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.
Also going by these numbers the average g/t drops significantly
170078t x 2.4g/t = 408188g
753922 x 1.11g/t = 836853g
(408188 + 836853)g / 924000t = 1.35g/t average grade
Again I just think slide 11 under promises on the gold figures. Hopefully we get the MRE tomorrow
ATB
Hi Gregg, yes only plant 1 is high grade.
So if you reverse engineer the calc for the 24000oz numbers and assume a 80% recovery factor and a grade of only 2.4g/t:
Plant 1 gold = 10,500oz x 31.1 / (0.8 x 2.4g/t) = 170,078t of ore
Plants 2-4 will process ( 924,000-170,078 = ) 753,922t
Assuming 50% recovery, to get the remaining (24000-10500=) 13,500oz then the grade is only 1.1g/t which feels very low to me.
753,929t x 0.5 x 1.11g/t / 31.1 = 13,545oz
To achieve the same 24,000oz- if the grade of gold at plant 1 increases the gold from plant 2-4 must decreases (the grade drops lower than 1.11)
I feel the numbers are conservative. The average grade of the gold in the HL and tailings is only 1.11g/t. It gives credence to the cut-off grade dropping below 0.8g/t which does help push the total gold resource even higher which is obviously good.
One other thing. If plant 1 processes 170,078tonnes that is 477tonnes per day, ok so close to the 500tpd we know it can handle.
Plants 2-4 are processing 753922 tonnes, plant 3 is a 20kt HL plant and can process 240,000t per annum. Plant 4 is either 100,000 or 120,000t (my notes are confusing me), assuming 100,000t this is 1.2mill tonnes per annum. So plants 3 and 4 can process 1.44mill tonnes and are to take 753,922t. That’s not considering plant 2.
There is plenty of scope to increase the gold being processed if they can mine a large enough tonnage.
In summary slide 11 seems very conservative but perhaps points to the cut-off grade dropping below 0.8 g/t and that will help increase the gold in the MRE…
Even though the high-grade 2.4gt currently in plant 1 , is classified as low-grade being below 5gt but threshold for high-grade (8gt) has been dropped because of the profitability .
ID78 page 11 on latest presentation predicted production 24koz plant 1 higher grade 10,515oz the rest is low grade including tailings.
Over half of the future production will be from low-grade
Also, slide 11 they state 582,500 tonnes of ore for 15,000oz.
582,500 tonnes x 1.6g/t x 50% recovery factor / 31.1 = 14984oz
I know, higher grades, higher recovery factor for plant 1. The point is this suggests, conversely, lower grades for the HL than previously assumed.
I still think the numbers on slide 11 seem very conservative to me even if the HL handles a lower grade of ore than previously anticipated.
Reducing the cut-off grade due to HL is a very good point. So does the average grade (currently 2.4 g/t) then drop but the gold (oz) increase?
Slide 12 of last weeks presentation, did anyone look at the scale of the 3D block map? It didn’t go very high. This would support the low grade theory.
However, the veins will be higher grade and I’m not sure it showed this. There were a couple of cross sections shown, I’d like to have seen one of these isolated with a better scale (starting at 0.5 and increasing to 6 or 7g/t).
We will know more soon enough. Again I can’t see them going to the expense of commissioning the 3 additional al plants if the drills have not found enough gold in the hill to back up that decision.
It's fine by me if they want to base the high-grade mineralisation on 2 or 3 holes and I'll base mine on over 75 of the other holes that's been drilled.
I'm expecting 300koz minimum uplift in the upcoming MRE.
They're going for 2Moz there in the end so this sentence makes a lot of sense to me, especially the last bit.
Results continue to confirm strike and depth continuation of the mineralisation with strong gold grades, consistent with expectations.
You'll see
I think that there is truth in both trains of thought. Now we have HL online we can process lots of 'lower' grade ore BELOW 2g/t and we REALLY do need LOTS of it to feed the monster HL pads when they are built ... everything above 2g/t or more likely 2.5g/t will go via the main process plant as it is far more efficient.
