Click here to recieve updates directly to you e-mail

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Garibaldi - Mighty Massive Sulfides - The Return

We got the results from hole EL-17-14 today (link).

Summary:


  • Hole EL-17-14 assays are high-grade, but drilled down the guts of the Discovery Zone
  • Drilling still restricted to a 50m wide section, so 3D orientation of massive sulfide zones are hard to determine accurately.
  • However, the drilling to date indicates that the massive sulfide bodies are quite small, but most ore open in several directions suggesting potential to add, albeit limited, tonnages.

Pro-trick for Garibaldi - if you are going to put a table in your press release, don't include a sub-interval that is lower grade, it just shows that you are smearing a very high grade zone over the thickest interval possible.



It is also obvious that this intercept is not close to true widths as suggested below the table, but it shows that Garibaldi thought that the Discovery Zone was parallel to the upper sulfide zone intersected by holes EL-17-04 and 09 and dipping approximately to the NW.

this is their own interpretation from all of the data
This means that hole EL-17-14 was orientated to drill down the guts of the Discovery zone to try and get as long an intercept as possible, so here is my very simple interpretation, based on the intercepts in holes EL-17-14 and EL-17-09.

10.63m is almost 16.75 meters?
It looks like the Discovery zone is ~10-11m thick, based on the >2% Ni assays and reported massive sulfide mineralization.. This is significantly less than the 16.75m than Garibaldi are suggesting in the notes beneath the assay table.

I've brought the data from hole EL-17-14 into Leapfrog and created a new model (link), I've also done some officially bad mineralized material calculations (TM) to get an idea of the size and potential at Nickel Mountain, to see how GGI can justify a ~CND320m market cap.

Add caption
Here are my assumptions:

  • Search distance = 50 m, 
  • Specific Gravity - I've used an increasing value based on grade, using densities from Sudbury as a base (Note - SGs at the Eagle deposit average 4.44 t/m3)
    • >0.5% Ni = 3 t/m3
    • >1% Ni = 3.5 t/m3
    • >2% Ni = 4 t/m3
  • There is no specific orientation on mineralization - as all drilling to date is restricted to 50m wide plane.
If we compare Nickel Mountain, with the best-est-ist grades in the wurld, to the Eagle Deposit.
Eagle, Dec 2016 Reserves (Lundin Mining)
Eagle was acquired by Lundin Mining in 2013 for US$325M (link) or CND$416 (at current exchange rates), which is only CND$100m more than Garibaldi's current market cap.

Why? There are only 14 holes drilled at Nickel Mountain, no resources, and the massive sulfides appear to be narrow, and inconsistent. Before you hurl abuse at me, just take a step back and ask yourself - what does GGI have to warrant such a high valuation?

I also can't see the upside potential, and I don't like that GGI have been very poor at releasing quality data for the project (you could think there is a reason for this). We still have no plan maps, no geophysical sections, no presentations etc. This isn't something you would expect from professionals running a professional company.

Simply put - Nickel Mountain, Es Mundus Excrementi!

Boring Geology Bit


I've also included some scenes showing my interpretation of the various sulfide zones and their orientations that I can determine from the limited data available. I've split it into 4 separate zones, as I was intrigued by this statement.


Here are the various massive sulfide zones, I've decided to label them, as Garibaldi can't.



Using the data provided, I've created a series of estimated trends for each zone.


To create these trends I lined up the various massive sulfide/high-grade zones in 3D. It was fortunate that Garibaldi don't label these zones on their cross section or in the drill intercept tables.

I apologize to any non-technical readers, the following section is going to be full of geo-wank. I've included some features on the sections through each zone:
  1. Colors - the Zn grade shells on the section line
  2. Black line = 25m distance contour from each drill-hole
  3. Grey line = 50m distance contour
The distance contours show me where drilling has and hasn't occurred and is useful to identify areas that have and have not been drilled.

Discovery Zone

This is the zone that Garibaldi have been getting erections over, discovered by hole 09, but only recognized 5 holes later.

This zone appears to be almost horizontal, intersected by holes EL-17-02, 04, 09 and 14, but only holes 09 and 14 hit significant sulfides and mineralization.


We can see that hole 09 and 14 are just 20m apart, and the entire zone is only 60m wide, and closed off to the NW by hole EL-17-02 and to the SE by hole EL-17-04. However, it is undrilled to the NE and SW. For me it will be interesting to see if holes 10-13 explore this zone.

Upper Discovery Zone

This zone was defined by holes EL-17-04 and 09. It dips, relatively steeply to the west and is quite narrow (2-5m). 

biggus dickus
Drill-hole EL-17-02 has closed off this zone to the northwest. Hole EL-17-14, 100m to the east, and EL-17-01 ~50m to the west didn't hit anything, again suggesting this zone is quite small, but with expansion potential.

Northwest

This zone has been well drilled, it sits above the Historic Zone and appears to be steeply dipping to the SE.

Note: this section is orientated with north to the right.

So this zone is closed off to the south (left) with the drilling intercepting narrow >1% Ni zones. However, it is open to the North (right), with hole EL-17-08 intersecting ~6m of massive sulfide mineralization, so again, there is potential to expand this zone with additional drilling.

Historic

This is where exploration occurred in the 1960s. It has been well drilled by Garibaldi. To date 6 holes have drilled through this zone, but only 2, EL-17-03 and 07, have returned decent grades. It is closed off to the west by holes EL-17-05 and 06 that were unmineralized. To the north by hole EL-17-08 (unmineralized), and to the west by hole EL-17-01 that cut disseminated mineralization.

However, there is minor potential for this zone to continue to the NE, but the drilling by Garibaldi show that it is very small


So, all I can see is that the sulfides are small, have very variable thicknesses and grades over very short distances, but each zone is open in 1 or more directions. It will be interesting to see where holes 10-13 are located (I'm surprised that they were not able to release the assays from these holes as they were all drilled before hole 14 - could there be a reason - i.e. they are shite), if they are in the same Section, then, for me it just means that even Garibaldi knows that they are small and focusing on this small zone as it is the only area with evidence for massive sulfide mineralization. 

110 comments:

  1. Yet another too impressive effort. The harder a body looks the more outrageous this promotion truly is. If a body ISN'T getting insulted by GGI.v and the career dopes running it something is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Denial is the soup of an intellect starved mind.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you think you can get better results, tell Dr. Lightfoot and his geo team to step aside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have tried to get more representative results, and drilled some holes testing the continuation of the massive sulfide zones so that I could gauge the potential for NM to be world-class and warranting future drilling.

      I would also have been more transparent with the results, and would not have needed the BCSC to push them into releasing high quality information from, what you call world-class geo team. Other companies can do it, why can't GGI manage to publish a simple plan map and a presentation?

      Delete
    2. I was a passenger from the very first 'visual results' and smelled a rat then and there. 3 months later for the first fukkin assay and we finally find out the ground was turned into swiss cheese more than 51 years ago, when said tiny, clearly uneconomic pods were FIRST 'discovered'. $400m in mining 'assets' buys a lot more than this grotesque piece of chit.

