Member Info for Bamps21

If Goliath hits mineralisation it will be too big for Ggp.
Possibilities too big for NCM on their own

Hi Tig
There's a 4 ton rock at the entrance to that car park took 10 men to bar it into position for nearly 2 days.
The landscape architect came to see it and quoted " its upside down "
I don't know how he survived :)))

Hi Sojourner
Yes the SG of the sulphides is a lot higher than the breccias as the density is higher.
If the sulphides contain high levels of chalcopyrite the copper bearing mineral (which I'm expecting in the top of the sulphides) the tonnages could increase as the SG of these is between 4.1 and 4.4

Hannams have used 3.4 for this area which I think is conservative.
But it's the grades that have the most dramatic impact for mineralisation
ATB:))

This is one experience I've had with working out volumes:-
Project Sainsbury's supermarket Selly Oak Island , Birmingham.
The rear car park was a triangular shape steeply falling away and had to be raised about 4m.
After building concrete retaining walls the ground would be raised using a rock sand fill. After the initial top soil removal to sound formation I had to level survey the ground.
These figures were used with the design levels to work out the volume of rock sand required.
Having no internet in those days I had to order a research paper from the Building Research Establishment on Specific Gravity values.
Rock sand has a compaction density of specific density of 1.8
I worked out the tonnage but hauliers in those days had 6,7,8 yard trucks, so I had to convert 10,000 tonnes into 8 yarders.
Laid in 6" layers , every layer was compacted with a vibrating roller and plate compaction tested before the next layer.
The water in each load had to be tested, too dry or too wet caused extra costs and were sent back as it could not be compacted correctly.
Getting this wrong was a huge profit margin risk.

My experience in volume measurements has helped me immensely here in my research and hope it has some benefit to others

The density is directly related to the mass of the object (unit: usually in grams but can be measured in kilograms or pounds), so the specific gravity can also be determined by dividing the mass of the object by the mass of the water.
Formula
Density=mass of object divided by the volume

Specific gravity= mass of object divided by mass of water

The mass itself is directly related to the weight of an object, measured in units called Newtons. So, the specific gravity can also be solved by dividing the weights of the object and the water.

Note that in all of these the units are the same so the result will have no units as they'll cancel each other out.
Therefore specific gravity has no units it is a numerical value.

I think the thread about the specific gravity was quite interesting, I only want to point out to Malva that SG has no units as the units of the density of the object and water cancel each other out.
ATB:))

From Paddys post about 2 geologists chatting
That was great finding that chat between those geologists

This is my view on Antipa's results at Minyari deposit-

Mineralised intrusion inclined about 45 degrees rising from the SE to NW
about 600x200m
3 dolorite dykes running through it.
A higher zone within the intrusion about 50m wide , this must be the concreted breccias they were on about.
About 200m cover.

The weaker zone grades (maybe the crackle breccias surrounding the crackle) look uneconomic.

When looking at the logs ignore the inclusions, the average grade in the intercepts is what to look for and how much gap(uneconomical material) between.

There are a lot of comparisons to Havieron on their web site but Havieron's weaker zones are very economical but Minyari don't look it.

The situation of the concreted breccias inside the crackle breccias is very similar to Havieron but a lot smaller.

I would suggest there is a lot more drilling required to assess what's there even though there is a lot already done.

The exciting thing about it, it's on the same SE -NW trend line from Havieron-Winu including Scallywag and Black hills.

The 2 chaps were saying the further down you go the sulphides minerals are found in greater quantities i.e. gold and copper.
At Havieron that might not be the case for copper, the drill logs show the values getting lower.
Gold however in the sulphides have hit values such 1m @ 634g/t and the concreted breccias are consistently 1-2g/t and are increasing in volume against the crackle.

