AML'S announcements on drilling may be slow on the actual assays (6-8 weeks?) but there has been a significant flow of qualitative updates with visuals (including photos) and occasional estimates of sulphide percentages since drilling in April.
Perhaps this is the company's way of compensating for the actual/perceived slow assay turnaround.
I don't especially like selected visuals but those provided by AML, combined with sulphide estimates, give a very good idea of what the company is intersecting in drilling.
As logging geo estimating sulphide percentages is a normal practice. In addition I and colleagues have often played a "game" of guesstimating what grade the core assays are going to give as a bet of sorts. After awhile it can get down to the second decimal place for a specific deposit but that's after a learning process.
For the first hole in a prospect the accuracy is based on past experience and how well you can estimate mineral percentages for base metals in particular. [Gold, Ag and less obvious minerals are another matter].
After this first hole it becomes an iterative process - how far off was the estimate from the actual assay and, while the guess will always be that, there comes a level of confidence that it is often reasonable.
At Walford creek the "guessing game" is NOT easy but so far the companies occasional chalcopyrite (in particular) estimates have been reasonable if somewhat conservative.
IMO it is not to easy because any stimate, for example in 352, is a weighted average over (42m for 352) an interval of core where sulphides range from 0-100% over varying lengths. Within that there are also variable base metal sulphides (Chalcopyrite etc.). To date AML's estimates have been reasonable (IMO).
For Hole 352 I have underlined areas on the photo I would suspect are greater than 6% chalcopyrite (2%Cu) with some probably in the 15-20% Cp (5-7% Cu).
The copper +- cobalt content of the more massive pyrite is something only site geo's or those familiar with this style of deposit would even attempt to estimate "reliably" from core and probably not from a photo.
Given the resolution of the image I haven't attempted to pick out sphalerite/galena zones which may merge into the darker coloured sediments. AML estimates of Sph/Gn are not too high anyway.
Looking at past announcements with visuals of core the lack of visual chalcopyrite usually correlates to low Cu values in massive pyrite. e.g. Hole 273 0.1% Cu.
The galena (weak sphalerite) veins/zones (orange stars) cross cut massive pyrite. I didn't notice the core tray mark up (green circled Gn/Cpy/Co?) until after I put the stars on.
?? about this comment "IMHO this hole gives us a true indication of the depth of the mineralisation. Since the intersection for Hole 352 is between 332-374m probably true indication of thickness was intended?
I liked the Speccy image of a giant snake in a previous post. Already variants of a such a snake like shape are being defined by drilling along the FRF for the Py1 and 3 Cu Co rich zones (with peripheral aprons of base metals). The longer and bigger the better
(20min delay)
