We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
His dad made an error not playing the back 9.
Mick-After today he made two errors and it's China the fruitcake. Called me by one of the names China uses and then mentioned a straight jacket-which I have said China should be in . China always gives himself away Blocked !
Mickutd.
I said that when ella 1st popped up on this board.
Mickutd.
CB is the ultimate nutcase who needs to be sectioned for their own good.
Right on cue China Blue responds on twitter, One of the biggest oddballs to grace the internet. I'm still laughing at his mum throwing a 7.
Hi Slurms,
Fair point - I missed that. I can believe and haven't taken issue with the massive sulphides in a small section of the core. My understanding is that massive sulphides would normally contain a large quantity of non copper sulphides. However, if we really did have massive copper sulphide then I find the assay results very low. I also think massive copper sulphides, even in a section of under a metre would have garnered some attention. I might make some enquiries.
Mick,
Your powers of deduction are brilliant!!!!!!!
Hi Ella this is from RNS
”The first hole at Cheyeza East intersected massive and disseminated copper sulphide mineralisation”
I'm interpreting that as massive copper sulphides because it's mentioned alongside disseminated as well.
Doesn't seem to be in the bullet points, but NvS goes on to mention them in the quote
”This is the first result from what will be an extensive drilling programme going forward to determine the scale of massive sulphide mineralisation ”. I'm acutely aware of how much
you trust NvS but to me that suggests massive sulphides.
Slurms, It's been obvious for a long time Ella the cretin is China Blue, Absolute parasite he is.
Hi Slurms,
that was obviously a typo - I meant to say Fulmar ;-)
They haven't referred to massive COPPER sulphide in this RNS. Sulphides include pyrite and other sulphides so massive sulphides would be much more common than massive COPPER sulphides. I think if they really had massive copper sulphides there would have been a lot of folk paying attention.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who picked up on that dropped *******.
Seemed not seamed, looks like all the geo talk is getting to me.
Hi Ella,
They're continuing to use the term massive sulphides in the latest RNS , whatever is going on, I'm sure that's no oversight.
Was very interesting to see you use the name Shep as well on this board. I've not seen that used for a long time. It was used by an old poster to refer to a sheep dog who rounded up the "docile flocks” for some reason it seamed to stand out. Strange world we live in.
Yes, you are not an expert.
Hi Teaye,
The results are just very average considering the previous RNS that announced this intercept. Reading the RNS carefully that appears to be the only interval sent for assay for that hole and it is certainly the interval that contained the massive sulphides. It does refer to intervals but it also refers to intervals within the 4.3m section. I'm surprised there wasn't a worse drop. The Headline statement in the previous RNS was MASSIVE COPPER SULPHIDES.
From Science direct
Chalcopyrite contains 34.5% Cu, 30.5% Fe, and 35.0% S.
If you take massive as meaning 60% or more of the rock then if the copper sulphide was chalcopyrite one might expect massive COPPER sulphide to contain at least 20% copper. Thay was never realistic. In my view the title massive COPPER sulphide was misleading. I'm not an expert and you will have read PGE_Geo's take on the previous RNS.
Fair point, RB, although I guess they were always going to dam*ed if they did, and dam*ed if they didn't... :)
Hopefully they will be picking up on today's sentiment and acting accordingly.
T
Think it's the fact that the sample was so small that's been the issue and reflected in the drop in sp. Might have been better to wait until there's results from a decent interval or confirm in the RNS if they are expecting additional assay results from that hole.
4.3m sample sent for analysis.
4.3m (ie, entire sample) = 0.6% Cu
3.3m of the 4.3m (ie, 76% of the sample ) = 0.7% Cu
1.8m of the 4.3m (ie, 40% of the sample) = 0.8% Cu
And 2 intervals of 1+% Cu
And that's just from the 4.3m we have sent so far.
@Ella - what is wrong with announcing that the entire sample we sent has come back with good results? Or have I missed something (happy to be pointed to the right info if so...).