      Delete
    3. The ground was not turned into swiss cheese. They drilled a few holes into the E&L zone. Later they put in an adit and drilled under the zone without finding anything. Then they tried to drill an anomaly to the south but the program was poorlyplanned and the single hole was terminated well short of target. Although they found disseminated sulfides to the southeast of E&L, they never did find massive sulfides there so those "pods" were not discovered back then.

      Delete
    4. The 'Smoking Gun' is the extremely highly detailed, hand drawn map from 1966. VERY clearly, (very) these reprobates are selling a 'discovery' that was walked away from 51 years ago. OF COURSE they are targeting the ore pods and OF COURSE this is a promotion for complete idiots. These career scumbags OUGHT to be Sprott ashamed of themselves for what they're TRYING to pull off. (Never happen)

      https://pennystockjournal.blogspot.ca/2017/11/garibaldi-resources-corp-ggiv-maps-for.html

      Delete
    5. Yeah as you state they haven't really done chit. The hole 14 intercept looks nice until you see that it is down plunge from a surface outcrop that was modeled as a resource back in the 1960s. The only thing they can say is the grades are very nice. Anything they claim going forward is tainted by their ongoing chicanery.

      Delete
    6. I like that fact that the areas of sulfide mineralization are those outlined in the 1970 map. They forgot to go to the other areas to the east....

      Delete
  4. I don't respond to fools but one can say this with absolute certainty ... anybody with a grain of mining intelligence wouldn't swallow this too stinking horsechit in this lifetime and for bloody damn sure not at a market cap well over $ 400m

    ReplyDelete
  5. Who cares what the market cap is right now. You say you can't see any potential here...what you're basically saying is a world-class geo team is completely wasting their time..and the companies that are asking Dr. Lightfoot to inspect their projects are waiting their time and money. That logic seems flawed to me. Guess we will see what happens over the next year...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Shaun,

      From the data released, to me, the mineralization looks to be small and forming isolated zones. I cannot see, at this stage, Nickel Mountain becoming a world-class deposit that justify's GGI's current market cap.

      I agree, i'll be looking forwards to the upcoming results as GGI have sufficient funds to easily cover next year's exploration budget.

      All I want to do is point out that, at this stage, a small drill program, the company has a market cap that is significantly overvalued for the assets they have.

      Delete
    2. The Garibaldi pumpers simply don't realize how far away this thing is from "world class", which for nickel is generally regarded as 1 million tonnes of Nickel reserves (Voisey's Bay Ovoid is 1 million tonnes excluding the deeper deposits). By "reserves" we mean a deposit that has economic parameters applied to it. Taking the Garibaldi massive sulfide "discoveries" at an assumed grade of 10% Nickel, thickness of 10 meters, and a 5 SG it would take an ore body of 1000 meters x 200 meters for it to contain 1MMT Nickel!!! What they have right now is like 1/100th of that. Sure there is expansion potential at Nickel Mountain but we are 2 orders of magnitude away from "world class", right now.

      Delete
    3. Historical resource estimates are 2.9 million tonnes of .8 Ni/.62 Copper. We can now factor in the high gold/silver/pgm credits, which is going to drive a decent nickel equiv number for those 2.9 million tonnes as evident by current assays.

      What sort of tonnage - and more importantly nickel equivalent - should we be adding to the existing estimate from the Discovery Zone?

      One of the headlines pointed the the potential size of the ore body not being limited in scale based on available drilling data "Drill data to date indicates a sequence of widening intercepts and increasing grades toward the Discovery Zone to the east which remains open for expansion in all directions including at depth."

      So it seems there will be a need to update the historical resource estimate with the new zone's tonnage, and also update the estimate to include the PGM/Gold/Silver which is prevalent through the system.

      Delete
    4. Hello Anon,

      Just a couple of points:
      1. the historic drilling isn't 43-101 compliant (unless all the logs, assays and core exists) and will be difficult (if not impossible) to use this data in any resource calculation

      2. The location of the historic holes are unknown (in the public domain), so we don't know if the drilling done by Garibaldi has just copied (twinned) the historic drilling or drilled adjacent to them.

      Essentially, the historic data can be only be used as a guide.

      The historic (non-43-101 compliant) resource of 2.9Mt @ 0.8% Ni and 0.6% Cu is too small and low grade to be of interest. This is why I included the summary on the Eagle deposit, to show what companies are looking for when acquiring/developing these types of deposits, and again we see that Ni Mountain falls show of these tonnes and grades.

      The issue I have with creating a mathematical NiEq grade that doesn't factor in recovery is that the Au+Ag and maybe the PGE content isn't sufficient in the concentrates for the for the smelter to pay for them, so they could turn out to have no recoverable/payable value.

      Expansion Potential - there is potential to expand each massive sulfide zone (as I mentioned in the post), but the fact that the thicknesses and grades for each zone change significantly over relatively short distances suggests that the bodies aren't very robust.

      Delete
    5. Point 2 - there is a public domain map that can be found http://aris.empr.gov.bc.ca/ArisReports/00741.PDF on page 29, it's the composite plan for diamond drilling, and page 33 is the geological plan. Collar locations are included on the maps and insets.

      Delete
    6. thanks, I'll see if I can incorporate it. I may have to do some bodging as they you a local coordinate system, but in one fell swoop, you're released more data on Nickel Mountain that GGI has done....

      One thing that was interesting was the relatively poor recovery in the mineralized zones.

      Delete
    7. Also in the Minfile you will find how they calculated the historical resource. It wasn't using any modern geostatistical method at all. It was simply taking the assumed width of deposit (based mainly on surface exposure for the southeast zone, which the newly "discovered" massive sulfide lenses are a part of). So the 2.9 million tonnes would never stand up to today's 43-101. And also this tonnage already includes much of the area GGI has drilled so far. Indeed, the current drilling indicates that the entire historical zone including the lower grade disseminated is probably smaller than 2.9 million tonnes, for one because the zone includes detached islands of country rock that are unmineralized. And again, please note that the new "discovery" is contained in the historic SE zone.

      Delete
    8. And to my point, we now have the missing drill map that should have accompanied the drill cross section. It was apparently disclosed at a Vancouver Mineral Exploration Group meeting last Thursday. Of course this is selective disclosure and a big no-no. The drill map clearly shows what I've been saying all along, all the Garibaldi drill holes so far represent down extensions of known zones mapped from surface historically and already included in the historic non-43-101 resource estimate. It's patently obvious why Garibaldi would not want this drill map to be widely seen. http://cdn.ceo.ca.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/1d2u886-SKM_C36817121116210.pdf

      Delete
    9. The infamous figure 1, why wasn't it released on the 29th of November with figure 2, the cross section?

      Delete
    10. That of course is a rhetorical question.

      Delete
  6. You have previously stated that Dr. Lightfoot is just a consultant and therefore his reputation isn't really at stake regardless of the outcome. Do you still believe that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've searched my posts, I can't remember that comment.
      It is true, Dr. Lightfoot is a consultant to GGI. He is a technical adviser to the company (like Peter McGaw).

      Is he actively involved in the exploration program, or just involved in interpreting the results and looking at the drill-core? I can't answer that, he is probably, like many consultants, doing the job that he has been asked.

