Click here to recieve updates directly to you e-mail

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Sol Gold Update - dark clouds on the horizon?

DISCLOSURE: I own shares in Sol Gold.

Sorry, I've been a bit snowed under with work, here is a quick update with the new drill holes released by Sol Gold a couple of weeks ago (link) and last week (link).

I've also done a complete rebuild of the model to make sure that it matches SolGold's maps as accurately as possible.

Summary

  1. Lots of grade smearing in latest PR
    • Hole 023R-D1 - 254m @ 1.16% Cu and 1.93 g/t Au, surrounded by material grading less than 1% CuEq
    • Hole 024-D1R - 512.9m @ 0.53% CuEq, in reality is 160.8m @ 1.19% CuEq surrounded by materail grading less than 0.5% CuEq
  2. High-grade (>1% CuEq) mineralization restricted to very narrow zones - SolGold even tell us that these zones are 2-4 times narrower than the reported intervals
  3. Bulk of the rock at Alpala grades <1%CuEq, which is probably uneconomic to mine
  4. I haven't updated my calculations as I don't have sufficient data quality (due to grade smearing) to produce an accurate number.

Background 

Just a quick summary on how the model was created and how the data was extracted, I know this is probably repeating a lot of what you already know, but it is important as it shows how results can be skewed.

All data is from the public domain (i.e. SolGold Press releases and presentations).

This means that I have to estimate hole locations (I georeference the plan maps), direction and dips. They are moderately accurate, but not perfect. there is a lot of guess work to make the hole line up as closely as possible.

The assay data comes from the Press releases, and I run it through Corebox's excellent Drill Hole Interval Calculator tool (link) to back calculate the residual grade of the rocks that surround the high-grade intervals. This is done to see how much of the grade is in that narrow high-grade zone, and if the surrounding rocks actually contain enough metals to be mined.

You can download the latest 3D viewer file from here (link), but you'll need to download the latest Leapfrog Viewer program to be able to open it.

When you look at the press releases for the Apala drilling you need to be thinking the following:

  1. How are the results being presented in the best way possible
  2. How will the deposit be mined

To be logical, let us start with point 2 - how are they going to get the crap out of the ground?

Here is a section through Alpala.



Decent mineralization starts at ~700m below surface, so if it gets mined, they will be doing it from underground. If used several images from a report written by Macquarie Research on Block caving (link).

Large scale underground mines have several 'unique characteristics'
  • They require a higher CAPEX than a similar sized open pit operation
  • Have higher operating costs
  • They take longer to develop and ramp up to full production
    • 5 years of underground development
    • 5-7 years to ramp up periods
As a result, they are much more sensitive to changes in metal prices and Capex. However, they can have better returns on invested capital compared to open pits.

However, Alpala is an exploration stage project, we don;t need to get bogged down by all that engineering crap. However, their repot had this figure.




Think of this as a reference diagram, plot on where Alpala should sit along the red lines.

Which line do you choose? Well, look at the assay tables in any of the press releases and you see how SolGold have calculated their CuEq grades



So, draw a line on it for US$1300/oz for Gold and $3/lb for copper, and then a horizontal line back to the Y-axis (CuEq%) to see what grade Macquarie think you need for a viable underground block-cave greenfield project like Alpala.

Here is my version:



So ~1.5% CuEq for Alpala to be a standalone, viable project.

Point 1: The results 

Why don't we now look at the assay table from the latest PR, reporting the mineralized intervals from holes 023R-D1 and 024-D1R.



At first glance, everything looks awesome. Hundreds of meters of decent grade material. I mean EVERYTHING in hole 23R-D1 is ore, hole 024-D1R is less good....

However, there are some clues that not all is as rosy as being presented.


Why are they giving intervals at different cut-off grades?
To me, this mean that that they a narrow very high-grade zone surrounded by low grade crap.

Why don't we back-calculate the residual grade

Hole 023R-D1


They have decent stuff from 958m to 1212m, but the rest is crap.

