Our new website is coming soon, give it a try now and let us have your feedback. Take me to the Beta

Email Facebook Twitter

TSX Lithium explorer International Lithium Corp prepares to drill at Raleigh Lake
Exclusive: Hardman & Co Investor Forum - Severn Trent, Calculus Capital, Volta Finance, Residential

Member Info for AGEOS

Send a private message to AGEOS

Member Since: Wed, 5th Nov 2008

Number of Share Chat Posts (all time): 62
Number of Share Chat Posts (last 30 days): 4

Last Posted: Fri 15:30

Post Distribution over the last 30 days

Fri 15:30

SEA7 thanks for the response. The 2012 Gadirov paper you cite does not have any direct relevance to the current and planned interventions at Jafarli. Correlations between magnetic and gravitational anomalies and hydrocarbon occurrences have been known since at least the 1970’s and are part of the array of indicators used in the industry to identify possible new prospects. What this paper does is confirm that at least some of the Azer onshore fields, including apparently both Jafarli and Muradkhanli, do demonstrate such a correlation thus implying that interaction between the hydrocarbon geochemistry and the lithological and structural context are such as to influence the two physical parameters. That may be of relevance in indicating as yet unidentified oil fields elsewhere in ZEN’s acreage eg the Kargali, Seyudlyar, Gishlag, Shakhsunli and Mamedli structural highs NE of Muradkhanli and Zardab.

Figure 4 in the paper appears to demonstrate a correlation between the physical anomalies and an oil occurrence within the P2 component (as identified by geophysical parameters) of the stratigraphic sequence. P2 equates to the Eocene and since the oil occurrence is represented diagrammatically in the centre I assume it equates to P2/2 ie the Middle Eocene, the main producing level at Jafarli.

Gadirov has published a number of papers mostly in Russian on ZEN’s acreage and being a senior SOCAR geophysicist no doubt works closely with ZEN’s geotechnical staff as part of the joint agreement.
Fri 08:33

In my 07.05.2019 post I referred briefly to the 22.10.18 RNS comparison of Jafarli with “similar U Cretaceous reservoirs in the NW part of the Kura basin” and I cited those of Manavi, Samgori, Teleti and West Rustavi, in Georgia as examples. These are mostly within c300m of fine-grained, well-bedded chalk and chalky-limestones, subject to high density open fracturing, overlying Cretaceous age volcanics. None however have been comprehensively developed, due until recently, to investment constraints and the challenges of a complex structural geology. In contrast the lithologically similar U Cretaceous reservoirs in Chechnya and Dagestan provide very encouraging examples of production from these rocks with wells in the Karabulak-Achaluk, Khiancort and Malkobek-Veznesensk fields typically producing at rates of 3000 to 15,000 bopd and with recovery factors of up to 50%.

At Jafarli much will depend on replication of high secondary porosity in carbonates which ideally have been subject to sub-aerial erosion before deposition of the Palaeocene seal. Hopefully cores will be retrieved to assist in confirming this. Muradkhanli deep oil appears, from geochemical studies, to be generating from 6000-12000m depths in the Yevlakh-Ardzhabedi basin to the SW so assuming similar pathways and an appropriate oil/water interface, the probability of a positive outcome at Jafarli appears favourable. However, as with all drilling activities potential success can only be measured as probabilities, never as certainties.
Fri 08:31

On 07.05.2019 I outlined some of the geological context and criteria relating to the forthcoming interventions at well C37 in the Jafarli Field. As this intervention is now imminent I thought I would add a few further observations for those interested.

The initial well deepening, of 15-20m further into the Middle Eocene is, as stated, to provide for a flow test from the stratigraphic unit which has been the main reservoir for all Jafarli production to date. In the 05.01.2017 Prospectus and CPR (table 2, pp 291) Chapman Petroleum Engineering Ltd assessed the cumulative production of crude from Jafarli as 3,411,000 STB (Stock Tank Barrel), all from the M Eocene. Gross proven reserves from the M Eocene were estimated with 90% probability at 792,000 STB comprised of 192,000 STB from 19 wells producing at a combined current rate of 70 STB/d and 600,000 STB from 3 as yet undeveloped wells predicted to produce at a combined 447 STB/d. Probable reserves based on 50% probability and a notional 12 new development wells were estimated as 3,000,000 STB. The C37 M Eocene flow test will be assessed within this context and that of the cumulative field data set.

