Thursday, August 22, 2019

Garibaldi - attack of the biscuits

Sorry for my tardiness, I was playing around with copper deposits.

We got a PR from our chums at Garibaldi Resources announcing the first of many few drill results from Nickel Mountain (link)

To the surprise of no-one, we didn’t get any decent maps with this PR, just a couple that re hard to read at the bottom of the PR - I couldn’t see where these new holes were located , could you?

but fear ye not, here they are....

OMG!!!!! both of them have targeted the Swiss Cheese Discovery Zone.

Let’s look at the holes in a bit more detail

Hole EL-19-47

This is drilling the eastern continuation of the lower discovery zone.

That hole was drilled a massive 15m from hole EL-18-16 and 24m from the massive sulfide hit in hole EL-18-24. Not really a massive leap of faith that would add millions and millions of tonnes to the deposit.

EL-19-53

This hole was drilled from the same platform as hole 47 but in a different direction, plunging into the heart of the known


Just 11.3m from the massive sulfides hit in hole EL-18-22


And 14.3m from the massive sulfides in hole EL-18-20…

Warning: the following image contains an “interpretation” involving one or more squiggly lines and maybe words, but definitely no numbers. Please sit down!


What is cool, is that you can join up the massive sulfide hits in several holes to work out an approximate outline of the Discovery Zone.

Isometric view looking SW. Red outline is my interpreted limit to sulfide mineralization
In Plan view, with some annotations and a scale



I added the 10m buffers around the drill-holes as it allows you to quickly see areas they haven't been drilled. 

A lot (20) of holes have penetrated the lower discovery zone defining a zone of massive sulfides that:
  • Dimensions of ~125m long, 15-35m wide and 5-10m thick (true thickness)
  • Or an approximate volume of 23,500 cubic meters
  • Or an approximate tonnage of 108,000 tonnes (using an SG of 4.6*)
*SG of Pentlandite (main Ni sulfide) is 4.6 to 5.0; Chalcopyrite (copper sulfide) is 4.1 to 4.3

So, Nickel Mountains isn't big, but there are a few areas where mineralization can be expanded

dashed green outlines - where mineralization appears to be open


Summary


Nothing new, just a couple of holes pushing the boundaries of mineralization by a metaphorical duck’s fart, and just for fun, here is the Nickel Mountain deposit compared to that tiddler, Voisey’s Bay.


Leapfrog viewer file can be downloaded from here

48 comments:

  1. Thanks for your analysis and blog, as it provides great insights to the laymen / laywomen in our "Canadian Miners Club" facebook group

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks! Kind of thought drilling something into Swiss Cheese went out of style 20+ years ago... management can still surprise investors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mean it was the only cheese used in Looney Tunes cartoons, so obviously it is the best cheese.

      I would point you towards GFG Resources Rattlesnake Hills presentation - slide 23

      https://s21.q4cdn.com/712049373/files/doc_presentations/2019/08/GFG-IR-Presentation-August-2019-FINAL-(1).pdf

      It is the equivalent of black hole drilling - simply can't get more holes into an area

      Delete
  3. So, weren't you super critical of PVG? If so, guess what, it's a $3+ billion MC.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Angry GEO is an idiot... Didn't she also run her mouth about PVG? Hows that looking now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gold price went up which is covering (nicely for them) the fact that the operation is still mining much lower grades than outlined in the feasibility study.

      Delete
    2. Lots of insider sell on this leg up https://www.canadianinsider.com/node/7?menu_tickersearch=PVG+%7C+Pretium+Resources

      Delete
  5. is it possible that they drilled that same area so much that all the nickel is already above ground?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it is the long term plan, mine the core and sample rejects

      Delete
  6. Now do Group Ten Metals project in Montana by Stillwater!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. come on, it's also a nickel pge play. how does it comp with GGI? looks big. high-grade neighborino with operating mines, endorsement of ivanhoe guy...

      Delete
  7. What is your opinion on GBR.V?

    ReplyDelete
  8. What about River Valley near Sudbury?