Hole 024-D1R


Same story here, but then again, they drilled the same zone hit by hole 024

For these 2 holes, only a very small portion (36% for hole 023R-D1, and none of hole 024-D1R are good enough for an underground mine. Most of what they drilled in these 2 holes is mineralized waste.

They even tell us that the mineralization is narrow in the text below the table. it says: 



This means that SolGold's geologist believe that the true with of the intercepts are 2-4 times narrower than the interval length reported in the table, so:
  • 745.1m @ 1.29% CuEq mean that the true width of mineralization is between 186.3 to 372.55m wide.
How does this compare to the rest of the drilling? Do we see similar narrow, very high-grade zones surrounded by mineralized waste?



Very hard to see on the plan map in the press release, but fortunately with the power of Photoshop, we can lighten this image. I've chucked on my interpretations for fun.



The most consistent mineralization is around holes

Here is a zoomed in part of holes 15, 16 and 23 which is where holes 29, 29D1 are all heading, but that zone only has a 200m x 150m horizontal extents. The rest of the high-grade is quite scattered and look to be dikes.

horizontal distance between the 2 lines = 35m


We can see the individual assays, they are a bit blurry as I've zoomed in really close, but you can see the individual assays and you can see how quickly the grade drops off around the high-grade samples.

Look at the plan map, how when you look closely, most of the >1% CuEq mineralization is restricted to narrow zones, that are hard to join together. there doesn't appear to be a solid, high-grade core, just a lot of narrow high-grade dykes surrounded by mineralization that would be marginal if exposed at surface, but at >500m depths, it will never be touched.

I'm a bit disappointed, and gut feel is that the actual resource will be significantly lower than what the market expects, as these high-grade zones aren't consistent and don;t appear to join up.

However, I invested in SolGold for the other targets, I knew that Alpala was deep and probably not good enough as a standalone deposit. I want to see them drill somewhere else.

If you want the full Leapfrog project - e-mail me at theangrygeologist@gmail.com and I'll upload it for you





Tuesday, October 3, 2017

AntaKori - the results continue.....

We got some more drill results from Regulus (link), you can download the Leapfrog viewer file here (link).

Summary:

  • Arsenic is controlled by the High-Sulfidation event, the skarn mineralization appears to contain significantly lower As.
  • Hole AK-17-002 was OK
    • Upper interval was similar to the 2012 resource grade (0.36 g/t Au and 0.48% Cu (link))
    • Lower interval - deep and low grade (less than 0.5% Cu Eq at ~400m vertical depth isn't special)
  • Hole DHSF17-160 - a very interesting hole, 
    • Decent, thick intercept of good grades, especially the lower Skarn mineralization
    • Hole located in corner of Regulus Concessions. This could mean the best mineralization is off their ground.
Here they are:

table 1

table 2


I applaud Regulus for including the second table, with Arsenic (As) assays. This is a project with "As issues", so why don't we look at the data a bit more closely.

If we split the assays by mineralization type - High Sulfidation (HS) and Skarn, we can see that the HS mineralization contains much more As than the Skarn.



parts per million (ppm) Arsenic
We see similar patterns with copper and gold.



The high sulfidation event is introducing additional metals into the system or re-mobilization them.

The good news, the Skarn contains significantly lower As content than the HS mineralization, but are lower grade.

So, if there is a big skarn at AntaKori, As shouldn't be a problem.

Drill-results

Let us look at the drilling data in more detail.

Hole AK-17-002

Overall, I was a bit disappointed in this hole. We can split the mineralization into 2 zones.

  1. Upper Zone - the High Sulfidation system - nothing special, average grade dragged up by a high-grade breccia, the rest of the zone was a bit underwhelming, especially as hole SDH-037 hit 188.55m @ 1.07 g/t Au and 2.02% Cu was only ~80m away.
  2. Lower Zone - the Skarn zone - generally a bit crap, it was poorly mineralized (less than 0.25% Cu) and deep. 
Au

Cu



Hole DHSF17-160

This was much more interesting. A good, thick, decent grade skarn drilled where no skarn has been drilled before....

