Monday, March 26, 2018

Lupaka - a blast from the past

Lupaka Reports 9.86 g/t Au-Eq. over 130 m from Underground Sampling Program at the Invicta Gold Project

fuck me, that sounds great (link), but it is bullshit. 

They aren't lying directly to you, they've just resurrected one of those old favorite sleights of hand (ECU Silver were famous for doing this) by trying to impress you by misrepresenting the size of their penes mineralization by using the strike length rather than width.

I guess 12m @ 18.1 g/t AuEq wasn't good enough.

Here is an annotated doodle from the map accompanying the PR

I do like the fact that much more sampling has come from the Footwall vein, there is a sample every 5m (give or take), but only every 20m on the hanging-wall vein. I wonder which is better?

Even better is the way that they generously decided to include some of the HW assays (e.g. samples CH_16, 19 and 20) into the FW zone so that they could 'improve' its grade.

So now it is my turn to do some bad math:

I split out the assays by sample location (FW, HW and Combined)

  • FW vein
    • average width = 4.6m
    • average grade = 8.4 g/t AuEq
  • HW evein
    • average width = 5.8m
    • average grade = 6.7 g/t AuEq
  • 'Combined' veins
    • average width = 8.4m
    • average grade = 10.6 g/t AuEq
Not to shabby, but definitely not what was advertised on the tin. It also shows that the intersection zone between the FW and HW veins is an attractive exploration target to follow up and down dip as they could define a small, but high-grade ore-shoot. 


  1. "The average sampled grades are in-line, or higher, than grades within our mine plan, derived from the PEA...."

    I certainly hope so. The mine plan should include a fairly decent amount of dilution (at zero grade it appears) among other things.

    1. Dilution is a dirty word.

      Fortunately, where the vein joins/splits (whichever you prefer) didn't skew the data a huge amount. However, they could have been better and listed the chip-channel results, which were ok, just not stellar.

    2. Dilution is a mining reality. The narrower the vein the greater the percent dilution. It looks like they drifted from the HW side, into the veins, and then drifted along strike on the FW side with X/C's into the HW side. Samples from the wall side appear from walls. Samples from the FW side appear to be a combo of wall and back. They appear to have driven on geology control so I'm a bit puzzled...why they didn't sample every face on the FW side, which would have been roughly every 2.5 meters.

  2. It's surprising this type of disclosure is legal.

    1. I was all the rage a few years ago, especially if you had a very narrow (sub-1m) high-grade vein.

    2. Nothing really wrong with their disclosure, although they've been less than forthcoming on how they plan to mine this area. Clearly one cannot take just the high grade veins and leave the waste in the middle. So what is the grade across the mineable width? But one wonders about the company's management skills. They're going ahead with production without even a PEA.

    3. I'm talking purely about the headline. Someone is liable to read it and think they have an ore body grading 10 grams over a width of 130 meters (i.e. 1300 gram-meters). Highly deceptive, and probably illegal, in my opinion.

    4. I see what you're saying. It's eye catching for sure but they go on to explain it in their highlights. I don't see any obvious violations of the 43-101 guidelines.

  3. Man you need to get laid, then perhaps less angry and irrational. They clearly said “width” 4 words subsequent to reporting the 130 metres.
    You criticize Inclusion of hanging wall results to improve the grade but by your own calculations the grade is lower in the HW

    Pretty good project, interesting point you make about prospective target between the FW and HW, will definitely keep an eye on it

  4. AG you obviously need sax and/or copious jazz. Whankers like these wicked fukkin idiots need a cold pee pee up their dopey anuses. I would NOT buy share one.

  5. Have a look at Wesdome‘s latest drilling release, they did it as well.

    1. Nope. They clearly talk about strike length and don't even mention a grade in the headline.

  6. Hi there,
    Awesome blog overall, giving hindsight on how to look on a prospect.
    By the way, I am still waiting for Paca project data set for my exercise, if you dont mind.