Ann: Clarification on Drilling - Update, page-85

"is what you’re suggesting here that hole 005 drilled somewhere right down the middle of a long pegmatite vein"
Yes, I believe they have unknowingly drilled down-dip of the pegmatite structure in hole 005, which they have recognised, and then spun the rig around to drill the opposite direction in the 005-A hole. So both holes have drilled exactly the same pegmatite structure, just drilled opposing directions. It is typical for holes to be designated an "A" affix on a re-drill - i.e. the hole is drilled in the same location as the first but it's different in some way. Whether that is slightly different collar positions, or drilling on different dips (unknown here), or different azimuths (which is the case here, 180°).

I did find this image which shows old Adina drilling. Because WR1 haven't given collar details for northing eastings or drill azimuth/dip, no-one can work out just how big the true thickness actually is. But it helps illustrate the pegmatite strike (ENE/WSW) and also how you can drill in opposing directions. Azimuth is the XY coordinates like a compass (2-D), dip is the Z coordinate into the ground (3-D). Most people here are interpreting 180° change in the dip of the drillhole but that would mean you're drilling up into the sky, rather its a 180° change in the azimuth - i.e. spin the drill-rig around; drilling NW instead of SE.


But we do know:

• There are two pegmatite units striking NE-SW
• They are collaring relatively close to surface where the pegmatite outcrops seeing as the pegmatite is intercepted at 3/6m respectively.
• They are attempting to drill at least somewhat perpendicular to the strike of the pegmatite, and they have drilled in opposing directions

Therefore, under a few assumptions including they have not drilled truly perpendicular to the pegmatite, the pegmatite true width is less than 23.6m. As below, if the intercepted length is not perpendicular to dip of the pegmatite and is 23.6m, to get the true width solving for x (solving for perpendicular), x must be smaller than 23.6m.



When you look at the average pegmatite width for the other intercepts, which are drilling the same structures, with intersecting the pegmatite at a similar depth, with intervals all coming in between 2m and 24m, it doesn't make sense for there to be a true width 80m wide pegmatite in the same region, at the same depth. The drill-holes should be drilling along strike of each other, between 50-250m apart so if the pegmatite is less than 20m over there, why is it all of a sudden 80m only a few hundred metres away? And if that were the case, why would that warrant a re-drill? The answer would suggest drilling down the structure. If this was an 80m deep intercept much further below, one could argue that there is an additional pegmatite under-cover which could truly be closer to 80m.

A lot of this confusion would have been prevented if they provided better interpretations of these results, aerial visuals with collars or a cross-section wouldn't go astray here. Certainly feels rushed despite that they would have been sitting on these results for days if not weeks so they can better explain to market what they have found. Poor explanation on WR1's behalf. Hopefully this explains things moderately well.