RE:RE:RE:There are no obvious prospective targets alternativeDo you realize that 8372 / 62 = 135 average?
And that 4000 / 10 = 400 average?
But that is not all. There are two rigs drilling, and one is drilling shallow holes. Lets assume that the rigs each drill 2000 meters, or 1/2 the program. Let further stick with the average of 135 meters for shallow holes. 2000 / 135 = 15 holes. But this is too many as it would use up the entire allotment.
It is true that deep holes take longer to drill than shallow holes, so lets adjust our assumptions so that only 25% of the program is for shallow targets, a bit deeper that the average, and lets go with 200 meters each.
25% of 4000 / 200 = 5 shallow holes for a total of 1,000 meters drilling.
This leaves another 5 deep holes for 3,000 meters total. And they would average 600 meters each. Just about the same as hole #62, only south of the fault. I was a bit upset yesterday when #62 came back NFG, in terms of no significant intersections, but I have no doubt that they learned from that failure.
And lets remember that REX has the tendency to underestimate these drill phases considerably. Some 3,000 meter programs ended up as 5,000 meters programs.
pvandeloo wrote: If there are targets that are signficantly more promising than boleras, why are they drilling at boleras again?
To date Orex has drilled 8372 meters in 62 drill holes at boleras.
Not they want to drill an additional 4000 meters in 10 to 15 holes.
I wouldnt expect any earth shattering findings.
If your theory is true and there are highly prospective regions not yet drilled and much more promising than boleras, this strategy seems strange....
AlternativeView wrote: pvandeloo wrote: Just like i said
drilling at boleras because thats their best shot
the property is a dud and your geological explanations wishful thinking
If you say so.