employed in this capacity with Quantec Geoscience Inc., Toronto, Ontario. 2. I obtained a Bachelor of Applied Arts, with Honours, in Applied Geography (B.AA) at Ryerson

University, Toronto, ON, in Spring 1993. 3. I have practiced my profession continuously since November, 1994, in Canada. 4. I have no interest, nor do I expect to receive any interest in the properties or securities of

VISMAND EXPLORATION INC., its subsidiaries or its joint-venture partners. 5. I have prepared and compiled the data presented in this report. The statements made in this report

represent my professional opinion based on my consideration of the information available to me at the time of writing this report.

Toronto, Ontario January 2006

Philippa Edwards Interpretation Support Technician

Interpretation Group, QGL.


Quantec Geoscience Inc. VISMAND EXPLORATION INC. DC/IP and MT Surveys Geco East Project APPENDIX B

PRODUCTION SUMMARY

GECO EAST GRID

SUBTOTAL (m) TOTAL (km) DATE DESCRIPTION LINE SETUP START END

IP MT IP MT

12/10/06 Mobilization **** **** **** **** **** **** **** 13/10/06 Mobilization **** **** **** **** **** **** **** 14/10/06 Parallel sensor test **** **** **** **** **** **** **** 15/10/06 Set up line **** **** **** **** **** **** ****

16/10/06 Record IP (not completed) Record MT

L1250E 1 1000N 3400N **** 2400 **** 2.4

17/10/06 Record IP Record MT (not completed)

L1250E L1750E

1 1

1000N 1000N

3400N 3400N 2400 **** 2.4 2.4

18/10/06 Record IP Record MT L1750E 1 1000N 3400N 2400 **** 4.8 2.4

19/10/06 Move line Record MT (not completed)

L2700E 1 1900N 3700N **** **** 4.8 2.4

20/10/06 Record IP Record MT L2700E 1 1900N 3700N 1800 1800 6.6 4.2

21/10/06 Record MT (reacquisition) L1750E 1 1000N 3400N **** 2400 6.6 6.6

22/10/06 Move line Record MT L3250E 1 1400N 3700N **** 2300 6.6 8.9

23/10/06 Generator breakdown No IP **** **** **** **** **** 6.6 8.9

24/10/06 Record IP Record MT

L3250E L4050E

1 1

1400N 2200N

3700N 4000N 2300 1800 8.9 10.7

25/10/06 Record IP Line not moved (no MT) L4050E 1 2200N 4000N 1800 **** 10.7 10.7


L4700E 1 1700N 4000N **** 2300 10.7 13.0


L4700E L5200E

1 1

1700N 1800N

4000N 4100N 2300 2300 13.0 15.3


L5200E L5700E

1 1

1800N 1900N

4100N 4200N 2300 2300 15.3 17.6



L6200E 1 1900N 4200N **** 2300 17.6 19.9



L6700E 1 1050N 4500N **** **** 19.9 19.9

02/11/06 Record IP Record MT (reacquisition)

L6700E 1 1050N 4500N 3450 3450 23.35 23.35

03/11/06 Move Line Record MT L7700E 1 1100N 4700N **** 3600 23.35 26.95

CONT NEXT PAGE…

CA00443T – January 2007 Appendix B1

Quantec Geoscience Inc. VISMAND EXPLORATION INC. DC/IP and MT Surveys Geco East Project PRODUCTION SUMMARY

GECO EAST GRID (CONT…)

04/11/06 Record IP Move Remote Site L7700E 1 1100N 4700N 3600 **** 26.95 26.95

05/11/06 Move line Record MT L8200E 1 1250N 4700N **** 3450 26.95 30.4

06/11/06 Record IP Record MT –bad remote

L8200EL8700E

1 1

1250N2600N

4700N4900N 3450 2300 30.4 32.7


L8700EL9200E

1 1

2600N1150N

4900N4900N 2300 3750 32.7 36.45

08/11/06 Weather day (no production) **** **** **** **** **** 32.7 36.45

09/11/06 Record IP Line not moved (no mt) L9200E 1 1150N 4900N 3750 **** 36.45 36.45


11/11/06

MT came in early morning Move and set up Line 7200 Marshal problems

L7200E 1 **** **** **** **** 38.95 38.95


13/11/06 Move Line Record MT L10400E 1 1600N 4900N **** 2300 40.95 44.25


L10400E L10950E

1 1

1600N 1900N

4900N 4900N 2300 **** 44.25 44.25

15/11/06 Record IP Record MT (reacquisition)

L10950E 1 1900N 4900N 3000 3000 47.25 47.25

16/11/06 Record IP Record MT Parallel Sensor Test

L11500E 1 3000N 4900N 1900 1900 49.15 49.15



19/11/06 Record MT (more events) L13200E 1 1850N 4700N **** 2850 54.85 54.60



22/11/06 Record MT (reacquisition) L14900E 1 1700N 4700N *** 3000 60.85 60.60

23/11/06 Picking up Packing up **** **** **** **** **** 60.85 60.60

24/11/06 Demobilization to Timmins **** **** **** **** **** 60.85 60.60

SURVEY DAYS 36 DAYS BREAK DOWN DAYS 01 DAYS SET UP DAYS 03 DAYS MOBILIZATION DAYS 03 DAYS WEATHER DAYS 01 DAYS

Total Production: IP: 60.85 Km MT: 60.60 Km

CA00443T – January 2007 Appendix B2


CA00443T – January, 2007 Appendix C1

APPENDIX C. SURVEY DESCRIPTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 GENERAL SURVEY DETAILS ........................................................................................................... 2 1.2 LOCATION..................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 CLAIMS AND DISPOSITIONS............................................................................................................ 2 1.4 ACCESS........................................................................................................................................ 3 1.5 SURVEY AREA............................................................................................................................... 3 1.6 PERSONNEL.................................................................................................................................. 4 1.7 SURVEY SPECIFICATIONS .............................................................................................................. 5 1.8 SURVEY COVERAGE ...................................................................................................................... 7 1.9 INSTRUMENTATION ........................................................................................................................ 8 1.10 PARAMETERS................................................................................................................................ 9 1.11 DATA ACCURACY AND REPEATABILITY.......................................................................................... 11 1.12 DATA PRESENTATION .................................................................................................................. 13

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Claim Dispositions & Townships at Geco East ...................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Common DCIP Survey Layouts .............................................................................................. 5 Figure 3: Titan-24 Tensor MT and DCIP Survey Layout........................................................................ 6 Figure 4: Example of Decay and Calculated Halverson-Wait Decays................................................... 9 Figure 5: Example of Apparent Resistivity and Phase (XY and YX) Sounding Curves....................... 11 Figure 6: Example of Time Series taken from Parallel Sensor Test (BF-6)......................................... 12 Figure 7: Example of Time Series taken from Parallel Sensor Test (BF-7 and BF-4)......................... 12

LIST OF TABLES

Table I: Geco East Survey Lines (UTM Referenced)............................................................................. 4 Table II: Geco East Grid-Max and Min Pole-Dipole Dipole-Pole Electrode Position. ........................... 7 Table III: Geco East-MT Survey Coverage (Electrode to Electrode). ................................................... 8 Table IV: Minimum Errors for DCIP Measurements............................................................................ 11



1.1

2.2

2.3

GENERAL SURVEY DETAILS

• Quantec Project No: CA00443T

• Project Name: Geco East Project

• Client: Vismand Exploration Inc.