      Delete
    2. My bad, that was your colleague Otto. Dr. Lightfoot clearly believes they are on the precipice of a massive sulphide feeder system and these holes form the Halo which you appear to vehemently disagree with based on your analysis thus far. If these are clearly just narrow isolated sulphide pods with no continuation why did he get involved and why is he insinuating the existence of a massive sulphide system in the BMR interviews? I don't buy that his reputation won't get ruined if GGI doesn't meet investor expectations.

      Delete
    3. https://youtu.be/S3k2f5JiHeo

      Delete
    4. Dr. Lightfoot has been all over the place. His current interpretation appears to be that Nickel Mountain is analogous to a Sudbury "contact" type deposit. Prior to this he was talking about "feeders", massive sulfides in country rocks, "sheeted complexes", following the massive sulfides into the intrusive host, and a bunch of other things. Nobody is arguing at this point that Nickel Mountain doesn't have a "massive sulfide system" ... and I think you meant magmatic. What people are arguing is that grade doesn't mean jack, you need tonnage, and the tonnage right now is simply not there, and it doesn't seem obvious where the tonnage is going to come from. It could be there, but no data points so far indicate with any degree of certainly that it is.

      Delete
    5. https://youtu.be/zalxPbLjjBo

      https://youtu.be/cbCAVY_6LII

      Delete
    6. LOL. He doesn't say jack that is relevant as to whether or not Nickel Mountain is a world-class deposit. Nickel grade means jack without tonnage. You can have a small, very high grade deposit in magmatic sulfides because several factors are responsible for tenor (the grade of the nickel as a percentage of total sulfides). These are the initial concentration of nickel in the parent magma, the partition coefficient for the melts, and the R-factor, which is sort of like how efficiently and completely the sulfide melt interacts with the silicate melt. So a smallish magma volume with relatively high grade nickel that undergoes a high R-factor during silicate-sulfide equilibriation. And if you don't believe me, just ask your local neighborhood geology professor.

      Delete
    7. As a consultant, it can be hard to turn down money...

      Delete
    8. Tom, could interpretations not change as more data (more holes drilled, more bore hole EM) comes back? For example, the hypothesis of multiple magmatic pulses; it could not be answered until assays came back for 3 different massive lenses. Each has a different high grade composition. Or country rock, which when encountered in later holes could be discussed. Isn't part of the scientific method to adjust your hypothesis as new data presents itself?

      Delete
    9. Yes, interpretations should be refined as more data is received. The frustration, and negative opinions, is that GGI had to be pushed by the BCSC to release results in a professional manner.

      Regarding the potential - no company are going to say that their project isn't very good, look at how many juniors are still sitting on projects that they have had for years with no meaningful results?

      Delete
    10. Sure that is fine. But it also means they don't really know what they have, and the market knows even less. Thus for anyone at this point in time to conclude there is some major discovery, much less world class, is entirely premature. As is the share price.

      Delete
  7. Hey AG,

    Totally fine. Every should weigh in on this.

    I'm not sure how close you're following the story but I'm sure you're aware they are still attempting to find the main system. These drill holes haven't even reached the full potential of the anomaly. Clearly these type of grades are world-class. 8%?

    What are your thoughts on having 14-15 anomalies now as opposed to the 4-5 they originally thought?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Shaun,

      I've read through the limited data on their website, which makes it quite hard to understand the potential. I'm most interested in the relationship between the sulfides and the sediments as that appears to be important.

      The more anomalies the better, and GGI have enough money to test them all, it is a shame that 2-3 holes weren't drilled into them during the 2017 season.

      Grades - I try to look beyond the high-grades and look at the consistency in mineralization, which will make or break a deposit. Here is a good presentation on Anglo's Sakatti project in Finland
      http://fem.lappi.fi/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=3913831&name=DLFE-32482.pdf
      and another
      http://www.ama.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Group-Exploration-Overview_Association-of-Mining-AnalystsFINAL.pdf

      They have hot holes, copper rich holes, Nickel rich holes, so individual intercepts are relatively unimportant, we want to see consistent, thick zones of >1% Ni mineralization, and one thing to see in the Anglo presentation is that the >0.2% Cu horizon is ~1km x 300m x 300m. We haven't see that at Nickel Mountain

      Delete
    2. Some of the richest deposits in the world were found in southwestern New Mexico in the form of "crystal caves" of pure silver such as the Bridal Chamber. Several hundred thousand ounces of native silver (close to 100% silver, as in 1,000,000 grams per tonne) were recovered from this mine as well as lower grade material. It wasn't world class despite the incredible grade. In 2011, I personally visited a mine called Black Hawk in New Mexico, and a prospector gave me a chunk of native silver ore grading 180,000 grams per tonne (18% silver) that had just been recovered from historic workings. This mining district is a direct analogy to the Cobalt camp in Ontario (in fact the only other place in the world that is similar). Cobalt was world class, having produced half a billion ounces of silver including large amounts of native silver. Cobalt today is the focus of renewed mining interest. Alas despite the incredible grade of the Black Hawk/Alhambra deposits and the direct analogy to Cobalt, there is not and will not be a world class mine there.

      Delete
    3. I have read the entire Minfile on E&L. It is full of "anomalies" that were historically encountered and found not to be mineralized. Some of these are pillow basalts and diorites with magnetite. Moreover, a company had overstaked the E&L back in 1990 and sampled the outcrops to the northeast of E&L (beyond the snow field) based on "anomalies". They did not find massive sulfides, or anything else of interest. So these 15 anomalies that Garibaldi claims to have aren't by themselves very significant. "Anomaly A" is claimed to be the most urgent to explore, a few kilometers northeast of E&L. It is on a high slope that cannot be accessed without climbing equipment. They couldn't even reach it to take a sample this year, good luck setting up drill pads on it. They did sample the talus at the base of the anomaly. No nickel, although anomalous copper was found. This isn't surprising. A large porphyritic pluton called the Lehto, possibly with a copper component, sits directly north of Nickel Mountain. The "Anomaly A", and probably the others near it, are likely associated with the porphyry pluton (felsic), not the Nickel Mountain gabbro intrusive (mafic). Please let me know if you need further clarification.

      Delete
    4. here is the MinFile report
      https://minfile.gov.bc.ca/report.aspx?f=PDF&r=Minfile_Detail.rpt&minfilno=104B++006

      Delete
  8. Just for a dumb reference, the photo at the top of the blog is a sample of ore from Sudbury

    ReplyDelete
  9. How bigs your short position AG ; )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 0, too many believers, so no way to predict what will happen

      Delete
  10. Hi. Regarding Angry Geologist:

    Here's what the Angry Geologist forgot to include in part of her analysis on Nickel + Copper Grades.

    She forgot - Cobalt, Platinum, Palladium, Gold, and Silver.

    Below represents the Nickel Equivalents MISSING from her model and the resulting $/tonne missing from economics. Numbers quoted in $ USD/Tonne. Looks like a lot of these numbers could represent a significant/all portion of mining costs of the current deposit.