Some nice thick >0.5% Cu with a nice gold bonus. the drill-holes around it didn't hit anything.

Au


Cu


There is very little historic drilling in this area, and it suggests that potentially the core of the skarn mineralization could be located between holes DHSF-17-160 and 161, but this is where we start to run into the boundary problem, it suggests that the core (best?) part of the system is located on Coimolache concessions...




So, it will be interesting to see the results from holes AK-17-003 and DHSF17-161




Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Assay results

How long does it take to get anassay result?

Some companies can take months to release assays. We all know that these companies want to release those juicy numbers as quickly as possible, but sometimes, those evil pricks at the assay labs decide to screw everything up and deliberately go slow on those critical samples from that critical drill-hole from that critical project.

I mean, a Junior Exploration company would NEVER sit on assay results, especially if they aren't inline with market expectations/promises.

I need to take you on a trip, image that you are a little gold flake (or silver for weirdos), you've been lucky and managed to find yourself in a vein. If you've been lucky, you've ended up in a nice, warm location.

You've been there for millions (or longer) of years, an then, some dick-head geologist, probably a JAFA, whips out his Estwing, beats you out of place and then tosses you into a fine Sentry sample bag.

So, how long do you think it will take for this sample to go from the field, get crushed, analysed and the results e-mailed back to the incredibly talented exploration geologist?

(Note: I'm ignoring samples sent to mine laboratories, they have this weird think called 24 hour turnaround, that is way to little time to create an impressive story of your geological prowess).

There are 3 aspects in the life of a sample:

  1. How long it takes to get  the sample from the field to the prep laboratory
  2. How long the Prep lab take to dry, crush, pulverize and sieve the sample to create a pulp
  3. How long it takes the pulp to arrive at the analytical lab and be analysed and the results sent to the company.
These factors vary by work rotation, project location, and location of the labs.

So, I've been going through some of my old data, and on average:

Peru - 28 days
From field to prep lab = 7 days
Prep = 3 days
Analysis - including over-limits - 18 days

Chile - 31 days

From field to prep lab = 8 days
Prep = 2 days
Analysis* - including over-limits - 21 days


Mexico - 25 days
From field to prep lab = 3 days
Preparation = 2 days
Analysis* = 14 days

*the pulp samples were sent overseas to Peru/Canada for 4 acid digest

These are AVERAGE turnaround times from hundreds of sample shipments. So, if we factor in a week or two for the geologists to import, process and interpret the results, you can see that 5-7 weeks is a good upper limit to wait for results to be announced.

So, if you are waiting >2 months for the results, maybe you should ask why......

Note: The samples form Chile and Peru were a combination of Core and surface (rock-chip, grab and soil samples). The Mexican samples were surface samples only.

Thursday, September 7, 2017

Mexican Hat - dodgy numbers?

GMV's Mexican Hat project, we saw earlier how they like to add together their separate intercepts to make their gold zones look bigger.

This project has had a history of getting companies into problems with the BCSC.

The first was Capital Hill Gold (link):

oops...











And then it was the turn of Auracle Resources (link) :

darn....














We are told that the resource defined by Placer is:










So the gold is found is discrete zones?



Rock-chip sample data





Outcrop photos


Brown rocks - contain gold; grey = no gold


Drill-hole Data


Gold in narrow, discrete zones..

Sections


So GMV have managed to increase the project resources by a small 244% from Placer's original "geological estimation" of ~154,000 ounces of gold to >500,000 ounces?

Official Mexican Hat Resources, GMV resources Feb 2016

They must have drilled a crap load of drill-holes. Here are all the historic holes.

Black = Placer Holes
Here are all the holes drilled by GMV, but please be careful, as you may be amazed at how they have swiss-cheesed El Sombrero. Here are the 2016 drill-holes.

so, 15 holes?
Looks to be 18 holes in 2011 and 15 holes in 2016, and a few holes this year, so I'm sure that they hit massive thickness of high-grade gold. I assume that they forgot to put them in the PRs?