Further well deepening, of 200-250m, will pass through the lower M Eocene and Palaeocene (Lower Eocene absent due to erosion or non-deposition) into the Upper Cretaceous, to test the fluid content of an inferred U Cretaceous limestone sequence capping the volcanic sub-basement high. If I am correct in my 07.05.2019 post of concluding, that it is this sequence to which the dimensions of a “3sq km x 100m max thickness” applies, then it is possible to assess the potential quantitative resource this could theoretically produce.

A 3sq km x 100m max thickness limestone capping, assuming it tapers to zero at the margins due to post-depositional erosion, would have a volume of approx. 3,000,000 x 50m = 150,000,000 cu m.
Assuming 10% porosity (low primary but high secondary porosity due to dolomitization and open fracture systems which locally can produce up to 30% porosity) and 50% recovery (based on data for N Caucasus U Cretaceous), that would produce a fluid volume of 5% ie 7,500,000 cu m..
1 cu m = 6.29 bbl
7,500,000 cu m x 6.29 = 47,175,000 bbl. (additional to current 2P reserves of 31.7Mbbl).

To be continued.
11 Jun '19

The AGM conforms to a legally constrained format which excludes ‘any other business’. As in previous years I assume the ‘Special Meeting’ is to authorise AC’s receipt of shares in lieu of salary.
17 May '19

Thanks AJW, your response much appreciated.
Inference appears to be that VIII is still with GOG if the 2011 license issuance info in the 2018 Athens Workshop report is current, having been dropped by Tethys (Project Tamar 2014) in favour of its Iberia Blocks Project.
As you imply, absence of VIII from the recent tender round, suggests it might be the subject of a private tender in progress. An interesting prospect.
17 May '19

One of the stated “use of proceeds” from the recent fund raise is “within the next 24 months….to secure additional licences in Georgia and the wider region.”

It may therefore be of relevance that the AIM Admission Document of 04.06.2018 includes the following :

“Other prospective investments”
“Pursuant to the Norio SPA, the Company was granted an option (with current 100% owner GOG) to acquire a 70% working interest in Block VIII. The option expired on 31st May 2017. However the Directors believe the opportunity remains available for the Company to resurrect the opportunity, ….” Ref pp 25

Perhaps the placing provides the opportunity to resurrect that option.
Block VIII is 4800sq km and includes part of the East Kavtiskhevi Prospect, a 36.9 MMbbl contingent resource with potential for 100 MMBOE to the west (adjacent to Schlumberger Block IX), plus the South Akhalkalaki (131 Bm.cu gas) and South Borjomi (214 Bm.cu gas) Prospects. For details see Georgia Oil & Gas Ltd. Presentation “GOG Licenses in Georgia & their HC Potentials “ April 2018 slides 14, 17-26 etc of 109.

Block VIII appears to be still available for option and would certainly assist in propelling BLOE to mid-tier status. AJW, one for you to develop further if you wish.
7 May '19


I described the Muradkhanli equivalent on 10.05.18. as a possible remnant of a fringing maritime reef which if so for the Jafarli Field also, would have significant potential as a hydrocarbon reservoir as dolomitized fore-reef carbonates often have high porosity. However back-reef limestones are often not so potentially productive so only the drill-bit will reveal what this has to yield.

The 22.10.18 RNS also speculates on the potential of the Cretaceous carbonate play by referring to comparison with “similar Cretaceous reservoirs in the NW part of the Kura basin” which presumably refers to those of the NW extension into Georgia discovered within the last 20 years but largely unexploited, including the Manavi, Samgori, Teleti and West Rustavi fields, the latter under development by Block Energy currently at shallower depths. These fields are in c300m thick, fine-grained, well-bedded limestones with high-density open fracturing, overlying Cretaceous age volcanics. They are considered comparable with the highly productive fields of the N Caucasus.

