VMSThis article below, for those interested, provides a good insight into how VMS systems are formed and their economic importance. The article itself is an interesting read itself. Whether this event here has led to a VMS system with an economic deposit for TSC is only question for the drill bit at the end of the day, hence the risks with exploration plays.
https://www.911metallurgist.com/blog/vms-volcanogenic-massive-sulphide-deposits-ore-mineralizationWe'll find out soon enough, but would think the drill bit will simply say yes, we think there is something there so lets keep drilling etc etc. Not enugh drills happening here (see below),a nd its done over a wide area, so posters need to 'temper expectations here'. the only thing I am going to be interested in here is the mineralisation is shown to be good, there are pockets of good grades for drilling o continue with teh expectation of more better drilling results arising as the 'target' is better identified. The risks of drilling - finding the 'elephant' first up is difficult, and obviously only teh drill bit can dtermine if there is a mineable resource in future here.
That is, IMO, as I presume a number of posters here are alluding to as well is current drilling will simply provide more information that TSC can use in better targeting drilling, but what we are hoping for is the latest drills do show up some decent hits to increase interest here. But ultimately, more drilling is required when seeking to determine a JORC Code 2012 resource that has resources in the important Measured and Indicated category, as you cannot base feasibility studies on Inferred Resourcesbtw.
In terms of nearology, whilst a lot of people like to look at that for prospectivity, only the drill bit can decide that (because in a geological terms been say 5km - 10 km from a known discovery/mine is still a long long way away, as nearology doesn't, in itself, translate to a mineable ore body there as the same geological event itself can have pockets of that event that are economic to mine and other pockets that are not). But certainly, you hope nearology works for you.
Understanding JORCThis pic below best describes some of the comments above - certainly there will be more drilling required here regardless of the next drill results as not enough drills to define a measured and indicated resource, so just hope some results are good that lead to a view more drilling needed (and that is a good outcome from these initial drills hence I think need to 'temper expectations' here as well as what these drills may do to SP, albeit if they are good there will be a rise as 'traders' and 'short termers' do their thing etc etc :
Current drillingThe majority of the VMS prospects are further than 6km away from the Creasy 1 and Harmonic prospects, albeit it will be very interesting what the conductor at Creasy 2 show through the upcoming drill results. Posters shouldn't get confused between the two plays been pursued by TSC here - VMS deposit/s and a Creasy 1 gold deposit. The below is the map of the 8 proposed drills in the 15 April Ann. In the pic below, the drill is going in those yellow lines over the 'anomalies' identifies by the looks of it. The anomolies are the 'purple stars', and it would be particularly interesting in due course what is underneath the purple stars closest to Creasy 1 especially, but obviously they are sinking the 8 drills in what they consider, I suspect, the best prospects.
For avoidance of doubt, the current drilling program is for 1500 metres of RC drilling, of which one hole they have already stated will be drilled to 200 metres and another one at 120 metres. So probably looking at a drilling program here of about 11 - 13 holes IMO. The key to look out for in the drills is whether mineralisation occurs at the 'end of drill to', as this would suggests 'resource goes deeper', which you could suspect to be in play with major VMS deposits.
Time will tell
Creasy 1 and Harmonic (prospective gold depsoit)In terms of Creasy 1 and Harmonic Prpsect, where a a mineralised gold system has been discovered, but with further drilling also required there to provide data for further assessing the deposit. My view so far are the hits are 'skiny' and more drilling is required there - Post #:
44097780 For future reference, for open pit operations anything over 1 gram per tonne is ok, but anything less than 3 grams per tonne for an underground mine is unlikely to be viable.
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/precious-metals-investing/gold-investing/what-makes-a-world-class-gold-deposit/From this article:
https://tsxmedia.com/2019/03/05/dont-get-caught-in-the-high-grade-gold-trap/"
Generally speaking, one gram per tonne works for open-pit mines, but as a rule of thumb underground gold mines require at least 2.5 g/t to be economic."But the key measure of viability is resource 'per vertical metre'. I posted this post in DEG as a non-holder on how to evaluate gold projects - bringing this posts here as relevant here as well, for future reference. Post #:
44023489Anyway, provided for research and yes I am likely to be wrong in my interpretations. It is probably because I haven't had a beer tonight.
All IMO
(20min delay)