Summary
- High-grade mineralization restricted to narrow zones
- Massive Sulfide zones are very narrow, maximum thickness 1.5m (Hole EL-17-03)
- Discovery Zone Massive Sulfides - appears to be a small pod, adjacent holes didn't intersect it.
We get a table with hole locations and a breakdown of the assays!
 |
| Massive sulfide intervals highlight in red |
I've highlighted the massive sulfide intervals (** in the press release table). However, in the Nov 20th PR, we are told that:
In the table, this isn't labelled as a massive sulfide zone, is this just a typo? I'm splitting hairs, but we often see in other deposits we often see S.H.I.T. intervals related to veinlets/pods of mineralization.
We are still missing a decent plan map, but with the information provided I've brought the data into 3D (get the viewer file* from here - link), and due to my prodigious use of a ruler, I've also added the EL-17-14 discovery zone as as well.
*you'll need to download the latest version of Leapfrog viewer (4.1) from here (link)
Plan View
 |
| 1 square = 50m |
There are a lot of holes in a small area, and the Discovery Zone is very close to the narrow Ni-Cu intercepts in holes EL-17-02 and 04.
Section View
Nickel
 |
| EL-17-14 sulfide zone is Black |
Copper
 |
| EL-17-14 sulfide zone in black |
Again we see that the Discovery sulfide body is surrounded by drill-holes. Does this mean that it is very small?
The Discovery zone is only 32m from hole EL-17-04 and 27m from EL-17-02. However, it isn't completely close off, there is potential to expand it to the north and east, unlike the other zones where adjacent holes hit virtually nothing.
I'll be updating the model with more data
Intelligent analysis of the given facts. Kudos
ReplyDeleteBrett - why no insults, I'm disappointed!
DeleteI'm interested in the role of the sediments on the massive sulfides, I'm assuming that they are the source of the Sulfur to precipitate the Ni-Cu-PGEs into sulfide minerals.
It is a shame that all the holes in the PR are on the same plane, so we can only get a 2D view of the drilling, which makes it hard to understand the lithologic contacts (are the flat lying or steeply dipping?) and orientation of the massive sulfides
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn order to understand the sulfur source we need to know more about the magmatic suite that accompanied the mineralized phase on a regional scale. So far I've seen only olivine gabbro and leucogabbro described at the E&L locality. In general though yes one would assume the Hazelton black shales are involved. If via contact metasomatismn/metamorphism alone without crustal accumulation, that could certainly limit the metal sulfide loading.
DeleteThe drilling plane selected was probably due both to surface limitations (it gets steep to the south, there is snow cover north so no outcrop clues) and the limitations of borehole geophysics (raw targeting on a gradient axis).
One clue is Lightfoot talking about "sheeted" intrusive at E&L. These tend to be at spreading centers and thus can be extensive on strike and plunge but not necessarily width (at least the differentiated layers). I think it fits the model of what we've seen so far. Not sure it helps with the required morphology for large massive sulfide deposits. But one would look to linaments along the sheet, not across it, for deposit shapes. In that case, "Old MoFo" "Skinny Man" may be tabular whereas "Big Boi" more like a cigar, in all three cases the cross-sections exposed in the figures may not be along the long axis.
We'll have to wait for additional results/data. We know that hole EL-17-08 hit something interesting (there is a photo of this hole in the Lightfoot report).
DeleteAgain, they may have hit the end of a large massive sulfide body, but the geology, and the poor way that the data has been presented doesn't suggest it.
However, I'm happy to be proven wrong and have people hurl abuse at me, I just want people to look at the data with their own eyes
No insults because I'm not inherently hostile. I like your blog for an outside look at the technical facts, not so much the sometimes acerbic wit. Plenty of nasty out there already and you have something better to offer.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see what a sulphur isotope analysis says about the sources of sulphur in the system.
As to your last point, I completely agree. Need more data. Hopefully Steve has received appropriate feedback at this point and does what is necessary to improve disclosure standards.
All in jest, and I'm only using half of my wit.....
DeleteI also checked to see that they weren't doing a 4 acid digest as the Ni content of the silicate minerals (particularly olivine) could contribute 0.1-0.2% Ni into the assays.
I was just irritated that a company like Garibaldi can be worth so much based on so little (the is my obvious professional jealously kicking in).
Sulfur isotope analysis is problematic for magmatic sulfide deposits. In almost all there is inference for some crustal contribution but the origin of that crust can play an obstructive role. Re-Os isotopes can sometimes help pinpoint the extent of crustal assimilation.
DeleteHello Tom, I was more referring to Ni in sulfides compared to whole rock Ni composition.
DeleteIn Ultramafic rocks, you can often get ~0.2% Ni (or more), but it is in silicate minerals and cannot be liberated.
