Im also saying (for Bonzer) they need to understand the 3D geology, by doing some old fashioned rock type identification and 3D interp., instead of blindly relying on geochemical ratios. Geochem ratios are fine, but you need to apply them to an accurate 3D geological model.
atm, im having trouble linking surface rock chip data to the drill obtained data...ore grade rock chips dont disappear just like that, you would have expected some intersections at depth, assuming youre hitting the same pegs. The question begs asking...are the pegs they intersected at depth, the same hiLi pegs they sampled at surface? Remember, this is a pegmatite swarm...theres many of them. Heres a rough as guts cross section to illustrate how you could miss the surface pegs at depth. SS is the surface sample. P with blue hatch is the Li Peg. the other pegs are not as hi grade. DH is the drill hole. The red line is a displacing fault. The hump with the crosses on it is the granite source for the pegs. So you can see how you can miss a surface sampled peg at depth due to displacing fault. If you have a good handle on lithology, i.e. you know A and B, provided your mapping is good enough, you will be able to spot this situation. Li geochem ratios in pegs alone are not enough to give you this picture. Im asking myself the question...did they attempt to intersect the surface sample at close proximity/shallow depth with any of the RC holes? Im not saying this is the case. I am saying that these guys should be across all of this, and i hope they are.
The red arrow shows the part of the granite/host rock area where i believe DLI have both their resources.
And you are spot on, they need to make sure the rock chip sampling covers both flanks of the supersuite.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)