    Hole # Interval width (from - to) "Nickel Equiv
    Missing from Co/Pt/Pd/Au/Ag Not being in AngryGeo Calculations" "$/Tonne Missing from Model"

    EL-17-01 over 60.5m (51.0 - 111.5m) 0.35% $37.23
    Including over 1.0m (102.0 - 103.0m) 1.33% $143.81
    EL-17-01 over 5.23m (118 - 123.23m) 0.45% $48.14
    EL-17-01 over 9.68m (129 - 138.68m) 0.34% $36.60
    EL-17-01 over 4.5m (279.5 - 284.0m) 0.86% $93.03
    EL-17-02 over 7.5m (117.0 - 124.5m) 0.30% $31.89
    EL-17-02 over 6.0m (136.5 - 142.5m) 0.59% $63.75
    EL-17-02 over 3.0m (150.0 - 153.0m) 0.53% $57.42
    EL-17-02 over 24.0m (171.0 - 195.0m) 0.49% $52.73
    Including over 4.5m (175.5 - 180.0m) 0.93% $100.16
    EL-17-03 over 39.0m (42.0 - 81.0m) 0.47% $50.81
    Including over 13.5m (49.5 - 63.0m) 0.71% $76.56
    And over 3.0m (70.5 - 73.5m) 0.44% $47.88
    **And over 1.5m (79.1 - 80.6m) 1.69% $182.06
    EL-17-04 over 48.2m (108.4 - 156.6m) 0.45% $48.04
    Including over 4.8m (150.3 - 155.1m) 1.85% $199.24
    EL-17-04 over 12.0m (189.0 - 201.0m) 0.51% $54.69
    **Including over 0.3m (195.7 - 196.0m) 1.55% $167.20
    **And over 0.4m (197.1 - 197.5m) 1.63% $175.92
    EL-17-05 over 43.7m (24.5 - 68.2m) 0.40% $43.05
    Including over 16.0m (32.0 - 48.0m) 0.62% $66.71
    And over 0.25m (66.45 - 66.7m) 0.62% $66.68
    EL-17-06 over 36.3m (25.5 - 61.8m) 0.40% $43.54
    Including over 13.5m (36.0 - 49.5m) 0.60% $65.21
    **And over 1.9m (58.4 - 60.3m) 1.14% $122.80
    EL-17-07 over 37.8m (38.1 - 75.9m) 0.38% $40.60
    Including over 9.0m (47.3 - 56.3m) 0.58% $62.60
    And over 8.9m (61.7 - 70.6m) 0.37% $40.36
    **EL-17-07 over 3.25m (75.9 - 79.15m) 1.47% $158.46
    EL-17-08 over 39.3m (25.7 - 65.0m) 0.59% $63.83
    Including over 6.0m (39.0 - 45.0m) 0.88% $95.00
    **And over 5.85m (57.8 - 63.65m) 1.49% $160.74
    EL-17-09 over 32.5m (122.0 - 154.5m) 0.53% $56.60
    Including over 15.55m (136.5 - 152.05m) 0.64% $69.12
    **And over 1.9m (152.05 - 153.95m) 1.61% $173.21
    EL-17-09 over 12.0m (175.5 - 187.5m) 2.15% $232.13
    **Including over 9.9m (176.6 - 186.5m) 2.51% $270.55
    EL-17-14 over 40.4m (100.4 - 140.8m) 1.81% $195.45
    Including over 13.5m (106.5 - 120.0m) 0.86% $93.06
    **And over 16.75m (123.75 - 140.5m) 3.47% $373.97

    http://cdn.ceo.ca/1d2p912-MISSINGAngryGeologist.png

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is way too early to guess how much of the disseminated sulfides can be mined. Nickel Mountain gets the majority of its metal value from nickel so it is appropriate to just look at nickel when doing rough estimations. The fact is, they have a pretty small volume based on drilling to date, nowhere near what would be required for "economics". It is orders of magnitude smaller than "world class" right now based on what they have "discovered".

      Delete
    2. The problem for your thesis is that in the disseminated sulphides, the majority of the metal value lies with the six other metals in the system, not the nickel. Would you care to reinterpret your argument using the correct evidence?

      Delete
    3. I focused on the Ni as it forms a generally linear regression with most of the other elements, and without any recovery data, it is hard to calculate a $/t value for the rock.

      Delete
    4. ok, here are some recovery values from the Kevitsa mine for disseminated ores
      Ni = 66%
      Cu = 90%
      Pt = 53%
      Pd = 61%
      Au = 52%

      With those recoveries and grades, it is unlikely that there will be sufficient Au, Pt and Pd in the concentrates for the smelter to pay for them (i.e. the smelter may only pay for the Ni Cu). So calculating a mathematical $ value per tonne at this stage is pointless.

      I've commented on this several times that unless you are including recovery data when calculating equivalent grades or $ values, then the numbers are worthless.

      Delete
    5. You're answering for Tom now? BTW, your nickel and palladium recoveries are about the same. Why would they only pay for one of them? Metallurgical recoveries are unique to each deposit. I really don't see what the point is for bringing it up now. In situ valuation is used during exploration phase assessments.

      Delete
    6. If you divide all those values by 2 - and average values of all the PGE/Co/Au/Ag you missed, that would still work out to adding 0.45% NickelEquivalent to all the holes; down from 0.90% NickelEquivalent.

      The important part is that this 0.90% NickelEquivalent should be applied to all of your numbers above.

      So your > 0.5% Nickel tonnage would actually become > 1.4% Nickel tonnage, and so on.

      Delete
    7. Hello Anon, sorry I thought the question was direct to me.

      Regarding recoveries - smelters often have a minimum content for secondary metal content in either a Nickel or copper concentrate.

      If there isn't enough of that secondary metal in the concentrate, the smelter will not pay for it. So, if we take Pd running at 0.973 g/t Pd in hole EL-17-14 (the interval running from 106.5m to 120m), it may not be able to recovery enough so that there is sufficient Pd in the concentrate to pass the smelters payment threshold.

      Regarding the "officially bad resource guesstimate" - you can do lost of things to the numbers, but even at whatever mathematical NiEq grade you want to create, the 'deposit' as defined by the recent drilling is still small.

      Delete
    8. If you want to look at the breakdown of the $/value per tonne, have a quick play in excel with current metal prices and a pie-chart.

      Delete
    9. I could be bad and apply the $142/tonne cutoff that Lundin use at Eagle.....

      Delete
    10. This "anon" has misinterpreted the Eagle as being like 1000 meters down, well that is the East Eagle and yeah probably more costly to mine. The main Eagle deposit though is right near surface and it is one big ore body so very easy to model and bulk mine. I think $140/T NSR cutoff is probably reasonable for Eagle. Note it is located in a flat area near civilization. The cutoff is influenced by the very fine grind required to release nickel flame from the pyrrhotite. I don't think $140/T NSR cutoff would work for Nickel Mountain even with the coarse Ni-Cu grains assuming very little flame inclusions in Po. Also note at Eagle the grades of Pt/Pd/Au/Co appear similar to Nickel Mountain. They probably would get better recovery to cons given the fine grind, if Nickel Mountain does a coarser grind then you'd get less recovery from these metals. As is, Eagle doesn't include the credits from Pt/Pd/Au/Co in its economics since that number is inconsequential. So unless they are going to find a lot more of this stuff throughout Nickel Mountain as they found in hole 14, it shouldn't be counted either, and certainly not in the disseminated sulfides.

