Originally the conductor was thought to be flat lying at about 475 metres from the FLTEM. There are also a number of other minor conductors at different depths and angles not reported. The pyrrhotite / graphite they hit is likely to be one of these.
They missed the conductor because of the NW dip, it was not expected, plus they drilled with a NW dip, so it completely missed the strong conductor. The SE end of the conductor is at about 425 metres deep area expected from the DHEM, yet the NW part of the conductor is another 90 odd metres deeper than the EOH at 552 metres, plus the angle of the hole would have had it missing anyway, but not by much. The angle of hole appears to be slightly shallower than originally planned. If it had been vertical, it should have hit the conductor at 475m deep
Where the company originally explained the 523m deep iron sulphides as explaining the EM conductance, it is accurate for a nearly flat lying conductor, but the DHEM has the strong conductor 100m deeper at that point. This is easy enough to measure on the information supplied from the last announcement.
Drilling a new hole from 50m SE of the first one and vertical, should hit the target at about 450m and would be shortest hole. If they went to the NW and angled the hole to hit the conductor at a 90 degree angle the hole would have to be over 550m deep, but would be aimed at the centre of the conductor with no chance of missing. A vertical hole from the same position as the previous hole, (saves ground preparation of producing new pad) should hit the target at about 500m deep.
Remember the DHEM clearly shows that the target was missed, despite what the announcement on 13th of May stated, as in it was a duster. It is certainly still game on, but of course it might still turn out to be graphite, but the gravity data does tend to rule that out unless the pyrrhotite/iron sulphides of 15m thickness above the conductor are enough to explain the high gravity. Personally I would think not.
