The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
Hydro,
The A$150 million is in reference to the cost of the CTP (copper treatment plant) (see page 8 of the Carrapeteena PFS link you shared). That number is under the headline 'copper treatment plant'. The range of estimated total pre-production capex for the carrapeteena SLC operation depended on the throughput rate and ranged from ~A$770-980 million (see figure 1.1 on page 10). The full pre-production capital cost breakdown is in figure 1.11, page 56 if you're interested, but remember this doesn't include GST to is lower than reality. If you read the DFS for the SLC operation they ended up with a pre-production capex of A$916 million. If we were to try and draw parallels with our SLC operation then we could remove that A$150 million from the 916 million as we have Telfer's processing plant.
The fact that the A$150m is in reference to only a tiny part of the rest of the capex is probably why it's much lower than you expected the total capex to be. I would expect our initial open stoping operation to be a lower capex than this, though, but probably not A$150m. I'm also conscious that our transport costs are going to be likely higher which will be reflected in our AISC, so I'm mighty glad our copper grades are good in the first few hundred meters of the SE crescent zone.
One of the benefits to our project is that our block cave capex ought to be significantly lower if it exploits the decline and existing infrastructure of what will be in place for our open stoping and SLC operations.
Here's a link to the DFS in case you're interested
https://www.ozminerals.com/uploads/media/170824_ASX_Release_Carrapateena_Feasibility_Study_Update_Presentation.pdf
Hello bamps,
Yes it's a tad bit shorter than HAD141 but it's very long in terms of its reach out of the ore body precisely due to the angle.
Are you a proponent of the idea that the NW crescent closure may connect with the eastern breccia at depth? I understand that you think the source could be from the SE crescent at depths (a very agreeable theory), but what do you think the extent is of the connections in the NW between the eastern breccia and the NW?
Hello bamps,
If you're meaning the sulfide ring then yes I would agree that it's a fair distance away. I assumed you were talking about the eastern breccia as that was the question being asked by MFU and what was in discussion. The intercept does extend ~200m away from the breccia extents but MFU's question about what was meant by expanding the eastern breccia by 200m is in reference to the quote in my previous post about the distance between two drill holes that targeted the eastern breccia.
HAD141W1 is an exciting drillhole. I have a lot of enthusiasm for the eastern breccia. It looks to test the upper extent of the cemented breccia named the 'northern pod' and then also test something quite far out. I have spoken to norfnorf and he has a good theory about why HAD141W1 is so long. Don't know if I'm allowed to say anything though.
Hello Bamps,
I don't see how the intercept being 200m away from the perimeter of the ovoid, given the comment in the RNS, "HAD141 has returned a mineralised intercept ~200m to the north west of HAD084.", HAD084 sits much further away from HAD141, with the ovoid perimeter being between the two holes, if the distance between the 2 holes is 200m then there's no way the perimeter, which is closer, is also 200m.
When you look at the scale which is shown in the NCM report (figure 6), where you can very visually see that the plan view's scale of 200m is much larger than the distance between the 23m intercept and the perimeter of the ovoid.
Also, If you mean that the drill is 200m deeper then it also doesn't match the scale on figure 16 of the NCM report, nor the cross section scales of GGP's figure 7. Just from a standpoint of reporting it, you'd much sooner say that the mineralisation is 200m away from the inferred eastern breccia outline as that would be way more impressive than being 200m away from another drill. I'm sure one day they'll be saying it though.
Hello MFU,
The reference to expanding the eastern breccia zone by 200m is from the new HAD141 drill hole (87m at 1.8 g/t Au and 0.05% Cu from 1,328.5m). The specific result within that drillhole is the 23m at 1.7 g/t Au and 0.01% Cu from 1,875m. Figure 3 of the GGP RNS shows this specific interval in relation to the eastern breccia mineralisation outline. They are saying that the evidence of mineralisation through this drill hole is 200m away from a previous drill hole, HAD084, which was the 'discovery hole' for the eastern breccia in the 29 Oct 2020 RNS. It's not necessarily 200m away from the breccia outline (although it does appear to marginally sit outside the eastern breccia outline), but it is 200m away from a previous eastern breccia drillhole.
Good results indeed!