Mining at depth is constrained by heat,pressures, ventilation and face work time during shift due to traveling time to and from the face.
Also the ropes on the shafts have constraint lengths so optimal mine depths are 700m, 1500m and 2300m.
So my thoughts of bulk mining of 1200m might be 100m too much which would be the 1500m depth for 1100 of ore.
2300m may require an underground shaft and more expensive hoisting equipment and far more costs removing the ore from the mine, which is why you need good grades for deep mining.

All interesting stuff to come in the mining studies this year and next year

The ovoid at depth could reach 800x500 at that depth every 100m may hold 2.8m oz to 4.2m oz if the grades reach 1 to 2g/t which the concreted breccias seem to be as in the Eastern Breccias
ATB:))

From my post yesterday which only Hydrogen and Paddy clicked on.
The gravity and magnetic surveys sizes are turning out to be fairly accurate, my assumptions have increased the lower ovoid to 800x500 but looking at the survey overlay I believe it could grow to maybe 1000x600 and still open to NW & NE

The lower ovoid 1320-1620 @ 1000x600 @1g/t = a potential of 42m
@2g/t = a potential of 83m

plus 10m top ovoid
plus equivalents

This is all possible it's a monster

Update to my calculations:-?This is one ovoid intrusion with 2 different sized ovoids?Top ovoid starts at 420m deep and finishes 1320m?Bottom ovoid starts at 1320m ?my calcs are to 1620m depth but I believe it could eventually get down to 2320m depth.??Calculations including the Eastern,SE and NW crescent extensions and allowing for 1,200m of ore but not the Northern extension??"I've gridded the plan and fairly accurately I believe the area = 176,000 sq m after deduction for the dyke.?I've split the depth into 2 sections ?900m deep for the 650x375 section?300m deep for the 800x500 section?2.75 breccias specific gravity ?0.75g/t average breccias grade??Top 900m?900x 176,000 x 2.75x 0.75 divided 31.1=10.665m oz??Bottom 300m?300x 314,255 x 2.75 x 0.75 = 6.25m oz??Total = 16.9m oz?I've worked out the gold recovery rate is about 89% average of the breccias and sulphides ?Therefore the quantities are around 15.3m oz.??The 2.75 is conservatively on the low side?the 0.75g/t may increase.??It's all about the average grade but from what I'm seeing 1g/t or less is realistic "??From these calculations I've not taken into account for the High grade zone allowing this to compensate for any waste rock.?I've used 0.75g/t to allow for the shell cut off levels.??Conclusion?@0.75g/t = 15.3m oz (most likely)?@1g/t = 23.5m oz??That was from an old post, the comments from those 2 geologists on Antipa made me stop and think.?The concreted breccias below 1600m true depth (which is the deepest we have drilled down to) seem to be increasing in area and crackle breccias diminishing.?We have grades in the eastern breccias of a constant 1-2g/t.?Assuming my assumptions are anywhere near we have a lower ovoid size of 800x500.?This would equate for every 100m depth of 2.8m oz @1g/t and 4.2m oz @ 2g/t.??2300m seems to be a figure for deep mining extent.?so 1200m of ore is 1600m true depth?so that is 1000m of ovoid at 800x500?= 28m to 42m oz.?without copper equivalent.??The lower ovoid 1320-2320m depth could hold 28-42m oz without equivalent ?+ 10m in top ovoid

RE: Where to drill18 Apr 2021 13:32
This is from the Nov 2018 RNS

"New 3D geophysical models of the Havieron target were generated in late 2018 and reported to market on 27 November 2018. Combined, the new gravity and magnetic bodies cover approximately 600m x 600m when the outer shells of the bodies are considered. Results of modelling of gravity data outline a large irregular shaped body, some 300m across, from approximately 400m below surface (top of basement) to 1,200m below surface with an overall subvertical attitude. Result of modelling of magnetic data define a discrete elliptical shaped body approximately 450m across that is steeply dipping (subvertical) toward the south east with a depth extent from around 800m below surface to approximately 1,400m below surface (but the body may continue beyond 1,400m as this is the current limit of data resolution). When 3D gravity and magnetic models are compared there is a +500m vertical and +200m lateral offset between the centres of the causative bodies."

