Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Garibaldi Update

Garibaldi have released more drill-hole data from the Nickel Mountain (link).

I've updated the 3D viewer file, and you can get it from here (link).


  • Very closely spaced drilling has intersected 4 separate massive sulfide lenses
  • Massive sulfide mineralization appears to be small and inconsistent.

Here is a plan map:

Ni at top; Cu below

We can see that the drilling has focused on just 2 small areas, and explored mineralization for just 25m along strike:

  • Central and Northwest Zones - This is where historic drilling identified massive sulfides and Garibaldi have drilled 6 holes (01, 03, 05, 06, 07 and 08) into this area
  • Discovery Zone - explored by 4 holes (02, 04, 09 and 14*).

*assay results pending

The drilling appears to have identified 4 separate, narrow massive sulfide zones, but they appear to be small, and discontinuous.

Northwest and Central Zones

Let us look beyond the assays and at the actual intercept locations.

Yellow > 1% Ni, Red >2% Ni
Drilling in this area has identified 2 separate massive sulfide lenses, the lower NW zone and the upper Central zone. However, even though Garibaldi have drilled 6 holes drilled into this area, only 2 holes hit massive sulfide mineralization for each zone.

  • NW Zone - intersected by holes EL-17-06 & 08
  • Central Zone - intersected by holes EL-17-03 & 07

This seems to suggest that the massive sulfide mineralization is very inconsistent and poddy.

Discovery Zone

Garibaldi have drilled a lot of holes into a small area and again defined 2 separate massive sulfide zones, the lower Discovery Zone, and an narrow upper zone.

Red >2% Ni; Black = Hole 14 MS zone

We can also see that drill-hole EL-17-02, drilled ~30m down-dip from both zones hit no massive sulfide mineralization, which again suggest that the massive sulfides are small and inconsistent.

Red >2% Ni; Black = Hole 14 MS zone

Some nitpicking

We got told this in the Nov 20th PR (link), hole EL-17-14 discovered a 'new' massive sulfide zone - the Discovery Zone.

However, In the latest PR, we are told:

Surely hole 09 was the discovery hole as it was drilled first.

We were also given a updated section (but no plan map), but what I find strange is that Garibaldi completed drilling at Nickel Mountain in mid/late-November.

Left = Nov 27th PR section; Right = December 06 PR section
As we have the DH data, we know that 10 holes are located on this section (EL-17-01 to 09, and 14), so why didn't Garibaldi include the drill-holes traces and massive sulfide zones on the original section map released to the public (at the request of the BCSC) on the 27th of December?

It just seem strange that Garibaldi would not include useful information, including an additional massive sulfide zone on the original section? All they had to do was include a few labels stating "Massive sulfide zone - assay results pending" and that would have been OK.

Also in the Nov 20th PR, we have this paragraph.

Does this mean:

  1. Garibaldi have only drilled 10 holes at Nickel Mountain, and were unable to drill holes 10, 11, 12 and 13 due to poor weather conditions?
  2. Garibaldi drilled 14 holes, but in the November 20th PR, they were waiting for the results from the final 10 holes? This means that they were sitting on the assay results from 4 holes.

Silly me, Garibaldi included this paragraph in the Nov 20th PR

So, they were sitting on the assay results from 4 holes, so why didn't they release it?


  1. Simple answer as to why 4 holes weren't released is because they are almost certainly blanks. This exercise is REALLY too much for anybody with the smallest grain of mining intelligence. 51 years ago these pods might have been 'news'. Sprott can buy every single share in this opinion. This ridiculous deal is for 100% pure idiots.

    1. Sure Ace (aka Trolling Loser)...SP too rich for your allowance from your parents ? The team in place might object to your suggestion regarding mining intelligence. BTW,I'd rather follow the smart money than your words of wisdom. Back to your cave mate.

  2. Why the relentless vendetta. AG? Is there some history here we should know about?

    1. No, I just dislike it when companies aren't transparent, and I just want to make people look beyond the banner headlines and spend a few more minutes to look at the data critically.

      In this case, with so much drilling focused on 2 small areas, it gives the impression that the mineralization is much smaller than what Garibaldi have been suggesting.

  3. "so much drilling" is 14 holes a lot? Im not a mining guy, but it doesnt sound like a lot to me. Seems more like an tentative couple of jabs where the down hole detection indicated something interesting. When they come back next year with a little more cash behind them, they will drill a 100 holes? 200? Again, I have no idea -- serious question. It seems to me unlikely that the 2 areas of MS they have found so far are the only ones. Is my assumption right? If not, can you explain how that could be the case, geologically? cheers (agree their NR suck balls)

    1. Hello Stefoid,

      Not really, but is typical at the early stage of exploration where funds a limited, so, as you say the primary focus is testing the best targets first and see what you get and go from there.

      Garibaldi have significant funds to do a large 10,000-20,000m - say 25-50 hole - program to better define the results from this initial program.

      You assumption is correct, Garibaldi have found 2-4 small, narrow, massive sulfide zones. It is likely that additional sulfide bodies will be found at the contact between the gabbros and the sediments. Regarding potential size, until they are drilled, I cannot speculate as there is insufficient data on the website to form an opinion, but I am assuming that they are drilling the most prospective (i.e. best) areas first

  4. Thanks for the a plan view. Yes, I found it strange that hole 9 was not referenced in the last release as they would have had the log. Interesting to see if they stepped away with either drill to another pad or if the remaining holes are also from the same pads used for 9 & 14. They don't seem to be trying to exaggerate the size of the zones on the section which makes the valuation that much more of a head scratcher.

