RE: Globules23 Aug 2021 07:59
It would likely be the downhole EM that would indicate whether the A-C corridor concept stands-up, which ideally would be done from both targets A and C. It makes sense to go for B next though because in relative terms, the company is only doing a small amount of drilling, so have try and find “the big one”. If 2nr holes are put in B, a choice can be made as to where any remaining holes are going to be, in order to show greatest potential deposit.
If the readings are very good are A and indicate the potential of an A-C corridor, the company would want to drill this now as it would be very attractive to a third party. Whereas if the data around both the holes in A are mixed, but B is outstanding, from KAV’s perspective, it would be better to put another couple of holes in B in order to further substantiate the concept. Even if both A and B produced positive results, I wouldn’t be surprised if the company just focussed on target B for the remainder of the drilling. It would be more cost effective and enable the company to package that area up independently (which BT has already indicated may happen). It can always go back to target C later down the line when it has more funding and vice versa with target B if the results aren’t outstanding.