The gravity model starts at 400m from surface to 1200m
The mag model is 800-1400m

so between 800 and 1200 they overlap and this is the coincidence
that's 400-800m of ore depth that is where the highest results have been.

The 600x600 m width size is both models together and not necessarily the true width, however it says the model is steeply dipping towards the SE.
We know now that the western sides are fairly vertical and this looks like the west side of the gravity model.
It's not now a steeply dipping model to the SE as we know that extensions to the SE and east have extended outwards below 1300m from surface.
The bottom width as I have been saying is about 500m.
1300m below surface is starting to stretch the 3D mag capabilities.

At the moment we have 500m width which hasn't been defined yet, if the modelling appears quite accurate the chances of the bottom width hitting 600m look quite high.
If it's concreted breccias which look likely, this monster could keep on growing with good grades

Hi Malva
I see someone objected to my posts lucky I've saved them.
Were you querying the specific gravity I was using I didn't see the original .
The 2 types of breccias I know about are crackle and concreted.
Crackle have a specific gravity in a range around 2.65
Concreted breccias are around 2.84
Due to the fact Havieron has a mixture of these plus one other I averaged it out to 2.75.
The grades I've ignored the High grade sulphides to counteract any low grade zones, as there are more voids in the upper ovoid I lowered the average grade to 0.75.
In the lower ovoid there seems to me to be consistent high grades of 1-2g/t so an average somewhere between those to looks to be probable.
The deepest mine we are likely to get here is the 2300m depth below this looks improbable with ventilation, heat, removal of ore and viability
ATB:))

This is from the Nov 2018 RNS

"New 3D geophysical models of the Havieron target were generated in late 2018 and reported to market on 27 November 2018. Combined, the new gravity and magnetic bodies cover approximately 600m x 600m when the outer shells of the bodies are considered. Results of modelling of gravity data outline a large irregular shaped body, some 300m across, from approximately 400m below surface (top of basement) to 1,200m below surface with an overall subvertical attitude. Result of modelling of magnetic data define a discrete elliptical shaped body approximately 450m across that is steeply dipping (subvertical) toward the south east with a depth extent from around 800m below surface to approximately 1,400m below surface (but the body may continue beyond 1,400m as this is the current limit of data resolution). When 3D gravity and magnetic models are compared there is a +500m vertical and +200m lateral offset between the centres of the causative bodies."

The gravity model starts at 400m from surface to 1200m
The mag model is 800-1400m

so between 800 and 1200 they overlap and this is the coincidence
that's 400-800m of ore depth that is where the highest results have been.

The 600x600 m width size is both models together and not necessarily the true width, however it says the model is steeply dipping towards the SE.
We know now that the western sides are fairly vertical and this looks like the west side of the gravity model.
It's not now a steeply dipping model to the SE as we know that extensions to the SE and east have extended outwards below 1300m from surface.
The bottom width as I have been saying is about 500m.
1300m below surface is starting to stretch the 3D mag capabilities.

At the moment we have 500m width which hasn't been defined yet, if the modelling appears quite accurate the chances of the bottom width hitting 600m look quite high.
If it's concreted breccias which look likely, this monster could keep on growing with good grades

Hi thelearner
That's something I have trouble with , what is at the top of the ore body?
It's described as a mafic intrusion a non mineralised body.
It's somewhere between 50-75m thick but the true depth is not consistent over the ovoid and doesn't seem to go over the sulphides as the SE crescent goes to the top.
I've not seen what this intrusion is but most of the earlier drills hit this and may have fooled the geologists.
Drill Had10 seems to have not found mineralisation at all and finished in the intrusion.
It may have come from the Dyke but I'm guessing.
Good news is I have allowed for a certain amount of this volume but it is only a guess.
I see the historical drills are quoted as finding substantial alteration