So C37 is a two-part investigative play.
The first, requiring an extra 15-20m of drilling, to test for a possible lateral extension of the M Eocene ‘sandstones’ which in 1986 produced 700bod (570,000STB total production) from a 112m section of C22, c500m to the S. The Jafarli M Eocene lithologies are of volcanoclastics, sandstones and marly limestones, which have variable lateral extension and hydrocarbon shows not necessarily restricted to sandstones.
The second, requiring a further 200-250m of drilling, to test the inferred existence of a Cretaceous carbonate play with, I assume, an area of c3sqkm and c100m max thickness, sealed by overlying Palaeocene marls. This play is presumably a capping to the Cretaceous sub-topographic Jafarli high and will have been subject to the same subaerial erosion which contributed to the Cretaceous volcanics being such prolific hydrocarbon reservoirs in the Muradkhanli Field. Jafarli is separated from the inferred Muradkhanli Cretaceous carbonate play by the c250m vertical displacement fault shown on the slide 10 section and the Salmanov map. The level of the oil/water interface is, according to the 13.08.18 RNS, anticipated to be within the Lower Eocene/Upper Cretaceous horizon across all the oilfields.
As with all investigative drilling only the drill-bit can reveal what this prospect has to offer.
7 May '19


The 25.01.2018 Presentation seismic sections appear to be no longer available. However, slide 10 of the current ‘Presentation’ accessible as a pdf from the company website, provides a diagrammatic section based in part on one of those seismic sections. Thus, with ref to slide 10, this shows a vertical section from the Chokrak (note: not ground level) down to the Upper Cretaceous sub-basement, along a line from M38 (see Salmanov map, 5100m depth contour) on the western edge of the Muradkhanli Field, SW to just beyond M205 (a distance of approx. 10km), from where the line of section turns abruptly E or NE (direction uncertain due to conflicting well location data) through the Jafarli Field, a further c4km. Note that the text highlighted in red on slide 10 refers to “a previously unexplored Mesozoic carbonate prospect” in both oilfields but the section does not differentiate any carbonates in the Jafarli Field. I assume therefore that since both M23 (TD 4503m) and M24 (TD 4510m) penetrated c200m into the Upper Cretaceous, the well-log data from these wells has been reinterpreted as indicating carbonates overlying volcanics and that it is this reinterpretation which is being extended to C37 and C30 a few km further south. Confirmation that the interpretation of seismic and well-log data indicates Cretaceous carbonates extending from Muradkhanli to Zafarli is included in RNS’s dated 13.08.18, 15 & 22.10.18. from which more detail is available as follows.

The 22.10.18 RNS describes a “new structure in the Middle Eocene and Upper Cretaceous formations of the Jafarli Field” as a “dip-closed anticline”, which conforms with the diagrammatic representation depicted in slide 10 of a fault-bounded anticlinal structure conducive to hydrocarbon accumulation. That RNS further describes the Middle Eocene productive source as “volcanogenic clastic layers and fractured marly limestones draping and lapping the Mesozoic (ie U Cretaceous) underlying structure”, which for the Eocene is consistent with it being part of the “dip-closed anticline”. There is however additional description of “The identified structure measuring approx. 3 square km with a significant degree of closure indicated by a thickness of approx. 100m.” This cannot refer to a structure encompassing both the Middle Eocene and a Cretaceous carbonate sequence since the combined thickness is in excess of 200m so I assume it must describe the proportions of the inferred carbonate target capping the Cretaceous sub-basement high. The section shown in slide 9 of the current website ‘Presentation’ entitled “Well deepening activities in C-37”, shows only a fault-bounded wedge as the target in the U Cretaceous so does not enlighten the issue.

To be continued.
7 May '19

LTH’s may recall that I posted considerable detailed geotechnical comment prior to May 2018 when, without explanation, LSE decided to ‘archive’ and thus render that information inaccessible. Since some of those postings provided an interpretation of the context within which the impending developments in the Zafarli Field might be better understood I thought I would revisit some of that content for anyone interested.

