Member Info for Bamps21

Hi Spades
That reminds of my RE teacher you had to take notice of him picking his nose and flicking at the ones that weren’t listening.
I was still bottom of the class.

What do you do with a sick chemistry teacher do you heilium, curium or barium :))

Hi Tom
I see his post has gone and my response back, nice to have good friends about.
ATB:))

I make no apologies for not being a geologist, my background is all to do with construction.
Geologists are needed to understand and find targets, they use others expertise to help them , as the mine progresses they are needed as consultants.
To me this is just another large building site.
My role included mapping, setting out, soil analysis, health hazards,piling and foundation, be able to read architect and structural engineering plans, ground stabilisation, measuring soil quantities, plant and machinery, constructing buildings, fitting out , reinstatement and final handovers.
I think I have had a better experience than most on this board.
I still need help from specialists along the way.
The rigs I’ve seen here are tiny compared with some that I’ve been on.
My capabilities are being able to put things together, geology for me is very interesting but this Havieron thing is a busman’s holiday for me, a construction site with no plans on what the final outcome will be.

Drill 133 coming from the north heading due south to the position where the Dyke leaves the SE crescent.
There are 2 long intercepts:-
108.5m @1.7 g/t and 0.43% copper but with a 0.2 cut off
That made me look to find out why the 0.2 cut off.
From the start of that intercept
0m to 23.7m (cut off = 0.2)
23.7 to 47 =23.3m @ 2.7g/t (cut off = 1)
47 to 55m = 8m (cut off = 0.2)
55 to 68m = 13m @ 2.4 g/t (cut off = 1)
68 to 88.9m = 20.9m (cut off = 0.2)
88.9m to 108m = 19.1 m @ 2.3 (cut off = 1)
108m to 108.5m = 0.5m (cut off= 0.2)

So we have 55.4m @ 2.5 g/t average ( cut off 1g/t)
And 53.1m @ 0.5g/t average ( cut off 0.2g/t)
There are no broken intercepts all mineralised , not sure how that last 0.5m fits in doesn’t look as if it should be there.
This says to me within this intercept there are 55.4m of cemented breccia and 53.1m of crackle

Next intercept
85m @ 11 g/t cut off =0.2g/t
5 inclusions within it by 2 of these contain the remaining intercept

0 to 18m cut off 0.2g/t (crackle)
18m to 21.6m = 3.6m @32g/t cut off 1g/t (cemented)
21.6 to 27.6m = 6m @ 62g/t cut off 30g/t (sulphides)
27.6m to 31m= 3.4m @32g/t cut off 1g/t (cemented)
31m to 40.7m = 9.7m cut off 0.2g/t (crackle)
40.7m to 41.4m = 0.7m @62g/t cut off 30g/t(sulphides)
41.4m to 51.5 m = 10.1m cut off 0.2g/t (crackle)
51.5m to 58m = 6.5m @ 32g/t cut off 1g/t (cemented)
58m to 61.6m = 3.6m @ 120g/t cut off 30g/t (sulphides)
61.6m to 66 = 4.4m 32g/t cut off 1g/t (cemented)
66 to 85m = 19 m cut off 0.2g/t (crackle)

Total 56.8m of 0.2 g/t cut off average c0.5g/t
17.9m cut off 1g/t average c12g/t
10.7m cut off 30g/t average c90g/t

I’m not asking you to understand what I’ve done but using the cut offs you can work out the components of each intercepts
85m @11g/t is a stunning result but breaking it down , half of it doesn’t look so good but the other half makes up for it big time, the sulphides look fantastically high .

If this pocket is say 10m deep x 10m high x 10 wide and they stope this pocket c8500 tons $15.3m after costs .
That’s for only 2 or 3 days work getting it out

A lot can be found out by studying drill logs

When looking at results always look at the cut off first this tells you straight away if it’s high or low grade.
A higher grade will give you smaller intercepts.
A 30g/t cut off has to have the whole length above it, so maybe only a couple of metres long as is normally included within a lower cut of.
Always best to look at the main intercept and take little notice of the included , these higher zones will though show you where the sulphides are.
Some firms use these higher grade cut offs to boost the average of the lower intercepts, to make it look like a good find where in reality it’s weak grade they have found.
This happened a bit with Had 01 and 05 where only intercepts above 1g/t were recorded using the higher grades to boost the average.
Because cut offs weren’t used copper and cobalt results could be recorded, if they had been used the copper and cobalt wouldn’t have been so prominent in these results only being picked up when the gold grades were above the cut offs.
A 1 g/t cut off has to have a continual run above 1g/t of 5m within a 10m length, Had 01 and 5 didn’t meet this requirement in some places, so if the cut offs were used the gold intercepts would have been less and not recorded along with the copper and cobalt.

Being above 1g/t though in many places still made both drills exciting and no wonder Newcrest jumped in so quick but explains a bit why they don’t record cobalt , too intermittent.

