Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Garibaldi - feedback

As I promised a follow-up.

Here are the questions I asked:
  1. Where are the 2018 holes located?
  2. How big are the massive sulfide zones?
  3. Where can the sulfide zones be extended?
Hole Location

Oh look at that, all of the 2018 holes have been drilled into the Discovery zone, how imaginative.

BTW - holes 01 to 14 were drilled during the 2017 campaign
We also know that Garibaldi have already drilled 21 holes (link) during the 2018 campaign (hole 36 is currently underway according to the PR), but so far we only have the results from the first 8. What is interesting is that Garibaldi haven't included a map showing the locations of the other 12 holes that have already been drilled. I'll let you wonder why....

Magma Highways.......OMG...omg...mmmMMMmmm...spluuuge.

Ok, I've cleaned myself...

Deposit Size

So we have data for 29 drill-holes (7 historic and 22 by Garibaldi) which I've used to calculate the size of the various sulfide zones. Here is a 3D view (again, the model is here).

lots of holes, 2 small zones

I'm only looking at Ni in this analysis as there appears to be an ~2:1 Ni:Cu ratio (I'm working with summary data, so the ratio could be more complicated).

and here you go:

So, it is small and has a veeeeeeeerrrrryyyyy long way to go before it rivals Voiseys Bay (141Mt @ 1.63% Ni), but I'm guessing that the guys at Garibaldi will start to paraphrase Laozi in the upcoming press releases.

Expansion Potential

We're told this at the top of the section.


Open in all directions, with 29 holes exploring 2 small areas? Did all the holes hit massive sulfide mineralization? Why don't we look in detail.

The next set of figures are quite complicated. I'm drawing a slice through the 2 massive sulfide zones, to see where they are relative to the various drill-holes.

Discovery Zone

Here is a slice through the main zone mineralization. You can see that it has been well drilled (all 8 of the 2018 holes from the recent PR were drilled into this zone) and the holes are ~25m apart.

Left - annotated with drill-hole pierce points; right - Ni mineralization and DH buffers

I've added a 25m radius around each hole. This helps me show areas where mineralization could be expanded with additional drilling.  We can see a couple of areas that are open, to the west beyond hole EL-18-22 and to the east beyond hole EL-17-10 and 14.

Not quite open in all directions, but they could add a few meters more

NW Zone

Remember, none of the 2018 drill results targeted the NW zone.

We can see that this zone is open to the North and partially to the south. If will be interesting to see if any of the 13 holes that have been drilled and the results are pending are drilled into this zone. We can only speculate.

Additional Exploration Targets

Global warming to the Rescue!!!!!

Here it is in all its magnificence:

So we have an outcropping 30-40m long massive sulfide zone ~50m north of the Discovery zone. Has it been drilled, we'll have to wait and see.

How big could it be, we can only guess, but based on the fact that drilling has discovered 2 small massive sulfide bodies, and so it is likely that this will be a third, so small and inconsistent.

TL:DR version: This is what Garibaldi gave CAD $60K and 550,000 shares (CAD $1.03m) for. I'm looking forward to the next set of results, maybe we'll get them by Christmas....


  1. Question: In your tonnage table, your average grade for nickel >2% is also 2%. Did you inadvertently cap the grades? There are numerous values in the drill table greater than 2% Ni.

    1. You'll see that there is only ~67600 tonnes of material greater than 2% Ni. Even at an SG of 4.5 that's not a lot of material in the overall scheme of things. To paraphrase a from another kind of mineralization you need a lot of 1% copper to make a 0.5% copper deposit.

    2. It is a 'feature' I've noticed in Leapfrog. If you don't have an upper limit, the program will default down to the highest grade shell value (in this case 2%). It means that it under estimates the high grade volume.

      However, I don't change this as because I'm working with summary data, I don't have the actually assays (i just have summaries) to know how many individual are above or below a certain value. I'm basically being conservative.

  2. Awesome job AG! Keep up the great work...just out of interest what recovery factor did you use for nickel?

    1. I assumed 100% recovery. I know it is bad, but fairly standard at this stage. However, I didn't use a NiEq or combined Ni:Cu value.

    2. Very generous - thanks for the clarication

  3. Rogoci is a career Venture scumbag with 14 consecutive years running this scam under his belt. These open securities crooks are playing extremely stupid people for fools ... which apparently isn't hard judging by stupido comments. The ONLY THING these scum are 'doing' is redriling a 1966 ore pod ... over and over and over again. I would not pay a dime for this utter chit and it's chit rolling K9 dog mutt Rogoci. The 'man' is a fukkin disgrace to the entire Canadian securities industry.

  4. Just a heads up on PVG.t which is under pressure today for reasons unknown. Sub $ 10 and I'm watching insider trades, which ain't slowing down at all from the 'good' quarter. Canadianinsider.com

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.