• Client Address: One First Canadian Place Suite 2810, Box 129 Toronto, ON Canada M5X 1A4

• Grid Name: Geco East Grid

• Survey Type: Tensor Magnetotelluric (MT) DC Resistivity and Induced Polarization (DCIP).

• Survey Period: October 12th, 2006 to November 24th, 2006.

• Survey Days (read time): 36 days

• Mob/demob: 3 days

• Line Setup: 2 day

• Parallel Sensor Test: 1 day

• Weather/Down Days: 2 days

• Number of Lines Surveyed: Geco East Grid: 23 lines

• Survey Coverage: DCIP survey: 60.85 km (see Appendix B) MT survey: 60.6 km (see Appendix B).

LOCATION

• General Location: Northern Ontario, Canada

• Province: Ontario

• District: Thunder Bay

• Nearest Settlements: Manitouwadge, ON

• UTM Zone: NAD27, Zone16U

• Latitude/Longitude: approx.: 49ø12'00.00"N, 85ø44'00.00"W

• UTM position1: approx.: 591730mE, 5451120mN @ 340msl

CLAIMS AND DISPOSITIONS

• District: Thunder Bay, Ontario.

• Townships: Gemmel, Herbert & Nickle Twps, and Oue Lake area (see Figure 1).

1 UTM coordinates (NAD27) positioning (GPS) supplied by Quantec Geoscience Inc.


• District: Thunder Bay, Ontario.

• Claims Surveyed: 1108012, 1108011, 1208055, 1208048, 1208070, 1208056, 1208027, 1208028, 1208029, 1108038, 1108040, 1108041, 1108050, 1108051, 1108052, 1208057, 1208058, 1208059, 1208072, 1210289, 1210299, 4209300, 1209714, 1183318, 1209715, 1209501, 4207862, 1216046, 1209713, 1209712, 4206057, 1208090, 1209708, 1209709, 1145130, 1216047, 1209707, 1210286, 1210296, 1165361, 1164345, 1164344, 1164342, 1164346, 1164347, 1164349, 1164350, 1164741, 1164743, 1164739, 1164745, 1164738, 1210287, 1210295, 1166433, 1166432, 1166431.

Figure 1: Claim Dispositions & Townships at Geco East 2

2.4

2.5

ACCESS

• Base of Operations Manitouwadge Motor Motel 46 Manitou Road, Manitouwadge, P0T 2C0 Ontario, Canada (807) 826-4502

• Mode of Access to Grid: Trucks

• Mode of Access to Lines: All Terrain Vehicles (ATV’s) and by foot.

SURVEY AREA

• Established by: Vismand Exploration Inc.

• Coordinate Reference System: Survey Grid referenced to UTM Coordinates, NAD27, Zone 16U (Table I)

• Station Interval: 100 - 150 meters

2 Claim Dispositions obtained from http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndm/mines/lands/claimap3/disclaimer_e.asp


http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndm/mines/lands/claimap3/disclaimer_e.asp



• Method of Chaining: Metric, slope distance, pickets GPS surveyed.

Line Survey/Array Coord. Start

Survey/Array Coord. End

UTM Coord. Start UTM Coord. End

Easting Northing Easting Northing

L1250E 1100N 3400N 591261E 5451111N 591249E 5453398N L1750E 1100N 3400N 591730E 5451118N 591756E 5453402N L2700E 1900N 3700N 592699E 5451896N 592694E 5453697N L3250E 1400N 3700N 593251E 5451397N 593247E 5453694N L4050E 2200N 4400N 594053E 5452199N 594054E 5454007N L4700E 1700N 4000N 594664E 5451704N 594712E 5454002N L5200E 1800N 4100N 595199E 5451777N 595216E 5454094N L5700E 1900N 4200N 595680E 5451898N 595711E 5454185N L6200E 1900N 4200N 596169E 5451894N 596242E 5454186N L6700E 1050N 4500N 596671E 5451067N 596706E 5454527N L7200E 1000N 3000N 597187E 5450987N 597204E 5452978N L7700E 1100N 4700N 597710E 5451077N 597689E 5454703N L8200E 1250N 4700N 598194E 5451239N 598214E 5454696N L8700E 2600N 4900N 598709E 5452601N 598657E 5454921N L9200E 1150N 4900N 599187E 5451185N 599199E 5454911N L9750E 2400N 4900N 599748E 5452405N 599720E 5454890N

L10400E 1600N 4900N 600378E 5451602N 600390E 5454881N L10950E 1900N 4900N 600966E 5451899N 600943E 5454877N L11500E 3000N 4900N 601460E 5453000N 601528E 5454876N L12100E 1900N 4900N 600966E 5451899N 600943E 5454877N L13200E 1850N 4700N 603227E 5451862N 603189E 5454708N L14200E 1700N 4700N 604167E 5451696N 604232E 5454686N L14900E 1700N 4700N 604880E 5451697E 604927E 5454697N

Table I: Geco East Survey Lines (UTM Referenced)

2.6 PERSONNEL

• Project Manager: Kevin Blackshaw, Porcupine, ON

• Supervising Res. Geophysicist: John Donohue, Toronto, ON Evelio Martinez, Toronto, ON

• Data Processing (in field): Eric Meade, Julia Milne, Susanna Scappin.

• Interp. Geophysicist (office): Evelio Martinez, Toronto, ON

• Crew Chief: Steve Wynn

• IP Operator: Steve Wynn

• MT Operators: Troy McMartin, Dusk Fairservice

• Remote Operators: Loyd King, Nathan MacMartin, Jesse Maw.


• Field Technicians: Badden Leuszler Josh McLaren Kyle Corriveau Robert Fretz Deric Mongeon Jean Francois Richard Rich Chassé Carmen Vucko Daniel Landry Nicolas Odette Deric Mongeon Fred Grenier Tyler De Bruin


2.7 SURVEY SPECIFICATIONS

2.7.1 DCIP Survey

• Survey Array: Pole-Dipole-Dipole Array (combined PDR & PDL, see Figure 2)

• Receiver Configuration: 19-25 Ex = Continuous In-line voltages 10-13 Ey = Alternating (2-station) cross-line voltages3

• Array Length: 1900-3750 meters @ 100 and 150m dipole

• Number of Arrays/line: 1

• Dipole spacing: 100 and 150 meters

• Sampling Interval: Ex = 100 and 150 meters Ey = 200 and 300 meters

Figure 2: Common DCIP Survey Layouts

• Rx-Tx Separation: In-Line (2D): Current stations at mid-points along Rx line (see Figure 3). In all cases, N-spacing (PN-CN min) = 0.5 to 30.5 max (dpdp equivalent) with maximum varying according to line-length.

