We chatted to IronRidge Resources' CEO Vincent Mascolo who explains why the company has become a lithium explorer. Watch the video 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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
>> the hole went much deeper - see for example this diagram:
Thanks - that is what I was looking for.
>> Anyone know when the assays are due back?
The lab assay, including gold contents, will take several week. Maybe even a couple of months.
>> News is correct: the relationship between (average) grade and unit production cost is complex"
@Shurething. I was the one stating the relationship was complex. News was stating that 100m at 3.6 was equivalent to 1000m at 0.36. Anyway - I think we have done that to death so probably best to drop it :)
Anyone know when the assays are due back?
The below link sounds like BRD001. Not sure it tells us much about the hole though.
Do we know if the model has been updated since the drilling of BRD001? If it has been updated then I think there would be some shading to show copper in that area. The key goes down as low as 0.1%. I'm not sure when the model was updated .
Steve. On BRD001, it looks like they recorded mineralisation down to 306m (as per page 7 of the Bushranger presentation), but the hole went much deeper - see for example this diagram: https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/8229M_3-2021-1-25.pdf
If I'm understanding iceberg correctly, he is wondering why they kept on going much deeper, despite not reporting more mineralisation. Intriguing...
Hi Steve and News. News is correct: the relationship between (average) grade and unit production cost is complex. You cannot compare a high-grade low tonnage deposit with a low-grade high tonnage one. As grade drops not only do costs of processing, concentrate shipping and extraction increase, so too do capital (plant) and labour costs. Additionally the costs of stripping - overburden and waste rock removal in open pit operations increase with depth and underground development costs increase too with depth until the orebody becomes uneconomical.
The pre-XTR drills were relatively shallow. The 159m at 0.4% cu and 0.2 g/t gold ended at 306m and the 169m at 0.4% and 0.1 g/t ended at 486m. The current drilling, both BRDD-20-001 and BRDD-21-002, are aiming much deeper because the previously identified resource was open-ended at depth, so there is plenty of potential scope for significant, completely new resource to be added.
It is really very interesting, but I can see why PI who aren't prepared to invest the time to learn the detail might not appreciate what XTR has found.
I had wondered why that drill went so deep also. A long shot, but does the below from some of the RNSs give any clues iceberg?
"The Phase One drilling programme will follow up drill intersections such as 159m @ 0.4% Cu and 0.2g/t Au in drill hole BRD001 and 169m @ 0.4% Cu and 0.1g/t Au in drill hole BRD009 (as previously announced these drill results have not yet been independently tested or verified by Xtract) and investigate the zonation of higher gold grades within the Racecourse Mineral Resource"
Sorry maybe not very clear, the .4 is a hope from the current drill . Not an expectation but something I would be happy to see.
The post was really musings coming from me trying to think about the position of a primary gold rich intrusion and placing the copper post intrusion over the top.
Answering myself :) I realise now you do mean a pre-XTR drill. ProspectOre BRD001 from the April 2020 presentation. Where is the info about the extra 500m after the 159m at 0.4%?
Are you talking about a pre-XTR drill here, as you mentioned gold and we don't have the assays yet? Or do you mean BRDD-20-001?
The latter had 900m at 0.2% and above, according to the 25th January RNS: "The data from the handheld XRF indicates that copper mineralisation occurs over a downhole depth of 905m with copper grades ranging from 0.2% to 0.5% Cu."
Obviously a pass drill, but I am finding it a bit of an enigma.
The first 300m ended in 159m @.4 copper and .21 gold, in can understand them drilling a bit after that point maybe 100-200m without mineralization. However they drilled for a further half a km, supposedly recording nothing....
Now if the were concerned with a .3 cut off, and they were finding say .2%..then they might continue in case it increased...but it didnt..
Now we would be overjoyed if even half of that distance had .2%
We know from the long section that underneath the intrusion body, the alteration does seem to have some depth to it, hence the sporadic patches.
Below the drop that this second drill is intersecting, the gold grades should be higher, possibly due to early intrusion activity.
I am speculating but Mr Bird seemed to be pretty positive about this drill earlier and I have a feeling that the early mineralization has reinforced an internal model which greatly expands the alteration zone, above and so below....
for the avoidance of doubt if this finds 400 at .25 and .1 gold and with that a zone of say 150@.4 and .2gold, I would be very happy indeed as the affect on the jorc would be massive.
Just in case, it cannot be understood, one is cognisant that :
A £1 coin [ONE] could be expressed as an illustration as:
-----------1 0 coins of 10p each-------
That was all I was trying to illustrate to folks that dont understand long intersections. So, no expectations of anything. That is taught even in school.
Thur, 28 Jan 2021
Just a back-up in case.
That JORC used 0.3% cut-off. We are going as low as 0.2% because POC is above $7500 (I would think that's the reason) . See Frog link 20.33 yesterday.
This increases the Cu contained by 50% so we are at 0.5Mt IF 0.2% is used. It is being used.