    ReplyDelete
  9. It’s comforting to know that when a resource is finally estimated it will all be in the measured category!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It shouldn't be comforting to know that back in the 1960's there was a resource estimate of 3 million tonnes yet after all these "discoveries" by GGI their resource probably isn't going to come in much north of that, measured or otherwise.

      Delete
    2. Here's a challenge for you, Tom. Collect all that historic drill data together and plug it into Leapfrog. Show us that the historic resource estimate is valid, or don't mention it again.

      Delete
    3. All historic drilling data is in the Leapfrog viewer file provided. Maybe you should become acquainted with it?

      The historic resource was 3MT at 0.7% Ni and 0.6% Cu looking at the massive and stockwork mineralization.

      The new massive sulfide zones won't add much

      Delete
  10. Your bias is so profound, that you don’t even realize just how embarrassed you ought to be following this post, do you?

    GGI is incrementally growing its deposit on what you have shown to be around 20 m step-outs, and you want to criticize them for that? That is textbook resource definition drilling, but your background in aquifers didn’t teach you about that, eh?

    At the end of all that effort, you make the most inane comparison between two projects I have ever seen. The image at the top of your own post shows five distinct mineralized zones, but you compare just one of them (Lower Discovery) to all of Voisey’s Bay? But more than that, you compared an early exploration stage project to one that has been drilled off over decades. A reasonable comparison would have been all of the Nickel Mountain mineralized zones to the then known Voisey’s mineralization after their 47th hole. What a clown. Why did you focus on a volumetric model and ignore the differences in grade? There’s more than one variable to apply to comparing massive sulphide zones to each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Note that GGI only actually discusses 2 holes while having drilled 14, and just 1 hole was an actual step out, and it was 15 meters not 20. The addition to resource tonnage accomplished so far by drilling in 2019 as documented in the NR is minuscule and laughable.

      AG's comparison to VB is clearly for scale only. It was meant as humor not serious analysis. If you want something serious, try reflecting on the fact that the Ovoid was able to support a resource of almost 30 million tonnes (containing 1MT Ni) less than a year after discovery based on about 40 holes on 50 meter centers (i.e. step outs). The "core" consisted of 10 holes averaging 100 meters (true width) of +3% Ni and +2% Cu. And the Ovoid is not even why Diamond Fields ended up being bought for $3+ billion but rather because of the possibility that even richer deposits might be found on the property ( https://www.exec.gov.nl.ca/exec/publicat/economy/voiseys.htm ). This didn't really turn out to be true but that doesn't stop people from using an idealized version of VB (say for valuation purposes) in their comparisons.

      Delete
    2. Give your head a shake, Tom, your eyeballs are stuck.

      Nothing in AG’s comparison was funny. It was an atrocious violation of reason. At the point in time when 47 holes were reported, the Voisey’s model she presented was nothing more than a fantasy, and you know it. When she presented the Nickel Mountain mineralization, she left out the Northwest Zone, the Northeast Zone, the Central Zone, and the Upper Discover Zone. That was an invalid comparison, period.

      The 1996 Teck resource for Voisey’s Bay you refer to was a joke, and it came after almost 150 holes. A reliable resource wasn’t available for another 7 years, when INCO modeled it in 2003. It was a coincidence that the tonnage was similar.

      If you want to rewrite history, you need to first consider whether others have access to the details. You lose again.

      Delete
    3. I suppose I should have compared it to the Thompson or Raglan deposits, lessons to be learned

      Delete
    4. The big issue with Nickel Mountain isn't its size or its grade, but its location. If this deposit was located in the Kambalda, Raglan camps or somewhere that isn't on the top of a steep mountain int he middle of BC (e.g. the Eagle deposit (Lundin Mining), then it would have a good chance of moving towards production.

      However, it is in a remote area and would require significant investment to bring it into production. To justify a large investment you need to demonstrate that you have a big system or multiple sulfides bodies.

      TLDR version - you could probably risk 50m stepouts

      Delete
    5. No, comparing Nickel Mountain to any fully explored nickel deposit is not valid. That is the lesson. Compare them after 47 holes each. Compare all of Nickel Mountain, not just one massive sulphide body. You’ve got the Leapfrog model. Use it, instead of making up a new one that significantly biases the perception of size.