Of course. I guess though my comment was more on sulfur isotopes for petrogenetic analysis. I'm a huge fan of research by Pokrovski and others into trisulfur anions. Those who follow this work closely are becoming aware of just how precious little we actually know about the role of this element in ore formation. I believe most of the current assumptions will get thrown out the window. This isn't Witwatersrand gold precipitation quackery either, it's stuff that will have significant ramifications for mineral exploration (and thus my interest).
DeleteHoly mother of God, I think this is how John Lee was able to make that pig Prophecy Platinum fly back in 2011! I couldn't figure out for the longest time why Coronation Minerals had a smaller tonnage lower grade resource at Wellgreen but then Prophecy comes along and voila they have both greater tonnage AND higher grade! I asked the Prophecy brain trust point blank on a conference call how this was possible and they said it was simply from adding the accessory metals (Pt+Pd+Au+Co) to the resource model which allowed them to incorporate bulk areas that were further away from the massive sulfide zones. They even had a press release (9/20/2011) that said the same thing. But this is not mathematically possible. I mean you can increase the tonnage by including a larger zone but how can you increase the grade as well, especially if you are going from mainly massive sulfides to mainly disseminated sulfides (higher grade to lower)? This gave me fits and I vowed to eventually figure it out.
DeleteSo I just checked and yup, Prophecy/Wellgreen have been using 4 acid digestion for base metals. As a result, the nickel in silicates of the disseminated zone more than offset the reduction of nickel in sulfides from the massive sulfide zone. Coronation had 0.36% Nickel in their near-massive-sulfide resource but somehow John Lee's Prophecy got 0.38% after adding the disseminated sulfide zones.
I also note their 2017 metallurgical testwork refers to "Practical Entitlement" that "recognizes ... feed metal units ... unsuitable for recovery". Simply put, the extra nickel in the resource comes from silicates and now, 6 years after I asked the question they wouldn't or couldn't properly answer, they have to admit this extra nickel can't be recovered.
I've seen it a number of times, and it is something I like to check if a company are just releasing Ni assays or Ni in sulfide values.
DeleteYes, but have you ever seen a deposit upgraded simply by using a lower cutoff as Wellgreen has done? If so, I would appreciate some names as I am going to write an article on the phenomenon. Neither the BCSC nor any of the analysts covering Prophecy Platinum realized that whole rock assay was the "trick" they used to positively restate the resource (John Lee claimed it was due to inclusion of Pt/Pd/Co in the NiEq), and to my knowledge the company has not disclosed it to this very day.
DeleteGMV's Mexican Hat deposit - minimal extra drilling, suddenly the resource increases by >250%
DeleteThe best promoted stock I have ever seen. But I was too young for Briex.
ReplyDeleteNovo is doing well at the moment, I can't wait for them to release some more results, or will they need more time to perfect the sampling techniques?
DeleteThe 1960s "map" and drilling only found the one pod that outcrops at the E&L showing. The other two pods Garibaldi intersected are suggested by surface outcrop and I presume they found them because of borehole EM, something they didn't have in the 1960s. So is this a "discovery"? Not of an economic deposit, but it isn't a scam either so serious consideration should be given to scaling it back a bit.
ReplyDeleteGetting closer to fair value, the problem is the geometry imposes limits on the tonnage. "Saddles" seem to do that as Underworld's buyer found out.
ReplyDeleteThey clearly withheld the initial assays hoping to get something more meaningful, the share price ran way too far and I doubt even they were thinking it would get there. So that part is sketchy. A scam? Subjectively based on your definition. The smearing I'm pretty sure is simply how you report a mineralized intercept. It's not like they headlined or highlights the wider intercept. That is what I would think most people consider active "smearing". As for the pod, yes they drilled the one that outcrops at E&L, but the historic drilling never encountered the second or third massive sulfide bodies, just the disseminated halos. What helped was the outcrop they labeled "chert" in the 1960s and Garibaldi calls "leucogabbro and diorite" ... the plunge of this dyke takes them right into the second and third pods (or lenses as GGI calls them). There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical without going over the top.
ReplyDeleteThose have to be the straightest drill holes ever drilled...Assuming these holes behaved like every other drill hole in existence (flattening with depth), hole 2 should should even further constrict the massive sulphide pod.
ReplyDeleteThere will be deviation, but no company releases down-hole survey data, so you have to work with you are given.
DeleteIn my model the holes are straight as I only have the collar survey data, and I assume this is what was used to draw the traces on the section.
Oh for sure...no blame on your part, just commenting that the section they released should have at least visualized the downhole surveys.
DeleteI'm working on an update now
DeleteAnon - the section should have visualized any down-hole deviation. It is fairly typical for company to use sections generated in geological software programs as a base for the section that the graphic designer tarts up for public release.
DeleteI commented on deviation on Camino Minerals RC drilling data, so other companies do show the results from down-hole survey information on the sections and plans.
Not including deviation on plan or section maps could suggest that the company may not be doing down-hole surveys.
I'm looking at them for that exact reason, and also Almadex, who seem to be drilling the El Cobre deposit from every direction
ReplyDelete