Let's start with the good news:
- We got a plan map!!!!
- We got some geofizz polygons - rectangle marks the spot!!!
Errr, that's it...
And now with the bad less good news:
This is what our chum, Dr. Lightfoot has to say about the results:
 |
| Yawn... |
On the surface Hole 10 look good, but when you see that it is just of twin (i.e. drilled right next to it) of hole 09, things fall apart. Leapfrog viewer file here (link)
UPDATE: Here is a updated LF viewer file with the topography, geology plan and section (link)
UPDATE: Here is a updated LF viewer file with the topography, geology plan and section (link)
Visually, this is how far apart the 2 holes are:
Over 60 cm, the upper zone, at ~150m depth, decides to go on holiday. How sad is that, here is a company deliberately targeting known mineralization by twinning a good hole and one of the massive sulfide zones 'evaporates'.
 |
| 2 sexy ass widths |
Here it is visually
Sorry the bars are so small, it is the only way I could actually show the assays from both holes.
I'm sure this is what Senor Lightfoot is referring to the mineralization being 'entirely open', two words that you can't say about the GGI management team.
Hole EL-17-11
Drilled to explore for the continuation of the mineralization hit in holes EL-17-08 and the old holes (DDH_02 and 03).
Make sure you check the scale on any map!, In this hole we can see that it is only ~25m from previous drilling. The thick, low-grade mineralization surrounding the high-grade zones in hole EL-17-08 has appears to have disappeared and all that is reported in EL-17-11 is a narrow, albeit, high-grade massive sulfide lens.
Hole EL-17-12
Vertical hole exploring the down-dip extensions of the NW massive sulfides zones hit in holes EL-17-03, 06, 07 and 08. It hit an 18m zone of >1% Ni and >1% Cu, but no massive sulfides, even though holes EL-17-03 and EL-17-08 are only 18m and 26m away respectively.
 |
| I'm guessing hole 12 was designed to herd the Nickel closer to surface |
Hole EL-17-13
This was drilled in the wide-blue yonder, and just clipped the edge of the MASSIVE geofizzical target and hit nothing.
It was a shame that we couldn't have seen these target anomalies on a section and maybe see how they relate to the Q, but, we got a plan map (or should I say, GGI got someone to draw the original Silver Standard Map from the 70s), asking for a section wold have seriously taxed the highly professional geological team at GGI
 |
| Fore.... |
Summary
We see significant decrease in thicknesses and grades of the mineralization over very short distances, which is a bit of an Achilles heel if you are trying to give the impression that the mineralization is part of a big deposit, and before anyone sends me comments with Latin phrases, just spend a few moment looking at hole 10. It demonstrates the depths that GGI will go to get a 'good result' for a press release .Nickel Mountain, futue te ipsi, es mundus excrementi!
Could you share your updated leapfrog file? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteDone, I've updated the post with a link to the file, you can also get it from here:
Deletehttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1XirbPS25lA_o5-eocQC7mdie0HYFSSti
Quick and honest question. Are you being compensated for writing about GGI?
ReplyDeleteNo, but I do accept beer
DeleteYou’re talking with your head up your a$$ as usual. No one listens to you and you have ZERO credibility. Pathetic and embarrassing to say the least.
ReplyDeletethank you
DeleteThat's a damn good question up above. Full disclosure: Are you being compensated for writing about Garibaldi?
ReplyDeleteI note that you've made 14 posts since November and of those, 6 have been about Garibaldi. That seems like a lot, considering the dozens and dozens of mining operations out there on which to comment. So:
Are you being compensated for writing about Garibaldi Resources?
Regards,
Gojira
No, I'm not. I just got irritated that companies like GGI can get away with releasing such poor quality information and biased drilling. I had no desire for the latest release until I plugged in the DH data fro hole 10 and saw how close it was to hole 09.
DeleteI can understand companies drilling twin holes - often done to confirm and verify historic drilling data where no core, pulps or coarse rejects exist. However, in this case, they are taking the piss. It means that immediately after drilling hole 09, they decided to twin it. You have to ask yourself, for what purpose?
BTW - if there are any other projects you would like me to have a look at, you can e-mail me at theangrygeologist@gmail.com
DeletePerhaps I should have been paying you a tad bid of attention, considering that you appear to be unable to read a complete press release. It said, "EL-17-10 was drilled into the Discovery zone east of the historic E&L deposit below the massive sulphide intercept in EL-17-04, confirming EL-17-09 and EL-17-14. This hole ran parallel to EL-17-09 and will provide ample massive sulphide for inclusion in preliminary metallurgical testing."
DeleteThey said it was a parallel hole, drilled to provide ample metallurgical test material. I'm so happy to know that you can plot holes correctly, but saddened to learn that you couldn't understand simple English. I think you owe them an apology, but I know that is too much to ask.
Yes SHE is..........
ReplyDeleteOh No she isn't!!!!
Deletethen what's your angle???????
ReplyDeleteOn 1 side we have u and the other side we Have Dr.Lightfoot.
Whom is right here?
do we need to compare credentials and integrity?
Have u spoke to him about your concerns and findings?
why do u not contact him and ask your questions yourself before posting misleading information?
Usually that's what someone does before writing an article that calls into question whatever u r insinuating..
did u contact King, Goldie or Makela?
please do before and your arrogance shall be subsided.
None, I just want people to look at the data being presented and form their own opinion. I have no issues if you disagree with mine and one of the reasons I include the leapfrog viewer file is that you can look at the data in 3D and see if it makes sense or not. One of the issues with GGi is that they are poor at releasing information, and i hope that you can see that I'm providing a lot more to help you.
