Ann: Four Strong Off-Hole Conductors Identified - Tarraji-Yampi, page-25

Hi guys, an interesting and balanced read from a question in the Hub. From Dean;

Hi xxxxxx

Thank you for the questions, in particular the geology ones!

What we learned from last years diamond core and our review with Gerard Tripp and Paul Hilliard is that we are looking at a pelitic-mafic Cu-Au VMS, similar to Degrussa and Windy Craggie. We also know that like Degrussa, Orion was emplaced subseafloor – injected into unconsolidated sediments. The most prospective horizons for this subseafloor injection are these Peperite Horizons which are contact zones between intruding mafic sills and soft wet sediments, the combination of hot magma and wet sediments produces a breccia like horizon that is more permeable that the shales and mafics.

So peperite horizons are prospective horizons, and if we then see evidence of base metal sulphides injecting into these horizons, such as veins, breccias, semi massive accumulations, then that is evidence that the mineralisation is part of the VMS system as opposed to just sulphidic sediments which are just basic iron sulphides in nice layers and laminae.

So yes, the evidence of base metal sulphdies with the right textures in the right horizons confirm the system is working on that particular horizon. But that doesn’t mean a deposit of economic interest has formed.

That is where the DHEM comes into play.

If we have a prospective peperite horizon and evidence of base metals injecting into it, confirming a mineralised horizon and we have a off hole conductor, that means that a massive sulphide accumulation may be nearby, and we need to drill it.

We do have a pXRF with us, with diamond core pXRF is difficult to get grades as it zaps such a small area of a unhomogenised sample. With percussion drilling like RC, the sample is partially crushed, pulverised and homogenised so we can get a rough representative assay of that who meter. We can’t do that with diamond core. We use the pXRF to assist with sulphide identification and estimating visual sulphides percentages.

From preliminary work on the four off hole conductors, three look very attractive and one possibly. One of the off holes looks just to be a sulphidic shale and lacked a well developed peperite unit. I would certainly want to chase the other three in addition to the other targets and anything we generate with the IP.

Ideally, we would still be there and following these up. But the reason we only drilled six holes and had to move back down to Mangaroon (not to talk down that we are very excited to drill Mangaroon as well!) is that every once in a while DoD have an exercised planned on the YSTA and they request we aren’t there as there is only one access track into the YSTA at the moment and it isn’t really designed for lots of interacting traffic from unrelated parties.

And yes, the three effectively tested targets means they are done and explained and don’t appear to host economic potential worth pursuing further. I.e. the target was either confirmed as a unmineralised shale unit or had weak mineralisation with no potential for economic mineralisation (no off hole conductor).

From me; so no cigar yet but this is early days yet. The potential is there and some useful information gleaned - truncated by DoD exercise. This is a difficult tenement to hold with weather and other obstacles - but it offers big potential yet to be confirmed. That came from independent and credible professionals.

Probably the best line in the report (apart from movement to Mangaroon) is:
"The most prospective horizons for this subseafloor injection are these Peperite Horizons which are contact zones between intruding mafic sills and soft wet sediments, the combination of hot magma and wet sediments produces a breccia like horizon that is more permeable that the shales and mafics."

I hope this clarifies, DYOR CW