On 25.01.2018 AC gave a presentation at an investor conference which included two seismic sections through the Azer fields. As these were high resolution digital images, I copied and enlarged these sufficient to provide a detailed interpretation in a series of posts on 31.01.2018 and in doing so emphasised that this provided the first indication of a large untapped potential reservoir in the Upper Cretaceous along the western flank of the Muradkhanli structural high (as defined by the 2013 Salmanov/Yusifov map. See ref below). This conclusion was confirmed in an RNS of 08.05.18 which stated that the structure, interpreted as a “carbonate prospect”, extends SE to include the Jafarli Field.

NB Salmanov 2013 map. http://proceedings.socar.az/uploads/pdf/21/Salmanov_6-13.pdf
Ref Salmanov A M & Yusifov Kh M SOCAR Proceedings 2013 Pt 2. In Russian.
The subsurface contour map on page 7 is invaluable for envisaging the topography at the Upper Cretaceous/Palaeocene interface and consequently for understanding the structure and interrelationships of the various prospects which constitute ZEN’s interests. I can elucidate further if required. It is also the base-map used for the well-location maps on pages 283 and 292-297 of the Prospectus & CPR dated 05.01.2017.

To be continued
26 Apr '19

Your dream has firm geotechnical foundations. WR38 has indicative production potential from level P2/2 comparable to that of WR16aZ and is 3km to the W on crest of same anticlinal structure, and within same fault block. Porosity and permeability are also mapped as comparable.
I have a stake here too.
Best of luck.
31 Mar '19

Dubliner thanks for your response and for your prompt to comment on the Oct 30th and Feb 21st AGM updates. The possible competition from Geofortis is what could be described as a ‘known unknown’ as we have no way of assessing its potential, so it just needs to be kept in mind as part of the market context in which SRES seeks to operate. PC has been keen to emphasise that products in this market are very niche-specific and that consequently both perlite and pozzolan compositional output will be adjusted to meet the requirements of individual customers, so with the possible exception of ‘paving’ ie road construction in Nevada, competition with Geofortis may not be an issue.

The SRES updates in Oct and Feb are largely statements of fact, with production projections which we have to take at ‘face-value’ as we have no access to the evidence on which they are based, but which clearly are very encouraging. There would be no value in my reiterating all the details of those updates but in general, all test and trial results for both perlite and pozzolan are reported as positive, we appear to have several potential customers which are not necessarily Nevada-centric, and the mine permitting process appears to be on target for Q3 or earlier completion. I therefore see high probability of a positive outcome for the CS Project, the only major ‘known unknown’ at this stage being the CapEx requirement for initial mine operation. If initial product demand is strong that will assist in underwriting any capital raise for fixed plant; if less so it will favour the cautious low cost option of contract mining. Hope that clarifies my stance.
26 Mar '19

The pending Navajo Generating Station closure and resulting reduction in supply of Class F & C fly-ash for use as a pozzolan in the SW States, is not just a positive development for SRES, potential competitors stand to benefit too. I am reliably informed that construction of the long delayed Geofortis natural pozzolan production plant at Reno Nevada is due to commence Q3 this year with first product due Q1 2021.

On 14.09.2018 I posted details of Geofortis patents for pozzolanic formulations based on Lassenite for use in concrete and mortar, which appear to produce superior qualities in the resulting products, especially where rapid, eg 7-day curing, is required. Geofortis has exclusive rights to a 150MT Lassenite resource and is targeting 600,000TPA of refined product sale throughout the SW. Note this is double the combined annual production of raw-ground product from Nevada Cement, CR Minerals and Hess Pumice, the current major producers of natural pozzolans in the SW and comparable to the 500,000TPA of raw product anticipated from the Kirkland mine in adjacent Arizona.

On 02.09.2018 I also posted details of the 3-phase NDOT (Nevada Dept of Transport) Evaluation of Paving (ie road) Mixtures, to which Thomas Adams (SRES Consultant) is a contributor, Phase 3, still in progress, entails a Reformulation of Concrete Paving Mixtures, for which it seems reasonable to assume the Geofortis formulations will be a significant contender. As I emphasised in the concluding paragraph of my 02.09.2018 post, historically the only natural pozzolan used in concrete paving mixtures in Nevada has been that supplied by the Nevada Cement Co from its Fernley mine but due to changes in source rock composition alternative sources are now required. Whilst this may present an opportunity for SRES, it appears that Geofortis may now be a significant competitor and not just for this but also throughout the natural pozzolan market in the SW.