      And if the size and grade are not at issue, why is that your primary focus in your posts? Which Angrygeo is the credible one? The one who writes the original posts, or the one who replies after being called out for the former?

      Before you dismiss the location of Nickel Mountain, you ought to educate yourself on existing infrastructure. High voltage electrical lines nearby. Paved highway and local access roads to within 8 km of site. Tidewater port nearby. The Golden Triangle is a young mining camp, but it’s growing leaps and bounds right now. By the time this deposit hits detailed engineering, infrastructure will be even better.

      Delete
    6. You buried the lede here. Seems like this post should be titled "The Big Issue with Nickel Mountain isn't its size or its grade" followed by "all the crap I said about size and grade was bullshit, or at least subsequent events have proven me wrong". But that would take guts and intellectual honesty.

      -Gojira

      Delete
    7. yes it is, the idea is to compare the deposit to one that is an active mine to see if the drilling shows the potential for the deposit to be similar in size and grade to an active mine.

      The drilling at the moment doesn't suggest that the various deposits combined are large enough to take the project to the next step, which for share-holders (I'm assuming you are one) would be a company to come and take over Garibaldi and pay a nice premium.

      At Nickel Mountain the majority of the drill-holes with decent intercepts are concentrated in a small area 125m x 35m, and the drilling appears to be quickly closing off the continuation of massive sulfide mineralization.

      I didn't include section on the other zones as the drilling appears to have closed them off completely.

      So, in my opinion, the drilling has outlined ~200,000 tonnes (in all zones) at a eye-ball grade of 3-4% Ni, which is 20 times less than the Eagle deposit. From the data given to us, I don't see how GGI will expand the mineralization beyond an 'academically interesting' deposit to an economic one.

      Why do you think that Nickel Mountain is good, where is the potential to define 5MT @ 4% NiEq?

      Delete
  11. wanted to ask what you think about company buying previously drilled projects. can you look at contact gold's pony spur project ? the management claims to have 94% hit rate and wanted to see why it trades at so low valuation if previous company like allied nevada/vista gold had put out a resource estimate of about 1.5 million ounces at greater than 1.3g/t mostly oxide.
    What is the disconnect? thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look at the valuations in general, not very good at this stage (with the exception of Corvus Gold). You need a strong junior market and/or at least market being confident that the operators are interested in acquiring second tier assets in Nevada (which is what most of the juniors are holding).

      Delete
  12. Ohh Tom, Tom, Tom,

    I remember a faithful morning, while I was drinking my coffee and skimming through GGI's channel on CEO. Just as I was browsing, I saw you making a lenghty comment, comment that you deleted a few seconds afterward, probably when you realized in horror that the comment was meant for someone in private (the one person financing you to lie?) had been written on a public channel, for all to see.
    Let me remind you of what you wrote, Tom, the first couple of words: "Of course, GGI will continue to have great grades and accumulate tonnage and of course, it's gonna be a mine". I also remember how angry you were when I called you on that one, Tom.
    Sadly, you have been too slow on the "delete" and I saw it and could tell to the others how of an hypocrite you were and how you just miserably failed at hiding it.
    I was just passing by to remind you that we know about it and that nobody forgot that beautiful blunder of yours and that your hypocrisy is second to none, that you try to mislead people on purpose on GGI (the same as what Miss A.M is doing here on that blog).

    Yours truly.

    - Nameless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nameless, can you please tell me the names of those who actually believe this "deleted post" fantasy of yours? I've got an excellent gold mine for sale, cheap.

      I've stated the reason why I believe Nickel Mountain cannot fundamentally have a very large nickel sulfide deposit capable of supporting the Garibaldi (over)valuation. Simply put, there is no evidence for regional scale mantle melts in the Golden Triangle. There is, however, a pretty good analogy for Nickel Mountain in a similar geological setting: the Aguablanca Mine in Spain. Assuming you genuinely believe this delusion of yours, perhaps that is where it originates.

