RE:RE:RE:They must be drilling more promising results. diabase1. Thanks for the thanks and the thought put into your post.
RE: Massive sulphides in Horizon 1 and 2
I'm not sure if the interval is incuded in Horizon 1 or Horizon 2, but GR-14-17 also showed a massive sulphide interval "GR-14-17... intersected an 11.41 metre wide mineralized interval consisting of disseminated to semi-massive sulphides, cored by 1.46 metres of massive pyrrhotite and pendlandite" (sulphides) Mar 5 news release
Holes GR-14-17, 18, 19 and 24 are drilled on section, in and around the previously reported massive sulphide intercept in GR-14-17. All four holes intersected anomalous Ni-Cu-PGE mineralization and show evidence of local faulting/deformation and some evidence of local sulphide remobilization not seen in the intercepts to the northwest (holes GR-14-16, 22, 23 and 25).
RE: Chromite: I couldn't locate BAR reference to chromite other than the May 20, 2014 news release in which is just a descriptor/adjective of the magnetite in thin section. Can you point me to the chromite reference?
I'm still learning about the nickel/PGE system formation and hoping I am intrepreting correctly, so please check up on the following thoughts.
First, when interpreting the press releases, remember that generally Massive Sulphides > Net Textured Sulphides > Dessiminated Sulphides, in terms of grade. This is because sulphides has a high chemical affinity for the Fe, Ni, Cu, Pt, Pd. I actually take it as a positive that Balmoral issued the warning "Readers are cautioned that it remains too early to draw correlations between the percentage of sulphide in the Grasset system, the percentage of sulphide minerals in previously completed holes and the grades of nickel, copper, platinum and palladium reported to date. Multiple factors, aside from sulphide percentages, can have a significant impact on final assay grades." This shows it is a common enough intrepretation that they feel that just providing the data means they need to cover their ass in a regulatory way.
As shown in Fig 3 of https://www.balmoralresources.com/s/Grasset.asp?ReportID=650193, the orientation of the different sulphide mineralization suites gives BAR information as to the degree of post-emplacement deformation/ orientation when combined with the local folding and faulting data and will help define their drill targets. I believe it also means that we should see much thicker massive sulphide intervals when they figure out where the centre of the structural trap is.
I don't have enough info to determine the orientation of the system yet, but right now I'm starting with a mental model of a shallow bowl shaped system that we are looking at edge on in plan view i.e. dipping at 90 degrees. That is obviously going to change but it helps to have a starting point, even if it is wrong. At first, the placement of massive sulphides in the drill core from GR-14-17 didn't fit this model, but that may be explained by local sulphide remobilization per the April 30, 2014 "Holes GR-14-17, 18, 19 and 24 are drilled on section, in and around the previously reported massive sulphide intercept in GR-14-17. All four holes intersected anomalous Ni-Cu-PGE mineralization and show evidence of local faulting/deformation and some evidence of local sulphide remobilization not seen in the intercepts to the northwest (holes GR-14-16, 22, 23 and 25)."
Also, BAR is intrepreting the Massive sulphides in GR-14-25 in the same way In drill hole GR-14-25 a massive sulphide zone at the top of the net-textured mineralization would appear to relate to a second magma pulse, later than the one forming the net textured mineralization, which has cut down into and incorporate some of the net-textured mineralization at its base forming a massive sulphide layer.