      Delete
    11. And they haven't even started to address metallurgy at Nickel Mountain ... will they have just a bulk con or separate Ni and Cu? Will they have to process the massive and disseminated on separate flowsheets? If separate cons and flowsheets, where do the metals report? Without even a vague idea about these things, we can't be using these in situ metal value calculations with any degree of seriousness.

      Delete
    12. Most companies wouldn't do metallurgical work after a single drill campaign. That normally comes once they start working towards a resources.

      However, some companies, like SolGold do a very early simple metallurgical test-work to see if there are any problems with a deposit, something that can save a lot of time and money if there are potential metallurgical problems (e.g. Sandra Escobar)

      Delete
    13. Yes I know that. For some deposit types it is possible to do pretty good estimates without the benefit of metallurgy, simply based on petrology. For others, it can be more tricky and it is with these one needs to be extra careful to talk about economics based solely on grade. Especially with regard to PGMs, which are notoriously tricky to tickle out of ores and into payable cons.

      Delete
    14. Yes, we both know that GGI won't do metallurgical test-work, as we've been told by Dr. Lightfoot in his report that the ores at Nickel Mountain has optimal process characteristics.

      Delete
    15. LOL true! For him to say that, it must be an incontrovertible scientific fact thus precluding all the silly lab work.

      Delete
  11. Good grief. It would be impossible to get tonnage as this juncture as this is the first drill season in an early-stage play. However, yes, it's a world-class hit. 3.9% nickel for 40ish meters? Anyone who is proclaiming GGI has a world-class deposit is of course out of line. If your quibble is market cap price, well, that's the market. The US has $20 trillion of debt yet for some reason the market keeps going up - I wouldn't short it right now. That's what happens in this sector - speculation and potential is just part of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not at all "impossible" to at least have a swagger at tonnage from the first drill season in an early-stage play. It all depends on the area covered by the drilling. GGI is trading like a world-class deposit has been discovered, but it hasn't. It may never be. Of course speculators (and I include Eric Sprott) are going to make wild ass assumptions and the market cap can go crazy. It already has. I don't see anybody saying to short it, at least not right now. What I see people saying is, wait a second, this is being made out to be way more spectacular than it actually is. A typical venture exchange hype that has reached atypical valuations.

      Delete
    2. Hello Shaun, you've hit the nail on the head.

      You're looking at the 40m @ 3.9% Ni, and not the fact that it is really 16.75m @ 8% Ni and the rest is around 1% Ni.

      Delete
    3. 40.4m = 7.2% NiEq
      10.15m = 1.1% NiEq
      13.5m = 2.8 % NiEq
      16.75 m = 14.34% NiEq

      Delete
    4. Hello Shaun,

      I would recommend you look at Table 14.3 in the 2016 Technical report on the Eagle deposit, it gives a breakdown of average, max and min grades so you can compare it to the average grade of the deposit.

      Delete
    5. exactly anony,

      the massive sulfide zone is responsible for >50% of the contained metal content of the entire interval, with the remaining ~24m grading ~2% NiEq

      Delete
    6. Please note also that at Eagle East, a deeper portion of the Eagle project yet still a very nice deposit, that the modeled waste grade is 0.68% Ni and 0.86% Cu, and this already had the advantage of the CAPEX being sunk in calculating the cutoffs. These grades are pretty close to the blended massive-disseminated intervals that Garibaldi has drilled at Nickel Mountain, so it would take quite a miracle of resource modeling and mine engineering to have similar grades become economic here. I just don't see it. The only disseminated sulfides they'd be mining here would be those at the edge contours of stope blocks. Of course if they find larger massive sulfide zones, maybe that will be accompanied by a higher grade portion of the disseminated halo, and then we could talk about this again. Until then, it's just fantasy.

      Delete
  12. Very good description work ! It’s like to know your impression on tsx: SME nickel- copper sulphide project. HPX- Friedland just invest. They hope Finding the source of the sulphide in Ivory Coast

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll check them out, there is a lot of potential in W. Africa for Ni-Cu deposits, but they are under explored at the moment.

      E.g. Dablo project in Burkina Fso

      Delete
  13. AngryGeo, I’m going to start right off with an assertion based on my personal experience and training. You have never planned and executed an exploration drill program based entirely on EM methods, because you don’t recognize one when you’re looking right at it. I’m sure you’ll tell us all if I’m wrong about that, but I will further assert that even if you did supervise such a program, you failed at it.
    You (and Szabo) are back-seat commentators of a textbook drill program driven by people who actually write textbooks. Holes 1 through 4 established a BHEM section across the system. That EM data was subsequently inverted and combined with drill core interpretation to develop new targets in the plane of the EM section. Then those were systematically sampled by drilling, followed by more BHEM.
    I find it to be absolutely bizarre that you cast a negative tone over the drilling of hole 14. With the evidence gathered from holes 2, 4, and especially 9, they then had to establish a new drill pad at the top of a mountain in winter so that they could properly sample the interpreted mineralized zone. Of course they tried to hit it in a good spot, so that they would have 43-101 compliant data to report. What would you have done instead? Not drilled that hole?
    I appreciate all of your labours in creating the Leapfrog models for us. Although I think in 3D, I would not otherwise have known that the pierce points for holes 9 and 14 in the massive sulphide zone were 20 m apart. I also appreciate that you modeled the four high sulphide zones as planar deposits. However, then you step off into absurdity. For example, you assert that the Discovery Zone is closed off in certain directions. Did you not notice that the four holes you plot are virtually in a straight line? How wide is your closed off zone, 90 degrees or something? If you overlay an azimuth rose onto the centre of the mineralized zone, it is clearly open in plane over at least 270 degrees, for which I am generously assigning 45 degrees to the closed off wedge. But more importantly here, and for all of the zones you assess in this manner, they are all open on the strike of the EM system, i.e. north and south. Your conclusion that these sulphide zones are small and poddy is not supported by the evidence. Your conclusion is based on an informal fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam. The available options are not binary/dichotomous, e.g. black and white, but they include all values between those extremes, on a continuum. The absence of evidence does not provide evidence for absence. Lets wait until we have drill results outside of this section across the system before we draw any conclusions about the size of the mineralized zones, shall we? The outcropping massive sulphides reported last November lie well outside of this section. I calmly await further evidence supporting the potential for continuity.
    Your comparison to the Eagle Deposit is a straw man argument. Eagle is 1.5 km long and 1 km deep, with the deposit itself occupying only a small portion of that, if viewed in section. The high grade for the deposit is a function of the economics, with lower grades simply being uneconomic to mine. The high costs of mining it adversely affected the NPV, which caused it to be sold by Rio Tinto at a price low enough that Lundin thought they could make it work. Perhaps you might wish to take a look at the Sirius Nova Deposit next? After that, maybe Jinchuan?
    At most, the current drill program lies within a rectangular block with dimensions approximately 200 by 120 by 50 m, if you exclude the odd hole that probed outside that envelope. I can certainly envision additional holes within that block, to better define mineralization for resource calculations. I’ll personally wait for more data before I employ your tactic of creating images that reinforce your predetermined conclusions. That’s called petitio principii. When I consider the body of your work, I do not see an objective commentator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Howdy, I'm going to reply answering the points you make in each paragraph. You obviously have access to much more data than is in the public domain.