      Delete
    2. Tom, you’re better off when you just obfuscate. When you pick an actual comparison, you suck at it.

      Aguablanca, eh? Let’s look at some details from the Lundin feasibility study, and compare to what we know about Nickel Mountain.

      The Aguablanca Stock is a closed intrusion of about 2.6 km^2. It is xenolith rich, and is clearly derived from partial crustal melting.

      The Nickel Mountain Intrusive Complex is believed to be a mantle-derived open intrusive, with multiple feeders and magmatic pulses.

      The Aguablanca deposit was modeled from 362 holes for 96,515 metres.

      The Nickel Mountain mineralization has been crudely modeled based on 47 holes (maximum).

      The Aguablanca resources were estimated at about 17 Mt, grading 0.52 Ni and 0.43 Cu, with a Ni low-cut of 0.2%. The mineral reserves were determined to be about 9Mt, grading 0.63 Ni and 0.47 Cu, with a low-cut of 0.25 Ni.

      The Nickel Mountain drill results are not reported below 1% combined Ni and Cu, which means that the Aguablanca mineral resources fall below the reporting threshold for GGI. Despite that, even you modeled the tonnage at half of the Aguablanca deposit already.

      When we get to 362 holes for GGI, let’s revisit this, okay?

      Delete
    3. It would be cheaper to develop NM as a mine than for GGI to drill 362 holes...

      Delete
    4. The Eagle deposit would be a better comparison, but it isn't stuck on the top of a mountain in BC

      Delete
    5. One significant advantage of mining at an elevation is that gravity is your friend. Only minimal hoisting of any kind is required to handle ore or waste. But like I said, make your comparison at 47 holes or you're biasing the outcome.

      Delete
    6. That is true, but you need to have something first for gravity to pull down that slope

      Delete
    7. The Eagle deposit in Michigan is perhaps a valid comparable on size for economic scoping (in such comparison many other factors come into play including geography and infrastructure). But not geology. Eagle is just one of many sulfide deposits formed during the Midcontinent Rift of which the Duluth Complex is also a part.

      This USGS paper provides some good detail: https://pubs.usgs.gov/info/mwni_cu/

      I note the USGS geologists, using the same arguments that I have been making against Nickel Mountain, predicted that the Yellow Dog Peridotites would be a good location to look for nickel sulfides (which is precisely where Eagle was found several years later). I'll take those guys over the typical "world class nickel experts".

      Anyways. For a large nickel sulfide deposit, you first need a large partial melt from which nickel can be partitioned. Thus the geological setting is important. Nickel Mountain formed at a convergent plate margin. There are very few examples of nickel sulfide deposits in such a setting, the best documented one is Aguablanca. Talk of Aguablanca being a "closed" intrusion derived from partial crustal melting while Nickel Mountain is a "mantle-derived open intrusion"? That's 24k gold plated bullshit. Both are primarily lower crust melt with a small mantle contribution and both were transported toward the surface thanks to deep-seated structures (Lightfoot's "magma highway"). Tenor of each deposit and mineral composition can be quite different as those are influenced by many different factors.

      And in reference to "tonnage" it makes no sense actually to talk about the raw resource but rather the nickel tonnage. Aguablanca is in the <100kt Ni range. Absent some real miracle Nickel Mountain will be somewhere in that range as well.

      Delete
  13. Quite a lot of person actually, Tom. One of the raison being that you got caught lying often/trying to lose people into technical language in a desperate hope to dazzle them off and you're not smart enough to decently covert your tracks, the other being that I, on the other side, never lied (which doesn't mean that I am always right, but at least, I never lied). Look at you again, another anonymous poster pointed out with the accuracy of scalpel how you do not even compare things that have a common ground. Caught pants down, Tommyboy.
    Beside, I would have nothing special too gain by lying on that one. To me, you're nothing more than a footnote in a terribly poor book I won't ever read again. I just point at your bullshit for the "average Joe" investor who could be deprived of what will be a lifetime opportunity because of your horseshitand your greed.
    I just happened to be very fortunate to be at the right place at the very right moment and saw another slice of your uncanny bullshit. The "great" Tom Szabo posting his real thoughts on GGI on the very wrong public channel on a faithful morning. I know Tom, it's hard to swallow and I am an embarrassmentfor you. You made an incredible blunder and got caught and now, you can't put back the genius into the bottle.