Ionic LeachTM Capability
Ionic LeachTM is specifically designed to detect subtle but diagnostic element responses at surface that can characterise large mineral systems near surface and at depth. The element suite incorporates both commodity elements and key pathfinders from a single analysis that are diagnostic of precious and base metal, uranium, REE’s, PGE, diamond and Sn, Ta, Li systems.
https://www.alsglobal.com/-/media/als/resources/services-and-products/geochemistry/technical-notes/ionic-leach-technical-note.pdf

Hi Bellers
There's always gold left behind, Havieron has about 90% recovery rate.
I think Red Chris has a 50-60% recovery rate but then it's mainly copper.
JLP are making good money processing others waste, even then they don't get it all
ATB:))

Hi napthman
Short answer it could either
Long answer they are very close on the periodic table and how temperatures effect the electrons which determine what minerals develop but it's Sunday I won't go into that or it's even a bit beyond me :))

Hi Strudel, Bellers
Cos your listening you don't need to go on the naughty step :))
That all started after seeing a post by Beetroot in Nov 2018 who thought it was 2 anomalies.
The sizes of those 2 surveys are quite astonishing in those RNS they are very similar to my calculations.
It just shows how accurate they are and puts Goliath in a very good position
ATB:))

What minerals are likely to be at Goliath?
Referring back to the magma intrusion drawing minerals out of the bedrock and towards it, will have the effect of increasing the soil mineralisation at the surface.
The MMI surveys used would have taken soil samples in a grid pattern over goliath and can be seen on one plan. The mineral density should be higher the closer it gets to the intrusion.
These results show a great similarity to Havieron except there is no cobalt but there is tin instead.
Tin is very fluid when hot so I'm not expecting much in the centre but around the edges

https://greatlandgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/20190725-GGP-Announcement-Havieron-Drill-Results-Final.pdf
While looking at this RNS I realised a lot of the results GGP reported on the first 9 holes have been omitted by NCM including the cobalt and I came across this note:-

*The above results have been recalculated by Newcrest using company specific “data aggregation methods”. Length-weighted averages exceeding 1.0 g/t Au or 0.5% Cu for greater than or equal to 10m, with less than 1 m of consecutive internal dilution; and length-weighted averages exceeding 0.2 g/t Au for greater than or equal to 20m, with less than 10m of consecutive internal dilution. No top cuts are applied to intercept calculations.
Data aggregation methods adopted by Newcrest are industry standard practice for assessing mineralisation widths and their relationship to underground mining techniques.

The results were adjusted to suit underground mining techniques and standards

Where will they start drilling at Goliath.
Best place to start looking are the 2 historical plans of Havieron showing the magnetic and gravity surveys and also the historical drill plan.
The latter can be found on this RNS
https://greatlandgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/20190725-GGP-Announcement-Havieron-Drill-Results-Final.pdf
This one was after Newcrest first drills.
The drill locations and directions were overlaid on the mag survey and you can see Ggp holes 1-9. Most of these were vertical holes into the mag anomaly.
No 2 for some reason seems to be targeting the grav anomaly and only found alteration .
These drills were aiming for the 600-800m true depth, now on the previous RNS there is a plan showing the 2 survey positions.
These are described as centres being 200m apart horizontally and 500m apart vertically.
It's not 2 separate bodies but the drills were aiming for where they overlap(the coincidence)
The gravity survey suggested it went down to the 800m depth and the mag survey from 800-1400 depth.

In conclusion they are going to target the coincidence of the 2 surveys at Goliath.
The best place to see where is the plan of Goliath of the gravity survey with the mag contours overlaid on it. The tight rings off centre is the mag target.
This intrusion target can be seen on section A-A , it's from 200-1200m true depth, they are unlikely to drill deeper than this at this stage.
The magma intrusion would have drawn minerals from the bedrock into and towards it, this will be the alteration in the gravity survey.

The place to drill will be slightly south of 3 historical drills into the centre of the mag anomaly.
It's this anomaly that I calculated at 2.1bn tons.
It's dipping to the SE so I'm expecting an angled drill in that direction not vertical .