Member Info for Rockhead

Maybenot,

I won't argue over what one might regard as 'nuggety' but It is (IMO) a potentially misleading term. Suffice that the Cononish vein is a quartz breccia (fragments) that contains fine gold and other minerals, mostly between the quartz and some within it.

Your comment re drill spacing is well made and ideal, however having the finance available to turn the mountain into a pin-cushion is another thing. Interestingly, while much of the vein was covered by drill intersections and hence ore-blocks of 50 to 100m size, a part was drilled at 10 to 30m blocks that showed as much variation as over the rest of the vein of larger blocks, suggesting that being obvious, it was known. (Scotgold Final Cononish Development Study 30-04-13). Hence, weighted averaging of all the blocks came up with a good mine grade (11 to 12 gAu/t) overall. The only option then is to mine out the lot, accept the likely variability above cut-off grade and hope that you end up with the same average grade. This still makes the vein very attractive to mine, but how you mine it is another matter and SG have failed to get it right and deliver the tonnage.

The controversy over the 'revelation' of a nearby 'second vein' is amusing, since there are several! They were first detected in soil surveys done by previous owners. A couple of splays off the main vein adit were excavated for a few metres and a few others drilled, but none showed great potential. Decades later, a couple of years ago, SG's ion-leach soil testing around Cononish confirmed these and others nearby, but none have been tested AFAIK.

Memories are short for some. I'm just showing my age! LoL!

Regards R.

Indeed Baz, it could go the way of Dalradian, but the BoD an a few significant investors have a lot of skin in the game to let it go tits up. Odds anyone on new funding, go private or takeover? Maybe that's why they need a 'review' to twist someone's arm?

ATB, R.

'This is what happens when you don't find the exploration side of a mine.'

Maybenot, there is a 'mountain' of geo-data with SG. See the original JORC report of Snowden from June 2008 and the final Cononish Development Study of March 2012 where fig. ES.2 shows the drill data and ore-blocks, or would you like to turn the mountain into a pin-cushion?

The problem is not the geology or grades in situ, but the organization of mining. The Bara BFS of July 2015 indicated the need of 2 development faces, one LHS in preparation and one LHS in production to achieve P1 production and twice those for P2. Just now we appear to have just one development and one LHS in progress. Stope mining technology has not progressed that much in 8 years, so little wonder we are not consistently achieving mining targets.

You may have a point about retention of geologists in the last 11 years with little continuity, but ironically this has added breadth of new initiatives and techniques to the geo-data store since 2016.

By the way, the Cononish vein is not 'nuggety.' It is not like Alba's Clogau mine in Wales.

The above IMO and from two mine visits in 2016 and 2017.

Let's hope things get better.........jam tomorrow for Baz!

Regards all, R.

Oh well, over the years we've had Canonbie;s canal, Yayay's tales of South Worcestershire and Andrews OCD, so why not BP's Musk v Zuckerberg contest. The next RNS will thankfully end this thread. Then normal service will be resumed with everyone back to bickering about SGZ.

GLA, R.

Maybe those on this BB have empathy for you.

HAND, R.

BP, so now you have 'entrepreneurial genius'? PMSL, LoL!

Troj, no germanium to speak of, but a fair bit of Tellurium:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169136818300192

Baz, gold not a by-product, but this year, perhaps a non-product?

Regards all, R.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCtouot15cA

Some like to live in adversity, but like with Trump, Boris and Nicola, it can eventually turn on them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmxaT37yeOs&list=RDCmxaT37yeOs&start_radio=1

Posts recommendations

faustus100 2 28

Ginoir 1 2

BlakeneyP 2 1

Andrew1987 4 1

Hmmmm.

TTFN, R.

SG could not afford Pep. Need to look somewhere more lowly in the Chanpionship than Watford. Reading perhaps?

GLA, R.

It was already announced that the Au grade for LHS1 was disappointing. Once started, a stope needs to be completed in good time regardless of grade as long as it is above cut-off grade.

The important item is that LHS2 was made ready by the completion of the first stope and development for LHS3 is on-going. This rhythm needs repeat and continue at P1 production rate to ensure cash flow.

The development feed grades to process are encouraging. The feed grade from LHS2 is to watch for.

GLA, R.

Did you mean Marx Brothers? There were 5 of them. That would be too bad!

For a change! The bank holiday weekend on this BB has been like 'The Three Stooges'................except they were funny!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRsio9Xix7c

GLA, R.

At least he' using a bigger crucible that at the BPT in 2017! LoL!

Have a good w/e all, R.

Ooops! "....prosper at variable grades of 5 to 10g/t Au..." That should have been 5 to 15g/t Au.

".....the proof is in the pudding."

Indeed, there have been few 'raisins' to be seen in it since January, as you say! This has come about by a failure to have LHS1 ready by the time CAF2 was complete and so far LHS1 has disappointed. This has little or nothing to do with the JORC statement, which along with the vein, drilling data and assays, remain valid in the context of the time. Mining over a longer time will tell if that work was valid.

I don't do fairytales (except for great grand-kids), but prefer facts. I didn't hear of any complaints when CAF1 and 2 where mined last year in Q2 & Q3,

https://www.scotgoldresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/SGZ-RNS-Production-Operations-Q3-2022-Final-.pdf

but since then things have gone sadly astray.

AISI (from a geo-view of years of data), with a 'cut-off of 3.5g/t Au, SG need to mine enough tonnage to survive at 4 to 5/t Au, prosper at variable grades of 5 to 10g/t Au and give thanks for anything better!

Andrew, you'll be relieved to hear that I'm not a miner.......no good with a shovel, but not bad with a geo-hammer in my time!

Making sweeping assertions on (IMO) limited evidence suggests that you are not an accountant!

HAND, R.

"Enough have been mined to show the statement isn't right." We are on the 3rd stope LHS1. Were the grades in CAF1 & 2 poor? NO! How many stopes are expected in the mine illustration here?

https://www.scotgoldresources.com/projects/cononish-project/

SG has only mined a tiny fraction of them and you claim that is 'enough' to justify your assertions.

With respect Andrew, I hope you're not an accountant. LoL!

ATB, R.

"Will the JORC statement be updated accordingly? It should be done as a priority as it is misleading."

Andrew, how is it misleading? It was based on the drilling results available at the time. Up-dating it requires new information from more that the limited area mined so far and it would IMO achieve nothing. The vein is what it is and no amount of effort in churning data will replace getting on and (as you say) getting it mined in sufficient quantity.

I'll leave others to debate the financials.

I see no merit in preferring such as Africa for mining. UK success, jobs and communities are IMO more worthy of support.

GLA, R.

Crucially they need to proceed development and preparation of LHS2 before LHS1 is complete.

Eck, well picked out relevant item on LHS choice.

The 2D polygonal blocks based on all the drilling data prior to ~2014, were mostly of >~50m size, but in some parts were as small as ~20m and showed the similar range of grade variation. Hence, a 115m stope might encounter the same range of say 3.3(cut-off) to >20g/t Au. Hence, the need to mine the lot and hope the overall grade is around the JORC calculated average expected for the whole mine. Cherry picking is inefficient and with only a few working places in a small mine, resource management is difficult.

Fingers crossed, R.