340m at 2g/t in the Eastern breccia is a fabulous result let’s hope we get more like that on the 8th,
Stunning, stunning, stunning :))

Max length of drill 850m so at 60 degrees would reach 736 m down and 425m horizontally
These I doubt will be used till lower down

https://www.boartlongyear.com/product/lm75/

Underground drilling rig capable of drilling 850m

DDH1 have 9 underground rigs LM90 and LM75

Hi the learner
Drilling from the current Decline from 420m down will be less costly but is restrictive in where it can target- ie the Eastern Breccia or Northern Breccia.
The length from there will be restrictive still.
It would need a complete ring around the ovoid to be an advantage for drilling. I am expecting that may happen to extract from those high grade pockets in the Northern crescent

Only 11 days to the results night, what can we expect
Assays pending
Drill. True depth. Minus cover ore depth/heading
46W2. 1079m. 420. 659. SW
57W7. 866. 446. SW
57W8. 944. 524. SW
69W3. 1325. 905. SW
84W1. 1798. 1378. E
89W3. 1206. 786. WNW
90W1. 1834. 1414. ESE
99W2. 960. 540. WNW
133W1. 1517. 1097. S
133W2. 1400. 980. S
End of 138. 1249. 829. ENE
138W1. 1334. 914. ENE
139. 630. 216. NW
140. 1024. 604. E
141. 1845. 1425 NNE
147. 1429. 1009 SW

What can you see from these, well the heading allows you to find which direction they’re targeting
For instance SW is heading for the SE crescent zone on the west end of it.

There are a few poking out of the known ore body:-
Eastern breccia 90W1,84W1&2, 141
138 and 138W1 are poking out above the EB
Southern extension 133W1&2

The ore depth let’s you see how what they are targeting
For instance 133W1&2 1100 & 980m is the depth of this southern extension, this will expand the SE high grade zone.
Remember the initial inferred MRE only went to about 700m and that 84m @11g/t was around 800m these 2 are way below it

90W1 could extend the Eastern breccia to join with the SE extension at 1414 true depth of ore I think that’s our deepest , the Eastern breccia starts at around 900 at the moment (138W1 might lift that up to a higher level) so we have 514m of EB depth increasing my lower ovoid estimates considerably or should I have shouted CONSIDERABLY:))))

Ah Bablake Ernest Giles saga.
A totally miss understood scenario in my opinion , just look at the news flow
May 9 2017 Ernest Giles 4 new licences
May 16 2017 Newmont granted access to EG and database
June06 2017 new licence PRE
June 10 2017 new licence Panorama
June 29 2017 ground gravity additional targets
July 11 2017 New MMI survey
July 25 2017 Completion of Havieron acquisition and geo surveys for Havieron
Aug14 2017 EG survey work starts
Aug 17 2017 Paterson update 50 targets highlighted
Sep04 2017 panorama update
Oct 03 2017 panorama exploration
Oct 11 2017 EG east exploration results
Oct 16 2017 EG new application
Oct 24 2017 panorama project update
Nov06 2017 Blackhills acquisition
Nov 07 2017 Havieron ground gravity survey
Dec06 2017 Havieron positive gravity survey
Jan15 2018 Newmont current corporate priorities lie in other districts
Feb15 2018 Forwarded modelling and drilling plans at Havieron
Feb20 2018 EG drilling approvals
Mar12 2018 EG exploration commences
Apr11 2018 Firetower exploration commences
Apr 18 2018 Havieron drilling commences
May9 2018 EG MMI survey commences
May21 2018 Blackhills multiple gold zones
May27 2018 panorama new licence
Jun18 2018 Havieron exploration commences
June 21 2018 gold nuggets found at Blackhills
June 25 2018 Had 01 drill results
July 2 2018 further gold found at Blackhills
July 4 2018 drill results from Had 02,03,04
July 17 2018 Blackhills survey to commence
July 19 2018 half year update Havieron main theme
August 13 2018 Scallywag survey
August 20 2018 Firetower large gold find

Well after all that I think there was a movement by Ggp away from EG to Havieron and Blackhills both of which were far more advanced than EG.
A lot of work and costs at EG before any commitments by anyone.
My personal view is Newmont knew as soon as Havieron was signed that Newcrest would move in, some sort of deal must have been done over a coffee and Newmont backed away.

EG is such an early exploration play and it’s so big, Meadows could be a 5m oz target with about 120m cover but it’s very early days and the distances to transport the ore are vast, production plant needed.
The gold price was also a lot lower then, the economics were different .