I can't comment on the maths but we only need to x4 to get to 2Mt not x6
https://www.sharecast.com/news/aim-bulletin/xtract-resources-upbeat-on-latest-drilling-at-racecourse--7795761.html 3 hrs ago, Thur, 28 Jan 2021 @7:15pm
"We are currently cutting through a wide zone of geological alteration and low and moderate grade copper mineralisation LYING ABOVE THE MAIN ZONE, he said."
"The new hole was sited offset from STRIKE to intersect the deposit at a TARGET DEPTH of 450-500m."
He is Colin Bird, Executive Chairman, XTR per in the article.
From the current JORC thingy we have approx 0.3m tons of contained copper or equivalent from 70m tons of ore. If we wanted to say 6x that we only need to increase each dimension of our oniony carrot (or cigar avocado whatever) by approx 1.8 I think.
As original 70m tons is from say 1 unit x 1unit x 1unit volume to make 1 unit cube.
1.8 x 1.8 x1.8 is almost x6 bigger. So what I'm getting at is we only have to increase each dimension of our porphory by just over 1.8 to get to 6x 70m tons and so 2m tons of contained copper (at 0.4% or equivalent Copper). Is that right or have I totally got it wrong ?
Try using filter as there is no imperative to read. Thanks.
Why only pick on my post/S to correct when you stated "MY POSTS ARE FACTUAL." @18:43pm, Thur, 28 Jan 2021.
Since you joined in Sep 2021 and have 557 posts, I think it would be useful that I wish to continue with my LONG MEMBERSHIP and therefore, its best we do not continue this conversation at 6:55pm.
Try to find balance and correct EVERY POSTS FROM OTHERS and NOT JUST MINE.
With thanks. News, Thur, 28 Jan 2021.
Please stop using Caps. It makes the post difficult to digest and reminds me of the DONALD.
Ah, Steve4077 you are in analytics for a multi-billion dollar co and you think that an expression of 111.7m expressed as an illustration x10 @1111m is ...?
That is called flattening out the 111 to show that even at high grades of 3.6g/t gold CANNOT occur in NORMAL SITUATION OF A PORPHYRY at 1,100m at 0.36g/t gold is overselling?
It cant be --CADIA RIDGEWAY HAS 3.5BT and the GRADES ARE LOW as shown @0.26% CU COPPER & 0.4g/t au gold. Link: https://xtractresources.com/bushranger-project/
In my illustration, FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, THERE WAS NO GRADE/S THAT I GAVE SO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT MY POST WAS AT ALL giving...ANY EXPECTATIONS. THERE WAS NO FORECAST.
As for analytics, I am sure you are aware you have read articles on it?
So, that*s on my part. IF YOU WANT ACCURACY, I NOTE YOU DID NOT CORRECT ONE EARLIER POSTER OF XTR GOING 50X SHARE PRICE? This was WITHOUT GIVING OR WORKING OUT THAT 50X.
So, I think you have gone off -target on the RNS and the Chairman*s interview. ??
OK, after this reply I will stop replying to your posts as you are plainly treating my attempts to help as some sort of attack. I agree that you are posting facts. However, I've tried to explain my point about presenting a mid-range view vs best possible interpretation (based on the same facts) several times and I am obviously banging my head against the wall. I'll try one last time then give up.
I'm director of analytics for a multi-billion dollar global company, so my job is, inter alia, to take factual information and make predictions about the future with very large amounts of money at stake. 'Facts' can be interpreted in a lot of different ways, especially regarding their influence on future events. We have to go to the market each year and quarter and provide forecasts for our revenue, etc. and I am heavily involved in those revenue models.
If I took the best possible interpretation of the facts, then we would always aim high in those market projections and almost always miss the targets, with resulting damage to our share price. The first year we were a public company, I wasn't involved and someone did exactly that. Our results were fine in reality, but the massively optimistic forecast resulted in a billion dollar reduction in market cap. The business wasn't the problem - its was the expectation we set.
Bear in mind that when new people arrive at the forum, they will be most impressed by an informed debate about a range of potential outcomes based on the available facts. They will be less impressed by someone trying to use those same facts to present the best possible outcome and that may affect their view of the company. The company looks amazing. There is zero need to oversell.
Lastly, I re-read you last post and STRANGELY, you said about RAISING HIGH EXPECTATIONS that could disappoint? Same CONVO the NIGHT before but from ANOTHER POSTER?
How can an explanation that today*s RNS AND THE ONE BEFORE for Hole 1 be raising EXPECTATIONS? There has been NO GRADES RESULTS GIVEN IN THE RNS NOR HAVE PEOPLE SPECULATED WHAT THE GRADES ARE?
Everyone knows the RACECOURSE SCOPING STUDY RESULTS FROM LACHLAN STAR so there is NO EXPECTATIONS AT ALL --EVERYONE IS NOW EDUCATED AS TO THE OFFICIAL SCOPING STUDY GRADES as posted last night.
LOL Steve4077, sounds like you have been mistaken?