TrevorSaul..."And they were not idiots..."And yet they did not...

TrevorSaul...

"And they were not idiots..."

And yet they did not think of drilling below 150m?

lol

To be fair though...this may not have been their brief...but when I look at the maps, the mineralised projections to surface and the historic strike and dip (you can see this clearly in the photos of the pit), the first things I would have done was drill a selection of deeper holes (300m+) to the north of the pit and just slightly south of the E_W trending dolerite dyke contact.

In terms of mineralisation, there is so much going on here...I find it amazing if one were given a brief to find more copper, that one would not test beneath the previous, relatively shallow results.

Remember, "deep" in the old days was sub 50m, but these days it is more like 250m+...and with a pit already down at this level, it would make absolute sense to drill some deeper scout holes along strike, firstly to intersect shallow extensions (so the drills are not a complete waste if they miss)...out near the cross-cutting dolerite unit which breaks the apparent continuation of strike.

Anyway...without knowing what the driver of the programme was here, it is hard to guess why it has taken this long to test the deeper potential here. So, it looks to me like they are finally on to it...and they may even need to turn the rigs around 90 degrees at some point and follow the dolerite dykes south.

The intersection of the 2 Narracoota Volcanic units and the dolerite dyke is a prime target zone for mine...and interestingly, appears to be a significant distance from the best of the recent results.

This is where we might expect some brecciation, or potential dilational extensions...if so, they may well find conducive host for similar grades to those in the latest set of results...assuming of course mineralising fluids have passed through here...which I suspect they have.

Anyway...we all have our own approaches to such things I guess!

One of the downfalls for a geo is to discount various exploration theories for what often amounts to little more than pride...or just plain bloody-minded opposition to views outside their own...often in order to save face.

They form a view and then execute an exploration programme based thereon...and simply will not hear alternative opinion. Of course, if nothing is found, the last thing they want is to be shown to be wrong via a different approach.

So the programme is shelved!

This is one of the reasons it often takes another Company...and another group of fresh geos...to re-visit old ground such as Horseshoe Lights and give it another shot. Geology is as much art as it is a science at times...and at the end of the day, copper (or gold, etc), is where you find it!

I have listened to geos give reasons for why mineralisation will NOT be found in certain locations and/or in certain environments...at times, with almost indignant dismissal...only to hear the same geo explain later why there was in fact mineralisation there, for all manner of fresh reasons.

In the end...different people will use the same data and arrive at completely different views...such is the nature of the "art" of geology!

By the way, this is not a dig at geos, who in my experience are fairly decent on the whole. I work with geos every day and find them to be very smart, very switched on people...and I have not a bad word for any of them!

I have however "engaged" with a few over the years who, it is probably safe to say, are not particularly suited to exploration geology.

lol

Cheers!