3 Note: Cross-Line Ey voltages obtained for future reference purposes – not presented in cross-sectional plots.


Figure 3: Titan-24 Tensor MT and DCIP Survey Layout.

• Infinite Pole Location: 1- UTM: 0593847E,5461916N (NAD27, 16U) Grid coordinates: 3850E, 11920N Lines Surveyed:L1250E, L1750E, L2700E, L3250E, L4050E, L4700E, L5200E, L5700E, L6200E, L6700E. 2- UTM: 0592907E,5455676N (NAD27, 16U) Grid coordinates: 2900E, 5675N Lines Surveyed: L7200E, L7700E, L8200E, L8700E, L9200E, L9750E, L10400E, L10950E, L11500E, L12100E, L13200E. 3- UTM: 0594789E,5454433N (NAD27, 16U) Grid coordinates: 4789E, 4433N Lines Surveyed: L14200E, L14900E.

• Spectral Domain: Tx = Frequency-domain square-wave current Rx = Full waveform time-series acquisition Data processing/output in frequency-domain

2.7.2 MT Surveys

• Technique: Tensor soundings, remote-referenced

• Base Configuration: 20 to 24 Ex = Continuous In-line E-fields 11 to 13 Ey = Alternating (2-station) cross-line E-fields 1 pair LF coils 1 pair HF coils

• Remote Configuration 1 Ex = in line E-fields 1 Ey = cross-line E fields 1 pair LF coils




2.8

1 pair HF coils

• Array Length: 1900 – 3750 meters @ 100 and 150 m dipole

• Number of Arrays/line: 1

• Dipole Spacing: 100 and 150 meters

• Sampling Interval: Ex = 100 and 150 meters Ey = 200 and 300 meters

• Ex/Ey Sampling Ratio: 2/1

• E/H Sampling Ratio: Ex = 23 – 41 Ey = 12 – 20

• Remote-reference Measurements: 1 Hx/Hy set (1 Ey/Ex set for verification/monitoring)

• Remote Reference Position: 593629E, 5461737N (NAD27 / Zone 16U) 597255E, 5446706N (NAD27 / Zone 16U)

• Frequency bandwidth: 0.1 to 10000 Hz.

• Data Acquisition: Full-waveform time-series acquisition Data processing/output in frequency-domain.

SURVEY COVERAGE

2.8.1 DCIP Survey

LINE SETUP Min Tx Max Tx Min P1 Max P2

L1250E 950N 3450N 1000N 3300N 2400 L1750E 950N 3550N 1000N 3400N 2400 L2700E 1850N 3750N 1900N 3700N 1800 L3250E 1250N 3750N 1400N 3700N 2300 L4050E 2150N 4050N 2200N 4000N 1800 L4700E 1750N 4050N 1700N 4000N 2300 L5200E 1850N 4150N 1800N 4100N 2300 L5700E 1850N 4250N 1900N 4200N 2300 L6200E 1850N 4250N 1900N 4200N 2300 L6700E 1125N 4425N 1050N 4500N 3450 L7200E 1050N 3050N 1000N 3000N 2000 L7700E 1025N 4625N 1100N 4700N 3600 L8200E 1325N 4625N 1250N 4700N 3450 L8700E 2650N 4950N 2600N 4900N 2300 L9200E 1225N 4975N 1150N 4900N 3750 L9750E 2350N 4950N 2400N 4900N 2500 L10400E 1675N 4975N 1600N 4900N 3300 L10950E 1975N 4825N 1900N 4900N 3000 L11500E 2950N 4950N 3000N 4900N 1900 L12100E 1775N 4625N 1850N 4700N 2850 L13200E 1925N 4775N 1850N 4700N 2850 L14200E 1775N 4775N 1700N 4700N 3000 L14900E 1625N 4775N 1700N 4700N 3000

TOTAL 60.85 km

Table II: Geco East Grid-Max and Min Pole-Dipole Dipole-Pole Electrode Position.



1.8.2 MT Survey

LINE Min EXTENT Max EXTENT TOTAL (m)

L1250E 1000N 3400N 2400 L1750E 1000N 3400N 2400 L2700E 1900N 3700N 1800 L3250E 1400N 3700N 2300 L4050E 2200N 4000N 1800 L4700E 1700N 4000N 2300 L5200E 1800N 4100N 2300 L5700E 1900N 4200N 2300 L6200E 1900N 4200N 2300 L6700E 1050N 4500N 3450 L7200E 1000N 3000N 2000 L7700E 1100N 4700N 3600 L8200E 1250N 4700N 3450 L8700E 2600N 4900N 2300 L9200E 1150N 4900N 3750 L9750E 2400N 4900N 2500

L10400E 1600N 4900N 3300 L10950E 1900N 4900N 3000 L11500E 3000N 4900N 1900 L12100E 2000N 4700N 2700 L13200E 1850N 4700N 2850 L14200E 1700N 4700N 3000 L14900E 1700N 4700N 3000

TOTAL 60.60 km

Table III: Geco East-MT Survey Coverage (Electrode to Electrode).

2.9 INSTRUMENTATION

• Receiver System: Quantec Distributed Array Acquisition System, comprising: - 61channels max. per system (55ch operationally with internal A/D conversion (24bit @120db / dual speed @120-48kHz), and buffer memory (6Mb). 22 x 2-channel Acquisition Modules (AMs) 17 x 1-channel Acquisition Modules (Ams) AM data transmission using LAN cabling

- 2 Central Recording Units (CRU), at base & remote (MT surveys) reference sites (140Gb data storage) - 2 GPS synchronization clocks (10nsec precision /12.3MHz clock-speed), at base & remote (MT surveys) CPU’s - 2 PC-based Central Processing Units (base & remote)

• Transmitter (DCIP Surveys): ZONGE GGT-10 (10kW) with frequency/waveform control, using CPU, and Current Monitor (CM)

• Power Supply (DCIP Surveys): Westinghouse Alternator (30 KVA @ 400 Hz / 220V / 3 phases) with Kolher Command 25 engine (25 HP / 2cyl) and Zonge VR-1 voltage regulator.


• Receiver Electrodes: Ground contacts using stainless steel rods

• Transmit electrodes 4 x 1.2cm diameter 1meter long stainless steel rods. • Receiver Coils (MT Surveys): 3 EMI model BF-7 and 1 EMI BF-4 (100sec to 600Hz),

2 at base - 2 at remote 4 EMI model BF-6 (10Hz to 20kHz) magnetometers (Hx-Hy), 2 at remote and 2 at base.


2.10 PARAMETERS

2.10.1 DCIP Surveys

• Transmitter Waveform: 30/256 Hz square waves at 100% duty cycle (~4sec Pos./Neg.)