Within the expanded-perlite market however, Lassenite-based Geofortis products are unlikely to have any relevance, so I anticipate that it is this aspect of the CS Project resource which will spearhead initial SRES exploitation phase developments, news of which is awaited.
18 Mar '19

Ezhik - thanks for the contact. Still here and will resume posts end of month.
13 Mar '19


The AGM confirmation you quote, that “all environmental permission for ANZA are in place” was and is misleading. It would be correct if appended with the words “in so far as is required at that stage in project development.” There are a variety of ‘environmental permits’ relating to hydrology, ecology and community required at different stages in the progress from initial field reconnaissance through exploration and drilling to exploitation, all requiring differing degrees of compliance. The forest protection issue I highlighted is just one and is of significance in relation to the time scale for project development at ANZA.

Regarding possible forward selling of shares allotted to creditors. The 11.01.2019 MD & A page 3 and Financial Statement for six months to 30.11.2018 Section 20 states that issuance of the 10M shares which form part of the Loryser Agreement is subject to approval of the Toronto Stock Exchange and to final approval of the Agreement by the Court and the Intervenor. Both of those approvals are, as far as I am aware, still to be confirmed so there is no legal or practical basis on which the 10M shares could have been issued or forward sold. Shares in issue on 23.10.18 totalled 146,800,091 (including 29,213,186 Newmont), on 11 01.2019, 150,277,672 and that remains unchanged.
12 Mar '19

On 16.01,2019 I posted a summary of the N43-101 Technical Report for ANZA which OMI had filed on SEDAR on 10.01.2019. Subsequently OMI was required to produce a revised and amended version, which was filed on 05.02.2019. This contains new sections on “Environmental Permitting” (page 24 para 4.4.1.) and “Sustainability, Action Plans and Relationship with the Community” (page 26 para 4.5.).

The most significant element in the former is a section entitled “Temporary protected area of the tropical dry forest” which confirms, as I have suggested previously, that part of ANZA is subject to a forest protection order albeit temporary at this stage. The forest area is known as “Polygon 15” and affects unspecified parts of concession T13635011 (6738 hectares) and two areas for which concession applications are in progress ie ICQ 080035X (6219 hectares including La Cejita) and LHO 08011 (3903 hectares E of APTA). The limitations imposed by the order were extended on 22.10 2018 for a further year.

Whilst this information may have been a contributing factor in the recent decline of the share price, it appears that even if the forest protection becomes permanent it does not exclude mineral exploration and future mining activity. A new block diagram at the top of page 27 of the amended report illustrates the various environmental and social, planning and permitting stages, necessary for progression through the exploration and exploitation phases of mining. Far from being a negative influence this should be seen as confirmation of legislative and administrative support for environmentally and socially responsible future mining in the region.
10 Mar '19


Since the Lyra Project area is more than three times the extent of ANZA and includes most of the terrain between the latter and Buritica we can assume that Newmont may wish to synchronise exploration and data acquisition between the two adjacent project areas. Geological data from one area may well be valuable in understanding the other. Also as I posted on 07.02.2019, the Newmont-Orosur agreement clearly requires integration of the existing and currently applied for ANZA concessions so we are unlikely to see much progress at ANZA until the three concession applications are resolved. In that respect, a SEDAR filing by Outcrop Gold Corp on 28.12.2018 entitled ‘Other’ and listing all Miranda Gold Corp’s concession applications (ref page 29) does not include any of the three for which Orosur has current applications, so no competition from that source. Hopefully, and soon, the next OMI RNS will be to confirm receipt of those three concessions but in the meantime I suspect Newmont will prioritize the BLEG and DSG work at Lyra before initiating any significant progress at ANZA.

