A little trick I use in excel to check the veracity of another poster called "cartoon long sections". Paste dots onto an early LS and 'group' them into a single image, as I just did for the historical holes in blue above post. Even if the scale needs slight adjusting as the LS is updated by draftee over time, the relative distance between all points stays the same and should overly the same old holes for each new section released. I did this for the last section released and all but one historic hole has stayed in the same location...
B-7 was been shuffled ~40m north and downdip from it's original position. If this wasn;t in error it was probably just to make room for all the results boxes. B-7 is just inside the extrapolated lease boundary 200m NNW of the headframe not on it as below. The recent drilling pierce points are in yellow as per company or where I have overlaid in pink to hihglight the important thick, HG deep intersections. I also question the pierce point of B-6, simply because it was pushed so hard as to bend from dipping 75deg west all the way under itself to end up dipping 65 deg east after 670m when it finished as per NWC cross-section. In plan as per the first post above, B-6 is dead straight in plan, starting out towards 325deg (NW) and coming exactly back in the opposite direction of 125deg SE to intersect the ore horizon.
This hole demonstrates that without azimuth DH survey information back in the 60-70's the precise location of deep old holes is not precisely known, even if DH dip surveys were accurate. It could actually be north or south on the LS in reality, I'm speculating north as this fits with a consistent trend of the thick HG shoot. The thick HG shoot is very roughly outlined in red to show where the very thick intersections drop back to '~2-4m' more typical of the Antler deposit outside the HG shoot. It's rough, don;t get hung up thinking I'm trying to spin any interp yet.
The thick HG shoot looks approx 100m wide, withstanding that it will pinch and swell both along strike and down dip. The thick high grade shoot was well recognised for this morphology in previous studies, and similar thich HG results were predicted by those tsudy authors between the workings and hole B-6. The geological explanation for how this HG shoot formed is for another post, but nobody should be that surprised it has has continued down the 'thickened fold nose' in a continuation of it's known trajectory. Given the observation and interpretation of previous studies, neither should we be surprised that the massive sulphides thin rapidly beyond the thickened shoot (hole 2024 for example?).
The next question to consider is the reported downhole widths verses "true-widths", especially for comparing historical holes with recent drilling. This has caused much consternation before but it really is very relevant for obvious reasons. NWC are currently drilling holes south to verify/compare historical intersections with new holes where true-widths are confidently estimated. A future JORC resource want to use, but cannot just rely on "generally square and close to true width". Good news, old reports do provide some confidence reported widths are not as exaggerated as drilling orientation implies...
(20min delay)