• Transmitter Output Current: 0.2 amperes to 5.0 amperes

• Receiver Sampling Speed: 240 samples/second (24 bit A/D @ 120 db dynamic range)

• Tx-Rx Synchronization: using current monitor (10 μsec time-accuracy)

• Time-Series Stacking: 20 cycles (full-waveform)

• Read Time: 2.5 minutes per event

• Integration Start Time: TO 0.8 seconds

• Post-Processing: using QGL QuickLayTM v.2.3 1) Time-series stacking 2) Robust statistics 3) Current waveform deconvolution 4) Digital filtering (60Hz + harmonics) 5) Spectral model decay-curve fitting

• Spectral Chargeability Model4: Halverson-Wait (see Figure 4)

Figure 4: Example of Decay and Calculated Halverson-Wait Decays5

4 The Halverson-Wait model chargeability (Halverson et al., 1981) is similar to and improves upon the frequency-domain Cole-Cole model (Pelton et el., 1978) described in the time-domain by Johnson (1984).



• Time-Domain Decay Window: TO to TF= 800 to 2500 milliseconds

• Final Data Output: 1) Normalized voltage (volts/ampere) 2) Voltage error (percent) 3) Phase (milliradians) 4) Phase error (milliradians) 5) Apparent Resistivity (Ωm).

2.10.2 MT Surveys

• Frequency Bandwidth: Operating: 0.01 to 48000 Hz Effective: 0.1 to 20000 Hz

• Time-series Sampling: High Range: 48000 samples/sec Mid-Range: 9600 samples/sec Low Range: 240 samples/sec.

• Remote-Base Synchronization: GPS clocks (10μsec time-accuracy)

• Time-Series Stacking: High Range: 1,534,999 samples Mid-Range: 2020 (1,048,576) samples Low Range: 219 (524,288) samples

• Sample/Record Time: High Range: min. 4 events @ 30 seconds per event Mid Range: min. 2 events @ 2.5 minutes per event Low Range: 1.5 events @ 80 minutes for a full event (total recording and retrieving time approx. 5 to 7 hours)

• Post-Processing: using QGL QuickLayTM v.2.3 1) Coherent noise rejection using remote-reference 2) Proprietary digital filtering (scrubbing) 3) Coherency sorting 4) Impedance estimate stacking

• Final Data Output: 1) Auto and cross-power spectral estimates 2) Unrotated (XY & YX) Tensor impedances + errors (apparent resistivities and E/H phase – see Figure 5).

• Final Data Processing: Edited and un-edited phase & resistivity sounding curves (0.1-10000 Hz @ 8 pts/decade) using GeotoolsTM.

5 HW model parameters calculated in frequency domain, with hatched green lines corresponding to theoretical HW decay with spec-tral r-factors of 0.1, 1.0 (default) & 10, k-factor of 0.2 (default).


4 3 2 1 0 -1 -20

1

2

3

4

5

6Apparent Resistivity ex1450

LOG

RH

O (O

HM

-M)

LOG Frequency (Hz)RhoXY RhoYX

4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2

-180

-135

-90

-45

0

45

90

135

180Phase ex1450

PH

AS

E A

NG

LE (D

EG

)

LOG Frequency (Hz)PhsXY PhsYX Figure 5: Example of Apparent Resistivity and Phase (XY and YX) Sounding Curves.

2.11 DATA ACCURACY AND REPEATABILITY

2.11.1 DCIP Surveys

ERROR TYPE PHASE ERRORS VOLTAGE ERRORS 1. Measured Data6/ average error (from csv files) using

Halverson-Wait model calculation. 0.105 mrad avg

(92%) 0.000128 mV/V avg

(99.7%) 2. Data presentation/ minimum acceptable error < 10 mrad < 10%

Table IV: Minimum Errors for DCIP Measurements

• Processor Comments: The DC and IP data quality is generally good. In rocky terrain the amount of current injected in the ground was usually below 0,5 A, contributing to noisier decays, especially for receivers located further away from the transmitting site. (pers. comm. E. Meade, November 2006).

6 Measured IP errors were calculated using 92% of the measured data (11093 points). Data having phase errors >10% was dis-missed. Measured Vp errors were calculated using 99.7% of the measured data (11093 points). Data having Vp errors >1% was dismissed.



1.11.2 MT Surveys

• Parallel Sensor Test: Test for BF-6 (High to Mid Frequency Range) see Figure 6. Test for BF-4 (Low Frequency Range) see Figure 7.

• Data Error: Apparent Resistivity = <1/20TH decade average. Phase = <3 degrees average.

• Inversion Error: 1/20TH decade, minimum acceptable.

Figure 6: Example of Time Series taken from Parallel Sensor Test (BF-6)

Figure 7: Example of Time Series taken from Parallel Sensor Test (BF-7 and BF-4)




2.12

• Processor Comments: In general the quality of the raw MT data is good. For several lines the LF signal amplitude was poor between 0.09 and 0.3 Hz, resulting in noisy data points. Due to equipment problems, station Ex1950N (the most southern station) on Line 12100E wasn’t collected. The signal amplitude in the high frequencies was good for the length of the project, and the related high frequency data can be considered of a good quality (pers. comm. S. Scappin, November 2006).

DATA PRESENTATION

2.12.1 DCIP Surveys • Pseudosection Plots: In-line7 DC/IP Resistivity and Chargeability

Pseudosections, posted, contoured (equal area zoning) and plotted in ground units using Quick-Lay viewer (Appendix C).

• Digital Raw Data: Raw Event Log File Folders (i.e. Event10001 – 0012.dat). Also contains AU.txt and Event.log files, which contain information on the location and time of the event in QuickLay propriety digital format (output to Matlab format upon request).

Processed data: DCIP ASCII DATA, in .CSV (comma spaced variables) file format, from QuickLay, containing final processed voltage and phase data (Ex)

Line 1: Column headings

Column 1: Event name/number (e.g., Event100020) Column 2: Transmitter site ID (e.g., Tx150) Column 3: Receiver site ID (e.g., Rx150) Column 4-11: C1-C2/P1-P2 positions in X and Y meters) Column 12: Current (amperes) Column 13: Current error (amperes) Column 14: Normalized voltage (volts/ampere) Column 15: Voltage error (volts/ampere) Column 16: Phase (milliradians) Column 17: Phase error (milliradians) Column 18: Apparent resistivity (ohm-metres)8.

7 Note: Cross-line (YX) values not shown for presentation purposes. 8 Note: Apparent resistivities calculated in 2d space using 4-electrode general array configuration (as per XY electrode positioning in columns 4-11 of csv file) – not based on pole-dipole calculations (K. Nurse, QGL, pers. comm., 07-2004).



1.12.2 MT Surveys

• Sounding Curves: MT Apparent Resistivity and Phase (xy and yx) (Appendix D) in log frequency format, using GeotoolsTM viewer.

• Pseudosection Plots: MT Apparent Resistivity and Phase Pseudosections (XY, and YX), posted, contoured (equal area zoning) and plotted, in ground units using GeotoolsTM viewer Appendix E).

• Digital: Raw data: Base and Remote Raw Event Log File Folders (i.e. Base - Event10001 – 0012.dat; Remote Event 0012 – 0034.dat). Also contains AU.txt and Event.log files, which contain information on the location and time of the event in QuickLay propriety digital format (output to Matlab format upon request).

Processed data: MT DATA, in .EDI (electronic data interchange) file, created in GeotoolsTM containing tensor sounding data (XY & YX)9, for individual stations (sites) and profiles (site-sets), in a format conforming to SEG standard for the storage MT data.

