You mobilized rigs back in October 2017 (link), started the 2000m program a couple of weeks later (link), and since then absolutely nothing, nada, zilch.
ohhh, sorry, my mistake, you've dropped the property (link), were the results that bad? Pro-tip - you probably want to include that PR on the website.
I wonder if we'll see the same with the drilling at La Virginia? You've told us that you have mobilized the rigs (link) a couple of weeks ago, and so we should be having a "drilling has started" PR sometime next week...or are they already turning?.
BTW, if you do get something interesting, please don't repeat your mistake with Orex Minerals and forget to raise money when the share price was high....
 |
| Bitch raising money at $0.08 |
The option deal with Riverside looks pretty rich, so I guess they decided to walk away after disappointing results.
ReplyDeleteThey spent $600k in the 4th qtr of last year according to their financials. The relevant parts of the MD&A are below.
"During the reporting period the Company completed the first half of its Phase I diamond drilling program, a programmed 2,000m of
HQ diametre core. In total 9 holes were completed for a total of 1061.54m. In addition, the Silver Viper field crews undertook
reconnaisance style soil sampling and rock chip sampling/prospecting activities in areas along trend, and adjacent to known
mineralized areas.
3
Company Overview (cont’d…)
Two key prospect areas were tested during 2017, El Mundo was tested with four holes, for a cumulative 421.09 metres. Nuevo
Mundo was with five holes for a total 640.45 metres.
El Mundo historical workings exploited a north striking, steeply west dipping vein/fault thought to cut the nose of a major anticline.
Riverside’s sampling of horizontal rock pillars in the old workings returned three best values of 512g/t silver and 0.69 g/t gold, 924g/t
silver and 2.345g/t gold and 2108g/t silver and 5.44g/t gold across true widths of 0.5m, 1.0m and 0.55m respectively. Company
confirmation samples confirmed the general tenor of these results though drilling during 2017 did not repeat grades or thicknesses
sampled in the workings. A best result of 1.2m grading 30g/t silver, 0.08g/t gold and combined 0.23% lead zinc was returned from
33.8m downhole in hole CL-17-004.
Nuevo Mundo hosts silver-gold-base metal mineralization in vein/faults exposed by a series of small open cuts and underground
workings. The area hosts scattered workings over an area measuring 575m x 1400m. Mineralization at Nuevo Mundo appears to be
hosted in structures dipping 25-40 degrees at varied orientations. Confimation sampling returned values ranging from near-below
detection up to a best value of 696g/t silver and 0.773g/t gold over a width of 0.5m from an oxidised vein exposed in old workings.
Drilling intersected thin mineralized/anomalous structures comparable to those mapped at surface. The best result from this area
was from hole Cl-17-006; 0.7 metres grading 827 g/t silver, 0.23 g/t gold, 1.64% lead and 1.45% zinc from 31.5m downhole. Holes
007 and 008 encounterd historical mine workings at the projected target depth and were abandoned."
Thanks for that, I went and checked their MD&As on SEDAR as they don't include them on their website. So essentially the results were poor.
DeleteThe MD&A's are on their website. Look under the Investor tab. Then check the financials and you will see two files. One is the financials by quarter and the second is MD&A. Look for the December MD&A.
Deletemy mistake, I was referring to Minaurum, I was wanting to see if they had any new results, but they obviously had a 9 month permitting pause in their 5000m drill program
DeleteIf Clemente was absolutely nothing then why did they issue almost 4 million options to themselves?
ReplyDeleteThe didn't...at least according to Sedi. Total options held by insiders are roughly 3 million.
DeleteThey also draw no salaries, so options are the only way they can compensate themselves.
Ahh! So they issued 3.8 million options to management, directors and consultants in February. Priced at 25 cents, they are well above the price of the stock since listing last fall.
Delete"They draw no salaries"? Not according to the financials....just look at the related party note you've referenced. Your second comment about "above the price of the stock since listing" is wrong as well. According to the IPO they listed at 25 cents....nice try management....
