So what are the implications of this for TG6:Starting with the...

So what are the implications of this for TG6:

Starting with the basics, a flatter area with limited or no rocky outcrops, streams, ponds or large trees would appear to be ideal. This situation would enable the sensors to be placed very close or on the theoretically optimal positions. TG6 is going to be able to place sensors where it wants to, with the only obvious exception being placing them on the road that passes through the area.

The Lake Johnston area would appear to be surrounded by activities that would generate seismic noise. In the Lithium mining space you have Mt Cattlin to the SW, Mt Holland to the NW. Mt Marion to the NE. Perhaps more importantly there's a lot of mining activity not related to lithium in the wider area. This will be creating seismic waves that are potentially able to be measured. In the natural category there's a coastline about 150m to the south. Being on the southern ocean I suspect its sometimes very rough. Hopefully one of those rough days occurs during the test period. To the SW and SE there is farming activity which will at times involve heavy equipment banging around.

There's a strong chance that TG6 will have a large volume of seismic activity coming in from effectively all directions. That could be why the study period is only 10 days.


Fault lines typically cause broken rock to either side of the fault line, particularly if there's been multiple or big movements along that fault line over time. Broken rock has a lower seismic velocity than surrounding solid rock. This means passive seismic should provide a good estimate of the below ground shape of material fault lines. I'd like to think fault lines and pegmatites still have different signatures. Drill holes like RCD43 were very close to fault lines.

The bigger the distortion, the more likely it is to be observable in the passive seismic images. If there are some big sub-surface pegmatites to be found, passive seismic should assist to find them.

One video talked about there being multiple possible solutions and adding constraints assisting to clarify the image. What I think is happening here (but this is speculation on my part) is between sensor readings something is known to exist, but not quite where. Lets assume the speed in "normal" mafic rock without pegmatites or fault lines in it was 3,300m/s and the speed in pegmatites was 3,100m/s and that there was no variation in these numbers. If the sensor was 3,300m/s then there is no pegmatite between the pair. If the reading was 3,100m/s then its purely pegmatite. A reading of 3,250m/s would mean a 50m wide pegmatite (or two x 25m pegmatites) would need to be assumed in the gap somewhere. The better the other cross readings the more accurately that 50m estimate can be placed.

Because of TG6's flatter lying pegmatites, there may well be instances where no guessing is required. For example, At a vertical height of about 110m straight down, this cross section indicates 200m of horizontal pegmatite. Passive seismic may assist to confirm no gaps in that early guess.


After that long answer,
The short answer is better bang for shareholders buck on mining exploration expenditure.