WR1 (ASX) Ann: Strong lithium mineralisation from first Adina assays

Originally posted by Maverick7: ↑

i've been analysing cross and long sections for a long time and am very familiar with differences.
A cross-section will show the apparent true width, and a long-section will show the continuity along strike for the entire deposit and hence why I used it to challenge Squirts calculations.

Using @squirt9394 dimensions of 720L x 50W x 350D = 12.6 million cubic meters (= approximate to his modelled volume of 14.6).

However, JORC resources are calculated based on a grade cut-off mineralised profile, and the total tonnes quoted will essentially exclude the waste/unmineralised rock.

To get anywhere close to Squirt's figures based on the data so far physics dictates that mineralised area will need to approximately encompass the physical dimensions used by Squirt above and therefore the drill intercepts in the long-section should essentially show continuity at depth and along strike ie. all drill holes show red spodumene interceptsfor the majority of the hole, and there should be hardly any black (unmineralised) sections in any holes, which clearly isn't the case!

I've marked in purple the obvious holes where depth and strike extent is missing.

Therefore I stand by my statement that based on the drill hole data so far, the figures presented by Squirt are grossly overstated by a huge margin.

If you're a geo as you claim, and claim that "Squirt is on the money", you probably need a refresher in basic geo analysis or ethics101.

Expand

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you Maverick. See figure 1 and figure 2 so you can compare my long section to the companies long section. You will notice I don't have the data resolution the company has and can only refer to apendix 4 for the drilling intercepts, you'll see some data resolution differences. It's early days, I've just modelled the pegmatite to see the potential size that the early drilling is showing. There is only assays for one hole, I'm obviously not considering material below cut off.

Long sections do aim to show continuity along strike but don't give context to drill hole location (which is what other poster are trying to communicate to you). There is no slice placed on the long section provided by the company so you can't tell if holes miss the main pegmatite dyke. For example hole AD-22-09 sits nearly 100m to the footwall of the main dyke (figure 3). When you view AD-22-09 in long section it would look like there is no continuity along strike and that it would close of the pegmatite to the west. The geos did not know which direction the pegmatite was dipping (as mentioned in multiple announcements and interviews) so some of the earlier holes completely miss the main dyke but intercept other thiner pegmatites. It's very reassuring that the geos have changed the drill direction of the holes and are now hitting the pegmatite at a more favourable angle.

To reiterate, I'm always open to technical discussions and enjoy sharing my interpretation with others. It's important to have your work peer reviewed. It's a Geologists job to make a geological interpretation of the data available, as more data becomes this interp is bound to change, all I am trying to do is share my current interpretation with others. Because of this I've included Figures 4, 5 and 6 to give you an idea of my current interpretation. These cross sections will show you that it’s not a rectangular prism and hopefully explain why your math didn’t add up.