Member Info for Ella10

Steve,
I disagree - if that were the case a simple line in today's RNS would have stated that.

Looking at the IP survey results with my non geo knowledge I assume drill 5 has the best chance of a decent extension at depth?

It is interesting that some posters appear to be stating this board is for positive comments only. Negative or neutral comments apparently not allowed. I am sure this attitude on the BB will ring many more warning bells with potential investors than a post querying why the change of approach from the original planned soil surveys. Obviously not all regular posters fall into the above category, there are a couple with more balanced views.

Hi Orowe,
How did you conclude that drilling starts this week - not disputing it - just curious.
I'm still pondering the line kms we are flying. I would have thought to complete the collection and analysis will be a significant period of time but there may be some areas they are already happy to drill. I would be happy if someone could confirm my sanity with regard to the size of the survey. To follow this size a survey by a mere 18 drills for an asset we may divest is odd. OR are the 18 holes just to validate the survey rather than prove up resource? Do AA have their own assay access - at one stage they had some sort of lab at rig setup on trial.

LittleWing,
A decision to mine also forces AAs hand which makes me wonder if that is what CB is planning.

I'm still trying to digest this. The mention of a mine seems veey early - is this in an effort to force Anglo's hand so that other players can come to the table?

Beat me to it!!!

I'm hoping Iceberg is rapidly typing up an update to his blog.

They are surveying a large area and that is after all the soil analysis and previous surveys. There must be convincing evidence that we have 2 very large systems.

Hi JDau,
Yes that's what I was referring to.
Thanks Littlewing,
Assuming we have the souce how does that affect our prospects?

Is there a geological significance to the the second IP diagram from the top?

I have been trying to understand how much of the Cheyeza and Muswema structures the new surveys would cover. Interestingly as far as I can tell the Feb call said 45,700 line km(a heck if a lot!) and the latest call said 5,200 line km. The latest number is more believable but still a large survey area (about 260 km2). It looks like cost of this may be somewhere over $100 a km. I wonder if the Feb number was an error as it seems massive. I think both were around 13mins into the calls.

Jwoz,
I just this minute redid my calcs and assuming hole 1 assay results reported any intercepts above 0.3% cu then it will have been at least 900m of close to 0.3%. (Assuming I've got it right the second time).

Cygnus,
I think either of those are an option. My concern is the we don't know how much mineralisation exists deeper than 552m (from first assay results) presumably it is all below 0.3% or it would have been seperately reported in the RNS. This means we don't really know if drill 1 added significantly to the dimensions. There are the following 2 statements in the RNS which add some comfort.
'· The assay results confirm that the mineralisation at Racecourse forms a very substantial copper-gold mineral system and there is significant potential to expand the Mineral Resource, which is currently estimated as 71Mt @ 0.44% Cu & 0.064g/t Au, at a 0.3% cut-off and classified as Inferred in accordance with JORC (2012)'
'The assay results from the first hole at the Racecourse deposit are exciting in that they confirm mineralisation for almost a kilometre down-plunge. The overall grade of 0.33% CuEq is very pleasing and I am particularly encouraged by the grade uniformity over the entire intercept.'

Hi SeisNav,
Yep he said the reorganisation was in relation t a commercial transaction. I think Kalaba may be in a seperate company (Zamsort) in order to try to leave historical issues behind and this will form some sort of community effort no idea exactly what - was Kalaba mentioned by name in the latest investor call?. I think the Handa licence is the deal licence. Nick mentioned the survey company being from SA but didn't say anything about the drilling company except it was a cost efficient deal. I think AA may be doing the drilling and that it is Cheyeza and Muswema. I haven't decided whether this is as part of a deal or prior to a deal being finalised. All mere speculation of course. I'm not a geologist, Chemist or mining expert but from what I understand they have already identified copper oxide at Cheyeza and are now looking for sulphides. Will these require 2 different processing plants?

Additionally, the Feb investor call from about 13mins talks about having identified 2 areas that may contain what they are looking for and Vasillios then goes on to mention 50m spacing survey to target drilling with regard to Cheyeza and Muswema/Lumbeta.

I think it was only Nick who mentioned Fwiji as a drill target in the IC I don't think Vasillios mentioned any target names (happy to be corrected). The placing RNS mentioned Muswema and Cheyeza. Is it possible the confusion at the start of the call resulted in Nick accidentally stating Fwiji instead of Muswema? Just a thought.

The Jan presentation appears to state Muswema as highest priority target. Additionally, slide 11 suggests targets have been reprioritised.

And interestingly these guys use 0.05% cut-off due to the in site recovery techniques that they can use
http://www.thormining.com/sites/thormining/media/pdf/asx-announcements/20210127-maiden-copper.gold-estimate-alford-east-sa.pdf

For those interested in cut-off grades this is a recent JORC estimate from Newcrest which shows how they have derived cut-offs
https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02359116-3A564507?access_token=83ff96335c2d45a094df02a206a39ff4