I sent some questions to Brian today to get more information on the WM play. I'll list the questions first followed by the answers. E-mails have been incoming all evening. These guys don't seem to take time off and were very prompt in replying. The questions were quite technical but I thought I'd share them:
Questions
1)Do you use VLF-EM to map the major fault systems?
2)There is a significant NW –SE linear feature on your magnetic map that appears to come through between holes WM-09-03/04 and the strongest portion of the VTEM anomaly on the Canalaska map. Would you interpret that feature as a mafic dyke or a major fault? If it’s a fault then that is significant as I recall from past exploration that the intersection of major faults is prospective.
3)The initial drill program targeted the margin of the most conductive zones (probably the graphite rich pelites) as the uranium is sometimes deposited in that geometry. Do you intend to drill the strongest conductive anomalies as well as perimeter locations? It’s interesting that the VTEM anomaly has a NW-SE orientation similar to the magnetic feature, which suggests it could be fault controlled.
4)The results reported on holes WM-09-01 to 05 suggest a good correlation between the strength of the VTEM conductive anomalies and uranium mineralization (with holes 03 and 04 the best). Is it possible that the uranium is closely associated with the graphitic rich zones, which are the source of the conductive anomalies?
Answers (from Keith Metcalfe via Brian)
1) Yes, the EM components of our VTEM/ZTEM systems are proven systems for mapping conductors/structure in the Basin. VLF is a surface tool and of limited use at depth.
2) The NW-SE feature is clearly a dyke. Its presence indicates crustal weaknesses (faults) in the area which cross-cut the NE structural/conductor trend - a prime target for uranium deposits.
3) We first drill test the strong conductors for prospective geology and to identify alteration halos. Margins are then considered for fence testing since many models dictate that uranium occurs "adjacent to" the prominent graphitic conductor horizons and not always in them. Our strongest structural trend remains NE/SW through the existing six drill holes with interpreted fault control to the NW/SE. We had planned to test these with our ML-4 Line in 2009 but weather and the lack of the recent ZTEM results prompted a delay to that vision. We now have good targets on the CVV ground to the west.
4) Yes, we have great correlation between drill core and the defined graphitic conductors. The WM "D" conductor/alteration/anomalous trend remains a very high potential prospect for uranium.
I would summarize the WM play as having all the necessary elements for uranium deposition, but there is no guarantee as you cannot ever remove all exploration risk. The last press release indicated drilling would probably start in February. It's going to be a nail-biter.
