Member Info for coldcut

rcgl2 (reply to your post at 12:18).
Warren Irwin, posting under the nom-de-plume BDMinefinder on the CGP (Cornerstone) board on ceo.ca, had the following recent exchange of posts with Zoros:
BDM: July 30: “This stock (CGP) is sooooo cheap. This asset is very rare, very cheap and will be in demand as the M&A cycle builds”.
Zoros: Aug. 1: “Only another 7 years to go now guys ……..”
BDM: Aug. 3: “ – my bet is 7 months, not years”
Make of it as you will, but I have found that Irwin/CGP seem to be well informed (remember who was proven correct about the 5km zone of interest adjacent to the Cascabel licence forcing SOLG to concede)

It's worth bearing in mind that natural oxidation of sulphides, including chacopyrite, by thiobaccillus ferrooxidans creates Acid Mine Drainage from which copper was recovered historically by precipitation. The latter process involves a redox reaction between scrap iron and AMD as a result of which copper precipitates out of the AMD and iron goes into solution. The process was used extensively at Parys Mountain, Wales and the Avoca mines, Ireland during the 18th and 19th and even earlier in continental Europe.

Perhaps worth taking a listen to the Cambridge House 30-5-2021 webinar at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnaxkWgs5dk. This is a very long podcast (just over 3 hours), in which Irwin is featured from c. 51 minutes to c. 1hr:28, and specifically on CGP-SOLG from about 1hr:11:48. Despite referring to SOLG as having "hair on the name" and the "problem child of the Cu space", he is quite measured and positive in his comments, now that management problems are "getting sorted", SOLG and CGP are working better together, and in anticipation of appointment of a new CEO in the next few months.

Amongst other interesting comments and insights, on copper, nuclear energy and Greenpeace for example, he makes specific reference to the c. $1B combined value of the CGP-SOLG package which, in his view, will be wanted by the "majors" and the Chinese. More specifically, he notes (c. 1hr:12:21) that the package "will get sold over the near term".

That remark, coming from the 3rd largest shareholder in CGP, at about 10%, is worth noting in my view and may help to explain why the CGP SP has risen so markedly in the last week or so - up Cdn$0.42 to Cdn$4.79, or 9.6%, today alone. Something might well be brewing in the background.

He offers comments on various other issues. He is positive about SOLG's various "advanced projects"; considers that 0.3% Cu grades are too low for a start up operation, though sustainable for an established mining operation; and that good jurisdiction, grade and scale are key parameters to bear in mind when selecting investment options in the copper space.

DYOR and draw your own conclusions.

Indeed it is - thanks Pinot for bringing it to our attention, e.g. Cascabel/SOLG from c. 10:20 - "management hiccups"; one of top 5 global Cu projects; interim CEO an "amazing guy". Then from 13:04, in context of reworked mines, Cascabel will be built; and then remarks which might ring bells with today's RNS - long life projects pay off capital in early years and then able to keep going on lower grades in later years as only have to fund variable costs. Thought provoking stuff.

Schlemiel and Aquinaga,

Many thanks for finding and posting that link - an excellent read.

Thanks viable. Jurassic-Cretaceous age granite intrusions (including more intermediate compositions such as granodiorite) outcrop quite widely through the length of the central zone of Ecuador as shown (in red and labelled g or gp) on this geological map of Ecuador: https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/images/Eudasm/latinamerica/images/maps/download/ec12005_ge.jpg:

It is likely that parts of some of these intrusions do outcrop in SOLG tenements, but I'll have to check more thoroughly to be sure which and to what extent. There are particularly noticeable concentrations of such intrusions in Zamora-Chincipe, compared with areas further to the north

Zoros, re. your post at 12:04, 25-1-2020.

Some good questions to which I will try to reply as best as I can as a geologist – like a fish to the bait!

MINE DESIGN. Jason Ward noted in a recent interview that he was happy to pass the Alpala project on to the mining engineers/engineers to develop onward, it now having progressed into their realm of expertise, rather than that of geologists. Your quite reasonable query is best answered by others with that expertise, so with that strong caveat in mind, a few observations and thoughts:
• The SOLG RNS’s contain location maps which show the drainage patterns of streams and rivers in the vicinity of all of their key geochemical targets (Cacharposa, Vino (like the sound of that!), Bartolo, and Targets 13, 14 and 16)
• The radial pattern around many of these suggest that they are located on or near ridges and hill peaks, apart from Vino and Targets 13 and 14 which appear to be located on hill slopes (lack of contours and place names on maps make it difficult to identify the specific locations on Google Earth to be able to more closely observe the topography and thus make more specific observations)
• An open pit is the most logical initial development configuration to consider conceptually for a near surface, commercial discovery on a hill top, which, depending on ore body orientation relative to topography, could minimise the strip ratio. Subsequent development, presumably by block caving accessed by decline from a lower elevation valley location is a logical configuration to consider for subsequent underground development.

