Some have taken a dim view of PRB's recent news, and have even gone so far as to describe the results as a "failure."
I realise this is the NOT board, but I am going to briefly mention a few things because I think they are relevant to any RoF company, including NOT.
First, regarding Victory, it is significant that another nearby Greestone belt has proven to be mineralized with nickel and other metals. We do not much if anything about the assays, other than are reported to be anomalous, but I would argue that the fact that there is any minerlization there at all is both interesting and significant.
One could interpret this to mean that the RoF intrusive has caused pervasive minerlization that is not limited to just the Greenstone belt that comprises the RoF area around Mc Fauld's Lake. I would not write-off Victory yet...
Regarding the Mc Fauld's West results, I think maybe one has to have a little geological knowledge (I am not a geologist) in order to understand, or perhaps, appreciate the results.
I would argue that what PRB has done is analogous to what NOT did with AT-1, i.e., it drilled but failed to intercept the cause of the anomaly (the EM anomaly remains unexplained). However, they did intercept something like 80m of peridotite, if memory serves correctly. People should be asking themselves why PRB chose to title thier NR with "Probe Mines Intersects Peridotite on McFauld's West".
As is the case with NOT's AT-1, PRB drilled MCF without VTEM, and arguably one could say they rushed drilling, as some would say is the case with NOT's AT-1, given that we now know that VTEM is more suited for targeting deeper Cu-Ni sulphide mineralization. Whichever way you choose to look at it, however, the story is far from over for PRB's MFW claims. Why?
Well, PRB have drilled 80 metres of peridotite, which indciates a rather significant volume or peridotite, over a yet unexplained EM anomaly. As is the case with NOT's AT-1, this is highly interesting because there is relationship, arguably a correlation, between the volume of peridotite and the volume of sulphides. And, as is the case with AT-1, there could be a rather large volume of sulphides lurking somewhere underneath the bottoms of the current holes. Furthermore, given that the very nearby E1 sulphides are rich in Cu, Ni, and PGMs, its reasonable to speculate that any sulphides on PRB's claims, should they exist, will be 'enriched' in much the same way.
So, to call PRB's recent results "dismal" or a "failure", I would argue belies a lack of understanding of what the results could mean. As is the case with NOT's AT-1, there is more work to be done at PRB's MFW claims and I would not be writing off these claims as simply surface real estate just yet.
*Disclosure: I hold a small position in PRB.
Regards,
B.