DeleteI reported based on their management information circular, which says the insiders take no salary. Perhaps the financials are showing salaries for contract geologists? Yes, they listed at 25 cents but look at the share price history since then. What puzzles me a bit is the options were issued at 25 cents in Feb but the share price was well below that. Normally options are issued at the share price on the day they are issued.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI double checked the MIC and it was zero salaries for 2016. The financials show $61,000 in management fees in 2017. Not a lot of money for the management and directors.
DeleteI guess they haven't heard of fire assay.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing that they are going for a "total digest" as a 4 acid could have issues dissolving minerals like zircon. It does mention that it can be used for High sulfide samples, but they had no issues with their assays last year and for Ni ALS can, with their OG62 method analyze Ni up to 30%.
ReplyDeleteHowever, using a total digest method you can accurate measure the amount of (the unrecoverable) Ni in silicate minerals to give yourself another 0.1-0.2% Ni to wow the market.
Agreed. The amount of time taken to report is excessive. It doesn't take very long to digest a sample. At Copper Mtn we were doing thousands of assays monthly and managed to get daily/weekly/monthly production reports out on time.
ReplyDeleteYeah PVG will reply Monday I am sure. AZ was smeared in a similar fashion by short sellers with an article calling them a "Bre-X" I guess 32South did not get the memo.
ReplyDeleteAZ wasn't smeared the same way, they did have an issue with manganese which turned out to be way overblown in one hit piece (but AZ had already found a lot of high grade mineralization with lower manganese so this wasn't a fatal flaw anymore). And they figured a way around permitting by placing the operation almost entirely on private land (but it will still take a lot longer to get into production compared to what they projected, as South32 is going to find out ... they really don't know anything about mining in the U.S. so in that sense they were the perfect buyout candidate for Hermosa).
DeleteSame people with the hit article on PVG also called for AMD last March to be bankrupt by now due to their totally flawed tech. Just checked and AMD still in business with a 26 billion dollar market cap. Now these clowns are experts on hard rock gold mining. Yeah tech, gold mining, whatever.
DeleteIf by same people you are talking about these Viceroy dudes, fine. They don't know anything about mining so most of their stuff is incorrect but they do make some valid points as well. The bulk sample was not representative, and the resource model has problems. That's the case whether they said that or not.
DeleteI skimmed their report. They don't know the difference between in situ density and broken rock density. Most of what they wrote is schlock. But I give them credit for doing a hell of a lot of work.
DeleteWhat will U say if GGI totally proves you wrong??
ReplyDeleteI sure hope PVG comes out on top here. A lot of peoples jobs depend on it. How many companies have these shorters built that employ hundred's if not thousands of blue collar people? That's right. None.
ReplyDeleteSo gold mining and the associated jobs should not exist. Now I see your bias. Seeing as PVG has produced and sold several hundred thousand ounces out of an operation not a year in full production I will give PVG the benefit of the doubt. GLTA except the shorters and the predatory vultures that chase them.
ReplyDeleteI think you're making a lot of unsupported assertions. The people who loaned $750 million aren't as stupid as you might think. They would have thoroughly vetted the resource model/reserve models to satisfy themselves they would get their money back with interest. Remember as well that the models used at feasibility were not done by Pretium. They were done independently.
ReplyDeleteThe grade issue here is largely due to its high variability and consequent difficulty predicting it accurately. Pretium had done pretty much everything I would do to get a better handle on it, including tighter drilling, more development (to increase flexibility) and better geological control.
There is no doubt Pretium is feeling pressure to generate enough cash flow to make their corporate debt payments, and one might think this would lead to high grading, but think about it for a moment. The best way to increase project NPV is to mine higher grade material as early as possible in the mine life. Therefore if Pretium is high grading they are only doing what all miners do and what leads to the best economic solution.
You seem pretty good at making predictions without a whit of supporting evidence or without any logical thought process. I hope you don't apply those same lack of skills to your investing because that's a great recipe for losing your investment.
I agree that fan drilling is an inferior way to maintain grade control. The reason people do it is because they want to minimize the amount of development required to prepare a stope, and they want to make longhole drilling more productive. That said, I think it's the wrong approach when grade is the thing one is attempting to bring under tighter control.