      It is true, I've never designed a drill program based solely on EM, I try to use as many data sources as possible (surface mapping, structural mapping, geochem etc.) to help me understand the local geology before drilling.

      It is hard, when the best EM map on the website is this one (http://www.garibaldiresources.com/i/maps/The-Q-at-EL_Ni-Cu-Au_Deposit_Map.pdf).
      It has no scale, no coordinates, no north arrow, doesn't show where the surface samples were collected, and no surface geology. If the "Q" was so important, why couldn't a couple of holes been drilled into it? To be honest, this map is pathetic from a textbook writing geological team.

      To be honest, I've also never had the BCSC tell me to clarify data in a press release. Thank good I didn't read the same textbook the GGI guys were reading and writing.

      Hole 14 - This hole could have been drilled from the 02, 04 and 09 platform. However, the way the hole was orientated gives the impression that the early interpretation of the Discovery Zone, indicated that it was orientated like the upper zone, dipping ~40 degrees to the west, suggesting that GGI were looking to maximize the intercept width, rather than drilling for geological understanding.

      Thank you, the models are designed so that people can have a look at the data in 3D. It is a shame that GGI can't produce easy to understand plan maps to accompany their press releases.

      I do bias my models. I use them to show as much of the publicly available data as possible to tell a story and to support my opinion, I also want people to look at them so that they can form their own opinions.

      I did notice that the 4 holes are plotted in a straight line, and for the Discovery Zone I used a horizontal interpretation as it is similar to what GGI show on the section.
      I also state that the Discovery zone is open in multiple directions, but Drill-holes 02 (21m to the NW of hole 14) and 04 (15m to the SE of hole 09), hit minimal massive sulfides. If the mineralization was robust, I would expect to have seen massive sulfide intercepts over longer distances.

      Regarding the outcropping massive sulfides reported in November 2016 - have you seen a map showing where this zone is located, its distance from the Historic zone, the surface samples collected from this zone? I haven't, most companies are more than happy to include a nice map showing where they collected the samples from, new mineralized zones etc etc.
      We get none of that with GGI, and I find it amazing that people are happy to form an opinion with no data.

      The idea of the Eagle deposit was to give a frame of reference on what companies are looking for in Ni-Cu magmatic deposits as it is really one of the smallest deposits of this type to be put into production.

      I might as well ask - What evidence do you have to support your opinion that the massive sulfide zones aren't poddy and small?

      Delete
    2. Good job Angrygeo answering this slew of irrelevance point by point. I'll just add a few counters. First, Eagle is not 1km deep, it is near surface. Eagle East is 1km deep, and is somewhat marginal compared to the main Eagle ore body. The Eagle grade is not a function of economics, it is a function of the very high nickel tenor in the sulfides as indicated by the reserve at 5MMt @ 2.8% Ni and 2.4% Cu (note these are reserves, not raw drill assay grades). The discovery hole YD02-02 was 84.2m of 6.3% Ni and 4.0% Cu, which of course puts anything so far at Nickel Mountain to shame. It is "world-class" grade and the intercept is "ultra world class". And yet, Eagle itself is not a world-class deposit. Not enough tonnage. Such is the case with the vast majority of magmatic Ni-Cu sulfide deposits. The conditions for accumulating world-class tonnage at decent grades are simply too complex for mother Earth to have mastered.

      As for the drilling being "planned" across the intrusive in order to provide the optimal locations for BHEM? Interesting idea but doubtful. More likely it is because they knew where the existing zones were and wanted to stay close to them instead of sterilizing so early the large areas already described as prospective. You yourself have said that a problem with EM is one conductor obscuring another. So why then would they drill across a structure where the mineralization is already suspected to be found at contacts with the wall rocks? No, sir, the most-likely reason they drilled a cross fan is to find extensions to depth below E&L (the suspicion being that the "feeder" or "conduit" or whatever silly term one uses to excite the novices) might be located just underneath the already known zones, and secondarily to intersect already known mineralization in an attempt to avoid disappointing the market. If they wanted optimal borehole data maybe they would have fanned along the long axis (N-S) to see how laterally extensive the contact zone is or isn't.

      As for the sale of Eagle, I'm pretty sure the price was reflective of the NPV. The reason Rio sold it, is that Eagle ended up being too small an operation for them. Eagle East didn't add enough tonnage and no further deposits were found. There are no available local synergies so it just didn't fit the production profile of a diversified major.

      Delete
    3. For AngryGeo:

      Really? You’re accusing me of having access to information not in the public domain? That’s a back-handed compliment if I’ve ever seen one. I’m relying on my experience, training and research. You might try expanding your use of the latter concept.
      As I asserted, you have never conducted a drill program based on EM. You then suggest that you might use geochem? On a mountain? You’ve got outcrop, talus, and snow. No soil. Well if you do find soil, you can’t be sure it’s derived from the subcropping rock, so it’s useless anyway. Your mapping is limited to what you can see from a helicopter, and your structural mapping is based on…..VTEM.

      Until late summer, the company was deeply in the red, what we in the business prefer to call a working capital deficit. That means no money to pay staff. I predict improvements in many facets of their disclosure shortly.
      And you still can’t help yourself, taking a crack at the scientists conducting the exploration program. Between Lightfoot, Makela, Goldie, and King, they have over a century of combined massive sulphide exploration and development experience. And you’re doing an armchair critique without having access to the proprietary knowledge they’ve obtained during the exploration program.

      How on Earth could they have drilled Hole 14 from the other drill platform? Think before you speak. Do you see that pretty yellow hatching they’re superimposed on the drill section? That is the disseminated halo, which is interpreted from BHEM data. http://www.garibaldiresources.com/i/maps/GGI-Drill-Map-Dec-6-2017.jpg Lightfoot has discussed the importance of the halo surrounding sulphide lenses many times, in many ways. He publishes prolifically.
      Thank you for acknowledging the bias in your models, but that just makes you closed-minded. For example, going back to the linearity of the four pierce points you plotted for the discovery zone, you should have plotted the grade as a banded stripe across the deposit. By plotting it with concentric lower grade zones to the open faces of the mineralized interval, you have inherently biased the model itself. You simply have no data in the north/south axis, but you created some of your own. No wonder you concluded that the massive sulphide zones were small. Petitio principii.

      Moreover, your labelling of undrilled areas is also biased. You could have easily added a dashed line or something to show more clearly where you though the mineralization was open or closed. Maybe you should learn how to make a map.
      The outcropping massive sulphide zone was reported to be 800 metres south of the historic deposit when they described the field sampling program in a press release. Here’s a pretty map of the location they provided later: http://www.garibaldiresources.com/i/maps/GGI-E_L-Project-Map-Aug-10-2017.jpg
      What I find amazing is that you’re willing to form critical opinions without doing basic research.

      I’ll discuss the Eagle Deposit more fully in a reply to Szabo.
      I don’t need to take a position to refute your logical fallacy. There is insufficient evidence to determine the size of the mineralized zones but you decided that they were small and poddy simply because there is not yet any evidence that they are either large or small. As I said, absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. I said many times that I would wait for evidence to be reported before I formed an opinion.

