Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Following on from what Keith had said, rather than thinking of one method being likely to provide a higher reading than another, just look at it as gaining another perspective of the same area.
As Keith has rightly pointed out, in this particular case, due to the depth of the Kalahari cover there’s a chance that the TDEM may be faced with more resistance. However, if a DHEM was to come up against a high level of resistance, that one plain would make the prospect appear unappealing, which may not be an accurate representation of what’s in the area. Likelihood is that due to the proximity, DHEM will provide a consistent or higher reading. Having both the TDEM and DHEM however, gives a much more accurate representation of what is actually going on.
Similarly, it’s KAV’s use of various methods that I particularly like here. Keep in mind the size of the KSZ and just how small KAV is as a company (in relative terms). The use of TDEM’s is by far the most cost effective way to identify a target, which can then be verified by DHEM and core samples. In simplistic manner, the TDEM will find a target, the DHEM will verify the size of it and the core sample will confirm what is actually there. If the core samples from this drill campaign are positive, TDEM results in the future will be invaluable.
Thank you Keith......
Amazing if the Norilsk Theory Mike Moles seems to be standing by comes to fruition.....
Just imagine...... District Scale KSZ........ mining Friendly Botswana....
30 km Corridor....... I wonder if Spectral have some other high conductor targets for us..... ??
Exciting stuff.....
ATB
James - good question, not a simple answer! I'm sure that you appreciate that two different geophysical methods are being used. TDEM is a relatively new technique, and although Spectral are quite possibly the leading outfit using this, it needs fine-tuning for different geological settings. Since it is done from the surface, results are going to be obscured by the rock between surface and the hoped-for target. In our case we have 500m of different rock types including sandstones, shales, coal beds, volcanics and ultramafic intrusions. This needs some careful interpretation, and ideally calibration against alternative geophysical methods and of course examination of the actual rock from the drill core. You may recall that the initial TDEM results were also sent to 3 different independent experts for their input. This cross-calibration and evaluation is exactly what KAV are doing in this series of drills, with the intention of coming up with an accurate template for applying to identify new targets.
DHEM is a well-established technique, and is recognised as being very accurate - not only are you a lot closer to the target, without the intervening thickness of obscuring rock, but you can also run the scans at different depth, giving you a 3D view. I would not assume that you will get a higher reading the closer to a conductor - but it is reasonable to assume that it will be a more accurate conductance reading. Of course the big problem is that you need a borehole to begin with - which don't come cheap, especially if you are off-target.
One of the reasons I am so keen on KAV is that they are conducting cutting-edge evaluation technologies in a coordinated programme, with the aim of determining the most accurate and cost-effective way of identifying economic targets. They have recruited top people, and have a huge area of potentially the most prospective ground on the planet. By the end of this drill, we will know if this approach is successful or not and can be applied across the rest of the KS. If so, fasten your seat belt.
Sorry DHTEM data...might be a good idea when the desired depth is reached.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1081/22020586.2010.12041839
I was thinking about the Siemens readings for conductor B1.
The original reading was 8200 Siemens, then , after the dhem was conducted down to 350 metres, the reading was measured at 11000 Siemens.
So can we assume that a reading at the surface will always be lower than the true conductivity reading at depth. Also, do Siemens readings increase the nearer you get to the target ?
The target in target area A had a reading of 2500 / 3000 Siemens, so could this be higher?
I am asking this because going forward we will probably have many more Siemens readings reported for targets identified from tdem surveys.