My intent is to next summarize things so far here written, just to make it that more certain that persevering readers have a firmer idea where I am going with all of this. Then I’ll move on from there, but right now things are getting very busy outside, what with increasing warmth, continuing rain, and longer daylight hours.
Next Sunday’s Walmart COVID test results permitting, I get to go with our eldest daughter and her kids on a lake canoeing trip later in that week. Once back from that, I’ll be cutting, drying (hopefully), and baling the first cutting of our first-ever (2020) Minnesota alfalfa planting. That done, all other things being in the interim unchanged, I’ll be then going back north to look at the rocks surrounding some old lake sediment geochem anomalies I identified last year as being particularly prospective for greenstone gold mineralization.1
To you in the US, I wish you a happy Memorial Day.
For those interested in such things, I used the general geochemical targeting systems model first explained and described here to make exploration sense of the public geochemical analyses of lake sediments much earlier taken by US Steel and the Minnesota Geological Survey. Training set was a compilation of similar public domain lake sediment geochemical analyses taken from a number of separate and contiguous areas containing Ontario’s greenstone gold deposits. My interpretive results of the Minnesota data set look pretty promising, and — fortunately — indicate the areas of highest greenfields gold exploration interest within Minnesota lie outside of the relatively large gold exploration work area more or less condemned by the now terminated Minnesota gold exploration work efforts of AngloGold Ashanti.