The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
Bamps and paddy, you both exemplify why Scally is such an exciting prospect.
Take a look at Figure 6 in this report (page 17):
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjGn72ctvXtAhX8URUIHVDgCwsQFjABegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwarmelpdstageodocspub.blob.core.windows.net%2Fgswa-publications%2Fgsdrpt97.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3vf9ILuxfcDcthKhwh4IK0
(If the link doesn't work, the publication is titled "Mineral Occurrences and Exploration Potential of the Paterson Area" (Ferguson, Bagas, Ruddock).
And compare this to the image from GGP:
https://greatlandgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/PatMagTen_05-08-20.jpg
When you look for where the Scally targets lay on Figure 6 using Telfer, Havieron, Triangle and Black Hills targets as guidance, you can see that the Scally targets sit just within the Permian cover (see figure 5, page 16 for the key), but sits on the fault lines which straddle with Lamil group sedimentary. The fault lines in the GGP figure seem to continue into the Permian cover, beneath it.
Note that in the report, it says that "The largest number of mineral occurrences (91) are in the vein and hydrothermal mineralisation category. Of these, 40 are Telfer-style gold occurrences in the Lamil group (in the broad Telfer Dome area) and four are base metals, also in the Lamil group."
The fault lines which run from Minyari Hills Dome, to Black Hills, to Havieron, also pass through Scally, but Scally is different to Havieron in that its Permian cover sits much closer to the Lamil group sedimentary, where so many mineral occurrences are found, and as a result the Lamil group sedimentary is likely to be closer to surface.
Havieron gets a mention in the report, which says, "About 50 km east of Telfer at Haveiron (10908), below 420 m of Permian cover rocks, Newcrest intersected copper–gold mineralization (12 m at 2.2 g/t Au) in carbonate-rich rocks of the Puntapunta Formation during drill testing of coincident magnetic and gravity anomalies (Henderson, 1993).". More recent surveys have also pointed at the Lamil group running under the Permian cover (see image B):
http://www.portergeo.com.au/database/mineinfo.asp?mineid=mn224
So, the big indicators point to me that the Lamil group/Puntapunta formation runs below the (shallow?) Permian cover which *just* begins at Scally, and so was missed as a target a few decades back. The Havieron deposit is deep and continues to remain open at depth, where you would maybe(?) start seeing Malu formation (seen at Telfer). I am starting to believe that the deep vertical drill at Blackbeard was to get an idea of the depth of the Permian cover, then the underlying Wilki, then the Puntapunta (and whether the 2DIP-magnetic coincidence shows mineralisation here), and finally whether they can begin to touch the Malu formation (where Telfer mineralisation was found) that sits directly beneath.
Just to the SE of Blackbeard, there is a very large magnetic anomaly with ground gravity anomaly similar to Havieron in its intensity. Back in August 2019, the MMI sampling showed that this part of the licence had some of the highest copper levels. The details of the other elements were not included but this coincidence anomaly was one of the areas which was planned for the 2DIP lines, on an east-west direction at its northernmost and southernmost points. I quite like the look of this anomaly, so I'm hoping that this is a target that is explored at some point, maybe in the next drilling campaign? I'm not sure why the planned 2DIP lines were never done here.
MMI samples and planned 2DIP lines:
https://greatlandgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/20191030-GGP-Announcement-Scallywag-Geophysics.pdf
Ground gravity and magnetics with 2DIP lines (note the two which were not executed):
https://greatlandgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/20191030-GGP-Announcement-Scallywag-Geophysics.pdf
All the best
I saw this video of Newcrest’s underground bulk mine. I didn’t realise just how effective it can be, given the correct ore body and rock types. Definitely worth a watch if you’re like me and wanting to learn a little about this potential mining method we might use.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qp7bm24PDwc&t=329s
All the best
Looks like the website was updated/redesigned on Dec 13th, and all of the figures from PRE, Black Hills, Scally etc are gone. Hopefully will come back and are still polishing the website up, but I haven’t got any of the images saved...
Thank you Bamps. I don't want to give the impression that I think 3Ds are proof of breccia, but they are indicative of a potential breccia, hence why they do the targeting and why I say presumably. I should have said potentially. The potential eastern breccia that was published in this figure was given a particular shape. What do you reckon has led them to suggest this shape? It's quite significant in size
https://greatlandgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Figure-2_Schematic-plan-view.jpg
Surely they haven't arrived at the shape purely from drilling?
Thank you magictrades for the explanation. To be clear, I do not suggest that they should be publishing the 3D images as proof of a breccia. Instead, if they are indeed using these images as a indication of target within their Havieron campaign that can then be confirmed once drilled, then I ask why these images aren't published like the 3D images for PRE and Scally.
That is why I have the tinfoil hat out, wondering if they see lots of nice coincidence areas with the 3D magnetics and gravity which extend beyond the crescent zone and they don't want to attract too much speculation or excitement until they can drill/confirm it.
