The Q2 2022, TDEM campaign was conducted in 3 phases. Loop 8 and its lines were prepared first, together with the locations for Loops 10 and 11. The infill lines for Loops 10 and 11 were then cut, together with the location for Loop 12. Two final infill lines were cut for Loop 12 in the third phase.
The B1 Conductor was identified originally via Surface TDEM from Loop 8, which was resurveyed at the start of Q2 2022 to confirm the original data. New survey lines were acquired using Loop 8. The Z Component gridded results are shown here, clearly identifying the B1 Conductor. Preliminary modelling has indicated a 13,450 siemens conductance.
Loop 10 was prepared to investigate vertical conductors at the B1 Conductor. It detected two new conductors, the B3 and B4 Conductors. The responses for these are clearly evident in the gridded Z component for Loop 10. Preliminary modelling estimates both at 4,350 siemens conductance.
This map shows Loops 4, 8, 10, 11 and 12, positioned over the B1, B3 and B4 conductors. Loop 4 was the original TDEM Loop, acquired in Q2 2021, that first identified the B1 conductor. Anomaly B2 was identified from Surface TDEM and a Downhole EM survey acquired using Hole KSZDD002. Kavango currently interprets Anomaly B2 as a possible geological fault that may have acted as a controlling structure for Ni-Cu-PGE bearing intrusive magma. The Z Component of the Surface TDEM data is shown here, merged for Loops 8 and 10. This clearly shows the conductive responses for the B1, B3 and B4 Conductors.
This map shows the First Vertical Derivative and interpretation of Kavango’s Ground Magnetic Data over the Great Red Spot. It shows the position of the B1 Conductor and Anomaly B2, the possible geological fault. Note that Anomaly B2 appears to be quite parallel to a probable dyke lying just to the north. The interpreted ENE and NW striking dikes, and related parallel structures, are possible conduits for Ni-Cu-PGE bearing intrusive magma.
This idealised conductivity table provides a comparative assessment of the range of conductivities in siemens per metre, observed for various rocks and mineralization. This helps inform Kavango’s ranking of potential drill targets based on the modelled conductance estimations in siemens.
Figure 8. Geological cross-section of the Talnakh ore field. Intrusions are not to scale
This North looking geological section of the Talnakh and Kharaelakh ore bodies (in red) at Norilsk illustrates their close proximity to the steeply dipping Noril'sk-Kharaelakh Fault (hachured white line) and their near flat-flying orientation. Note the “bend” in the red ore body at the base of Kharaelakh intrusion, which emphasises the potential complex geometry of the intrusion and the massive sulphides.
Figure 2. Position of the orebodies (after Natorkhin et al., Turovtsev). Projection on the surface;
The plan view of the Talnakh and Kharaelakh intrusions illustrates how these generally <1km diameter bodies occur in clusters, close to the NNE striking Noril'sk-Kharaelakh Fault (black line). This shows that Kavango’s B1, B3 and B4 conductors conform to a model Talnakh and Kharaelakh type ore bodies.
The comparison shows that the conductors detected by Kavango are of a similar size to several of the massive sulfide bodies at Norilsk. Not just that, but they are clustering together in a manner similar to parts of the Kharaelakh and Talnakh branches of the orebody. Further, all of the massive sulfides at Norilsk lie within close proximity to the Kharaelakh fault, which is a similar scenario to Kavango's conductors in close proximity to the B2 fault.