DRILLING. It is logical to step outward incrementally from the known to the unknown, as SOLG are doing, rather than step too out far in large increments. So far, their drill plan indicates current exploration via a sequence of separate DDHs, in order to maximise intersection lengths to gather valuable geological information. It remains to be seen if, as they explore greater depths, they will avoid drilling through already explored ground by employing mother-daughter hole fan drilling patterns, by use of any type of directional drilling, such as motorised drill heads or even by old fashioned, tried and tested down hole wedging.

PROTECTED FORESTS. I noted in a previous post (26-10-2019) that the two most eastern concessions in the combined Porvenir-Nangaritza block lie entirely within a designated forest area, which adjoin Porvenir 1 immediately to the east (labelled “Nanga” in RNS figures). Part of the Target 16 anomaly straddles across the boundary into “Nanga” but unless the boundaries of that forest have been modified over the last year, then all the Porvenir targets appear to lie outside that protected area.

There is little that I can add to what has already been stated in so many posts to date: Porvenir has all the hallmarks of being yet another stunning discovery for SOLG, a tribute to the expertise of the entire team - management, geologists and all other staff. Alpala by itself is a company maker, yet SOLG has within its overall tenement package a number of other potential company makers, not least Porvenir, and any one of which any other junior exploration company would be drooling over.

I’ll come back to a separate follow up on my previous Rio Amarillo post, but I take on board some comments offered in various responses, not least to keep geological detail to a minimum. In that spirit, the presentation made by Roger Breuer at yesterday’s Arlington Group webinar contains a number of excellent non-technical schematic diagrams which summarise the key features of porphyry deposits and block caving and which some might find of great help to better understand these highly technical subjects.

The key features of porphyry deposits are summarised in his slide 18, which is then used to interpret two recent discoveries, Kodiak, Canada (slide 19) and of most interest and relevance, Porvenir, slide 20. In the latter he emphasises a key SOLG statement from the 1-10-2020 RNS (but see RNS 16-9-2020 also for more detail): “..PDH-20-001 hole is drilling across the upper periphery of the core of this porphyry copper-gold system.” The accompanying schematic diagram makes it easy to visualise the context of that statement and the location of the various alteration zones.

His slide 13 provides an excellent visualisation of a block cave system, including a depth below surface column, and slide 14 then places that in the context of Newcrest’s block caving exploration strategy – which replicates and places depth parameters on the Figure 8 schematic mineralisation-alteration diagram presented by SOLG in the Oct. 8th Rio Amarillo RNS.

Perhaps others have noted the intriguing phraseology first used in the 1-10-2020 RNS, when the DDH had reached 523m, and repeated thereafter: “.. the dominant copper sulphide mineral observed to date is chalcopyrite..” That phraseology implies that other copper sulphides were observed in that core interval. What might that or they be – bornite perhaps as that would be compatible with the potassic core of the system exposed at, or very close to the present day surface?

PART 2.
While I am a geologist, I have no specialist expertise in or knowledge of porphyry and epithermal systems, so I would welcome correction or rebuttal of this admittedly very speculative, personal interpretation by those with greater knowledge/ expertise than myself. However, if anywhere near correct, it becomes easier to understand why the SOLG team are so excited by this particular prospect, as it potentially combines two distinct types of deposit in one system and begs comparison with the giant Yanacocha HS Au gold deposits system in Peru, operated by Newmont, and reckoned to be the fourth largest gold mine in the world (see Thomsen and https://www.mining-technology.com/projects/minera/ ).
But for now, one key question I would pose to SOLG geologists is:
Does the lithocap contain alunite, as I suspect it is on the presence of that mineral that the acidic alteration has been defined, and thus confirm that this is indeed an HS epithermal system, whether gold bearing or not?