NB. In a post dated 09.11.18. I emphasised the apparent lack of validity in claims for equating ANZA with Buritica on the basis that the latter is of Miocene age dated at 7.4 Ma (million years) whilst the former as evidenced by the APTA discovery would, if a VMS deposit, be of Middle Cretaceous agc ie100-110 Ma. Whilst this remains true, if the Tonusco Fault system proves to have been the feeder for the Buritica 2-phase Au mineralization then the southern extension of the fault system does open the possibility of a Buritica-style Au find within the ANZA region. It will however be dependent on the existence of a subsurface Miocene age igneous source. Those who wish to continue emphasising this possibility can therefore do so with some evidential support.
10 Mar '19

On 19.12.2018 I posted a brief reference to Miranda Gold’s Lyra Project, the subject of an August 2018 US$10.6m funded exploration agreement between Newmont and Miranda. In preparing that post I used a 2017 Miranda Gold Presentation which defined the Lyra Project as a 6100 hectare area 6-10km due east of Continental Gold’s Buritica Project and c50km NNE of ANZA. A series of gold bearing quartz-sulphide veins within that area were considered to be indications of a possible replication of Buritica-type mineralization. I also referred to Miranda’s Pantagora Project, defined in a separate company presentation as a 28,000 hectare area extending from Buritica southward to within 17km north of ANZA, within which several gold anomalies had been identified based on first-pass geochem and field mapping.

Having recently accessed the SEDAR listing of the Miranda/Newmont agreement which is filed under Outcrop Gold Corp (Aug 29 2018 Material Change Report), I note that although entitled “The Lyra Project” the agreement relates to both the Lyra and Pantagora areas and several adjacent blocks totalling 54,895 hectares and including 14 concessions. The agreement therefore covers most of the area from Buritica south to within c10km north of ANZA and includes 25km of the N-S Tonusco Fault system which is inferred to have been the feeder channel for the Buritica Au vein system. Importantly, both the Aragon Fault which cuts through the APTA and Jesuitas targets, and the Pederero Fault which intersects the Guaimarala-Charrascala target (see 21.01.19 post) are possible southern extensions of the Tonusco Fault Complex which by inference re-enforces the possibility of Miocene-age mineralization within the ANZA region to supplement the presumed Cretaceous-age VMS APTA discovery.

The agreement between Miranda and Newmont includes initial funding from Newmont, of $600,000 for an 18month max prospecting program. According to a 28.12.2018 SEDAR filing, a high resolution digital elevation map of the project area has been completed by Newmont and a BLEG (Bulk Leach Extractable Gold) sediment survey based on protocols provided by Newmont is planned, presumably for this year. This will no doubt include Newmont’s DSG (Deep Sensing Geochemistry) technology which is designed to identify geochem anomalies in subsurface rocks beneath superficial sedimentary cover, with porphyry intrusives of which five are indicated, being the primary target.

To be continued
7 Feb '19


Those reading the Agreement will no doubt be puzzled by reference to “Escorpion S.O.M., a Colombian corporation” submitting the application for Contratos de Concesiones for the ICQ-080035X area, especially as Minera Anza S.A. Sucursal Colombia, has submitted the other two applications and is the only operational subsidiary of OMI listed for Colombia. However, despite S.O.M. not being listed as an acronym for any form of company in Colombia, whatever “Escorpion” is, we can be assured that the Concesiones, if granted, will ultimately reside with Minera Anza and therefore OMI. Section 6 viii, page 12 of the Agreement ensures transfer of the Concession from Escorpion to Minera Anza free and clear of all encumbrances.

Although we have no guidance on the time-scale of the above procedures, OMI are unlikely to provide any update on progress until perhaps conclusion of the Concession application process. Concession integration and an Exploration Programme including drilling would then follow. In the meantime the improved gold price might offer revitalised opportunities in Uruguay where OMI has 12 subsidiaries at the Operational Level and has considerable interests backed by a sympathetic government. Of these subsidiaries only Loryser S.A. is involved in the “Loryser Reorganisation Proceedings” so the corporate framework is in place to renew, revive or newly instigate OMI’s greenstone-belt interests but, of necessity, with funding independent of Minera Anza S.A. and of ANZA.
7 Feb '19

Those anticipating an imminent RNS regarding further drilling at ANZA might wish to reflect on information contained in the recent NI 43-101 Technical Report and in the Sept 2018 Newmont/Orosur Exploration Agreement with Venture Option, which suggests a more protracted time-frame for exploration activities. The NI Report can be accessed via SEDAR (www.sedar.com ; search on ‘company’ ‘Orosur’ and scroll down to Jan 10 Tech Report for download) and the Agreement (for which the full legal text is required) likewise at SEDAR, scroll down to Sep 14 2018 Material Document(s) 352K, a 45 page download.

