Excellon have trying to get Platosa to work for the best part of a decade. They've had problems with the unions, local communities, and water.
However, for me, the deposit's biggest Achilles heel is its size. Earlier this year we got the latest and greatest resources (link).
What is the correct word to describe them....
But unfortunately, with less boobs. Here they are....
Here are the resources from December 2014 (link).
Do you see how the M&I resource grades have plummeted from 2014 to 2018. I'm sure this is because the deposit has been mined very carefully and 3 1/2 years of very successful, profitable high-grade mining of a complicated deposit has taken its toll, but......
Ohhh, the production grades have been nowhere near the resource grades. The started off great, and then went on holiday.
 |
| continued mediocrity |
 |
| the 2018 numbers look ok for the base metals |
 |
| a general decline |
But for me, these are the funniest statistics
Wow, 10m drill spacing to accurately define the resources. I remember teasing Pretium about tight drilling.
Here it is visually (just for the mine area)
 |
| I wonder if the difference between resource and mine grade is because drilling has removed so much material |
Holy Feck, you've drilled >358km (same distance Flint, Michigan is from Toronto) of drilling to have defined a total of ~1.2 million tonnes @ 682 g/t Ag, 6.2% Pb and 7.4%Zn?
- 498,000 tonnes of resources @ 548 g/t Ag, 5.6 % Pb and 5.9 % Zn
- 696,469 tonnes produced @ 779 g/t Ag, 6.7% Pb and 8.5% Zn
Or to put it another way. Excellon have mined and defined:
- 1,194,469 tonnes grading 1287 g/t AgEq, or 49,458,316Moz AgEq
- Drilled 358,070 meters
- So this works out to a success rate of 138.12 oz AgEq per meter
If we compare that with Silvercrest's Las Chispas project we see:
- Total drilling 83,230m
- Total resources: 86,701,200 oz AgEq
- Success rate = 1041.7oz AgEq per meter
It certainly has had its challenges. 15,000 usgpm of water. That's a lot of H2O.
ReplyDeleteI was underground at Platosa many moons ago and twas very wet.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Taseko website.
ReplyDelete"Taseko’s wholly owned Florence Copper, an in-situ copper recovery project, is located midway between Phoenix and Tucson near the community of Florence, Arizona.
In September 2017, with all final permits in place, Taseko announced that it’s Board of Directors approved the construction of the Florence Copper Phase 1 in-situ copper recovery facility.
Construction commenced immediately following Board approval and by Spring of 2018 the wellfield and SX/EW plant were well underway, on-time and on-budget. The Phase 1 facility is scheduled to produce its first copper cathode before the end of 2018."
The property has been extensively explored, including via underground. BHP purchased Magma right around the time Magma was exploring the property. BHP shut down Magma's nearby San Manuel mine/smelter complex due to low copper price. This business decision probably had something to do with their decision to walk away from Florence. They retained a NPI that will be paid on any future production. Conoco has an NSR as well.
ReplyDeleteThe morality question is resolved by EPA's permit approval process. The project is approved...at least for Phase 1.
The deposit sits below the potable aquifer with a fairly thick clay layer in between. I'm not a hydrogeologist but I'm reasonably sure flow vectors were considered during the permit process. I know the water flows away from the town of Florence, but there are other users in the area.
I don't know if the raffinate will be radioactive, but I know that ISL is a commonly used technology for uranium mining. It's not common for copper, but it could be used to recover oxide if the pregnant solution could be made to contain significant copper in solution.
One question I have is what percent of the total copper is sulphide and therefore not easily recoverable without a concentrator. This would have a big impact on economics and I haven't read the FS but I suspect it has the answer to that question.
Taseko owns the property. McPhie hasn't been involved for about 4 years now. You can argue that HDI controls things but Taseko is widely held with no shareholder controlling 10%. HDI does indeed control Pebble, but even the EPA have said in their report that a small operation would not have a significant impact on the Bristol Bay salmon fishery. Small is defined as around 35ktpd. Read their report for details.
Anyway, the reason I answered the post before mine was to point out that contrary to what was said, production isn't very far away. Construction has begun, permits are in place, pilot testing is underway and Taseko is committed to the project. Whether they have the financing remains to be seen.
As I said...the moral question is answered. They got permits. If you can figure it out then I'm sure the EPA is smart enough to figure out who's telling the truth.
ReplyDeleteOh...and it was 400k and it was RSU's.
I can see that you've never applied for a permit. It has everything to do with risk that might come back on the government...any kind of risk.
