Originally posted by Midnight26
Well if the strike length is kilometres (e.g. implied by the 6km long soil anomaly at Tres Estados) and the widths are 0.5-2km there's no reason why the depth extent won't be kilometres but with so much strike length to play with we won't be OP mining to more than a kilometre this century.
Hey Midnight,
I was just re-reading the posts, and being a bit slow,I think the point just struck:
-for this type of mineralization,the depth is proportional to the surface dimensions.
How frequent is this association and what sort of ratios are we looking at? A cuboid or a pyramid with us just drilling the apex of the pyramid.
Thinking Fosterville of course where most thought it "improbable" and the recent find in the NT although that was a different style of mineralization. So if we have great depth,should we expect the grade to increase also.We wouldn't expect to see this relationship on shallow cores,but would be interesting to see some really deep diamond drilling-but not at the expense of delayed mining the already massive implied resource.
I know that you have extensive knowledge in this area so would be grateful for your input on this specific point of surface area vs. depth, as it is crucial to us building a model for resource definition.I would expect the negative presenters to also give examples and not just say "it's impossible".
