The logged visuals in table 3 don't comport with the reported lab grades - this is a bit suspicious IMO.
For example;
The key intercept 14m @ 7.6% Pb and 1.1% Zn has been logged as 13m (39-52m) @ average 3.2% sulphide = 13m @ approx 2.9% Pb+Zn.
It may be worth going back an re-logging in detail the deemed mineralised intercepts.
Would be worth comparing field XRF values to lab assays as well.
All just IMO
Ann: OUTSTANDING BASE METALS GRADES FROM NORTHAMPTON RC DRILLING, page-12
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 9 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
