It was great that they included most of the drilling data in the press release, and from that I have been able to model the mineralization (Leapfrog Model here):
Not in the same scale as Kamoa, but a start.
Assumptions: These are based on the data used in the Kamoa PEA
Cut-off: 1% Cu
Specific Gravity: 2.8 to 2.9 depending on the Cu grades (the more Cu, the higher the SG)
- 800m (Kamoa PEA) but
- I've also included a 1600m range to match the 'limits' used in the various maps that are found on the Ivanhoe website.
Unfortunately, there appear to be some post-mineral mafic intrusions that appear to truncate the down-dip extension of the >3% Cu mineralization. The good news is that the at the eastern and western limits of the drilling they are still intersection >2% Cu mineralization over moderate thicknesses (2-5m).
 |
| Mafic units in green - I'm assumed that they are approx. vertical cylinders, which is probably wrong |
It will be interesting to see if the Cu horizon continues beyond the intrusions, but if it does, it will be at ~700m depths. There have been a few holes drilled up-dip, but they have returned intervals grading <1% Cu.
 |
| Green Unit = Mafic intrusion; thin red unit = Cu bearing horizon. |
However, I'm going to guess that my 'estimate' will be low. I've made a few annotations on the plan map above where there is a bit of "artistic license". You'll see how the influence of the low grade intercepts are being reduced to cause the smallest of ripples on the sea of high-grade mineralization that Ivanhoe want to show. It will be interesting if this 'interpretation' continues into the initial resource estimate or if the holes are treated a but more equally.
 |
| correction: it should read 800m DIAMETER around each DH |