So, we have gold in discrete, narrow zones. A massive increase in resources, but without a huge amount of drilling? How does that work?

I'm sure there is nothing suspicious, but just a couple of questions:

  • When will GMV release the results from the 3 holes completed in May (link)? We had a bit of text in the July 12th release (link), could be get a table?
  • How has the rest of the drilling going? You Told us that drilling started in July (link), so no holes have been completed and no results? When will we get to see the results?
    • RC rigs can easily drill 200m a day (so should be completing a couple of holes a week)
    • You have an assay lab in Tucson just 72 miles away, a 1.5 to 2 hour drive
    • Labs normally take 2-4 weeks to process and analyze samples
  • You also told us back in May that you completed the 1st diamond hole in the 2017 drill program. When will we see the results from this hole, it has only been 4 months.
You should have a good chunk of the results, did you get any huge intercepts like those in the Feb 2017 PR (link)


This project smells of BS, and the company have demonstrated that they are more than happy to massage results to present a small, crap project in the best light possible.

























Thursday, August 24, 2017

Ankakori - the first hole

DISCLOSURE: I should have bought more

What a whopper! A great first hole from Regulus at Antakori (link). They have been very intelligent and the initial drilling is focused at filling in the gaps left by [insert name here].

You can download the 3D model from here (link) - please not that this file is big, I've included the topography and overlain the property boundary and some geophysics in the 2006 technical report.

Summary

  • Antakori is a complicated multi-phase mineral system. dominated by:
    • High-sulfidation Epithermal - Au, Ag, Cu and As rich
      • this is what is mined by the neighbors to the SW
    • Skarn/porphyry mineralization - Cu +/- Zn, Ag, Pb rich
  • Great first hole, plugged into a nice high grade zone identified back in 20XX
  • Mineralization is Epithermal (high-sulfidation) - hole will be Enargite (Cu-Au and As) rich
  • AK-17-001 didn't go deep enough to test the skarn/porphyry potential, but hole AK-17-002 will!
Hole AK-17-001, 002 and 003 have been drilled along the SW margin of the property, where it butts up against the Tantahuatay Mine.

my annotations - is that mag low to the north a porphyry?
 Hole AK-17-001 went smack between historic holes SDH-034 (120m @ 0.63 g/t Au and 0.67% Cu) and SDH-037 (188m @ 1.07 g/t Au and 2.02% Cu) drilled in 2012, and demonstrate that this zone appears to be quite high-grade and robust.

here is a cross section

pink = HS-epithermal domain; blue = skarn domain
You can see where hole AK-17-001 has hit, the copper grades are very good, but the gold is restricted to a narrow (23m core length or ~ 10m true width) zone grading ~ 7 g/t Au with a lower grade halo, suggesting that there could be some high-grade veins in the core of that hit.

And a long section with some distances on it.




Why don't we take a bit of time to look at the Antakori property. To steal a football pun, it is a project of 2 halves:

  1. High-sulfidation Epithermal deposit
  2. Skarn-porphyry deposit



HS-Epithermal Mineralization

This is what they are mining next door and looks like this:

Dickite, hehehe


The enargite is the issue here, it contains arsenic, and historically this project is regarded as having an arsenic issue. It does, but it is local, and it will be a problem for the neighbors if (when?) they start expanding the open pit into this area (with a nice NSR to Regulus is they do!).

The Skarn-porphyry mineralization

Simple formation model - Porphyry + limestone = skarn

Peru has a few big 'uns (Antamina, Las Bambas, Tintaya etc.) that produce a lot of metal. The historic drilling has hit some skarn, but it hasn't been drilled systematically, and this is where a lot of potential for AK is. I was a bit disappointed that hole AK-17-001 didn't go deep enough, but a minor grumble.

It looks like this:

doesn't look impressive, but can be big!

However, hole AK-17-002 should be going a lot deeper properly looking at the skarn potential at Antakori, and is the hole I'm interested in!