Hi Bamps,
Could you share this report, if possible please? I find it interesting because I said last year that I preferred Blackbeard and Teach (before they recognised Teach as a target). Would like to see if there is any detail laid out in that report
Yes I just checked their website and it shows a nice figure of the local interpreted dyke and granite, and it's labelled which makes things easier!
https://artemisresources.com.au/project/paterson-central/
Hello Bamps,
https://ecat.ga.gov.au/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/65482
The document in this link is a collection of really good geophysical maps of the Paterson (AEM, Bouguer gravity, radiometrics) and interpretations (depth to basement, magnetic linear features, magnetic high boundaries). Most notably, it also shows the interpreted dykes from the geophysics. It covers part of PRE but unfortunately the mapping is cut off so you can't see goliath, outamind, atlantis, prefect, henryetta. The data only covers the north west of PRE. I see a North-South trending dyke that is just south of Los Diablos, very close, and I also see a major fault which cuts through the target.
I note that you have mentioned a dyke being next to outamind, and I wanted to ask whether this is from your own interpretation of the geophysics over the licence or if you are aware of any documents which cover dyke interpretation over the canning basin?
Bamps, you are right to say that the nifty dolerite dyke is post-mineralisation, and this has been extensively covered in the literature (see link below):
https://eprints.utas.edu.au/12960/2/Chs._1-3.pdf
However, I do think that post-mineralisation dykes can be an important indicator of magma moving into an existing fracture, which can be indicative of a target’s susceptibility to receiving mineralised fluids beforehand. That’s not to say every dyke that’s in a mineralised target came from a preexisting fracture, or that a dyke only shows up in mineralised systems, but it is to say that I think it’s one of those signs.
If you look at the link to the review in the link from my post earlier, you will see the proximity of the dyke to the inferred fault, so my interpretation is that the dyke didn’t confer the mineralisation but was a flag to show that previously a fault cut into the basin and allowed mineralised fluids to enter.
Of course, my post was in relation to Nifty and not to Havieron, which you seem to be discussing. My understanding is that Havieron’s dyke was also post-mineralisation. I would similarly say that the dyke was important in the sense that it may represent the exploration of a preexisting fracture or fault. Some dykes do not simply enter through preexisting faults and instead creates cracks in rock that it then exploits.
With the PRE and BH licences, I encourage you to look at if there are any interpreted dykes running near or through the magnetic targets. It’s very well possible that they have entered some targets via preexisting faults, at which point you can ask yourself if that means mineralising fluids could have made the same journey before. Dykes can represent a lot in that sense, which is why I put an emphasis on it in my last post.
https://warmelpdstageodocspub.blob.core.windows.net/gswa-publications/gsdrpt97.pdf
Goldworm is right to assert that the majority of discoveries in the Paterson have been through anticlinal dome structures (see link, page 27 under subheading Gold-copper in the Yeneena Basin). There is a geological basis for this, as an anticline is a good structural trap for mineralised fluids. This is particularly apparent in oil and gas exploration. However, synclines can form local basins which are also capable of hosting mineralisation. See the Nifty deposit (described in the same link, page 18), which is located in a basin within the Nifty syncline. There is a good figure on page 19 showing the basin and the dolerite dyke which intersects the basin (which I believe was an important factor of the mineralisation). The Nifty deposit is in the Paterson but it’s set in the Broadhurst formation, so it’s not the Lamil group that hosts Havieron or telfer. I share it to show the idea of basins.
Whilst I agree with the assertion that anticlinal and domal structures are more likely to host mineralisation, I would agree with Bamps (and I’m sure Goldworm also agrees) that there are other mineralisation styles that can be sought after, and it is the *overall* weighting of the different geophysical and geochemical surveys that determines whether it's worth the expense of drill testing. NCM/GGP will be fully aware of the idea of anticlines/synclines and domes/basins. Regarding kraken, they did interpret it to be in an antiform (age relationships between the rock types were unknown, which is different to an anticline where the rock layers become older towards the centre of the fold). Greatland interpret goliath to be a metasedimentary dome. Greatland are currently targeting IOCGs, ISCGs, intrusion-related & skarn-style gold and copper, orogenic (vein and reef style) gold and carlin-style gold. So there are a variety of things that they are considering. The drilling will help them understand the geological settings that each target finds itself in, and help with interpreting other AEM surveys in the future. The aeromagnetics are just one of many methods to assess drill targets, at the end of the day.