Hi Bamps,
Thanks again for your reply. The reported limitations on the 3D magnetic data are apparently around 1400m, which is seen in images such as the Goliath target (https://greatlandgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Figure4_Goliath-target.jpg)
In the figure, the anomalous signals appear to intensify around a main body, presumably breccias. The anomalies look like they are detected around 500m away from the putative breccias. So, if the eastern breccia sits at around 1700m, and the modelling is detectable up to 1400m, does that not mean that a lower intensity signal could be picked up at 1400m from a body that sits at as deep as 1900m depth?
The other breccias were not original targets but were later identified/confirmed by GH and CB after drilling, but they must have spotted the anomalies from the 3D modelling beforehand. They have not published these 3D magnetic/gravity surveys. So, I wonder if they do, in fact, see these anomalies, and are not publishing them because they want to slowly release the news about the array of breccias at havieron that can be explored. Are they maybe keeping their cards close to their chest, playing each one slowly and with purpose?
Hi AAA. Regarding profitability below 1500m, I am only entertaining the notion, rather than a source of any kind. The deeper you go, the harder it is to access, generally speaking. My wider point is *if* the eastern breccia was unprofitable due to being -1500m, then the RNS wouldn't have emphasised the discovery with the enthusiasm that it did. So, with that being said, I would like to see what the surveys looked like at -1200 to -1400m to see if there were any low-level intensity signals from the eastern breccia to maybe get a rough idea of what could be explored.
Thank you, bamps and aidinandabettin. Apparently the limits of the magnetic surveying is -1400m, and the eastern breccia was found from -1500m. This was where my confusion began as they have crafted a particular shape for the eastern breccia. However, these breccias have produced fantastic mineralisation and so must have some higher density anomalies which could be picked up as a lower intensity signal at, say, -1200-1400m. I understand that at this point the breccia may be unprofitable to mine, but if that were the case then I can't see why they'd report its discovery with much enthusiasm. I am definitely looking forward to seeing what the drill results look like!
I have seen that, for havieron, there is a historic magnetics image published of ground magnetic and gravity anomalies superimposed on what appears to be a magnetic intensity image. But, it doesn't strike me to be of the same nature as, for example, the Scallywag survey data. The images seem to be simplified so that it only shows the coincidence between the gravity and magnetic surveys, but not the semi coincidence which (I assume) explains the other breccias found.
I am trying to understand how the shape of the newly proposed eastern breccia has been derived. It looks very promising and I assume that the shape has been derived from the ground magnetic/gravity anomalies, but a couple of things are unclear to me:
- All the other targets in the projects have published residual gravity and reduced pole magnetic images. Havieron does not, as far as I can find, but it is purported that there have been 3D gravity and magnetic models from surveys. The phrasing on Greatland Gold's website is "Breccia mineralisation was initially identified internal to the crescent zone but most recently has been recognised external to the crescent sulphide zone on the east, NW, and SE". I understand from the likes of magictrades that there are passing theories about the sulphide crescent being a secondary event after the breccia formation, in which case breccia formation could very well extend beyond the limits of the crescent. In this case, I take it that the eastern breccia came from looking at the 3d gravity and magnetic surveys. In which case, wouldn't the surveys be helpful in identifying potential breccias surrounding the crescent zone? Are they published somewhere? If GH and CB can see these models, then surely they knew the eastern breccia potentially existed before they drilled it, which means that they know if there is possibly another breccia to the west and SE of the crescent, as speculated by other posters in the past.
I do not have any background in geophysics aside from private reading, but this is something which has been at the front of my mind since the quarterly update and I haven't spotted much talk about it. Are the survey images available to us to see? Am I missing something here? Any discussion on the matter would be valuable to me. Thanks all
I'll be a contrarian here and suggest that the estimate was positive for us in the long run. The share price needs a stable support level and 22p fits that need quite nicely before Scally and MRE updates launch the valuation upwards. Remember what happened recently with the SP being driven down from 27p to its much lower support level of 18-19p.
GLA
I am not particularly concerned by a retrace. The SP explosion after 19p was a problem as it didn't "stagnate" at that level to develop a layer of protection at that price. Now, with people selling off, the nearest support level is around 16p, so naturally the sell offs approach that level. GGP has done very well with resting at specific prices before each SP rise. Recent purchase from GDXJ coupled with the big September update means the price deservedly should be above 25p, but the SP needs to develop layers of protection first at lower prices (IMO).
Good luck to everyone and HFG!
Okay I see that in 2011, a farm-in agreement with Unity Mining was made, and the project ended in 2015. I suppose that this got picked up again by Newcrest. The fact that this was continued as an asset is very reassuring.
Thank you very much for the link! I am read-up on the website's descriptions, but it seems a bit confusing because they only seem to have rolled their sleeves up since 2018. I assume this is with Newcrest, but they phrase it as "JV partners", implying they did other work in the past, which I can't seem to find. I ought to check their annuals from 2000s before I ask such questions, actually. You can tell that I'm having a lazy Saturday!
Fair point. Thank you for your insight! I haven't read much on Warrentinna because I'm struggling to find many talking about it. With regard to Firetower, is it the same project as the one they started in 2006?
Is anybody else anticipating updates from the Warrentinna project? More importantly, does anybody have an opinion on it yet? I am eager about Scallywag, but I feel like Warrentinna's potential for open pit mining gives it a lot of edge; a nice diversification of projects and one which is rather economical.