So, early days, but it is good to start the 2017 drilling with a nice hot hole. A bit of a cheat (focusing on infilling a known high-grade zone, but might as well test the lowest risk targets to get the juices going.
However, I have a few questions:

  • How much input do Regulus have in this drilling campaign, are they restricted by their partners?
  • Do they have permitting to explore the entirety of the project or are they restricted to specific areas?
  • Why are they drilling that gold project in the US?
This is going to be an interesting, developing story, I'm happy with the first results and would like to see some evidence of regional exploration (cheap, low-end stuff), and maybe some geophysics to see if there are other decent targets in the area.



Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Cardinal BS

Good news everyone, Cardinal Resources didn't drill a nasty, zone of continuous gold mineralization (link). How unfashionable is that!
ignore the gaps, they contain nothing important

Like a nerdy kid trying to be cool, they decided just to list the good stuff, they accidentally (I'm sure they weren't trying to deceive anyone) only reported just the narrow gold zones and then added them all together into a single, easy to digest table.

No BS here (link to the 3D model)

I like the fact that they didn't need to deceive anyone, but that they felt that they had to.

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Solgold 43-101 distillation

DISCLOSURE: I own shares in SolGold

I promised to review the technical report on Cascabel, so here it is. I apologize that it took some time, I've been withoutt internet for a weeks

Simply put, this report is a qualifying report for SolGold's listing on the TSX and a setting the foundation for the initial resource estimation that we are promised to receive in December (link).

SRK are checking that the project exists, the drilling and sampling have been done to best practices, and that there are no major technical issues. It also outlines historic exploration and proposes some future work programs.

Summary

  • Nothing groundbreaking, but a lot of useful info
  • Good geology
    • big regional structures = good plumbing
    • big Batholiths = good potential Cu source rocks
    • Some good neighbors (a good indication of potential in the area)
  • Data collected is high quality with no issues
    • early Met test in 2014 show good recoveries
    • SRK mention minimal deleterious elements
  • Exploration potential
    • Alpala and Aguinaga are the best prospects, and received the most attention
    • NW prospects appear to represent the tops of deeply buried systems

There is a lot of text, so you don't have to read on!

Section 1 - The introduction tells us what SRK did and didn't do, what data sources they used and the scope of work. It was interesting that the report was completed in February 2017.

Section 3 - this tells us where the project is located, but also some background on the mining and environmental laws in Ecuador, as well as the holding costs, any underlying agreements, and the tax regime (page 19) if the project gets developed.
  • Income Tax = 22%
  • Labor Profit Sharing tax = 15% (12% to the state and 3% to employees) for a large scale mine
  • VAT= 14%
  • Municipal taxes, social security
  • Royalties = 8% on Copper, Silver and Gold
  • Windfall tax = 70% of the gross obtained from the sale of mineral at a higher price than the base price established in the Mining Exploitation contract
The windfall tax is interesting and I'll need to research a bit more to see what it fully means, does it mean that if the base price for Au and Cu is set at $1300/oz and $3/lb, the mine will have to pay 70% of the gross revenue received over that amount, so this means that once a project moves towards production, there has to be careful negotiation to set this price as high as possible so you have a lot of wiggle room?

Section 4: this tells you if access to the project good or bad (big impact on exploration costs if everything has to be helicopter supported) and how far away are power (for the mine) and transport links (to ship out the concentrate to the port).

This is useful to check so that if the project gets developed that the operator won't need to spend a large amount of money on a power plant, port, concentrate pipeline etc. that can add a lot of bucks to a project's CAPEX, basically look for some black clouds on the horizon.

At the moment, everything seems OK, there is a rail link just north of the property that runs to a port (they may need to check capacity as when (if?) Codelco's mine gets going, it may use it all up).

There is also a small section on climate and physiography. this will have an impact on construction costs (can they use the morphology to fit in the dumps and surface facilities or do they have to flatten hit tops etc.)

Section 6:  This is the key section is we want to determine the potential at Cascabel.