    Hope you're not losing too much sleep over the fact that everybody now knows your true nature. It's never too late to turn yourself to honesty, Tom.

    Yours truly.

    - Nameless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not losing any sleep since not many people actually believe your fantasy, and those who do, are not worth the time to worry about. The only "raison" I replied to your delusion is to let you know that it won't go unopposed.

      Delete
  14. TS and AG - please keep educating. It's shocking to home uneducated some investors are and how they can only come up with fantasy defence. Or maybe their investments are so underwater they are trying to save their boats from sinking by using a shot glass instead of climbing into a stable boat that floats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's even more shocking is that some of the most misleading opinions and commentary actually come from industry insiders who should (and probably do) know better. Their reason might be self-interest (e.g. in the case of the "world class nickel experts" associated with Nickel Mountain), professional laziness (failure to actually do the research and analysis required to support their conclusions), or mere naivety. The fact that the "official" story hasn't ever mentioned Aguablanca is ALL one needs to know here.

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235435115_Origin_and_emplacement_of_the_Aguablanca_magmatic_Ni-Cu-PGE_sulfide_deposit_SW_Iberia_A_multidisciplinary_approach

      Delete
  15. Interested to hear your update on today's news release. Szabo, you as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hole 53 is an infill hole, "filling a gap" as the NR states. In my prior estimates I already assumed this "gap" would be filled. I've never disputed that the grades aren't phenomenal in the massive sulfides. The "world class" massive sulfide tenor increases the potential ore value of the overall Nickel Mountain resource and that is why I consider the entire footprint of the +1% Ni/Cu envelope as delineated by the drilling to be the proper model for this deposit (and would encourage AG to do the same). It remains under 5 million tonnes though.

      I don't think the rare platinum group metals are relevant, you not only need to recover them but also somehow get a credit in the concentrates. Aguablanca is also enriched in these PGEs in comparison to disseminated sulfides.

      The NR didn't supply a lot of detail on Hole 54 (and once again nothing on holes 49-52). Even if they are able to trace a conduit to depth, doesn't mean they will encounter significant sulfide mineralization. There are as-yet-unknown factors accounting for the massive sulfides and their high tenor at E&L and there would have to be similar ore-forming factors present deeper in the system. My opinion is that some sulfur contamination, reduction of oxidized magma and melt differentiation took place in situ at E&L. This would be more likely at the periphery or front, not deeper in an intrusive system. Conversely if in situ processes were not important then something like conduit geometry could have induced the formation of massive sulfides both at E&L and at depth. Either way the total tonnage is still going to come down to the volume of olivine melt that originally released the nickel, and there simply isn't any geological evidence for that in convergent margin settings. Some melt is of course possible but typically this is a result of hydration by subducted crust, not very high temperatures (for which you need a mantle plume, or at least a large meteorite impact). We're talking about an order of magnitude difference, say a modest ~100kt Ni budget (Aguablance, probably Nickel Mountain) and +1Mt (Voisey's Bay).

      Delete
  16. Szabo you babble exactly like Stargate did on CEO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Appreciate you taking the time to do a careful analysis of the arguments as well as a comparative evaluation of babbling styles. Your mental capacity is clearly at the apex for a random Garibaldi investor.

      Delete
  17. Tom / Angry Geo, Based on the leap frog model - approximately how many tons of massive sulphides has GGI outlined to date in all zones combined? The lower discovery zone was described above as about 108,000 tons. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sooo , with the latest news release this is still a sham ? Invest my money elsewhere... thanks in advance for saving me from losing all my money.. i mean with friends like you...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've stopped looking at Garibaldi data. Time for me to look at other projects

      Delete
  19. Hey Angry, can you come back and look at Garibaldi data again ? Please

    ReplyDelete