Ann: Diamond Drilling Resumes at Mt Alexander, page-123

@ozblue

I'm with @mulac1 in that you are playing with words to push your own narrative and / or just do not understand what it all means.

It appears you have latched onto 3D seismic and from your readings are positioning yourself as more knowledgeable an expert than Mr Graeme Hird who has been involved with over 200 interpretations of hard rock seismic data for many of the big successful mining companies and who has access to all the data.

It also appears that you do not understand the fact that seismic is far more superior to MT/AMT. Seismic identifies the many different structural barrier and contour changes between granite, mafic, ultramafic, nickel, copper etc, etc based on each materials signal density whereas MT/AMT does not. The latter only broadly identifies fault structures and cannot differentiate what is in them. The seismic survey even though it is only 2D has also identified the cathedrals, transits and other fault structure down dip trajectories (north and south dipping) as seen in the diagrams. Mr Hird would have compared all the deep seismic sound signals against the signals from the successful shallower holes that contained the same materials (granite, mafic, ultramafic, nickel, copper etc) to confirm the S1 and S2 massive sulphides nickel and copper targets. He would also have identifies the other materials. The diagrams compiled using the seismic data also show these targets sit within the cathedrals and transits fault structures which you would expect to have the ultramafic materials that host the nickel sulphide targets.

Let's see what transpires over the next few weeks with S1 and with your prediction that there will be a CR before they reach the S1 target.

SandyC