No they didn't miss the conductor the first time - at least they previously said they hit 15m of pyrrhotite in granulite sufficient to explain the anomaly.
So now they've got a well defined off-hole conductor with minor conductive responses as the probe has passed down through the conductive intervals previously logged. All that is what you would expect if the conductor (pyrrhotite) extends down dip.
But they've left some chin-stroking for the casual observer. Firstly they now say the minor downhole responses correlate with disseminated pyrrhotite and graphite. In the previous news they said there was no graphite intercepted and they gave the impression (at least to me) that the pyrrhotite intercepted was sufficiently textured to throw off a decent anomaly. Then there is also some brow-scratching because the new off hole conductor dips in an awkward orientation to the hole. So did they drill the hole the wrong way, or is in fact the off-hole conductor not contiguously located down-dip from the already drilled conductor?
All this and more may or may not be answered in a follow-up hole. One more hole I guess and then any other off-holes can be left alone, unless of course they get a Ni/Cu strike.
BOA Price at posting:
15.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