      Delete
    4. Szabo,
      I find myself most troubled by hypocrites. And ignorant hypocrites even moreso.
      What you called an ultra world class intersection for YD02-02 at Eagle was a near vertical hole drilled down the throat of a near vertical massive sulphide zone. Looking at Kennecott’s cross-section, I would say that the hole was 70 degrees off perpendicular to the deposit’s plunge. Were you thinking that intersection was true width? And you want to criticize Garibaldi for drilling scissor holes into a new zone? That was your example, remember.
      Despite your attempt to criticize my statements, you’re actually arguing the same things that I already did about the economic constraints at Eagle. By having a high low-cut grade, the remainder of the ore is per force higher-grade than would have been otherwise determined. When converted to nickel equivalent, the low-cut at Eagle is 1.31% nickel. Voisey’s was 0.7% nickel equivalent. But what have either of these to do with a different deposit, whose economic parameters are as of yet unknown? We call this hand-waving in the academic circles I come from.
      Eagle was drilled for over a decade before a production decision was made. Why are you so impatient here?

      Delete
    5. You sure can twist logic, can't you? YD02-02 at Eagle simply proves you can't use a single "discovery" hole to assess tonnage or world class potential. THAT IS THE EXACT SAME SITUATION WITH GARIBALDI. If that's your definition of hypocrisy, I fear only strong narcotics will aid your condition. As for grades, my point was that you cannot include the whole assay interval in a realistic estimate of tonnage which again is proved by Eagle but hypocritically being ignored by the hypesters who crow on about 40 meter intercepts at Nickel Mountain.

      Delete
    6. I'm twisting logic, hyprocrite man? You called it an ultra world class intersection. The only problem is it was right down the long axis of the deposit, within about 20 degrees. Why didn't you mention that? I bet you hadn't a clue that was the case.

      Delete
    7. Thanks for breaking apart the AG's argument, anon. I did notice bias in her assumptions but it's nice to see my conclusions confirmed by a seasoned pro. Szabo is a complete joke btw, clearly out of his depth. I saw him getting chased out of ceo chat after trying his flood of BS fallacies in there. Looks like he's confined to blog comments now where no one can notice his inability to address any technical points in real time. Not sure what his angle is but don't really care either.

      Delete
    8. I'm sure the host appreciates the debate but can you anons keep the circle jerking to CEO.ca please? I did know about the orientation of the Eagle "discovery" hole you biased dolt, I've been on record numerous times criticizing tonnage estimates when geometry is not known, as this happens often in massive sulfides, shear zones, and breccia bodies to name a few.

      Delete
    9. Szabo seems to have a background in PR. Nearly every post is straw man / deflection of some sort. Interesting... Sorry to break your little circle jerk with AG. Too bad you're now getting schooled by someone with far superior technical knowledge than you and AG combined. Sad and pathetic troll.

      Delete
    10. Not really. I address anon's technical point and he tries to pick apart the "intent" instead of replying with fact. He may have technical knowledge but it is very clearly applied here in a biased manner. For example the fantasy about how they designed the drill program to optimize BHEM. That's fantasy. The press releases already tell us what they were looking to do with the initial holes. And it is not to optimally locate BHEM. In fact, that would be a stupid thing to do in just about any drill program. So much for "superior technical knowledge". It only seems that way because anon's points in many cases are so inane that it would be a massive and unfruitful chore to show them all for the idiocy that they are. It's like a geologist throwing up whatever desperate thing they can come up with in order to avoid admitting that their vaunted ideas have been junked, by a non-geologist (and a blogging geologist) to boot. How embarrassing.

      Delete
    11. Sorry, I should have included much more information for a Pedant.

      Delete
    12. I really think that Tommy didn't realize how easy it was to check his selected reference, "The discovery hole YD02-02 was 84.2m of 6.3% Ni and 4.0% Cu, which of course puts anything so far at Nickel Mountain to shame. It is "world-class" grade and the intercept is "ultra world class"."

      Now little Tommy wants us to believe that he didn't mean what he said. No, Tommy meant something else entirely, and somehow it should have been obvious that he didn't mean what he said. Good argument, Tom.

      For the record, you can see the discovery drill hole, running nearly right down the throat of a vertical sulphide zone, on page 31 of this historical report: https://gis.lic.wisc.edu/wwwlicgf/glifwc/Kennecott/PermitAp2/Mining/Vol1/Vol1A/Eagle%20Deposit.pdf

      Delete
    13. I think a better solution, AG, is that you stick to things that you might actually know anything about. Like contaminant fugacity modeling in an aquifer, or something like that.

      Delete
    14. For Anon,

      I was talking about what I like to do in general while planning an exploration program, collect as much data as possible of a many different types as possible.

      Geochem - I used this as a blanket term for surface samples (soil, rock, talus, stream sed).

      If the project is so hard to get to how was it that Silver Standard in 1965 were able to map, trench and take collect geochemical samples? I can understand using a helicopter to quickly review the entire property package to identify additional areas of interest for follow-up work.

      I'm having a crack at the geo team because they have been poor at releasing summary data from the exploration program into the public domain via their website or in company presentations, and my armchair is incredibly comfortable but, unfortunately a bit far from my fridge...

      They could have drilled hole 14 from the same platform as holes 04 and 09, drilled with an azimuth of 102 degrees and a dip of -55, depth 200m. You can download a LF viewer file showing this proposed hole, from here:

      https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZV1bxnz9_KPlNDkoipjloTrXSsBX4p1e

      I understand that the massive sulfide zones are surrounded by disseminated mineralization. However, I think you'll find that the yellow hatching is an interpretation of the disseminated/blebby mineralization grading >0.5% Ni from the drill-hole assay data, as stated in the legend at the bottom of the image.

      You keep going back to the linear nature of the data, the reason I create a freely available 3D view of the data is that people can make their own decision and see how I'm arriving at my observations (they aren't conclusions, just observations based on the information provided), which for this project, has been poor.

      You could argue that I've made a hasty generalization rather than Petitio Principii, but what is a logical fallacy among friends.

      I suggested that the zones were small due to the fact that the massive sulfides in hole 09 decrease from 10m core length to 2 zones, combining to have a width of just 0.7m in hole 04, the distance between these 2 holes is just ~15m.

      They could have been better, but I think it presented the data in a relatively easy to understand way, and they are a lot better than what you get from GGI (including the map you sent me).

      I'm not sure that admitting that my models and interpretation are biased indicates that I have a closed mind.

      I'll be more than happy for you to submit a post with your observations of the data released from Nickel Mountain. I'll even publish it on this blog, and I'll even let you use my 3D model as a base.

      Delete
    15. Dear anon, Sorry to burst your bubble but unlike you I have known about the Eagle deposit for a long time. I used to follow the Thunder Bay North story by Panoramic back around 2010 (what a disappointment that turned out to be, imagine miles and miles of juicy conductors but barely a whiff of massive sulfides!) at which point I did a lot of research on other deposits in the general setting of which Eagle was one. BTW the 43-101 prepared by Lundin is a much better updated source of info on Eagle as it has some pretty drawings and mine plans that even a non-scientist like myself can understand. You on the other hand somehow thought Eagle is at 1km depth and 1.5km long. After I point out you might be looking at Eagle East, the deeper deposit discovered later, you come back to educate me that the Eagle deposit is actually vertical and therefore the discovery hole YD02-02 isn't really special. Wow dude. Thanks for letting me know something I've known for 7 years, but you've just found out about today.

