Re Seismic, I'm not sure that a good evaluation can be made...

Re Seismic, I'm not sure that a good evaluation can be made until the merits of the Burmeister Seismic Line are known. TG6 used existing drill holes to create a conceptual open pit design based on considering where known pegmatite intercepts may extend. Something prompted TG6 to then drill 14 holes on the eastern edge or outside of that indicative pit. By definition these were not looking to infill drill known pegmatites inside the conceptual pit because if they were, they would be inside the conceptual pit.

Presumably some if not most of those locations were at least partly informed by seismic thinking. If they are dusters, Seismic hasn't worked. If there are some big hits, Seismic may have worked well.


Re Seismic #2:
So far there has remained an unusually high consistency between pegmatites and mineralisation. Examples of non-mineralised pegmatites continue to be rare in both Burmeister and Jaegermeister. The graphic below indicates >5km of reflection surfaces consistent with actual and potential pegmatites. If there is >5km of down-dip pegmatite continuity in just that one area, the system has the potential to be seriously big. How big would depend on the widths of those pegmatites at various depths.

Seismic indicates there's pegmatites extending to potentially 800m deep so existing drilling may have just scratched the surface of the size of this system if those depth extensions are mineralised. If there are depth extensions the challenge would then be establishing whether there are thick areas of pegmatite at depth what would create economics where UG mining works. It may be that TG6 puts down a couple of deep exploratory drill holes to establish whether there is a lot more mineralised material. If there is, they know that any JORC from Burmeister can be expanded by further drilling, even if its UG supplied material.