Interesting development with the shallow intersection in...

Interesting development with the shallow intersection in TLRC0004. Importantly, there are now three intersections with which a triangulation can be performed to create a 'surface' of mineralisation.

Obviously there is potential for this to be a second zone of mineralisation, and my interpretation is that there is a good chance of this, and I'll discuss why later, but for now I will entertain the possibility that this is one single lens of massive sulfide mineralisation intersected in these three holes. If you plot up the holes in 3d, and create a surface using the three upper boundaries between intersected mineralisation and wallrock in TLDD0004a, TLRC0004 and TLDD0005, you get a body of mineralisation that dips steeply (73 degrees, or thereabouts) to the southeast. Should this be the case, it a'int good because of the strong down-dip component of drilling, which would mean true widths would be a fraction of the intersection widths. To use TLDD0004a as an example, and assuming the worst case scenario (drilling normal to strike at dip of -60, intersecting 16.5m through a body dipping at -73) then its a simple trig calc of:

cos (77) x 16.5

77 = 90-(73-60)
16.5 = intersected width (hypotenuse)

The result is a measly 3.71m true width. The test for whether this is the case will be the depth at which TLD0006 intersects mineralisation - if you project the plane outward, then TLDD0006 should intersect massive sulfide at around 552m. If this happens, then it looks like down-dip drilling to me, and a narrow lode. Fingers crossed this isn't the case.

There are a number of reasons to support that there may be multiple lodes, bullet pointed below:
It is common practice to drill across plates as close to normal as possible, not down dip, as this reduces the likelihood of intersection. It would be high-risk to target an EM plate down-dip.
If there is a strong down-dip component to drilling, why didn't the downhole EM on TLDD0002A detect an off-hole conductor further up hole?
If there a strong down-dip component to drilling, why didn't the ground EM survey pick up on shallow up-dip mineralisation proximal to TLDD0002A?

Now, a couple of things that are worrying:
Why has the rhetoric changed around TLRC0004? Yesterday it was a pre-collar to a diamond hole, but today it is "completed to a final depth of 306 metres down-hole and will provide an optimal platform for down-hole EM (DHEM) surveys"
TLRC0004 appears to have passed through the Byrah Basin formation that hosts mineralisation in TLDD0004a and TLDD0005, if you correlate across the drill plan on page 4 of the TLM annoucement. Does this mean they interpret that the horizon has been tested, and that the diamond tail is no longer necessary? If this is the case, then perhaps SFR consider all intersections to be part of the same lode.

Interesting times ahead. I expect an announcement on TLDD0006 in the coming couple of days, and possibly assays on TLRC0004 as early as friday.

Cheers!