Burleigh that’s nonsense, a lot of interesting discussions come from e mails .
The content is not interrupted by unwanted posts

I agree with Hydro
Havieron has it’s own curve
“The Havieron Curve”
Tier one’s keep on giving
World Class mines are one on their own:))

Norfs description of the SE crescent zone left me being confused.
The High grade SE crescent zone is mainly made up of high grade breccia which has been intruded by sulphides running through the middle of them.
This crescent is only 350m deep and around 550m long.
The breccia average around 100m wide in this zone and the sulphides 50m within it.
This is the zone for the coming Indicated resource estimate no where else.

Below this zone is a part shaped high grade zone slightly weaker than the top layer about 400m long, this is in the inferred MRE from last December.
Below this again is a smaller high grade zone 2-300m long and again in the Inferred
These 2 lower zones together are about 350m deep.

That takes us to 700m deep below the smaller zone is the SE growth zone which they are saying will be included in the Inferred. It’s where the 11g/t came in.
The rest of the crescent is made up of a mixture of high and low breccia grades and a thin layer of sulphide ring. The lower the depth more high grade cemented breccia and less crackle.

My theory is the cemented breccia we’re formed from an intrusion from under the Eastern Breccia rising up through the SE crescent and also continued up into the Northern breccia.
The sulphides came from the south of the crescent and intruded into the cemented breccia.
My assumptions are from studying the sections and drawings

I listened to the last part with the podcast with Norf, who comes over very articulate.
I had a giggle with them chuckling over my term concreted breccia.
The correct geological term is cemented breccia but from my point of view coming from a construction background cemented would not be the correct term to use.
Cement is a binding agent when mixed with sand it is called mortar , when it is mixed with sand and different size gravels it is called concrete .
Cemented breccia is formed mainly of carbonate clasts or aggregate and has been cemented together by hot sulphide intrusion into the cracks around the clasts. It’s not cement but materials such as quartz which contains different amounts of gold and other minerals.
There are 2 types of cemented breccia at Havieron calcites and actinolite .
Calcites are carbonate based breccia
Actinolite are a type of amphibole ( don’t Google that it will frighten you) , it is a form of asbestos but not in this situation. It part of a deformation process of magmatic heat on magnetite through to a granulite, so it’s more granulitic.

I presume someone can copy this to Telegram for me so Norf can see my response. Thanks

This is part of a post I did back on 26th March to Eggchaser
“ Drilling Saffron 2 is another cash risk venture that may fail again. To my mind they should be tackling the Upper and Middle layers, cheaper quicker to drill resulting in cash flows much sooner.
The risk at Saffron 2 is the volcanic mud layer that has formed the trap of the Lower cruse.
This mud escapes at the mud volcano just to the SW of Saffron.
When Cerp tried to drill through it the pressures were immense and a really heavy drilling mud had to be used to hold it back to keep the drilling into the Lower Cruse.
This heavy mud had the effect of blocking the open pores of the LC sandstones limiting the oil flows.
This drill is risky I would rather they tackle the Middle Cruse to get income.
The other reason not to drill it yet is the Royalties kick in I think will be after Saffron 2 or maybe 3 , there is an upfront payment of $1-2m.
Bearing that in mind the netbacks were the best Cerp had of anywhere else and all there focus should be here to build cash reserves then go to Icacos to deepen those existing wells.
Bahamas and Uruguay offshore is still too risky, I would say Blind Faith”

I still believe they should be tackling the Middle Cruse and nowhere else, the revenues here are far better than anywhere else CEG has , by miles.
$50 return when the price of oil is $60
Innis Trinity is $30.
There are a lot of individual pockets around Saffron, Cerp had plans of drilling 65 wells into these.
Think small $75,000 to drill a shallow well pay back in no time and keep drilling till the funds are there to reopen S2. Forget S1 lower down the pores were blocked by the heavy drilling mud.
S2 is still a big prize 480 API they are saying, there’s not much oil around like that but get some cash in first to pay for it.
Paying for an expert to overcome the mud issues would be a great benefit .

Then look at deepening Icacos before anywhere else.
Only my opinion so glad I got out before the merger put £500 back in to keep toe in water after the consolidation, I feel really safe with my investment in Ggp so happy I made the move when I did.
Really feel for my friends on here who didn’t come with me

Hi Stu
I think CB has had too strong a position with his investment in Ggp including his Starvest position.
The markets don’t like that, there maybe some influence from NCM but I doubt it, more likely pressures from big institutions that will be investing starting to dictate things

Hi Claireabella
Nice to hear from you
This news is coming thick and fast, SD building a super team
We now have only 1 Exec board member and 3 non exec, will we be hearing another appointment to the Boars fairly soon
Excitement brewing:))

That looks an impressive new Technical team, all looking good to me :))

AISC is a tool to compare the cost of ore extraction between mines.
How the mines are financed is immaterial to AISC figures

Hi Hydro
Wasn’t the Cannocord AISC based on a copper price of $3 lb
Today’s copper price $4.28 so plenty of scope for AISC to be lower
12 month low was $2.86