9 XY denotes in-line electrical (E) field and orthogonal magnetic (H) field (Ex/Hy). YX denotes in-line H field and orthogonal E-field (Ey/Hx).


APPENDIX D

INSTRUMENT SPECIFICATIONS

REF TEK – 120 Data Acquisition System Acquisition Module (AM)

SPECIFICATIONS

Physical

Size: ♦ 267 x 248 x 184 mm ♦ 10.5 x 9.75 x 7.25 in.

Weight: ♦ 3.7kg ♦ 305 g ♦ 8 lbs (2-Channels maximum weight))

Temperature: ♦ -40°C to 60°C operating range. Environmental: ♦ Operates in 1m of water without leaking for 48 hours.

♦ Airtight to 1.0 psi. Shock: ♦ Remains operational after 1m drop (any corner) onto cement floor.

Connectors Line A & Line B: ♦ A pair of identical 10 pin U77/U style connectors.

♦ Each connector provides 3 pairs of lines (+): ⎯ A (+)/B (-) Receive telemetry data and/or commands ⎯ C (+)/D (-) Transmit telemetry data and/or commands ⎯ E (+)/F (-) Sync

Power: ♦ PTO7A12-8S style connector. ♦ Provides input +12 VDC supplied from battery.

Sensor: ♦ PU283/U style connector. ♦ Provides for a direct connection from the AM to the sensor.

Power Requirements Battery: ♦ Two 12 volt lead acid battery (7 Ah).

Signal Input Input Impedance: ♦ 10 megohms, 330pF, differential

Broadband Dynamic Range:

♦ 130dB (noise power ratio test @ 125 sample per second [sps])

ADC Type: ♦ Delta-sigma modulation Sample Rage: ♦ Multiple 50 to 48,000 Gain Settings: ♦ Four – programmable for 1, 4, 16 and 64.

24-Bit High Speed A/D

24-Bit Low Speed A/D Gain

Actual Reported Actual Reported

1 1.192μV 78.12mV 1.907μV 125.0mV

4 298.0nV 19.53mV 476.8nV 31.25mV

16 74.51nV 4.883mV 119.2nV 7.812mV

Sensor Input Signal Range:

64 18.63nV 1.221mV 29.80nV 1.953mV

CA00443T – January, 2007 Appendix D1


Data Storage

Data Size: ♦ 32-bit two’s compliment. Base Memory: ♦ 128K EPROM

♦ 6.5Mb SRAM Base Capacity: ♦ Better than 1.5 million samples or approximately 3 hours 10 minutes continuous

data @ 125 sps. AM Telemetry

Protocol: ♦ Full duplex synchronous data link control (SDLC). Error Correction: ♦ Packet acknowledge with modulo 8 sliding window.

Speed ♦ 3.072Mb/second Encoding: ♦ Bi-phase pulse = 1, missing pulse = 0

Line Impedance: ♦ 100 Ohm Synchronization

Timing: ♦ Each AM on-line is timed and synchronized for simultaneous sampling within + 1.50 μsecond.

Protection Electrical Protection: ♦ Line A and Line B signals circuits are protect by:

⎯ A surge arrestor located on the RT514 board (SS1-14). ⎯ A line isolation transformer located on the RT514 board (T1-6) with over-

voltage diodes (D1-4) on both sides of each secondary windings. State-of-Health

Information Provided: ♦ The AM reports information on battery status, clock setting, gain setting, calibration mode and the communications link.

ACQUISITION PARAMETERS Acquisition parameters include the sample rate, transmitter frequency and number of samples desired. The operator can also determine whether the AMs calibration signal is activated during data collection. In typical use, the acquisition parameters are set according to the specific application configuration and event type. For each event type, several recording sessions are made, each at a different transmitter frequency and sample rate. The recording period is set based on event type and transmitter frequency. The listing below shows several examples of event type, typical transmitter frequency (Hz), sample rates (with applicable ADC resolution) and the corresponding number of samples (record period).

Event Type Transmit Frequency Sample Rate ADC Resolution Number of Sample Geophysical Response 375 Hz 48,000 24 124,032 Gain Test 375 48,000 24 65,536 Geophysical Response 75 9,600 24 130,176 Gain Test 75 9,600 24 65,536 Geophysical Response 25/8 3,200 24 139,264 Gain Test 25/8 3,200 24 32,768 Sensor Impedance N/A 1,600 24 8,704 Ambient Noise N/A 1,600 24 8,192 Geophysical Response 25/128 800 24 147,456 Gain Test 25/128 800 24 16,384 Geophysical Response 25/2048 100 24 212,992 Gain Test 25/256 100 24 4,096 Gain Test N/A 50 24 4,096 Geophysical Response N/A 50 24 65,536



SENSOR CALIBRATION

The AM can source a 12.5Hz, 50μA signal to the sensor input for measuring the source impedance of the attached sensor. The user can also specify frequency in amplitude of calibration signal.

TELEMETRY CABLE

The telemetry cable is a Category V specification cable and is supplied by the customer.

SAMPLE RATES

The following table shows all available sample rates, based on a 12.288 Mhz oscillator. A 24-bit resolution ADC is used for sample rates 48000 through 4800 and a 24-bit resolution ADC is used for sample rates 3200 and below. The correct ADC is selected automatically by the AM, based on the sample rate.

Typically, different sample rates and transmitter frequencies are used in 50 Hz and 60 Hz power environments to minimize AC power effects on the data. In the table, the shaded areas indicate the sample rates typically used in a 60 Hz power environment. A few rates are typically used in both environments.

Sample Rate Power Line 48000 50 & 60 24000 50 & 60 19200 60 16000 50 12000 50 & 60 9600 50 & 60 6400 50 4800 60 3200 50 1920 60 1600 50 960 60 800 50 480 60 400 50 240 60 200 50 120 60 100 50 60 60 50 50 60/2 60 50/2 50 60/4 60 50/4 50 60/8 60 50/8 50 60/16 60 50/16 50 60/32 60 50/32 50



APPENDIX C


EMI – ELECTROMAGNETIC INSTRUMENTS INC. – BERKELEY, CA

BF-4 Series Magnetic Sensors

Specifications

BF-4 Magnetic Field Induction Sensor

Features

• High sensitivity

• Very low noise

• Magnetic feedback design

• Chopper stabilized amplifier for best low frequency performance

• Ruggedized and waterproof

• Light weight and compact design

• Low power consumption (290 mW)

• Stable phase response

Applications

• Geophysical surveys: MT, AMT, CSAMT, MMR, MIP, CSEM

• Marine surveys

• Atmospheric studies

• Earthquake studies

• High accuracy magnetic field studies Options

• Marine connector for underwater applications


http://www.emiinc.com/index.html

http://www.emiinc.com/personnel.html

http://www.emiinc.com/magnetic.html

http://www.emiinc.com/mt.html

http://www.emiinc.com/marine.html

http://www.emiinc.com/customer.html

http://www.emiinc.com/findus.html


BF-4 Noise Spectrum

BF-4 Frequency Response

The BF-4 sensor design utilizes a magnetic feedback design to provide a stable flat respose over several decades of frequency. The sensors respond as a B field detector over the flat band regions. Both the amplitude and phase responses are highly stable with variations of less than 0.1 dB in amplitude and +/- 1 degree in phase between sensors. For the frequencies below the flat response region the sensor response is proportional to signal frequency so that the sensor acts as a dB/dt detector. The coil is sealed in epoxy inside a rugged impact resistant Nema G-10 fiberglass tube. A matched low-noise preamplifier is connected to the coil inside the waterproof case and is powered from the connector using a nearby +/- 12V power supply.