Think of it as lots of milk (HL) and 'gold top' cream (main plant) ... the trick will be rebalancing everything to optimise ore quantity by grade to specific processing ... hence why the mine plan will be soooooo important.
I wonder if the cut-off grade will be tweaked from 1g/t to 0.8g/t to expand both the modelled economic pit shell and the underground stopes as lower grades become economic via HL processing? Economic grades for open pit can easily be below 1g/t with underground typically being higher grades.
ATB APR
I'm with Suggins, plus RNS 2 has the "1m @ 29.23g/t Au from 209m"
IMO there's only one person embarrassing themselves.
Let's keep it real and factual and no big technical words that sound good, that don't make sense.
GLA
Well lets agree that the term 'high grade mineralisation' definitely refers to one of the two:-
1. high grade mineralisation; or
2. a large volume of low grade mineralisation.
Suggy don't embarrass yourself further and wait for MRE or look it up
o Hole KPGRC014 7m @ 5.43g/t Au including 2m @ 14.47g/t Au from 51m
o Hole KPGRC030 7m @ 5.04g/t Au including 2m @ 12.05g/t Au from 74m
Surely this is the high grade mineralisation referred to in the RNS heading ?
It's you
I'll make this simple for you
0-5gt is low grade 5-8gt is average grade 8gt+ is high grade.
The lowest grade drill result that made the RNS was 1.65gt. This becomes the bar as lower grades weren't reported meaning everything else is from 0gt-1.65gt.
As you can see the grades of the drill are clearly in the low grade zone.
The RNS says assay results confirm high-grade mineralisation
How is can this high-grade mineralisation be made possible from low grade results?
The answer lays within the profitability of the gold, dependant on relative depth and thickness of the intersect, the high-grade mineralisation (8gt) threshold becomes dramatically lower when it's cheaper to extract and there's loads of it.
0-1.65gt must hold a lot of ounces of gold to be considered as high grade mineralisation.
You'll see.
Greg
Can you please elaborate on these two comments; not making much sense to me. Thanks
" the hidden divergence in that low-grade high-grade scenario means the whole area contains far more gold than previously thought."
and
"It's because the high-grade threshold is relative to the depth and thickness of the intersection."
I don't think the bar was set at "Hole KPGRC047: 6m @ 1.65g/t Au from 79m"
Better results in Batch #2 RNS and much better ion Batch #1 RNS
As for how far they've extended it, look at Page 11 of the Indaba presentation, where if you zoom in you can see the hits on each drill hole. The existing veins from 2012 drilling are shown.
https://caracalgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Caracal-presentation-Indaba-RMcpptx-2.pdf
Bebo, it's a massive increase it's all there to see , the low looking drill grade and them saying higher-grade mineralisation, the hidden divergence in that low-grade high-grade scenario means the whole area contains far more gold than previously thought.
When this is the bar set for results in the RNS
Hole KPGRC047: 6m @ 1.65g/t Au from 79m
using phrase's like these
Assay Results from Kilimapesa Hill Confirm High-Grade Mineralisation
Results continue to confirm strike and depth continuation of the mineralisation with strong gold grades, consistent with expectations.
To date, we are very pleased with all aspects of the drilling campaign and look forward to not only an increase in ounces and confidence levels in our mineral resource but also, and importantly, improved information and quality of the existing resource to aid us in our planning and mining operations. Having only begun our in-house drilling in December 2021, we are very pleased with how well the drilling teams and the rigs are performing."
Looking forward to seeing this updated mineral resource estimate. They have 83 drill holes worth of information to update it with.
On board G
Not much time left to take your positions here.
They're targeting +2Moz from the whole KPG area and these higher-grade drills already completed are going to increase current resource by at least another 300Koz.
You'll see
Just spent some time researching here
Just bought 800k shares
Cheers
What happened to 10p?
Still, 5p by Xmas would be decent . Expecting a good end to the week here
You'll see as the climb up will start from this week's massive results