    1. You're welcome, I always like a plan map as you can see where the company is drilling, and in the case of Nickel Mountain, see that they are essentially drilling the same area time and time again.

      I'm going to guess that the remaining holes are on the same section, Garibaldi don't seem to be very adventurous!

      I can't understand their valuation (the same goes for Novo), and it is interesting to see how the market is reacting to the news releases, there are high expectations (I'm not sure why) for this project and you hope that Garibaldi haven't been crying wolf.

    2. So here is the deal on holes 9 and 14. Garibaldi is basically trying to keep the share price aloft. In the 11/20 NR, they said hole 14 was a discovery hole. But now with the new NR we see Hole 9 actually hit both the lenses to the southeast and therefore hole 9 was the real discovery hole. But the thickness isn't really that great, not enough to justify the share price. So here is what they did. They already had hole 1-4 assays for a while. But these sucked balls, and if released in a timely manner, would have really skewered the share price maybe back under a buck. So they kept drilling hoping for a big hit. They got something in hole 9 and when comparing to hole 4 they figured out there are a couple of lenses dipping at 45 degrees to the south-west. So they set up the hole 14 to drill down the plunge of the larger lower lens. The plan I imagine was to hit the massive sulfides down dip and across a really big interval like 50 meters and release that as a "visual" with the hole 1-4 assays. But then the bunghole 14 came back with "only" 16 meters. Barely better than hole 9. Turns out the damn lens doesn't dip at the same angle as the one above it, it's more flat. But the thought was there, just take a look at the two drill cross sections and the NRs. Why didn't they mention hole 9 on 11/20? It's fairly obvious that hole 14 was a failed setup.

    3. I think Toms comment is spot on, but why is it a -ve? You have a dozen-odd precious holes to dig before winter deadline and you need to raise enough funds to drill properly next year. This is your duty to the stock holders. Nobody in their right mind would argue that the area does not deserve a lot more drilling with the grades they have hit. So I guess we can expect holes 10-13 to be the 2nd drill pad, attempting to hit up "thick" sections of MS. We know from the previous photos that have been pulled that they hit something, so I expect a few meters of the same grade here and there. Will be looking forward to seeing more 3d models on this site

    4. Hello Stefoid - normally you would expect a company, once it has identified a mineralized zone to do some step out drilling to check it size in the 3D dimension. Hole 14 appears to have been designed to produce the thickest intercept possible, rather than provide information on its size potential along strike.

      The criticism is that so for 10 holes have been drilled on the same section, so it is hard to determine the potential for these zones to continue along strike.

    5. I think youre looking at a drilling program of 14 holes in isolation rather than as the first step of a multi-season campaign of drilling that will require funds to accomplish. Theres only so much 'stepping out' you can do with your very first 14 holes. Say what you like about S.R, but his track record of NOT diluting the shareholders has been impressive. So why risk stepping out that might miss and tank the share price and therefore require more dilution of his shareholders to pay for the drilling that eventually will and must be done anyway?

    6. I don;t disagree with your comment, but we are taking about a company with a market cap of ~CND$300m after just completing the initial phase of drilling.

      I could understand it if it was like Aurelian, and they had announced a spectacular hole that took their share price from $0.6 to $40 in a few months, but we haven't had that here.

      Regarding dilution, I can understand drilling to better understand the massive sulfide mineralization, but eventually you need to see how big the zones are. Exclusively focusing on these two areas (Historic and Discovery) could lead to raising expectations on something that could turn out to be small once a systematic drill program is undertaken.

      In my opinion, 10 holes (we are still waiting for the results for 10-13) is a lot to have been drilled in such a small area, especially as the historic zone had been drilled previously.

      I'm also critical that none of the maps show the location for the historic holes. Why? Have GGI just been duplicating them?

  5. I believe Eric Sprott MUST BE losing his old man marbles. Timminco a massive large wicked scam and now the over-the-hill terd figures he can simply wave his crooked magic wand and retards will line up to throw money at him again. GGI is a scam from a confidence man, period. SOME DAY, exactly like Timminco, this utter chit will find it's true value.

  6. So Ace, just to be clear, it's Eric Sprott that you are calling a "confidence man" perpetrating a "scam"?

  7. Have you considered entering the historical drill data into the leapfrog file to see how it lines up? I believe it's on Minfile.

    1. I'll have a look, I've been busy playing with the Lower Timok data

  8. Question for you AG. We don't know how the massive sulphide zone that holes 9 and 14 sits really since we've only seen a single section. Even so, I believe GGI referred to both hole 9 and hole 14 intervals as being "near true width". How does that work? Wouldn't you assume that the narrower interval in hole 9 was (at best) near true width and that the hole 14 interval has to be drilled oblique to the zone? I can't make sense of it any other way. Am I missing something?

    1. In my opinion it doesn't work, you could explain it by having a zone that changes orientation over short distances (holes 09 and 14 are just 20m apart), but from the limited amount of data, I doubt that you could accurately define the orientation and thickness of the mineralization.

      TL:DR version - the table is designed to BS you, and approximate can be interpreted in many different ways. For example, I'm approximately as talented as Brent Cook

  9. 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 you public actions and opinions rendered?