Hello Feline
Good point and well stated on the NAI thread as well.
It is my understanding that the holes permitted and drilling decisions are being made by Teck not DML or NAI. I may be wrong, but until Mr. Keats was hired, I don't believe DML had a nickel sulfide deposit geologist on staff. How much input DML have had in the drilling decisions up until now, I don't know, but I get the impression that they have relied on the advise of Teck.
Because only three holes have been reported as having significant mineralization, I am assumming the remainder, which may have included step out holes, have not.
The permitting of the holes was done in most cases some time in advance of striking the massive sulfide intersections and only this last pattern I believe, were permitted with hole 67 and 75 in mind. Whether any of the five unreported holes other than 96 were step-out holes to the aforementioned, I do not know for sure. I believe a few were intended to be, but the others were intended to probe several coincident gravity and EM anomolies.
In my conversations with DML and in reading their NR's closely, I am left with the impression that this drilling season's principal objectives did not necessarily include finding and documenting the extent of any massive sulfide ore bodies.
Rather I believe the plan was to:
1. investigate and establish the thickness of the various gabro and troctalite intrusions,
2. investigate the extent, directions & inclinations of the gabro and troctalite intrusions,
3. investigate some of those gravity and EM highs, and establish that their existance corresponded with the aforementioned intrusions any sulfide mineralization,
4. investigate the lay (bedding, directions & inclinations) of the Churchill/Nain contact, and any regional or local faulting,
5. insure that all DML's 1997 contractual JV drilling obligations were fullfilled, and
6. as a result of the above, identify prospective (priority) areas for follow-up drilling in 1998.
In my discussions with DML they indicated that they planned to return to a number of areas in 1998 where shallow holes indicated extensive diseminated sulfides, but which were not deepened due to time constraints and/or drill depth capacity limitations. If you recall, the deep drill only arrived on the site for the last six holes if I am not mistaken.
If I recall accurately, they also indicated that few if any deep hole EM or IP surveys were conducted due to the lateness of the season when prospective targets were identified through drilling which resulted in water flooding the holes.
Terry should perhaps speak to the rationality of the above and significance of water/no water impacting such surveys as this is beyond my technical reading.
I hope the above answers your questions to the degree possible.
Regards |