I would add that it shouldn’t matter what people’s backgrounds are, because if they’ve made a good point and cited the literature (as Goldworm has done), it is very easy to see if his point is correct or not. The point is in line with the literature, and it’s not a misinterpretation either, so it’s clearly correct from where I’m standing. Again, that's not to say there can't be a local basin or a different structural trap that may host mineralisation at some of these targets outside of Havieron. NCM shrugged off the magnetic targets at PRE that were previously drill tested as "due to lithological response, rather than sulfide accumulation", but that's not to say they should be written off just yet.
Hello PickandShovel,
As far as I understand it, the host rock contains magnetite (iron-containing ore), which is a magnetic species. When an intrusive is emplaced into the host rock, it brings different conditions to the surrounding environment. The intrusion can destroy or convert the magnetite through alteration. Usually, it oxidises the magnetite and converts it to a nonmagnetic species, hence the magnetic low (blue/purple). However, where redox conditions are reducing, the magnetite is reduced. This ferrous iron from the magnetite can combine with sulfur (if available and in correct conditions) to form pyrite, and other iron-containing sulfides such as chalcopyrites. Whilst chalcopyrite isn't magnetic, some sulfides are strongly magnetic, such as pyrrhotite, which is one of the main minerals at havieron. So that produces the red and white bullseye anomaly. It's an indirect indicator of mineralisation so other geophysical and geochemical surveys are performed and if there is a coincidence of positive indicators then that becomes a priority drill target. At least, for the havieron-style mineralisation. I hope that answers your question
TMT, I just mentioned this in another post, but I haven't suggested NCM would do a hostile TO. I just compared it to quietly buying shares, as you proposed, because both build a similar image.
I am unfamiliar with the SOLG/FN deal. If this is an example of a company external to a farm-in JV stepping in and bidding for SOLG, then that would make me reconsider the possibility of other companies acting similarly to GGP. Would you please inform me of the nature of that deal?
I don't think my point has been well understood at all, I'm afraid Dj. I compared NCM quietly buying shares (as opposed to doing it over the table by agreement) to a company doing a hostile takeover. Both seem cold-blooded in nature, and people would perceive the company as one that will swallow you up or take a bite when you aren't looking. As a result, I don't believe it's in NCM's interests to be engaging in quietly buying shares. I haven't once mentioned that I think NCM would do a hostile takeover. We're in complete agreement in that regard.
Thank you for taking the time to reply, TMT.
Your concerns, which you have condensed to legality, profitability and relational are sensible things to consider. I think we both just have different ideas of what is/isn't reasonable behaviour from a large mining company.
You mentioned that I didn't refute your talk about NCM's interest in taking a stake in GGP, but I believe I did. Your original point to this was that it would give NCM a head start in a bidding war for GGP, and I said that I don't think there would be any interest from mining companies in 30% (more likely 25%) of a project.
I would simply have to disagree on the notion that quietly buying GGP shares is a) as simple as you describe, and b) beneficial to NCM shareholders (to which you aren't alone in having a position on). When major mining companies have tried hostile takeovers of undervalued companies, they tend to develop a reputation that distances themselves from other companies in the sector. Nobody wants to get bought on the cheap, and I'm sure the GGP board, not least the shareholders, would be displeased with being bought on the cheap quietly. I think those two scenarios build similar images of NCM being a bit cold-blooded, so whilst NCM shareholders may see the immediate benefit, I think NCM's reputation (and therefore current/future relationships) would certainly change. It seems like we simply disagree on how such behaviour would be perceived.
You say that you don't want to talk about whether it's likely or unlikely, and that it's simply a possibility. I agree, but many things are *possible*. It's only the things which are likely that I am interested in. So, I suppose I'll have to agree to disagree. As we both have said, I'll assess things in terms of how NCM has behaved in the past and present.
I imagine FMV would be based on net present value (NPV), so once FS is completed it would be based on the resource estimate at that moment in time. Perhaps this is a question that could be taken up with GGP?