Apologies for responding Col ( as you addressed your Q to Kalaa ..but someone else's view
"Hi Kaala,
1) I find it hard to believe that on drilling hole after hole to ~ 4m & getting barely a sniff of the then expected high U values in the then believed rich surface deposit - with hole by hole assessment with a scintillometer to hand 'dashing' the 'surface deposit' theory, then wouldn't you drill some deeper holes with the rig on site?"
Spot on Col .
"2) 18 months back it was reported that the U values at hole bottoms 'belled out' with depth ..... what depth?"
I think they were referring to the width of the mineralised zone Col .
"3) the comment in today's quarterly re expected U deposit at or below 50m .... how is it known that there's nothing above 50m? I would have thought the water table isn't that deep."
On May 31 2012 MLS indicated that it would do deeper drilling (> 40m).
So some say 40 ...now 50 ...rather immaterial ...we will find out once they have drilled ...and in any event , it may vary .
"Nothing above 50 m " ?
Concept : Above water table ( near surface) = U in solution ( from primary source alaskite ) ; desert ;low precipitation ; wind ; sun; capillarity; evaporation ; oxidation ; carnotite concentration ;re-deposition near surface .
Below water table : stable redox environment ; primary mineralised alaskite ;primary U mineralisation .
In between : perhaps barren/ low grade ( refer to above as to why ?? )
Just my thoughts Col .. please dyor.
regards
Q
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