I cannot help but wonder if, apart from highlighting the porphyry Cu-Au potential of the Rio Amarillo prospect, and the Varela target in particular, the Oct. 8, 2020 SOLG RNS is also providing geological hints that it may additionally contain what could be the icing on the cake – a high sulfidation (HS) state epithermal gold deposit.
Jackson (https://www.911metallurgist.com/blog/high-sulphidation-epithermal-deposits ) provides a good, general introduction to the characteristic features of such deposits while more technical, geological descriptions are provided by Arribas 1995 (http://sociedadgeologica.cl/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/1995_Arribas.pdf ), White and Hedenquist 1995 (SEG Newsletter, No. 23, pp. 9-13) and Thomsen 2017 (https://www.researchgate.net/publications/314183136).
Some of the key features of HS deposits include gold deposition from highly acidic fluids (vs. low sulfidation Au deposits from c. neutral pH fluids); advanced argillic alteration haloes in which alunite is a key alteration mineral; feldspar destruction; and where present, as many lithocaps are barren, variable gold deposition modes, in vuggy quartz, breccias and disseminated. See Jackson for a more detailed general introduction.
The key hints to me that this might be an as yet unspoken (by SOLG) possibility are:
1. The scale of the Varela lithocap (p.1), easily visible on Google Earth at latitude 0deg 33’ 47.59N, longitude 78deg 10’ 35.43W;
2. Intense acid alteration in a highly leached lithocap (and variant repetitions pp. I, 3, Fig. 9 caption);
3. A fully preserved, whole column porphyry system.. .. Bi, Se, Te and Li at surface .. .. Li halo (pp.2, 3), the latter coincident with the advanced argillic alteration zone in the schematic section of a full column system, Fig. 8;
4. Magnetite and feldspar destructive, clay rich hydrothermal alteration (p. 3, Fig. 10 caption). Feldspar destruction, and replacement by alunite amongst other minerals, is one of the key alteration processes noted in highly acidic, HS systems;
5. Gold bearing hydrothermal breccia (Fig. 10);
6. What appears to be drusy form quartz lining open cavities (Fig. 11, bottom right).
PART 2 TO FOLLOW

"Veryindependent Research" {https://veryindependentresearch.net/conferences/} is hosting a 5 day web conference August 10th - 14th which will feature presentations by a wide range of mining/exploration/royalty companies, including SHG. The SHG presentation is scheduled for 12:15pm US/Canada Eastern time, August 10th. Registration here: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_odrO5sx_QO2NG7xRWw1g2Q

Cora Gold are one of 6 companies scheduled to make a presentation in a Spotlight Mining "Wildcard" webinar at 17:00 hours (London, England time), June 25th. Registration available at this link: https://spotlightmining.com/register/

Maybe at this event: https://twitter.com/HUM_gold/status/1193827795824185344?s=20

Thanks very much for your posts and links Padmaster - much appreciated.

As noted yesterday, I’ve looked for overlaps between various blocks of concessions and the indigenous territories and/or protected forests only, as follows:
PORVENIR block. None of the concessions in this block overlap with indigenous territories, although the two eastern concessions (Nangaritza 1 and 2) lie entirely within a protected forest area. However, the key exploration targets lie further west in the Porvenir 1 and 2 concessions, which do not overlap with protected forest. Therefore there does not appear to be any apparent overlap conflicts for this exploration target.
CISNE LOJA block. All concessions in this block lie far removed from both protected forest areas and indigenous territories.
TIMBARA block. Very little overlap with protected forest, other than a small portion in the SE corner of Timbara 3. There is a more significant overlap with indigenous territory (of the Shuar people), as most of Timbara 1 lies within their area. However, the key exploration target in this block lies in Timbara 2, which lies outside, to the west of the indicated boundary of that indigenous territory.
LA HUECA block. None of the concessions in this block overlap with protected forest areas. However, the entire block lies within the territory of the Shuar people.
On this analysis (which is open to correction), it is reasonable to anticipate that SOLG may encounter retention difficulties with regard the entire La Hueca block, Timbara 1 and the Nangaritza 1 and 2 concessions in the Porvenir block. Indeed, it is resolution of issues such as these which may well be delaying issue of the new national concessions map.
This assessment, as with that posted yesterday, is inferred from the accuracy and completeness of information recorded in the various figures presented by Vandegrift et. al., 2018. These assessments are just a personal interpretation and, as always, it’s up to all readers to DYOR and make your own interpretations.

