George Frangeskides, Exec-Chair at Alba Mineral Resources, discusses grades at the Clogau Gold Mine. Watch the full 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. 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.
I read the rns and thought the same as others..... how can the whole deposit sit in that range of coppper eq when most of the lengths are short of those numbers.
I come to the conclusion that maybe they are modeling the conceptual open pit on a lower tonnage but with a higher average grade?
But then why would you not include everything that's economical to mine?
Is it for the wow factor?
What's more attractive? A 1MT at .5% or 2mt at .25%
AND BEFORE PEOPLE COME OUT AND SAY 'ITS NOT AS SIMPLE AS THAT' I KNOW!!
It's for illustrative purposes only!
Howezap,
I didn't mean to imply the met work was associated with only the initial 71MT as clearly the RNS says that samples have been taken form different areas of the proposed pit. My suggestion was merely for the richer grades within the entire pit.
Cygnus,
You could well be right, although my rationale is that the met test work is to go toward financial evaluation for a new conceptual pit study for Racecourse. Not the old pit study based on the currently inferred 71mt
It would not be representative for the deposit if samples were only taken from the currently inferred part of the resource I would have seriously thought.
Also they use the term deposit, which would mean the whole of racecourse. If they were just referring to the 71mt part only they would have used the term resource, as a deposit as I’m sure you already know is that a resource exists within a both discovered and undiscovered deposit.
Sorry not meant to sound anal lol
Howezap,
I agree the wording suggests exactly what you infer but I have frequently thought that the assay results as they have become available are a little below what I was hoping for. To my mind, that was compensated for by the size of the deposit. But then a representative grade to use for the metallurgy work would have been lower than that used according to the RNS.
Possibly, metallurgy work uses the richer grades as these will produce the majority of the minable Cu and the RNS has been poorly worded. I don't know but it would be useful if anybody knew more. I have a friend's son with a degree in geology and is now doing a PHd on porphyries. I could ask him as he has been keeping an eye on XTR from an academic point of view. It may take a day or two to get an answer....
Hi Cygnus thank you for the numbers, it’s certainly reassuring as there is plenty of wiggle room to be further conservative in the ranges.
Jeremy Reid stated in ascot webinar at the very end that the deposit would need to show about 400-450mt to yield 2mt cu at 0.44%cu average. There is certainly no reason to doubt his perception.
As for this latest estimate for anticipated grades it is clearly for the deposit and not for just the higher grade part.
>>Four master composite samples of quartered drill core were prepared, based upon a geographic location within the Racecourse and Ascot deposits, namely Racecourse Central, Racecourse North-West, Racecourse South-East and Ascot
· The samples were representative of the anticipated average copper grade of the deposit, ranging from 0.33-0.48% Cu, with………….<<<
Hi Fos,
"What is the assumption at the extreme lower end .33"?
I can't answer that. Due to the vagaries of the data with grades waxing and weaning over the resource I have simply made the assumption that the mean grade is .4% which I have said, I think is a tad too high. If that is true then it is likely that we will undershoot the 2MT mark although Footrot is likely to bring us above that figure - and Andy4444 said earlier this morning.
Hi CY
What is the assumption at the extreme lower end .33?
F100
"Shouldnt that be: A Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush-ranger."
Of course!
"I'm wondering if this is an assumed grade for the really useful parts of the pit and that most will not reach this high a grade".
Yes, because none of the assays received this year support those levels of average grades, away from the really useful parts of the put.
Howezap,
I have plugged some numbers into my own model although I must say that I'm surprised that the average Cueq grade is as high as stated in the last RNS:
"The samples were representative of the anticipated average copper grade of the deposit, ranging from 0.33-0.48% Cu, with minor silver (1.1g/t to 3.3g/t) and trace gold (0.007g/t to 0.04g/t), other than the more gold-rich Ascot sample which assayed 0.30g/t Au <<<
If I assume that the grade in 0.4%, that the length of RC is 2 km, the width is 500 m and the depth (width of ore) is 400 m and I assume the pit is a regular V shape I get 540MT resource with 2.16 MT of Cu. But again, I'm surprised (and pleased) to hear that the average grade is .33 to .48%. I'm wondering if this is an assumed grade for the really useful parts of the pit and that most will not reach this high a grade. Still, we will soon see.
"Just a few weeks ago some were saying they would snap CBs hand off for 10p :)"
I still would, as things stand.
Shouldnt that be:
A Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush-ranger.
A Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
That just sprang to mind as a response, and seems somehow apt.
"I could see CB wanting to continue drilling if there was reason to believe that there were any more higher grade areas in the licence."
If it was "quick wins" in very short time then maybe, but the driver has to be time v reward. If it was all about the reward then we should not be selling the licence and try and build the mine ourselves. You can then forget about 30p or 40p buy-out, it would an sp of £3 to £5.
What a great way to celebrate CB's 100th birthday :)
Interesting how sentiment changes. Just a few weeks ago some were saying they would snap CBs hand off for 10p :)
I could see CB wanting to continue drilling if there was reason to believe that there were any more higher grade areas in the licence.
