RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:NewsThanks. I do understand what the surface trace is, but didn't understand why the easting of the borehole pierce points of the section or end of the boreholes would change from there when projected to the cross section. It is liekly due to the surface trace being at the ground surface and not directly correlated to the cross-section as there is some vertical cross-section extent missing. That doesn't explain all of it though. I was erroneously reading it more as a plan/side view of a complete model rather than a truncated one, which leaves out a lot of information.
Also, it appears that the historic borehole running vertically through cross-sections of Figures 2 and 3 is actually LD2010-02, although I don't see the surface trace on Figure 3. I was wondering why such a prominent borehole in the 2 sections did not show grades etc, but looking back at older reports, it seems that the mineralizatoin is found mainly at the footwall, so LD2010-02 could have missed the mineralized zone altogether.
Valuehog wrote:
In answer to your question, the surface trace of the borehoels are vertical projections of the actual drill hole. if the hole is vertical, there would be no surface trace - just the collar location. Because the holes are inclned, the traces are shorter.
Hole 2002-15 was drilled by the former owner, ALQ Gold (now called Ignite International Brands). From the trace, it looks like the hole was off the current section and may not be relevant. There was no result reported for the hole, so likely nothing of interest.