ReplyDeleteThat's quite unlikely, you think if they have drilled multiple wide intervals of massive sulfides at large stepouts from the "discovery" they would not be reporting that?
ReplyDeleteI think the people who loaned the money did their own model and realized that even if large areas of PVG's model will never get mined, there are still a few areas with a high density of bonanza grade drill intercepts, and these areas add up to a decent amount of tonnage. You don't even need MIK or any other geostatistics to realize these areas WILL carry high grades assuming they can properly design stopes around them, you just need to have a close look at all the infill drilling results. And it looks like PVG has also realized this is what they need to do (after their initial brazen attempt to follow the FS mine plan). So now the question becomes, can they generate enough cash flow to pay off the debt from these high density bonanza intercept areas, or not? Clearly there is risk it won't happen, but we can't conclude with any degree of certainty right now about that. My guess would be that it will be a close call, and we also need to keep an eye on the potential that they define further areas with high density bonanza drill intercepts, because those would be mineable at a profit as well.
ReplyDeleteCheck this out!!!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/new-discovery-yields-9000-ounces-of-high-grade-coarse-gold-from-single-cut-at-beta-hunt-mine-692816781.html
Representative of what? What was the baseline they were comparing to?
ReplyDeleteAgain, you're making claims that you can't support. You have no idea what their costs are or how to calculate their cutoff grade. You diss Snowden, who are well known and highly respected in the mining world. Few companies know how to do MIK. Do you even know what it is?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'll take your lack of response as a definite "I don't know."
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know what the resource estimate was for the blocks they mined and that's what I would compare the actual bulk sample to. I know the folks at Strathcona. I worked for them back in the '80's. I also know Snowden...a bit technical for my taste but a very good consulting group. This isn't a question of who's got the better rep. It's about who can do the best job of predicting tonnes and grade in the resource model.
ReplyDeleteSeveral consulting groups have taken a crack at Pretium's resource estimate but no one, not even Strathcona have come closer to the real grade than Snowden. It's an extremely difficult resource to model. It defies normal statistical analysis. Snowden were one of the early users (possibly the first) of MIK and remain one of the leaders in its use. Strathcona...they don't even do resource models as far as I'm aware, so who are they to question what Snowden did? And frankly, who the hell are you to question them???
GTT and GLDN drill results out today.
ReplyDeleteI read the short report and the main one as well. Hilarious stuff. Read the part about waste into the lake. They claimed a density of 2.78 tonnes per cubic meter but broken rock runs about 1.6. To borrow a phrase from an idiot on the internet....that report is fukkin chit.
ReplyDeleteMy question was the correct one for anyone who knows how to do a reconciliation, which you appear not to know. Do you know anything about mining or are you just playing games with the adults?
Back in May I openly wondered if Pretium might have to do a new reserve. I said it because their reconciliation was terrible from what I could discern. I also wondered how they were going to pay their current portion of debt, which might be the catalyst for a new reserve report. Viceroy has covered the same ground, although they seem overly focussed on Pretium's apparent reported tonnage discrepancies (big fukkin deal!) rather than screaming for a public accounting of their reconciliation.
The bulk sample is history. Who gives a chit what Strathcona said or who milled the sample. All that was known back then. There's nothing new there. Since then the company managed to acquire the money to build the mine and successfully put it into operation. Apparently a few people with much more mining savvy at their fingertips than you or me or Viceroy looked at all the information and said it was worth the investment. That's all that counts now...except for the quarterly results.
Who says they can't review their own work? You? Viceroy? Do you really think the reserve report was compromised? Then complain to APEG. I know what they will tell you. And by the way...have you ever looked at it? The reserves at that time were stated as 19 million tonnes at 12 grams/tonne, which is about 10.9 gm/ton. Where are you getting 15 gm/ton? The same place Viceroy got 2.78 for the SG of broken rock?
ReplyDeleteRNX presentation. PDF format
ReplyDeletehttps://bit.ly/2Qh0265
The news release explains clearly why the amended number was submitted.
ReplyDeleteSorry to disappoint you grasshopper but the news article said they amended the number because the original one contained all excavation since the start of mining instead of just the one for 2017. To be absolutely clear...because you seem unable to understand plain English text....the submitted number was for life of mine, not for the year. It clearly was a simple mistake.