ReplyDeleteYou and your buddy seem to conflate my posts with support for Curis or for McPhie. That would be wrong. The facts are that this property has been awarded permits twice. Clearly the EPA believes your precious water aquifer can be protected.
Bill, As you know Florence does not have production permits, they have test well permits and those have been issued before but it never advanced beyond that. Probable reason is that process is complicated, not so easy to maintain an inward hydraulic gradient while also keeping pH acidic enough to dissolve the copper. Since rock is a granitoid it has U and so radon in the water is a definite concern, whether or not it can migrate out of the well field into the main aquifer is a question not yet answered. I'm fairly certain the EPA position is, "if that happens we'll do something" but that's not a great consolation to the locals.
ReplyDeleteAce, you've made erroneous assumptions about what I support. But I DO know more about the EPA than you do. For one thing I've actually gone gone through the permitting process. Have you? Do you think they don't know about HDI after Pebble? Did you read their report on Pebble? No, I didn't think so. I will give you credit for being a huge blowhard though...that is if you really want it.
ReplyDeleteTom, Radon is a gas, and although it's soluble in water it's also easily removed either through aeration or carbon adsorption. I agree a major issue for Florence is dissolving a high enough concentration of copper in the pregnant solution. (They claim they can get 2 gm/l, but that may be based on test work and not on full scale plant operation. There are probably places that have done it but I don't know of any off the top of my head. As I mentioned earlier, leaching doesn't work well (hardly at all) with sulphide copper so the percent of oxide copper is key to the economics. I've been busy with other things so haven't checked out their FS to understand the numbers. You may be right about "if that happens we'll do something." but EPA took a much more proactive approach to Pebble...basically cutting HDI off at the knees with their projected damage model at Pebble's planned 200 ktpd tonnage. But maybe they're being directed by the Trump administration nowadays. They had much more support when Obama was president.
Where do you get this stuff? Try this technical article by SRK, summarizing the BHP work. Read the summary to understand what issues (none) were encountered during rinsing. Look at the bottom of the charts (uranium & radium) on P 100 & 101. https://portal.azoah.com/oedf/documents/12-005-WQAB/SWVP-640-SRK_BHPFieldTest_SummaryRpt_Jul2010-Draft__ckh_20111026_dmj_Q4.pdf
ReplyDeleteHere is a paragraph from the environmental section of an SRK report that reviewed the BHP work. It deals with radioactivity.
ReplyDelete"Radiochemicals were also sampled during leaching and rinsing phases, but with much less frequency
or consistency in constituents analyzed. Elevated adjusted gross alpha particle activity was
identified in five wells in 2001 including BHP-2, BHP-6, BHP-11, BHP-12, and BHP-13. A
significant component of these analyses is contributed by total uranium, which was measured in
elevated concentrations ranging from 18.1 mg/L in BHP-8 to 10.9 p in BHP-12. Fewer analyses are
available in 2003 and 2007; three samples in 2003 (one in 2007) showed slightly elevated results
ranging from 10.3 to 14.8 pCi/L but none of the analyses exceed the AWQS for adjusted gross alpha.
As seen before, the major constituent contributing to the elevated gross alpha is the total uranium
concentration. Total uranium is a constituent commonly noted in groundwater associated with the
1.4 billion year old granite and quartz monzonite basement rock in southern Arizona. "
The entire report can be found here. It's a very interesting read.
https://portal.azoah.com/oedf/documents/12-005-WQAB/SWVP-640-SRK_BHPFieldTest_SummaryRpt_Jul2010-Draft__ckh_20111026_dmj_Q4.pdf
This is a link to the public comments on the EPA decision to grant the phase 1 license. What's notable is that there isn't a single concern expressed about radioactivity. It was a non issue. There was however some concerns about sulphuric acid escaping into the main aquifer. And concern expressed about a truckload of acid rolling over and spilling its load.
ReplyDeletehttps://azdeq.gov/sites/default/files/106360_ResponsivenessSummary2016_0.pdf
A hundred hours for you is like one hour for me. Pull your head out of that dark smelly place between your legs and read the links I provided.
ReplyDeleteAce, you wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit you on your chinny chin chin. You were probably an extra in Dumb and Dumber. All those hours spent struggling to understand and you still don't get it. I'm not talking about Curis, or Taseko. I'm talking about a legitimate study by SRK upon reviewing all the Magma/BHP pilot test work. Surely you know who SRK are? If not, I can introduce you to them.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, because the fast ones seem to fly over your head. This is about a PROJECT. Now bugger off and do your required reading.