      Delete
    16. Are you intentionally daft, Tom, or do you come by it negligently? I said, “Your comparison to the Eagle Deposit is a straw man argument. Eagle is 1.5 km long and 1 km deep, with the deposit itself occupying only a small portion of that, if viewed in section.” When you are looking at a long section of the mine, it is 1.5 km long and 1 km deep. You know, altogether. I did not say 1 km from surface. Do try to comprehend simple English when used correctly. The key element in that sentence is the qualifier, “if viewed in section.” Capiche?

      I read the 2016 and 2017 Eagle Technical Reports. I was quite interested in the metallurgy and recoveries, actually. But neither one refers to the historical work done by Kennecott in any real detail. So I dug up the historical reports to figure out what you were referring to as an “ultra world class intersection.” And your referenced hole was deceptively described BY YOU.

      You seem to think that all you have to do is to type something and every possible nuance should be instantly obvious to the reader? Learn to write and communicate, Tom. You aren’t nearly as accomplished a writer as you seem to think you are. Being a hack for many years doesn’t make you a good communicator. Apparently.

      It doesn’t matter how long you’ve known about a deposit, or a geological province, if you don’t describe them accurately. But you think that should count for something, though? Whatever.

      Delete
    17. Anon, You are precisely beating around the bush. My point was quite clear. You have not addressed it. Eagle had an "ultra world class intersection" with discovery hole YD02-02 but that did not mean they had a world class mine, in fact far from it. So it is false to think that "world class discovery" hole 17-14 means they have a world class deposit at Nickel Mountain. That was the entirety of my point which you have now managed to stretch out into novel-length contortions.

      Delete
    18. Tom, your argument was a non sequitur. Your original premise was that the hole you selected was "ultra world class intersection". It wasn't. You then went on to say that Eagle is not a world class deposit. It isn't. I didn't ever say otherwise. You can't build an argument on a false premise, which happened to be combined with a gratuitous remark about Nickel Mountain.

      Delete
    19. Trying to have your cake and eat it as well? Greedy. "Ultra world class intersection" is an abstract based purely on the interval and grade. Has nothing to do with the deposit being world class. Most of the time when the drill hole is described, it is not yet known whether or not the deposit will be world class. It's an INTERSECTION. So let's now apply that to Nickel Mountain, shall we? Hole 17-14 is a "world class intersection". And it means absolute jack shit zero.

      Delete
  14. Andrea, clearly you have a geologist's background. Why not stake your pedigree for the record rather than firing daggers and impugning the reputation of this company and Dr. Lightfoot? Certainly the Code by which you are bound should provide some governance for your public actions and opinions rendered?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thank you, most people say I have lovely eyes

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps it is to avoid embarrassment by your "scientist" peers that you post as Anonymous?

      Delete
    4. I have no issues whatever 'impugning' the reputations of very well proven scamdoggie Sprott AND paid 'world class' consulting dipchit LightDorkass. This total junk is STILL capped past $ 350m on the basis of utter and completely crooked BULLSHIT from professional basterds.

      Delete
    5. when you get guys like this coming on here and posting that kind of nonsense, you know you must be onto something ;)

      Delete
    6. Anon, were you talking about yourself?

      Delete
  15. Hello Angry how does one email a question to you?

    Prospectordude

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hello Prospector Dude, my e-mail address is theangrygeologist@gmail.com

      Delete
    2. when you get guys like this coming on here and posting that kind of nonsense, you know you must be onto something ;)

      Delete
  16. Is there a reason you keep writing about this even though you clearly stated you would stop like 2 articles ago?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure it is to annoy you, or at minimum to prevent you from becoming rich as a Garibaldi shareholder.

      Delete
    2. because I'm a heartless bastard and part of a pan-global cartel looking to short exploration companies to fund my kick-start campaign to build a working Steely Dan

      Delete
  17. AG the proper spelling of 'heartless bastard' is, in fact, heartless 'basterd'. You are welcome, naturally.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I decided to separate this Szabo remark from all of his other inane comments. Tommy said, "For example the fantasy about how they designed the drill program to optimize BHEM. That's fantasy." We get it, it's so fantastic you had to say it twice.

    Here's the thing, though, Tommy. While working for Vale, Lightfoot and his team developed their mine operations/exploration work to a fine art. You know, when the geeks go in and plan the blasting and mucking out so that they get ALL of the good stuff for the mill, and make sure the waste gets to its own destination? They use BHEM for that purpose. Lightfoot and Makela and King did this work together for many, many years. What they are doing on Nickel Mountain is the state of the art for finding nickel sulphide mineralized zones. It's like having night vision goggles to guide your drill. But first, you have to open the door to peak inside.

    But you, the non-geologist hack, know better than them. Got it.

    I think I understand where the fantasy lies now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually in the example you provide the BHEM would only be used in order to locate the nearest edge for holes that have missed the deposit. That's hardly the same as designing the drill program in order to optimize BHEM placement. Same at Nickel Mountain. They drilled to hit the deposit and where the hole missed they used BHEM as a tool to hone in. Horse goes in front of the cart. Nobody is denying the utility of BHEM. I AM denying that holes were drilled not to hit the deposit but rather intentionally to miss it so that BHEM can then be used to find it. That would be stupid.

      Delete
  19. I still don't get it. Is this the next Voiseys bay or not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please keep up. It's now the next Sudbury.

      Delete
    2. Noooooo, it is bigga, betta, it has MOAR!!!!! Probably, Norilsk's bigger brutha

      Delete
  20. On a corporate Youtube video, released with the visual results, a GGI dufus claims Sudbury, VB, Norlisk, and a few others. Sheeple may take their pick about how incredibly unbelievable arsesome these 51 year old pods/lenses are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-AIRyAPGa4&t=2s

    Meanwhile this cowboy has all he will ever need from the GGI.v promotion. Suffice to say I won't ever overestimate the intelligence of Venture spec players again.

    MEANWHILE a real, bona-fide Au find from GTT.v in the golden triangle ought to be examined next. Film at 11:00

    https://pennystockjournal.blogspot.ca/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite a bit of lunacy indeed, GTT has pretty much made a round trip as if it hasn't discovered a damn thing. Deposit size is an issue still but around the 50 cent level it starts to look like pretty good speculative value.

      Delete
    2. I was hooked by GTT.v based on two things. First the initial assays (that sent the paper to $ 2.50+) and shortly after the TRULY outstanding work and disclosure on display. Uber top notch IR and compare this to (over) the borderline (pffft) criminals at GGI.v.

      Forget base metals that mean a $ 2b+ plant in an area with zero infrastructure. Au a waaaaay better wager/dream in the golden triangle to begin with and a body might get an Au plant for $ 750m. (Pretium)

      GTT.v is capped, today, somewhere around $ 45m. Where's the better 'bet'? My choice AIN'T 1966 ore pods @ $ 380m+ from lying fukkin basTERDS.

      Delete