Ann: Drilling Delivers Further High Grade Lithium at Burmeister, page-62

Yes. My understanding is seismic works by different objects having different densities meaning seismic waves take different timeframes to travel through the material. The first test work will have been taking early DD core material related to mafic and pegmatites and sending it off for tests to see whether there was enough density differential to measure differences. This would have been at some lab that specialised in this sort of testing. The second step is field trials where drilling has already given an idea what to expect. For example, TG6 knows that a lower pegmatite exists in the drill hole of RC37 that doesn't exist in the nearby RC26. If the seismic images have a different signature for RC37 and RC26 that would be great. It would mean TG6 could look for an RC37 not RC26 signature. TG6 know that they have a pegmatite from 127 to 151m (down-hole) at RDC43's location. Does the seismic indicate a pegmatite of approximately the right size and location? If it does - Great.

With this testing on known areas done, you then run seismic over unknown areas and the drill bit becomes the test of the modelling.

If the use of Seismic is successful in drill targeting, there should be more intersects and less dusters (more bank for your drilling buck). Presumably their's bigger signatures from bigger pegmatites. Seismic may help find thick pegmatites (if they exist).

But its not just drill targeting where seismic may be useful. Core had an amazing JORC resource in Penfolds. It was amazing in that it was defined from only 6 drill holes into the pegmatite. Only one of these was past to the bottom of the pegmatite. How could Core tell the pegmatite shape from this limited drilling? My guess is ANT gave the Core geologists the expected shape and the drilling confirmed mineralisation that matched the ANT prediction.