Thank you all for your remarks. A quick response.
Shipright - that is a fair comment about who is impinging upon whom. And indeed they have relinquished some licences, which might reflect either sensitivity and/or lack of geological prospectivity.
Eish - I'm going to take a closer look at the enlarged portions of the maps over Cisne Loja and Porvenir about which NM has expressed so much enthusiasm recently. Doing this manually is quite tedious and would be much easier to do if it was all in a GIS! But maybe there could be volunteers to take on doing this for each of the 11 remaining projects, and posting their observations to this board?

There is an interesting paper at this link which provides maps of concessions, protected forests and lands claimed by indigenous peoples in Ecuador: https://ecuadorendangered.com/research/reports/RIC-Mapping-Report-v1.1-20180117-eng.pdf.
Enlarged versions of each of the maps can be accessed via embedded via hot-links (NB. If the download does not include the maps for whatever reason, just type the lead author name and title into Google and that should bring up an alternative version of the pdf with maps).
By enlarging each map and focusing on the Cascabel and Blanca Nieves (BN) region, and then comparing those with concession maps issued by SOLG, it appears that neither the Cascabel nor the BN licences lie within or close to protected forests or the territories of any indigenous peoples. More specifically:
Figure 1A: this shows concessions granted before and after Aug. 7, 2017. The unusual shape of the Cascabel licence is very easy to spot (pre-Aug. 7, yellow highlight), with the two BN licences to the north and northwest (cf. March 2019 SOLG concessions map).
Figure 1B. A map of protected forests. None near Cascabel or BN, the closest to the northeast of Cascabel along the border with Colombia.
Figure 3. A map of indigenous territories (NB. The authors caution that the indicated extent of such lands is approximate), the Awa people in this part of Ecuador. Their principal territory lies just to the north of BN, with a small outlier west of Cascabel, but in neither instance does the mapped extent of these territories impinge on any SOLG licence. I commented on the Awa people’s claims in this region previously (my post Oct. 4) but also noted that a meeting between Gov. and Provincial officials, representatives of indigenous peoples, SOLG etc was to be held in the 3rd week of October. Presuming that meeting occurred on schedule, I await its outcome with great interest as it has major implications not just for Cascabel but more specifically the development of El Cielito, the SOLG “go for gold” strategy and the possible focus of interest for gold streaming companies - and with that, the re-financing of SOLG itself.
Figures 2A and 2B. Cascabel lies within an extensive zone of degraded, remnant forest (Fig. 2A) and partly within and without what are mapped as “Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas” (Fig. 2B). However, to the best of my knowledge (please correct me if I’m wrong), neither of these types of biodiversity were comprehended by the President’s 2017 constitutional referendum.

Nick Mather presentation at the recent Red Cloud Oktoberfest conference Sept. 26, 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=zklCzhRI8rA

There could be an additional reason why there is a delay in obtaining permits to commence drilling, at least at El Cielito - local opposition: https://lahora.com.ec/carchi/noticia/1102274725/malestar-por-la-presencia-de-mineria-en-el-cielito-y-el-baboso. Another article, published at about the same time, noted the opposition of the Awa, an indigenous people, to all mining as a result of the environmental devastation caused by illegal mining. Such local opposition could well explain why Nick Mather seemed to be at pains to emphasise community relations in the interview. The lpress article above, published 24-9-2019, concludes on what to me seems to be a positive note as it notes that 4 Governors, various regional and state authorities, as well as representatives of Solgold will meet again in the 3rd week of October "to deal with mining requirements and other enacted situations, which will be carried out in El Baboso." Note "will be carried out" as that seems to imply that there is strong support from the authorities to support such developments.

The Constitutional Court of Ecuador will today deliver its verdict on a petition (9-19-CP) to sanction an anti-mining plebiscite which would seek to ban all metallic mineral exploration, prospecting and mining in the southern province of Azuay. The petition was lodged by the Prefect of that province and has generated a level of national support as well as several pro and anti-mining marches and demonstrations. Although the petition relates only to Azuay, the outcome could have implications for other parts of the country. Those opposing the petition have, amongst other arguments, argued that the development of a national resource is a competence to be determined at national rather than provincial level. A space to watch.
https://lahora.com.ec/noticia/1102273088/propuesta-antiminera-en-el-azuay-genera-debate-en-ecuador-
https://www.corteconstitucional.gob.ec/index.php/quienes-somos/eventos/details/2019-09-17/88-sesion-del-pleno-n-030-o-2019.html