@SandyC,
sorry everyone to dredge this up
but, the only thing that is holding me back from feeling as confident as many of the crew here atm, is this extract from one of ozblue's earlier posts.
"3D is the go for nickel exploration, not 2D, as you are likely to get reflected targets in 2D, as per this research paper...
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._2D_vs_3D_seismic_mineral_exploration_surveysThis bit from pg 3 in particular...
"Instead of drilling immediately on the anomaly, a proper 3D seismic survey was designed and planned to spatially locate and delineate it for drilling. The 3D seismic survey properly positioned the bright spot in 3D space.
It was located at about 500-700 m off the 2D profile and at shallower depths (Figure 2b).". Anomalies
on 2D like the paper above
stick out like a sore thumb, but can
also be magnetite or just
massive pyrites.
"@SandyC (and others), I know SGQ have engaged experts in seismic, but what do you think the risk is that the 2D seismic employed to identify targets S1 & S2 could in fact be hundreds of meters away from any actual MS locations, as occurred in the text extract above? If that were to happen on the S1 drill in late Jan 2022, the technique wont have been any more effective than the DHEM practice used so far will it ?
(20min delay)