We want to see:
  • Plumbing: A big regional structure running through/close to the project (the Cauchi-Pujili Fault Zone)
  • Potential: Are there any other big deposits in the area
  • Mineralization Source: Some big batholiths (the red and pink blobs in the map below)

We can see that Cascabel has all three, but we need to remember that not all porphyries, in this area will be  mineralized!

Local Geology - it is always good to have a quick look at the rocks exposed in a project, as they can have a significant impact on mineralization:
  • Limestones - potential to form high grade skarns (think Antamina, Las Bambas etc.)
  • Andesites - contain Iron that can be used to precipitate copper (chalcopytite is an FeCu sulfide) minerals.
I also like Figure 6-6, it is a good overview on how you can use soil geochemistry to define exploration targets. Copper porphyries, like any deposits have a well defined geochemical signature (this varies by exposure level and host rock that can shrink or expand these anomalies).


You may ask why there is no copper map. This is because it is easily leached from soil and we are in a tropical environment. 

The Mo is much more stable and will generally remain insitu.

The Manganese and zinc are exhaust metals, they require lower temperature and pressures to be precipitated and are found much further from the porphyry. We can see that where are some nice strong Mn depletion zones at Alpala and Aguinaga, which is again a good indication of where the poprhyries are located.

The Cu/Zn ratio is very useful as it highlighting any weak copper anomalies in the core of the system.

You can also use the geochemical signature to check the exposure level, it looks like Americas, Chinamibcito have smaller, more subtle signatures, and this may represent more deeply buried porphyry systems (drilling will have to tell us how deep they are).

Mineralization
There is a lot of geobabble here, however, figure 6-9 is the most interesting


A load a wank I know, but it tells us that the copper is introduced by B-veins, which is what they have found at surface at Aguinaga just a 1000m closer to surface.

Alteration - just some geowank, it is interesting to geologists and can be useful to vector towards the core of a system, what is important is the size of the alteration system, simply put:
  • big alteration = big system
This doesn't mean that the porphyry will be mineralized, but increases the potential.

We'll ignore the bar plots, the scatter plots show that Cu and Au generally occur together (no surprise there).

Structural geology
this is interesting, this shows the potential targets, but a big about porphyries. Simply put, porphyries are formed when batholiths cool and incompatible elements (i.e. Cu and Au) are 'released' by their host minerals. These incompatible elements go into a mush/liquid that rises and pools in highs (technical term is apophyse) in the batholith roof.



These highs are often formed in zones of weaknesses, i.e. where multiple structures intersect and break up the rocks, for example:


So we see that we have multiple zones of weakness where the three structures intersect that see to correspond to Alpala deposit and the other exploration targets.

So we have good plumbing, with Alpala we know we have a source that was rich in Cu and Au.

I just want to include a brief message about geophysics, you often see a large chargeability anomaly surrounding a porphyry as it is detecting the pyrite halo which is generally unmineralized.

It irritates me that so many junior exploration companies insist on drilling the red blob and don't drill the changeability low in the middle. The reason for this is that the halo can contain >5% Pyrite whereas the core may contain 2-3% Chalcopyrite and therefore appear to be a (relative) low.

We also get a nice section (6.3.4) talking about the otehr prospects, and we basically see that there isn't much as most exploration activities have focused on Alpala and Aguinaga. These can all be put in the 'needs more work' category. they all have similar 'features' to Alpala, but their potential is unknown until a truth machine (drill-rig) arrives and puts a few holes into them.

SolGold have focused on the 'best' targets and haven't been very distracted by the regional prospects.

Section 8 - exploration.
This gives us a run down on what SolGold have done on the project. this is fairly standard, but if you have invested in another porphyry exploration company, check to see if they are doing the same.

I like the fact that they have done proper channel samples with a saw so that they are unbiased. This is good, it means that these samples could be used in a resource estimate as they are essentially horizontal drill-holes.

