Alexandria Minerals Corp ALXDF

RE:RE:RE:RE:Visualizing Where AZX is Drilling at Zone 4

[NextPhase]

goldhunter11 wrote: Thanks NP.
Just to be sure that I understand your chart correctly:  The 2009 RE data (you call it 2008) the one you just add the red circle are located on same actual plan view of the terrain (not an insert)? If so, it would be informative if you could include all features (the old pit, the headframe, the ultramafic, the Sch-Tuff, Sediment, Diorite like what they show in Figure 18 of the Tech Report). 

 Even thought hole 12 showsgood grade and intercepts, most of the old results (on the 3 fences) does not seem to contribute much to the 2009 RE. The distance from hole 12 is too far to other high grades to permit interpolation (Ref. Tech Report Fig 8). The cluster on the east side of the insert has a much tighter distance between holes.
- The 2009 RE comes mainly from Zone 2?

• Yeah, when I say 2008 RE, because the drill results happened in 2007-2008. For whatever reason, it's more natural for me to think in those terms, but you're right that it's 2009.
• I will start working on updating the map with several of the features you mentioned and looking at the more recent new release. I'm thinking about using Adobe Illustrator for the next update, because it should be easier for me to layer everything together.
• Yeah, I'm starting think most people are not looking very closely at these drill results. Two out of the three somewhat positive samples from Zone 4 were probably not even included in the 2009 RE, because of the depth of the intercepts.
• Yup, I do think Zone 2 is the majority of the 2009 RE, which hurt overall grade. If the grades are very different between Zone 2 and Zone 4 in the current results, do you think AZX should separate these resources when reporting?

NP