Page 21 Fig 3 of the NI Report is a map of the ANZA Concessions. Note that the existing Concessions, outlined in green and constituting 10,615 hectares, cover most of the area of the southern ‘targets’ APTA, Charrascala and Guaimarala. Of the three Concessions for which applications are still in progress, totalling 10,136 hectares and outlined in red, the northernmost, ICQ-080035X, 6219 hectares, is especially important as it includes the very extensive La Cejita target and a significant portion of the Jesuitas target. Until Concessions are granted for this and the other two areas for which applications are outstanding, ‘Reconnaissance Exploration Work’ only is permissible in those areas and that excludes drilling. The applications appear to have been submitted sometime prior to Sept 2018, the assessment process is of unknown duration and there is no guarantee of a successful outcome. Miranda Gold Corp, which has been the subject of previous posts, are a potential rival applicant, and there is the added complication of an ongoing biodiversity survey of the Cauca valley to identify areas of ‘Dry Forest’ for possible National Park designation.

The Newmont/Orosur Agreement of 7th Sept 2018 includes considerable detail relating to how exploration of the ANZA Concessions is to be implemented but in terms of the timescale for drilling, section 8g page 16 appears to be especially significant. This defines a process for integration of all the Concessions to ensure synchronicity within an 11 year time frame for the purpose of mineral exploration. Newmont clearly consider this of paramount importance since they “reserve the right to pursue and accomplish this in lieu of or in addition to any actions taken by Minera Anza” (ie OMI). It also follows that this process of ‘integration’ cannot be completed until the current applications for the three additional Concessions have been concluded as ‘integration’ requires the authority of ANM (Agencia Nacional de Mineria) . A programme of further drilling would logically and procedurally have to post-date the integration process.

To be continued
21 Jan '19

The eagerly awaited, Newmont directed drilling program at ANZA, inevitably invites speculation as to what the priority targets might be and what resource potential these could hold. Leaving aside the APTA discovery, for which infill and step-out drilling will be required at some stage, one of the most interesting prospects to emerge so far appears to be that which is centred on the Au-As anomaly identified last June (RNS 07.06.18) in the Guaimarala area c2km SW of APTA. There are positive gold and arsenic correlations elsewhere, at APTA and Charrascala but this occurrence is extensive and as is clear from figure 3 in the June RNS there are relatively high values for both elements in the soil geochemistry.

High arsenic is indicative , but not diagnostic, of late stage high-grade Au-Ag mineralization, usually as vein swarms, stockworks or brecciation, in CBM (Carbonate Base Metal) Systems, of which the recently discovered very high-grade extensions at Buritica (mentioned by MrP) are an example. Furthermore the occurrence at Guaimarala appears to coincide with the intersection of two major faults, the NW-SE Caracol Fault and the N-S Pederero Fault. Interceptions of post-Cretaceous, pre-Miocene high-angle faults in the Cauca belt appear to offer the structural setting for Miocene-age porphyry intrusions, so the inference is that there could be such an intrusion at depth beneath the anomaly with late stage Au-Ag mineralization in the periphery.

Of the 5 scout-holes drilled at Charrascala c1.5km to the NW, 4 intersected veinlet zones with significant Au-Ag and high sulphides, mostly pyrite with pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite and sphalerite. The NI Report also mentions stockworks, veins of quartz with carbonates and extensive silicification, all consistent with a CBM model. The June RNS also mentions “a well-developed alteration mineral suite” which I assume may allude to a possible thermal aureole, a further indication of an intrusive complex in the vicinity.

If the forthcoming drilling programme prioritizes the Guaimarala-Charrascala area it will probably be in anticipation of a potentially very significant mesothermal to epithermal Miocene-age resource.

Sign up for Live Prices
Top Recommended
Hot Chat Topics
Top recommended posters in the last 30 days

Member Login

Forgotten your password?


Don't have an account? Click here to Register Free!

Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look. While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.