Technical Specifications

PERFORMANCE

Frequency Range: 0.0001 to 1000 Hz 3 dB frequency corners: 0.2 Hz, 500 Hz Sensitivity (flat region): 0.3 V/nT (standard) Power consumption: 12 mA at +/- 12V



MECHANICAL Case style: Nema G-10 Straight Tube Length: 142 cm (56 in.) Diameter: 6 cm (2.4 in.) Weight: 7.9 Kg (17.4 Lbs) Connector: 8 pin Waterproof Tajimi

For further information please contact [email protected] Copyright ©1997-2001 ElectroMagnetic Instruments, Inc. Last modified: March, 2001


mailto:[email protected]


APPENDIX C


EMI – ELECTROMAGNETIC INSTRUMENTS INC. – BERKELEY, CA

BF-6 Series Magnetic Sensors

SPECIFICATIONS

BF-6 Magnetic Field Induction Sensor

Features

• High sensitivity

• Very low noise

• Magnetic feedback design

• Ruggedized and waterproof

• Light weight and compact design • Low power consumption (210 mW)

• Stable phase response

Applications

• Geophysical surveys: MT, AMT, CSAMT, MMR, MIP, CSEM,

TSHMT, Stratagem™

• Marine surveys

• Earthquake studies

• High accuracy magnetic field studies


http://www.emiinc.com/index.html

http://www.emiinc.com/personnel.html

http://www.emiinc.com/magnetic.html

http://www.emiinc.com/mt.html

http://www.emiinc.com/marine.html

http://www.emiinc.com/customer.html

http://www.emiinc.com/findus.html


Options

• Marine connector for underwater applications BF-6 Noise Spectrum

BF-6 Frequency Response

The BF-6 sensor design utilizes a magnetic feedback design to provide a stable flat response over several decades of frequency. The sensors respond as a B field detector over the flat band regions. Both the amplitude and phase responses are highly stable with variations of less than 0.1 dB in amplitude and +/- 1 degree in phase between sensors. For the frequencies below the flat response region the sensor response is proportional to signal frequency so that the sensor acts as a dB/dt detector. The coil is sealed in epoxy inside a rugged impact resistant ABS tube. A matched low-noise preamplifier is connected to the coil inside the waterproof case and is powered from the connector using a nearby +/- 12V power supply.

Technical Specifications

PERFORMANCE

Frequency Range: 1 Hz to 25 kHz or 1 Hz to 100 kHz 3 dB frequency corners: 10 Hz, 25kHz or 10 Hz, 100 kHz Sensitivity (flat region): 0.3 V/nT (standard) Power consumption: 9 mA at +/- 12V



MECHANICAL

Case style: High Impact ABS Straight Tube Length: 73 cm (29 in.) Diameter: 5 cm (2 in.) Weight: 1.7 Kg (3.7 Lbs) Connector: 8 pin Waterproof Tajimi

For further information please contact [email protected] Copyright ©1997-2001 ElectroMagnetic Instruments, Inc. Last modified: March, 2001


mailto:[email protected]


CA00443T – January, 2007 Appendix E1

APPENDIX E: TITAN INVERSION RESULTS

This appendix contains a description on how the TITAN DCIP and MT data was pre-processed and inverted, as well as an outline on the inversion results for each individual model, including QC/QA remarks. 2D DCIP Data Preprocessing:

For the inversions, the raw data was edited, including adjustment of data errors and removal of poor quality data, allowing the program to reach appropriate model misfits and consistent inversion models. The edition and preprocessing of the datasets included:

1. Filtering the raw data1 using the DCIPSuper.exe program with the following “Quantec2” input parameters:

• All the negative Vp values were excluded

• All the high resistivity values were included

• Small apparent resistivity values were excluded

• All the high phase values where included

• All low phase values were included

• High Vp errors were included

• High phase errors were included

• Big apparent resistivity limit: 100 000 Ohm.meters

• Small apparent resistivity limits: 0.001 Ohm.meters

• Big phase limit: 100 mrads

• Small phase limit: 0 mrads

2. Exclusion of the data points (for both the voltage and phase) with Vp errors higher than 5%.

3. Exclusion of negative phase data points (for the phase file only)

4. Exclusion of data points with phase errors >10mrads (for the phase file only).

5. Errors of 0.5 mrads were added to the final phase data files for inversions.

1 Raw data contained in the digital *.csv files. 2 Quality Control Process passes all data thru except dipoles straddling current electrodes.



2D DCIP Unconstrained Inversions: The DC Resistivity and IP unconstrained inversion models were calculated using the UBC DCInv2DTM 2D3 algorithm (Oldenburg & Li, 1994) and

IPView-IIC4 platform.

Multiple unconstrained inversion models were produced in order to arrive at the final 2D inversion models. Smooth inversions were executed for both, the DC resistivity and IP datasets. The smooth DC and IP inversion models were derived from setting the chi5 factor to NULL. The αs6, αx and αy7 parameters were set to default (NULL). The data was further edited as necessary to achieve convergence with a final resulting chi factor of 1 or less.

Sharp inversions were produced for the IP data only. The final sharp IP inversion models8 were derived from adjusting the chi factor in the range from 1 to 0.5, including using the program’s default (NULL). The αs parameter was set to 0.001; the αx and αy parameters were entered as the pro-gram’s defaults (1).

A set of IP inversion models was derived assuming a homogenous half-space (conductivity distribution set to NULL). These models (calculated ap-parent chargeability distribution) were useful for defining and/or improving the interpretation of the chargeability models when the resulting IP inversions were extremely distorted by incorporating a DC resistivity model of conductive overburden over high resistivity basement (host rocks). 2D MT Data Preprocessing:

The initial data input into the Geotools database were line-station data, taken directly from the EDI archive9. The raw impedance tensor data span the 0.1 to 10000 Hz bandwidth, with a data density of approximately 8 points per decade.

Data points with high noise levels were removed from the Apparent Resistivity and Phase curves prior to the inversions. In some cases, low fre-quency data <1 Hz was not included in the inversion due to low signal-to-noise. High frequency (>1 kHz) phase data, not consistent with the resistivity data, was also not included.

1D MT Inversions: One-dimensional (1D) inversions for each mode (XY and YX) of the processed data were generated for each site using the Occam 1D algorithm

(Constable, S.C., R.L. Parker, and C.G. Constable, 1987). 1D inversion is used to make interpretative decisions about how to “best” fit the data, and ensure that the apparent resistivity and phase are smooth and consistent. The calculated apparent resistivities and phases from the 1D models are then interpolated to obtain 12 frequency responses per decade.

