Check new drilling against the proposed structure

A new intercept may look like an extension of an existing zone on a plan. Before accepting that interpretation, check where the mineralised interval sits in three dimensions and how it relates to the earlier holes.

Use this workflow to identify questions for follow-up. A visual match is a starting point for interpretation, not proof of geological continuity.

1. Choose one claim to check

Start with the announcement’s specific claim: an extension along strike, a deeper intersection, or support for a proposed dipping zone. Record the new hole ID and the earlier holes used in the comparison.

Keep the company’s plan and section open beside your working view. Note which parts show measured drilling and which show an interpreted connection between holes.

2. Check the inputs before the shape

Confirm the collar position and elevation, coordinate system, hole depth, dip, azimuth and available downhole surveys. Check that assay intervals are attached to the correct hole and depths.

If the source provides only a collar direction, do not assume the displayed path has the same confidence as a surveyed hole. Resolve an obvious placement error before interpreting an apparent offset.

The JORC reporting checklist identifies the drillhole information, width qualifications and diagrams needed to understand exploration results. Our ASX drill-result guide shows how to trace an interval back to its source table.

3. Inspect the same holes from more than one direction

In Explore, locate the project and use the 3D tool to select the area around the relevant drilling. Include the neighbouring holes needed to understand the claim, rather than isolating the strongest intercept.

Rotate the scene to compare the interval positions from above and from the side. Keep track of the viewing direction. If two intervals overlap from one angle, rotate again to check whether they are actually separated in depth or across the proposed trend.

Compare that view with the published section. Check its orientation, scale and the distance of projected holes from the section plane before treating the drawing as a direct slice through the geology.

Canetoad company-view illustration. Use the source plan and section alongside the available 3D drilling.

A simple example: aligned collars, different tests

Suppose two collars lie on the same line in plan. One hole is shallow and directed away from the proposed zone; the other is deeper and directed towards it. Their collar alignment alone does not show that they tested the same structure.

This is an illustrative scenario, not a reported project result. The check is to locate the mineralised intervals along each hole, inspect their relative positions and compare the geological logs. If surveys or logs are missing, record that limitation rather than drawing a continuous zone between them.

4. Look for evidence that challenges the interpretation

Check the nearby holes that were not highlighted. Which reached the proposed target depth? Which have reported assays, and which are still awaiting results? Missing results should not be treated as barren intersections.

A change in grade between holes may deserve investigation, but grade colours alone do not identify a shared geological structure. Look for supporting lithology, contacts and structural observations in the source material.

Keep downhole length separate from true width. Rotating a scene cannot supply a missing estimate of the mineralisation’s orientation.

5. Leave a useful review note

Save the view with the relevant hole IDs and source references, then write three short statements:

• Observed: the interval positions or relationships you can identify in the available data.

• Interpretation: how those observations relate to the proposed extension or structure.

• Next check: the survey, section, geological log or additional drilling needed to test that interpretation.

If the available information cannot distinguish competing interpretations, say so. That is a useful outcome: it identifies the work needed before a structural claim goes into a technical review or presentation.

Try the 3D view

Rotate the public example below to inspect the drillholes from different directions. Compare how the intervals line up from above and from the side. This is a viewer demonstration, not a validation of a particular structural interpretation.