ReplyDeletePeople can sue all they wish...that doesn't mean they're going to win anything...particularly because of one meaningless mistaken number.
You guys need to step away from your keyboards and take a deep breath. I think 3 out of the however many comments have anything to do with the silver viper thing.
ReplyDeleteNever heard of silver viper, like to discuss junior stocks making headlines. Like RNX, GBR, etc. Anyways sorry for hijacking the AngryGeo's subjects that she likes to discuss.
DeleteHere is something to wrap your brain around. In their summary of Sept 6 Viceroy said
ReplyDelete"The overwhelming majority of our research indicates Pretium manipulated the results of its bulk sample program through an overreliance on samples taken from the Cleopatra vein, thereby artificially inflating Pretium's grades and reserve projections for the Brucejack Mine."
At the time of the bulk sample a reserve report had already been published (Tetra Tech - June 21/13) and the Cleopatra vein had not yet been discovered, therefore it was not included in the reserve report. (Pretium news release July 23/13) Total VOK zone published reserves were 15.1 Mt @ 13.6 g/t for total contained gold of 6.6 M oz. An updated reserve report was published June 19/14, again by Tetra Tech with VOK reported reserves of 13.6 Mt @ 15.7 g/t for total contained gold of 6.9 M oz. Lower tonnes at higher grade and an increase of only 0.3 M oz.
My question to you is how can anyone believe Viceroy's claim when contained ounces only went up by 0.3 M oz??
In life, when there are more than one possible answers it's the simple one that is most likely, particularly when there is no reason to believe otherwise. Viceroy would have you believe there is something nefarious behind it. What could that be? Ask yourself this question...what motive do they have for over reporting their tonnage? What do they have to gain from it?
ReplyDeleteThey gave the reason but apparently you don't want to believe it. Further to that point...where did I swear anything. Hyperbole much?
ReplyDeleteSomeday you should consider answering my questions rather than avoiding them....if you are capable.
It may surprise you to learn that I agree with one or two points in the Viceroy paper. The main one I agree with is whether Pretium will be able to make their debt payments. I'm going on memory but I think they have almost $400 million current. (Payable within the next 12 months) They have $140 million in cash and will generate at best $40 million in FCF over the next 4 qtrs. That gives them $300 million...not enough to pay their current debt.
ReplyDeleteI also suspect (and said so in May) that the reserves will be downsized because they simply cannot reconcile between actual ounces and their reserve model. This is a theme underlying Viceroy's claims. I question Pretium's plan to expand the mill and increase tonnage. This will not help grade at all and may not increase ounces produced.
The rest of their statements, including the one about the owner of the mill that processed the bulk sample...they are all just poo flinging with the hope that some of it sticks somewhere. Was it not known who was processing the sample at the time? Was Quartermain's history not also known? Investors who did a modicum of due diligence would have known all that stuff before they invested, and they still put up their money.
Clearly some investors (mainly lenders) thought it was a worthy project. And yes, they (some of them) are first in line to grab the assets if Pretium goes under, but they won't get much of their investment back because most of it went into labour and materials to build the mine. The underground equipment will be scrap. The mills and motors will be about the only things of value...and perhaps the camp if someone in that area needs one.
I should correct one thing I said somewhere along the way. At the time of the bulk sample in 2013 Serophim Muroff had no charges against him by SEC. That occurred afterward, in 2017.
ReplyDeleteThe debt owed in the next 4 quarters is $400 million. A further $300 million is owed beyond that. Details of timing, etc on the remaining debt are contained in the MD&A, which I have read but cannot recall.
There is a news report out on Titan Mining management changes. Kevin Torpy, GM at Brucejack has resigned and will be going to Titan as VP Ops.
ReplyDeleteArizona Mining people run Titan and own almost 1/2 the company.
DeleteWonder what their end game is with TI?? TDW has a $2.50 target and have just started coverage. Estimate based on zinc at $1.10 a pound.
Entire post really Awesome! Thank you for all the hard work you put into it. It's really shows. Anger Quotes
ReplyDelete