Stitched 1D Determinant sections were also created.

2D MT Unconstrained Inversions: 3 UBC-Geophysical Inversion Facility (GIF): Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of British Columbia. 4 IPView: Version 2.1.5 beta (Industrial imaging Co., Inc.); Written by B. Petrick and Licensed to Quantec Geoscience Ltd. 5 The chi parameter controls the inversion misfit. 6 The αs parameter controls the degree of closeness between the constructed model and the initial model. 7 The αx and αy parameters control the horizontal and vertical smoothness of the model respectively. 8 The inversion models presented in this report are the most consistent models according to the degree of association with the DC and MT results and the available geological information. Additional inversion models are available in the Digital Archive attached to this Interpretation Report. 9 Data Archive contained within “Geophysical Survey Logistics Report- Project QG344; Written by: Julia Milne, E. Data & J.M.Legault. June, 2005 and “Geophysical Survey Logistics Report- Project QG380” Written by: P. Morales, J. Milne, E. Data, J.Donohue and W. Qian. June, 2005.



The MT inverse models were calculated using the GeotoolsTM MT processing and model-inversion platform. Several MT 2D-PW inversions were generally run using different starting models (“RLM” smooth models and Stitched 1D Determinant sections), as well as different combinations of the data (TM phase, TM resistivity, TE phase and TE resistivity) before arriving at the final 2D models. “RLM” smooth models were constructed using the conjugate gradient algorithm (Rodi & Mackie, 2001). The inversion parameters for the Smooth “RLM” models used a maximum of 100 iterations, Tau set to 3, and a noise floor of 5%.

The PW inversion mesh parameters used 50 single rows, and a regularization width/depth ratio of 0.1. The finite element and regularization meshes were constructed using frequencies at 10k, 1k, 100, 10 and 0.1 Hz, a column width of 40-50m (for smooth and PW, inversions respectively), 100 rows maximum and a minimum row-thickness of 10m. The MT inversion models were calculated using the interpolated resistivity and phase curves, in the 10kHz to 0.1Hz bandwidth, assuming a 5% error for the resistivity and 3 degrees for the phase, at 4 to 6 equi-spaced frequencies per decade.

Fourth different PW models were derived as follow:

1. PWUR1 Unrotated Unconstrained Inversion 2D Models: Unrotated PW inversions derived from inverting the 1D fit interpolated data, with no further edition and/or rotation of the principal components. The starting RLM smooth model inversions were constructed using TM (phase + resistivity) and TE (phase) data.

2. PWUR2 Unrotated Unconstrained Inversion 2D Models: Unrotated inversions derived from inverting the 1D fit interpolated data, with no fur-ther edition and/or rotation of the principal components. The starting RLM smooth models for the unrotated inversions were constructed us-ing TM (phase + resistivity) and TE (phase + resistivity) data.

3. PWDET1 Unrotated Unonstrained Inversion 2D Models: Unrotated inversions derived from inverting the raw data, with no further edition and/or rotation of the principal components. The starting models for the PW Inversions were constructed from the Stitched 1D Determinant sections. For these inversions TM (phase + resistivity) and TE (phase) datasets were used.

4. PWDET2 Unrotated Unonstrained Inversion 2D Models: Unrotated inversions derived from inverting the raw data, with no further edition and/or rotation of the principal components. The starting models for the PW Inversions were constructed from the Stitched 1D Determinant models. For these inversions TM (phase + resistivity) and TE (phase + resistivity) datasets were used.

References regarding other inversion models are available at “Appendix I-Digital Archive”. It is useful to review the actual data input into the 2D inversions and all the raw data, which is available in the Project Logistical Report submitted previously10.

Only the final models of the inversion results are shown in this appendix. Note that the inversion models presented in this appendix are not always derived from the final iteration of the inversion program.

10 Geophysical Survey Logistics Report- Project CA00443T; Written by: E. Meade, E. Martinez, P. Edwards, J. Donohue & J.M.Legault. December, 2006.



Line L1250E

L1250E: 2D DC & IP Unconstrained Inversion Results with Observed Data and Calculated Models.

ToFil (ohm-m)

Smooth Resistivity Inversion

- 925m

Ca/cu/aled ToFil (mrad)

Smooth IP Chargeability Inversion

2D IP Chargeabi/ily Model (mi'iradians)

• I " " - " - "

I" .. " " ,~



L1250E: Raw MT (TM & TE) Frequency Profiles



L1250E: 2D MT Unrotated Raw Data (left) and Stitched 1D Models (right)



L1250E: 2D-PW Resistivity Inversion Models



Line L1750E



c-__ o ... _

ToFil (ohm-m)

- 925m

• • ~ lg

- " _ 1l~

I;: " ,



Line L2700E




Line L3250E


Smooth Resistivity Inversion Smooth IP Chargeabi#ity Inversion .-.... __ ... -

• ." " - " _ u

I:, " " ,

• •

. '" - " - '"

I:', " ·'S7m



Line L4050E


c-__ o •• _

Gal""latod ,.~ ,.,."



Line L4700E


ObHrvod lJiJta (0111 .... ")

,.~

(olliff.,..)

• I " " - " - "

I;: " " '.



Line L5200E


• ." ~ " - " -"

I" " .. " -

.. 1_" " "

• •

• "$ - " _ lIS

I;: "



Line L5700E


To Fit (ohm-m)

I" " " " O~



Line L6200E


Observed DaTa (oIIm-~

To Fit (ohm-m)

iJl.I',~!N!Leabilily Model (milliradians)

• I " " - " - "

I" " " " ,~

• . " '"' .. - " _ 9.4

I" " " " ,~



Line L6700E


Smooth Resistivity Inversion Smooth IP Chargeability Inversion

~--""'-

2D fP Chargeability Model (millirildia~

, ... _--- , ... _ .. -' (1'1) ';00 "'" ,,'" 'Ii'll "'" '''''' "'" """ """ '"'" """ """ """ " '" "'" """,...,,,.., 31m '"'" <2Ol ',", ~m'" ~.r-;;;-...,

• . " " - " - "

I:: " ..

I" " " .. ,q



Line L7200E


I :~ '"'" ,,~

"~ - ",. ., '"

" .... ."~

'"'" ,,~

"~ - ",. ., '"

c.bJoIed IP O«a

C.kulifted To Fit (mfild)

" " " - " _94

r " " " "m

" " - " _94

I;: 18

"



Line L7700E


Smooth Rttsistivity Invttrsion Smooth IP Chargeability Inversion

• . " " - "

." " - " -"

I:: " " .~



Line L8200E


Resistivity Inversion IP Chargeability Inversion

- . ,.. -

•



Line L8700E


,-mro ,m, ". no ,~

~

m

CalclMied IPD ...

To Fit (mrad)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i?~Mh,~/~ Model (milliradiilns)

." " - " _ 9.1

." " - "



Line L9200E



- Om - Om



Line L9750E


Observed DaTa (oIIm-~

To Fit (ohm-m)

DaTa (mra~

CaIokted IP Dot.

