However, there may be a bit of a hangover, especially when you look at the detailed assay results (link), where you can see that in Trench 4, you can see that they have sampled 2 very high-grade structures surrounded by a wide zone of >1 g/t Au mineralization.
 |
| red = good |
If you take out these 4 high-grade intervals, this is what happens:
 |
| A bit less than 13.61 g/t Au |
Still very good, but you quickly see that 83% of the Au if in just 5.8m or 5.4% of the trench.
The rest of the country rock is running >1g/t Au, so it is still a great result, but not a spectacular one.
The good news is, Evrim have identified a nice high-grade structure for drilling!!!
Average grade for the vuggy silica zone in HSE deposits can be around 1 gram/tonne gold so the 2.3 gram residual grade is actually decent. It doesn't take many high grade structures to increase the grade, and these are permeable zones in the vuggy silica; there is still potential for vertical breccia pipe "feeders" (smaller tonnage but typically high grade).
ReplyDeleteOne other thing I noticed in the PR is that Evrim states that the trenches were ‘cross trenches’. This implies to me that two trenches, the headline trench, trench 4 was paired with another trench, trench 2 in which they reported 2.94 g/t over 29.4 m and this includes a 1.3 m interval grading 48.3 g/t.
ReplyDeleteIf this is correct then the headline trench would appear to be along the structure and the actual width would of the structure would appear to be more in the order of the 29.4 m interval again in which the h/g +400 g/t interval in trench 4 May have been ‘crossed’ at the 1.3 m sample grading 48.3 in trench 2.
So it’s possible there’s a particularly high grade 1.0 m or less stringer surrounded by some lower grades and a smattering of a couple of gram assays.
Still intriguing stuff, but also a very misleading headline.
I'm not sure, I think the structures could be E-W, but what is interesting (and this is due to the nugget effect) is that the highest sample in Trench 2 next to the >100g/t Au zone in trench 4 only grades 5.33 and 2.71 g/t Au. So it looks like the UHG zone was a fluke
DeleteUh no Anonymous. There's another 300 plus meter trench with significant gold values. These two trenches are "cross trenches" on that original Trench 1. Dig a little before you mouth off.
ReplyDeleteI want to dig a bit deeper into the data. Fortunately, Evrim has released the assays from all of the trenches and I can have a more detailed look to see what is going on with the various structures, and as we have several trenches that are perpendicular, I'll see if we can join the dots to see where the structures are heading to see if Trench 4 was excavated along the axis of a structure.
DeleteThere typically aren't going to be structures per se in a high-sulphidation epithermal vuggy silica. I mean you could have a more porous lithology that carries higher grades but otherwise the high grades are probably
Deleteformed by, and distributed like, hot springs in a cluster.
Well someone is a little testi-cle DXL (ha, ha, get it testi-cle - testicle?).
ReplyDeleteMy bad.
Trench 1 is along the structure/zone and 4 and 2 ‘cross’ the structure/zone about 120 - 150 m apart from one another with the structure/zone appearing to have an approximate N-S orientation.
Hi Angey Geo, thanks for the great comment. In the same idea, today First Mining release a special hole.... 72 m at 6,26 g but when you go into it, it look like an average after 1 m nugget... Am I wrong? Is it right to publish with thia kind of title???
ReplyDeleteHello,
DeletePersonally, I don;t like it, it is misleading, and I always recommend people to use Corebox's excellent drill interval calculator to double check any published data.
Unfortunately, it it is 'mathematically correct' and they are allowed to get away with it.
Narrow widths. One wonders about the dip. Is this mineable?
ReplyDeleteROFL! I mean literally on the floor. The funniest thing I have read in probably 3 weeks. Bravo sir, well done!
DeleteAG, it seems to me you are looking at this as if it is a narrow vein LS epithermal system, not a HS system, which can be different. The nature of HS systems is they are generally very large low grade deposits, with local high grade blowouts along structural controls. So what Evrim is reporting is perfectly fine in my books. Look to El Indio and Veladero for some examples. Mirasol resources put out this presentation which is a good summary. http://mirasolresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Mirasol_HSE_Characteristics_21070302.pdf
ReplyDeleteYes.
DeleteHey Anon,
DeleteI know HS systems well, what is interesting is that the SGM have done some work in the are and identified several NW (?) striking structures that how gold mineralization.
My issue isn't with the deposit type, but the fact that Evrim didn't cap the very high grade samples (say to 50 g/t) and ended up skewing the results considerable.
The target looks interesting, there is a moderate size >1 g/t footprint that hopefully with drilling will turn into something.
In addition, I referred to a high-grade structure not a vein (they are interchangeable in many instances), but as they were referring to a HS system I wasn't sure if it was a fault intersection, shear or breccia etc etc (so I was doing some ass covering)
DeleteYes, capping is as capping does. but I know of few juniors who will cap at this early stage of exploration. Hopefully that will come with the maiden resource, and that is at best a year away, assuming they get financed to drill in this market. Hopefully they will also report both capped and uncapped to give the great unwashed something to talk about. Think of the fun. I like to cap at an even 1oz Au or AuEq, but all in all what a great problem to have to complain about.
ReplyDeleteBTW, any one remember when Cuales was a VMS story first?
There is a number of VMS deposits to the south (http://www.zincomining.com/s/History.asp).
DeleteEvrim has ~$6M in the bank, so they should be able to fund some drilling, unless they option the project out.