What I find most intriguing is the difference between results listed in the table provided in the initial announcement and those listed in the graphic...
The graphic suggests intervals may well be significantly wider than indicated in the table.
From the announcement...
"The drilling program consisted of five RC holes, all of which encountered nickel sulphide mineralisation as set out below.
All of the zones are reported to be wider in the graphic, which I suggest was prepared from the drill logs, but amended downwards to be conservative on the summary table of the announcement.
Of course, “sulphides” does not necessarily mean nickel...pyrite and pyrrhotite are both sulphides, typically associated with nickel sulphides and may well exist proximal to the nickel ore (I assume pentlandite?), but don't actually contain nickel...so this might explain the differences.
My guess however is due to the hit-and-miss nature of XRF results in the field, they took a conservative assessment of the actual logged mineralised sulphide intervals, which will probably be closer to the following...
MFEC001 - 6m (compared to 2m reported) MFEC002 - 8m (compared to 3m reported) MFEC003 - 16m (compared to 6m reported) MFEC004 - 16m (compared to 7m reported) MFEC005 - 4m (compared to 1m reported)
On another issue...
"The next steps (to be undertaken once laboratory assays are received) will include mineralogy to determine sulphide species, downhole EM surveying to determine the location of the best conductive zones, and deeper diamond drilling."
I suspect a few market observers are looking at the above summary of the sulphide intersections and making direct comparisons to SIR's "massive", "semi-massive", "strongly disseminated", "disseminated", “stringer”, etc. zones...which I think may be a mistake.
Without knowing the nickel sulphide species associated with RXL’s ore zone, we cannot really make direct grade correlations...for all we know, RXL's "disseminated" nickel sulphides could carry a quarter, or four times the grades that SIR's "disseminated" zones do.
I also find it interesting there has been no mention of Cu in any of the samples...yet copper is one of the more reliable metals to pick up with an XRF.
Further, there is always the chance that PGE's might be associated...something SIR do not have.
Could this perhaps be the main source of the surprise here?
Quote from - Nickel sulfide deposits in Australia: Characteristics, resources, and potential
Dean M. Hoatson, Subhash Jaireth, A. Lynton Jaques
“Australia's nickel sulfide deposits are associated with ultramafic and/or mafic igneous rocks in three major geotectonic settings: (1) Archean komatiites emplaced in rift zones of granite–greenstone belts; (2) Precambrian tholeiitic mafic–ultramafic intrusions emplaced in rift zones of Archean cratons and Proterozoic orogens; and (3) hydrothermal-remobilized deposits of various ages and settings.
The komatiitic association is economically by far the most important, accounting for more than 95% of the nation's identified nickel sulfide resources. The ages of Australian komatiitic- and tholeiitic-hosted deposits generally correlate with three major global-scale nickel-metallogenic events at ~ 3000 Ma, ~ 2700 Ma, and ~ 1900 Ma. These events are interpreted to correspond to periods of juvenile crustal growth and the development of large volumes of primitive komatiitic and tholeiitic magmas caused by large-scale mantle overturn and mantle plume activities.
There is considerable potential for the further discovery of komatiite-hosted deposits in Archean granite–greenstone terranes including both large, and smaller high-grade (5 to 9% Ni) deposits, that may be enriched in PGEs (2 to 5 g/t), especially where the host ultramafic sequences are poorly exposed.”
As I said in a previous post, the Company’s reference to “...stratigraphic sequence and order of sulphide mineralisation matches the classical models of komatiitic nickel sulphide deposits”...was perhaps the clue to possible upside in results.
Anyway...we will soon find out.
One thing is for sure...if they are onto something special here they will need to step-up exploration drilling significantly now, not only on their main target, but they will want to give Corktree a decent poke in particular (I think this is the better target)...and then there is MFA_01 to the north (does anyone know whose ground it continues into?)
To fund the expanded activities there will need to be a placement for sure...but no hurry just yet. Ultimately the price they agree to put this away at...and the timing thereof...may well give us the best clue to just how good the Company expects this project will turn out.
If they are genuinely trying to generate shareholder value because they believe they can...and believe they have hit the jackpot...they will hold out for a much higher placement price...if however they capitulate at or just above current levels, then they are either gutless, do not have shareholder’s best interests at heart...or do not really believe they have much to work with.
My money is on a much higher placement price.
Good luck all.
Cheers!
RXL Price at posting:
9.8¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)