Calculated -'!!..!l!L-j To Fit

(mrad)

· . . . . . . · . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

~t!f1plf!fllJN~ity Model (milliradians)

"

I" " " " ,~

" ." " - " - "

" ID ~ 175 - " _ 12.5

I" " , " ~



Line L10400E



E .... ___ _

• . " ~ " - " - "

I" .. .. "

• . " ~ " - " - "

I" .. .. " OM

·Om ~~



Line L10950E



-I::':.' ,~ ". '" - '" - ~

iII ~


To Fit (mrad)

I" " " " O~

• If' " - " - " r " " " ,~



Line L11500E


ObseNed DaTa (oIIm-~

Calculated ToF;I (ohm-m)

Cok:I.Ioled IP Oata

Calculated ToF;I (mrad)

" ." " - " - " " " " "

" " " - "

_ 9, ~

n

" " "




L11500E - 2D 1IfT'_arslon_s 2D PW Resistivity Model (ohm-m)

Starting model: Stitched 1 D Determinant

2D PW Resistivity Model (ohm-m)

model: rlm1 TM

,,,,d.t! 2_D Mo dol

0'. -.

'" '" -,. ,-''' ' "" - , ,-,-""" " '" - " ,~

.wud

0'. -.

'" '" -,. ,-''' ' "" - , ,-,-""" " '" - " ,~



Line L12100E



I" " '" " .~

• . " '"' '' - " - "

I:: " " .~

• • ~ tl ~

- " - ,.~

~o:




L12100E - 2D lIfT'm, • .,slrl.n_s 2D PW Resistivity Model (ohm-m) 2D PW Resistivity Model (ohm-m)

Starting model: Stitched 1 D Determinant Starting model: r/m1 TM (Et1§+BlJg) & TE (E/:1§)

0'0_. 0'0_.

,. ,. '" '" '" " c - -" .. .. w

0 ,- ,-''' ' ''' ' , "" ""

" - , - , , ,- .-,- ,-""" """ " '" " '" -" -" ,~ .~

" "



Line L13200E


L 13200E - USC 2D uc.",.'n .... rslon Resufts


2D DC Resist ivity Model (oIIm-~

." r, " - " - "

I:: " " O~

,

[ ...... odoIIPS_ .~'"' '."1-~-~ ------------=-----'" • - I - - - -

~ .




L13200E - 2D lIfT'm, • .,slrl.n_s 2D PW Resistivity Model (ohm-m) 2D PW Resistivity Model (ohm-m)

Starting model: Stitched 1 D Determinant Starting model: rlm1 TM (Et1§+BlJg) & TE (EtlJ)

" " p .. d.t2 p .. u,2

0'0_. 0'0_.

,. ,. '" '" '" '" c - c -" ,. " ,.

w w 0 ,- 0 ,-

''' ' ''' ' , ""

, ""

" - , " - , , ,-,- , ,-,-."' '' ."' '' "'" "'" -" -" ,~ ,~



Line L14200E


To Fit (ohm-m)

, ,


To Fit (mrad)

E""'_IP_


U • L I :- '. '

" " " " '" " " "

" '" " '"




L f;f2OG£ - 2D lIT I.""rsIoa Ma4eIs 2D PW Resislivify Model (ohm-m) 2D PW Resislivify Model (ohm-m)

model: Stitched 1 D DetelTll;nant Stan;ng model: rlm1 TM (EbJ+BlJQ) & TE rEtW

-... ., - c - " - , "" " ." -, " _. " - , "". .,. _. _.

-... ., c - c " - " , - , " "" " ." • -, " " _. , 0 -"". .,,, _. _.

._- .0-m

, . , . ,,, ,. •• ,-,., "" ,., • • • ,,." '" . , .. • ••

.... -. ,. '" ,,, .. •• ,-"', "" .., ••• ,-"''' '" . , .. • ••

m



Line L14900E



. '

• •


2D II' Chargeability Model (millirad;'T15)

• . " '" " - " - "

I;: " " .~

I" " " " .~




L f4fJOG£ - 2D lIT I.""rsIoa MfIfIeIs 2D PW Resislivily Model (ohm-m)

Stan;ng model: Stitched 1 D Detel11l;nant 2D PW Resislivily Model (ohm-m)

S"on;n. model: rlm1 TM

_. .......

' ''' -. ,. ,. ,,, , . •• ,,., "" ,. , ••• ,, .. '" . , .. •• •

' ''' -. ,. ,. ,,, , . •• ,,., "" ,. , ••• ,, .. '" . , .. •••


CA00443T – January, 2007 Appendix F1

APPENDIX F. LIST OF SECTIONS AND PLAN MAPS1

TITAN 2D CROSS-SECTIONS

PAGE MAP TYPE Drawing Name (Line#maptype.map)

G1 Line 1250E – Unconstrained PW 2D MT Inversion L1250E_pwdet1_it22_UTM.map

G2 Line 1250E – Unconstrained UBC Smooth 2D DC Resistivity L1250E_smDC_UTM.map

G3 Line 1250E – Unconstrained (Smooth) UBC 2D IP Inversion L1250E_smIP_nullcon_UTM.map



G6 Line 1750E – Unconstrained (Smooth) UBC 2D IP Inversion L1750E_smIP_ UTM.map






G12 Line 3250E – Unconstrained (Sharp) UBC 2D IP Inversion L3250E_shIP_nullcon_UTM.map









G21 Line 5200E – Unconstrained (Sharp) UBC 2D IP Inversion L5200E_shIP _UTM.map












G33 Line 7200E – Unconstrained (Sharp) UBC 2D IP Inversion L7200E_shIP_UTM.map

1 Appendix F “List of Sections and Plan Maps” includes the final inversion models presented in the interpretation report only. For details on other inversion models refer to Appendix I “Digital Archive”. All section maps are grouped and archived (see Appendix I “ Digital Archive”) in separated folders according to their line numbers.



TITAN 2D CROSS-SECTIONS (CONT…)










G42 Line 8700E – Unconstrained (Sharp) UBC 2D IP Inversion L8700E_shIP_ UTM.map






























DEPTH LEVEL PLAN MAPS


G70 2D RESISTIVITY PLAN MAP (Z=100m) - UNCONSTRAINED PW 2D MT INVERSION PW-DET1 MT at 100m depth.map

G71 2D RESISTIVITY PLAN MAP (Z=100m / Smooth Model) - UNCONSTRAINED UBC 2D DC INVERSION smDC_at_100m_depth.map

G72 2D CHARGEABILITY (Z=100m/Sharp Model) – UNCONSTRAINED UBC 2D IP INVERSION shIP_nullcon_at_100m_depth.map








INTERPRETATION PLAN MAPS


G80 2D DCIP & MT INTERPRETATION-COMPILATION PLAN MAP Interpretation Plan Map over 2D IP at

250m depth.map

Quantec Geoscience Ltd. Fax (416) 306 1949 Geophysical ... · Quantec Geoscience Ltd. 116 Spadina...

Documents

Transcript of Quantec Geoscience Ltd. Fax (416) 306 1949 Geophysical ... · Quantec Geoscience Ltd. 116 Spadina...