I would like to hear more detail on the longer term plans for Manica.
"Andrew - I think your 1 & 2 can both be true at the same time"
You could be right in theory but I don't think that would be the case in practise. To avoid confusion I was only referring to the current model and not any other licences .
I guess it also depends on what the threshold is of "Giving away another cadia" For me that would be 3mt +. Anything in the 2mt range would not be that much more than CB's previous indications - but obviously a bit better.
Others may have different thresholds and criteria for that.
I agree with you and also think we are going to be under 2mt at the moment, maybe 1.5 or 1.6mt. But I can't see how we are going to move from 1.6mt now to over 3mt, and that would have to happen (imho) for both my options to be correct.
In addition, I would think CB would draw a line under this at 2mt to 2.5mt. More drilling would see a greater resource yes, but that would take more time and he has indicated this will "not go on for years".
So yes both options could be right, but I would be amazed if CB has the time or determination to try and nearly double the current tonnage and keep on drilling and adding to the current model way past 3mt.
So my best guess is that it's probably option 2
Thanks Andy..... problem with so much communication over the past 18 months..... its hard to drillback to the particular one that is needed for a given issue.
I'll have another watch over lunch.
We have just been offered the single most important piece of the jigsaw for the Racecourse model, the average grade anticipated to be between .33 and .48%cu
>>> The samples were representative of the anticipated average copper grade of the deposit, ranging from 0.33-0.48% Cu, with minor silver (1.1g/t to 3.3g/t) and trace gold (0.007g/t to 0.04g/t), other than the more gold-rich Ascot sample which assayed 0.30g/t Au <<<
We have a good idea of strike length, width and deposit depth ( not the anticipated pit depth )
The economic cut off we could assume 0.15cu and so working on those grades ranges where is the rock tonnage and disposition now.
Could I now hand over to one of our resident number crunchers if any are willing to offer up.
It will surely lead to a more realistic ‘guess’ if only to see it realistically being more then 1.5mt than less than that.
As Stevemocal suggests, If it is in line with Colin’s estimate for racecourse then that leaves a big chunk of extra value to be added from Ascot and current multi porphyry potential.
Awww Steve (little cry face emoji) are we no longer able to discuss things without getting upset someone else has a different view?
Joeman
I think its this one from Dec 21 you are referencing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ8b--rhvRI
Always worth another watch !
Colin is playing stud poker with AA and the market. Just ask him how many ace's he holds we know what the stakes are. Place your bets.
Ok James, first technical session might be wrong but there has been a technical session taking us through the model with more than just the historic drills and recent (within weeks) assay results included.
And the comment made (apologies but this will be paraphrasing) was that as asssy results come in the modeller is adding them to the model and so this can be turned around quickly.
A list for AGM I compiled a while ago. I don't imagine I'll have to ask all of them...
Thoughts on questions for AGM
1. Bushranger what is timescale for RC model and Ascot if separate timeline. What happened to last timetable!
2. Does he still stand by comments that "it's not a 10p porphyry" eg £100million. How would he compare it to other recent sales eg Josemaria $485m
3. What are next steps and timeline for Ascot - is comparison with Cadia potential valid e.g statements made on 39 assays on 27 May "similar characteristics to the discovery of the deeper, gold-rich Ridgeway deposit, which is a part of the Cadia-Ridgeway group of porphyry deposit"
4. Details of buyback agreement eg whole of 5574 or RC only. If whole of licence then how will value be attributed to Ascot and Footrot.
5. If we declare 2MT then what happens ? Try and assess confidence about achieving 2MT and from just RC. What if we are at 1.9MT ? What are the steps and timelines to trigger decision to mine, how would funding issue be addressed?
6. XTR has several exploration options - what is priority ? Either Manica, Eureka, EL5574 or other Oz licences? How would income from Manica be allocated to exploration ?
7. Timescale and potential for revenue at Eureka ?
8. Quarterly gold reports not fit for purpose and don't reconcile for last 2 years to annual reports. Need segregation of different hard rock agreements, closing gold stock and transparency on how operating costs at Fairbride are determined and reported.
9. Need to improve comms and investor info eg Kalengwa still on website etc....
10. Focus on what they already have and not go after new projects
Hi Joeman
From memory the first technical session was just based on existing resource e.g. P1 holes weren’t included.
Cheers
James
Andrew - I think your 1 & 2 can both be true at the same time.
I personally think RC is probably shy of the 2mt threshold that gives AA a guaranteed opportunity to buyback. But not by much and it seems nailed on that Ascot and other prospects on the licence will see us smashing through that target.
We should also remember that the buy-back clause only applied to the EL5574 licence. There is no buy-back terms for the other surrounding licences and if they want them too (hard to imagine them not) then it is a straight negotiation and I'd be expecting CB to command a pretty penny for them. If they don't want to pay a hansom premium for them (to avoid missing other targets and potentially inviting a competitor into their backyard) then we could always keep them as the next exploration project and do it all again!