Some weekend musings on the results.
There is a lot of manual plotting involved in the work below so likely to be a few mistakes/omissions on what is work in progress so DYOR and feel free to add/comment.
A minor correction to the previous image- only two holes had no AZS significant assays to hole 92. ( Assays for holes 32 and 35 were on another page.)
-
View attachment 1027642
Below is a screen shot of the more significant assays sorted by
Meter %
View attachment 1027618
The colour scheme (Red >50, Orange 20-50; yellow 10-20; green 5-10; rest grey) is used in the accompanying plan and sections.
The M% numbers do need to be looked at in detail as they are THICKNESS * %.
Thus a narrow high grade (1m @ 40% Zn+Pb) appears the same as 10m @ 4%.
With the above table, intersections above 10 M% are probably ore grade/thickness IF continuity and other factors fit in as well.
View attachment 1027645
The number beside the circles is the RL of the mid point of the intersection. In broad terms these suggest clusters at similar levels - In other words locally horizontal zones. There may also be a hint that there is a dip component to the mineralised unit - or flat zones with faulting/ramps??
View attachment 1027669
This map provides a key to the section locations used. Sections 1-5 are NE-SW oriented to take advantage of the dominant hole orientation and minimise projection issues.
Sections A & B required significant compensation for these projection issues and as such are more schematic in nature.
View attachment 1027639
Topographic control - reasonable only near drill collars with the remainder interpretive especially where the Arenillas and sulphide zones crop out.
View attachment 1027657
View attachment 1027696
View attachment 1027624
View attachment 1027627
View attachment 1027621
Section 3 is the easiest to give a reasonable interpretation at this level of work.
The dip component of this section may be real.
It shows the 3 major units.
Footwall Revancha Rhyolite - I suspect the majority of holes will penetrate at least a few meters into this ?readily recognisable unit and then be terminated. If this is the case then the contact to the Arenillas Formation may be defined roughly by near end of hole depth in many instances.
The presence of grade (Zn/Pb) and surface mapping are all that can be used to suggest the Arenillas Fm from data available.
The relationship of the Arenillas Fm to the Candelaria Formation is not totally clear to me because there appear to be non fault related exposures of Arenillas Fm mapped within the Candelaria.
The main part of the Arenillas seems to be basal to the Candelaria but there may be sedimentary repetitions higher in the sequence.
From the Ann. re hole 56 (Section 2) = new ?zone.
View attachment 1027714
"Sections" A & B
I have off set holes so assay data can be displayed.
E.g. Holes 61 64 and 66 would plot on top of each other
View attachment 1027633
View attachment 1027636
Section A has more data available and perhaps shows why AZS did not put any graphics in the announcement. Only partial data throughout and correlations are not easy to follow at this scale.
Some of the vertical discrepancies will be due to projection issues. The lateral NW-SE variations are probably related to faulting as shown by the many offsets of the Arenillas Fm from the surface mapping.
Geenius commented on extra holes being drilled and IMO the holes reported so far provided a scoping study which has been infilled by later holes. Section B may be such an example where hole 54 gave some encouragement and then combined with historical drilling (locally twinned as reported previously) they infilled.
My work above tends to support my initial assessment - solid and probably in line with AZS expectations. Not as thick as Opasura East but reasonable? continuity and grade.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
