RE: Seis14 Jun 2024 21:51
Seis, thanks for the link etc. The paper highlights (some of ) the issues using IP surveys and how careful you have to be in interpreting IP anomalies. So if the team believes that banging a hole in to the centre of the anomalies is going to find thick mineralisation, as the paper clearly shows, it isn't necessarily going to happen. One hopes the targeting has been done with full liaison with the geophysicists and any 'ghosting' issues have been resolved (possibly using the techniques described in the paper). Hopefully, as you point out, any mineralisation encountered might be at a shallower depth than might be interpreted by looking at the IP profile alone.
Only time and the drill programme will tell but it will require some very careful interpretation and some even more judiscious drilling.
I do think the targets are interesting though. Given the potential for density contrasts and the relatively flat terrain, I'm surprised no-one appears to have tried running a couple of shallow seismic profiles over the ground and geophysically logging the existing boreholes to try to build up a model that way (a possible orientation study)? Might be a bit expensive but then so is drilling (in the wrong place).
Seis, I think the work you've done compiling the published plans/maps and data is excellent and is a great help to investors who are also interested in the more technical / geological side of their investment. Is there any chance you could include a scale on the maps/ plans and then one could see in an instant, the relative size of the anomalies or interpreted mineralisation we are dealing with? Many thanks and GLA!
Sign In
Follow the stocks