DeleteOn 1 side we have geologists being paid for by Garibaldi to keep the project moving forward and probably they also have stock and perhaps even options in the company. If they don't end up making any sort of major discovery, they can just move on to the next project, the credentials and integrity of the geologist profession is such that it rarely takes a hit from blatant errors (sorry Angrygeo).
DeleteAnd how is Arizona Mining doing? Quite a ways off the mark on that play weren't you and you expect us to believe your info on GGI? Hahahaha how sad it is if people actually believe in what you say.
ReplyDeleteI think I mentioned a number of times that I hoped that they will be able to mine the deposit but was concerned that they would have an uphill struggle to get it permitted. I also mentioned that the Mn issue wasn't necessarily a problem, just a few samples were collected near the base of the manto zone and therefore were skewed towards the high end.
DeleteHowever, I'm still concerned about the lack work on the FS lands which could suggest an access issue, as it this that holds the key to the development of the project.
I don't see Angrygeo saying anywhere that the price of Arizona Mining was going to be going down. Fact is many shitty companies have their prices rising to unbelievable heights and sometimes that happens to the good ones as well. But, you won't have conclusive proof which are good and which are shitty until much farther down the road. Sometimes you can discern the major clues though.
DeleteAnonymous....based on the above interp. what do you disagree with? Looks like a sound review of the news release to me.
ReplyDeleteI don't get the hostility that is being thrown out here? This is top notch analysis based on the data that has been publicly released by GGI using one of the best visualization tools in the industry - download the leapfrog viewer and take a look at the data yourself and make your own assessment - at $250 million market cap today GGI is still trading at one of the highest valuations of almost any pre-resource company in the industry - early investors have had a huge home run at this point and should take something off the table - from here on out GGI's valuation will likely be tied the ability to show they can grow the size of the deposit dramatically to justify their market valuation - there is really interesting geology here but that doesn't mean growing this deposit significantly will be easy and as an investor you need to consider that as a major risk element to your investment
ReplyDeleteWhy did GGI wait sooooo long to release the latest drill results?
ReplyDeleteHuge red flag.
That is obvious, they got frozen in the ice and GGI waited for the glacier to transport them to the assay lab.
DeleteEither that or that forgot to buy the nuts for the chipmunk powered core-saw.
Most companies should be able to get results for a drill-hole in 4-6 weeks after the hole was completed. If it takes longer than that, there must be a reason why.
Huge red flag for one set of drill results? Both of you are on crack. The results are good and you both are missing the real data. Why do I even bother reading this fluff?? Maybe both of you should be excited about NNA's recent results that were not posted forever and were absolute garbage. That's where the red flag should have been hung.
DeleteYou don't have to.
DeleteHowever, many other exploration companies are able to release results in a timely manner.
NNA's results were rubbish, and their share price tumbled from $3.30 to $0.48 because of them. It was obvious the reason they delayed the release for so long was because they were so poor and destroyed the value of the company that had been built up on a weak foundation of promo and rumor.
GGI - individually the results are good, but looking at all of the data, it doesn't support the theory that there is a massive Ni deposit.
They have only drilled 14 holes thus far and you have to admit that the grades are pretty amazing. So perhaps once GGI has more holes and results which may lead to tonnage we can make those assumptions. If there is something there, maybe there is a heck of a lot there once the all the data comes in because we really don't know. I firmly believe they are on to something but yes, more information and results are required and I would honestly believe you could agree to that. If it wasn't for winter perhaps we would have the answer sooner rather than later.
DeleteApparently, there has been a huge backlog at the assay labs in Canada, and many companies have been waiting 2-3 months for results.
DeleteQuick reply to Anon above.
DeleteYes the grades have been good, but it is the fact that they have all come from small pods of high-grade mineralization surrounded by erratic disseminated mineralization. It is unlikely, in this scenario that a large resource could be defined, and the data released by GGI is strongly leaning towards this.
Anon you should listen to Angrygeo. For different deposits you can usually tell some things very early in the program. For a Ni massive sulfide, you do want to see it scale as the ore bodies are usually continuous shapes. So if you are getting small discontinuous hits, even if it is seriously some of the best grades ever seen, the odds are that you are not looking at a major discovery. There could still be one someplace else nearby, but that wouldn't in any way justify the elevated share price. This thing would be an interesting possibility if the stock was back somewhere in the 50 cent range or below. Above $2 it is a high flyer with way more risk than reward. That doesn't mean it won't be a discovery, only that the odds are low. You can look at the drill programs for all of the successful nickel massive sulfide projects drilled in the past several decades, all have shown continuity in the early drilling. So if this one is to be successful, it will be unique in that sense.
DeleteYou're an idiot Ace!
ReplyDeleteThanks for linking the file! What happened to the topo layer you had in the last update? That was a great addition. Would be nice to see how hole 13 was oriented downslope and what it means for HC1.
ReplyDeleteDone, here is the link
Deletehttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1KP3SkPMlSVjkB71mmiV_cBPbrdz5d-kb
I've also updated the post with thenew link as well
That's awesome, thanks for taking the time! Such a great tool.
DeleteThanks for the analysis AG! Don't mind the haters
ReplyDeleteKeep up the great work AG - don't listen to folks like Notrogs1! Non technical people can't understand normal technical analysis. If it doesn't suit their story they hate it. Please keep sharing your expertise and the LF files. Cheers!
ReplyDeletethat's the plan
DeleteNickel Mountain - quite possible an unprecedented accumulation of fossilized Trash.Why don't Dr. Bigfoot just throw all her garbage into Volcanos? Cu'll at 50 Cent.
ReplyDeleteWe shall see, so many believers in this project that it will be enjoyable to see how long the suffering could be dragged out for
Delete