Hi mitis
I can't speak from a geologist's perspective.... but this is how I am looking at it speculatively...
S1 is 800m's deep but is coincident with what appears to be the fault line... the near surface drilling has established how the mineralisation trends, so it is reasonable to extrapolate that direction... the target is 450m's in one known dimension, improbable it is wafer thin but if so then we are screwed anyhow. So the probabilities seem favorable.
S2 is 350m's deep and seems to be of similar size... hard to see how you could drill that and miss it by 500m's. Again the probabilities seem positive.
As you mention, the reflection response is the same as the known mineralisation near surface... which I take to mean the target at depth has the same density. I assume other things such as magnetite would offer a discernibly different time signature. But if not how would 3D help?
We will get the 2 holes drilled with the cash SGQ has remaining. The hole for S1 (according to the schematic) is aiming for the centre of the target which gives 200m's either side for error. The probabilities seem to favour the outcome we will get intercepts and likely answer the key question. Doing 3D instead would probably take all the money in the tin... so we would have to do a CR at the current levels and still not know whether the targets are mineralised.
I see it in terms of probabilities... the near surface deposits have been fed by something, the 2D has thrown up 2 big targets of the right sort of dimension (and perhaps more targets to come from line 3?), S1 is sitting on a fault line, is consistent with the observed trend and it is returning the appropriate signal.
As far as
@ozblue and his assessment of things.... I am quite confident he does not possess the appropriate qualifications to back up his assertions about what the seismic survey has or has not provided.
