b'Discovery of the Havieron Au-Cu deposit, WAFeatureFigure 7.2.Model cross-section and profiles along line P2.Figure 8.Combined phase and scatter diagram.Green Body 3 plots on the 1 percent apparent magnetite contour and between the zero and 10 percent hematite + sulphide contours. Body 72 in Figure 7.3 and Body 64 in Figure 7.1 depict shallow mafic dykes with 0.2 percent magnetite that plot at the intersection of the dashed green Gabbro Line and the 0.2 percent (horizontal) magnetite contour.Numerical experimentsAs stated, numerical experiments on a given model are easily performed, and, illustrating other possibilities can sometimes lead to improved confidence in a model and even ameliorate the perceived element of risk.RemanenceAn early version of the model was nearing completion when the Figure 7.3.Model cross-section and profiles along line P3. notion of geological credibility provoked a rethink of the results that were emerging. Figure 9.1 shows the early model with body 3 having a clear southward dip. The magnetic model response (dotted blue) is an accurate simulation of the data (solid blue) indicating that the model is permitted by the magnetic data. However, careful attention to the shape of the modelled gravity response for the short wavelength peaks and troughs using small shallow bodies seemed to suggest that the overall gravity Figure 7.4.Model cross-section and profiles along line P4.the phase/scatter diagram (Figure 8), making the model more readable. For example, yellow-green Body 4 in Figure 6.1 plots on the Magnetite Line (the left-hand limit of the coloured area of the phase/scatter diagram shown in Figure 8), suggesting that for the rocks it represents the elevated density is due onlyFigure 9.1.Without magnetic remanence, the source of the magnetic to the inferred magnetite and not to any hematite + sulphideanomaly requires a shallow southward dip and yields a very slight systematic component. discrepancy in the gravity response.45 PREVIEW AUGUST 2022'