Well, cat firmly amongst pigeons here.
So, here's a map. I even went to the trouble of data entering the collars from WCN's documents. 2003-47-1 is, I measured, 35m from DAN25005/006.
2003-74-1, as said in my previous post, is drilled in the same direction as DAN25005 and DDAN25006.
This isn't rocket surgery, people.
The sections are about 30m apart. You know what else should be on this section? The 1960's drill holes.
You know how you can tell the breccia dips north west? All the other holes are drilled to the SE, except DAN25008.
Is 2-3% Cu good dirt? Yes.
Has WCN expanded the prospect beyond the historical resource (NON-JORC)? No.
Some implied this is "JORC" drilling and therefore more reliable than the historical drilling from 2003 which is "non-JORC". Yeah, maybe. But this is RC, and that was diamond. Why, I would ask, could RC report better grades of dense sulphides than diamond core? Geez, I dunno, maybe quartz and carbonate blow out the cyclone? JORC doesn't mean the drilling is quality, JORC is just how they report it. You can report bad quality drilling with the JORC code. Don't get those two confused, it will help. Assuming old work is unreliable is a great way to be mistaken that modern work is always reliable.
