It considers this significant, as both the geochemical and geophysical features are discordant with the known historic workings and previous geological interpretations, representing a strong target for additional mineralisation.
These are preliminary results and the survey data is currently being assessed by a geophysical consultant.
Can anyone elaborate what this means? Does it mean that what they found originally on the surface may not replicate what could potentially trending at depth?
When are we getting further results? We need a win for MAG this year! I hope we find something worthwhile!
It considers this significant, as both the geochemical and...
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 52 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
