With regards to FNC possibilities, and the excitement on this forum, I am advising some caution. Why?
First, the 'arguments' for mineralization on the FNC side of the fence are different this time (hoov, geoprof, been there, please feel free to correct anything in this post). Last time the argument was based on the very similar strong geophysical anomalies and their proximity to E1. E1 was found by drilling these anomalies, and the argument went that because FNC was closest and had a strong geophysical/EM anomaly that appeared to connected, there was reasonable probability that FNC had something similar to E1. However, in my opinion, that argument was largely invalidated when FNC drilled into the heart of their anomalies, both in terms of position and depth, and found pretty much nuttin. As you all know, this does happen... Not all anomalies prove to mineralization, or mineralization of interest, as drilling by other companies in the RoF has exemplified. Remember this from the first FNC NR: "Preliminary ohm meter testing of some the core in the lower part of this hole indicates a degree of low resistivity that suggests that the peridotite dunite here is itself conductive."
This time NOT is drilling sub-vertical holes (87 degrees on a western azimuth) on their side of the border (which as CMP pointed out, get further away form FNC the deeper they go), along a mineralized structure that so far has been interpreted to slightly dip roughly west (away from FNC). NOT reports that in their NR that expected hole 49 to run along the contact with the peridotite and the granodiorite, which would be the expected eastern limit (roughly) of the any mineralization along the RoF intrusion, as extensive drilling at shallower depths has demonstrated the existence of that contact (peridotite against the granodiorite). Now, the 'distribution' or dispersion of mineralization (if there is any), and the structure of rock long any contact with an intrusive body is never all neat and tidy due to many forces and factors, which been explained on this forum before. Indeed FNC did drill perodotite...
But the important thing, I believe, to consider is that NOT expected to drill hole 49 along the eastern limit of the mineralization, and their expectation would have been based on analysis of all previous pertinent results. Just because the structure has not conformed to their expectations (as I said above, these thing are not often neat and tidy), and they have encountered mineralization further east than they expected, even apparently in a subsequent hole (50) for which we do not know the exact location, it does not in anyway confirm or guarantee that the mineralized structure is trending into FNC territory. In fact, much of the evidence (previous drilling and interpretation of the dip, plunge and trend) to date I would argue points to it staying mainly on NOT ground, but its true that only further deep drilling can confirm this. I do not believe it is geologically valid to argue based on the reported and rumoured results of NOT's hole 49, and the subsequent holes, that mineralized structure is going to FNC. The mineralization they are now encountering could stop (in this direction) at any point, and perhaps what they are drilling in these holes is just and 'irregularity' (a ‘bump’) in the structure that has allowed some mineralization to exist further east than they expected. To be sure, even if they did drill hole 50 close to FNC, and it hit mineralization at depth, there is absolutely no guarantee that if the drill another hole further along the direction of the hole 49 – 50 axis, that will encounter more mineralization, and we have no geophysical data to support this possibility in the way that we did with the FNC C-1 anomaly.
I am not against FNC’s RoF prospects, and I previously made a strong case for FNC the first time (for the 2008 drilling). However, it easy to get swallowed-up in the hype, excitement, rumours, and misinformation and buy-into something with little evidence. In my opinion, FNC is far from a sure thing, and existing evidence does not lend much validity to the current FNC hype. Indeed, some recently published analysis on NOT and FNC suggests that MM’s might go to extraordinary lengths when they want your shares… All just my opinion of course... Comments and critiques are welcome.
Regards,
B.