Section 9 - drilling
For me, I'm going to steal the hole coordinates to rebuild my model, but what you want to check is that:
  • Have they surveyed the collars properly (DGPS or professional surveyor) as handheld GPS can give errors of up to 20m, or worse in steep or forested terrain
  • Have they done a proper down-hole survey (gyro is best, followed by EZ-shot and if they are using a tripari or acid bottle, or not surveying - run away)
  • is the recovery good - 97% is excellent, there is probably slight loss at the start of the hole (you wash away some soil) and in fault zones. If you see less than 80%, be concerned.
  • Orientated core - is a nice bonus it helps measure vein, contact and the orientation of structures.
  • Are they storing the core (think Bre-X), and where are they storing it
    • at site means they have to build warehouses
    • off-site - they are renting warehouses
Section 10: Sample prep
This is where we can see how the data is being collected and if Solgold are meeting (or exceeding) standard practises.

I like the fact that they are collecting Specific Gravity measurements as they drill (1 per core tray), as when the project evolves this will be very useful to accurately calculate the destiny of the rock and mean that the tonnage calculated will be precise.

Sample selection - this tells us that they are sampling everything (mineralization at ~2m widths, waste at 6m widths). This costs money, but will allow them to create a detailed alteration and mineralization model that could help to vector their drilling on other targets. Most companies don't do this (as it is expensive).

Section 11. QAQC
This is to show that the data they are receiving from their assays is any good. We can see that early in the project, when they were using Acme labs, the data was poor, so they changed to ALS and then Met-solve that have produce much higher quality samples.



We also see some minor issues with the blank standard, this seems to be picking up some calibration errors in the analytical equipment (it is typical that there is 'drift' that means the machine needs to be calibrated frequently).


One question I did have was regarding the low quality results from Acme (almost 60% of the analyses) but SolGold have sent a load of samples to Metsolver to verify the Acme data and it appears that the results are comparible.


Section 12 - Met study
Wow, an early metallurgical test, this is a very pleasant surprise. Solgold are checking to see if there could be any issues with recovery, way back before they started to spend big bucks on drilling. This is an early test just to check that the gold and copper can be recovered by standard methods and they good some good results:
  • 86.5% recovery for Cu
  • and ~80% for Au
Not brilliant (Cu recoveries in a typical porphyry should be >90%), but it is a start. 


Section 22 - Adjacent properties
This shows who their neighbors are, and potential players in the area. Why isn't the area to the north staked? Is there a national park there?

It is also important to see how close the deposits are to the property boundary. Fortunately, here both are well within, so there is no need to deal with greedy neighbors.

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Pulacayo - a good or bad Prophecy

Pulacayo project, hmmm

Propecy Minerals, hmmm, wasn;t that owned by Apogee?

Lets check the Interweb for current news:

  • We're going to be at the PDAC (link)
  • We remembered where the project is and took some samples (link) - and pretended that we were gonna do some drilling, so here are some old results to give you a stiffy and some geo-pron to wank over (ohhhhhh, dirty rocks, mmmmm - I like the fact they they used a soft focus on a couple of photos to make them took sexier).
  • Toll mill PR (link) - I liked the April Fool's joke, and the drunk mill photos

I decided to do a detailed review of the projects to see if there was a fatal flaw, so I started with the front page



no issues here



oh fuck, it is in Bolivia, and this is what Monty Python has to say about that:



I was amazed on how much information Prophecy have on the project. We have:
  • Complete drilling data from the underground and surface drill holes
  • drill maps and sections
  • the resource block model
  • underground workings and topo maps
No company every does this, this is the sort of info you get if you sign a confidentiality agreements with them. This means:
  1. The project is for sale
  2. Massive problem(s)
  3. Both
Heck even the company has run off to go and mine coal in Mongolia and far around with the metal of the future Cobalt Vanadium.

Is there any potential to advance or develop the project - No

Can prophecy do anything with the project - No

The basically Prophecy are pimping the project like a (not very good looking) whore in the red light district of Amsterdam.

Paca = left; Pulacayo = right; Chihuahua = shareholder going to be fucked

Maybe Hecla or Coeur will buy it, they like buying 'challenging' projects.