PURCELL - PHILIPS FORMATION - Aeonian -
A junor exploring south of Cranbrook - with in - the Purcell Group Formation.
Same cordillera as - Driftwood .
Aeonian describes - philips formation -
purple sandstone argillites - and goes on to say,
this same formation in, Montana hosts - uranium.
PHILLIPS FORMATION
The Phillips formation is a relatively minor bed at Koocanusa and has only been observed in the southwestern part of the property.
It comprises of a purple to red, fine-grained and micaceous sandstone with occasional argillite layers nearer the top of the formation.
Volcanic ash from the equivalent formation in the United States (the contiguous Bonner Formation) has a Uranium-Lead isotopic age of 1,401 million years (+/- 6 million years).
Here is Aeonian's - chart - depicting the purcell group lithology, straigraphy,
showing the kinds of lenses.
https://aeonianresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/KOO_Strat.jpg On their website - they mention the
purcell group does contain -
copper, silver, lead, zinc, cobalt, in it's lenses - and i guess we can now add,
unranium.., so say they.
PJX - in my last post, also mentions - zinc, copper, cobalt, etc....
right below, MGX's Marysville.
So let's step back and analyze the Purcell super group - we have lowland silt causeways in the corridors between the rocky range and purcell ranges.
we have the lowland silt lenses that were built up over time by layering of watershed bringing in differnt kinds of geology along with, the stomatolites which involve shallow reefs.
Yet.. i tend to look at it in a diff way... it was once all ocean.
then mountains formed along with, seismic activity - lifting the ocean floors - making mountains.
some lenses lifted atop mountains, others remained low lying.
some, mixed together.
Same geology,
just the sequencing is sometimes different.
Juniors north of, Driftwood tapping into dolomites - ree's - several kinds.
Juniors soulth of Cranbrook still on the purcell formation - ree;s and zinc, copper cobalt.
Across the B.C. border going down into Idaho or, Montana...
same occurence same minerology.
just the layering is sequenced in a different layer.
Driftwood has the argillites.
Has the irons, and other geology mix to that of other zonations on the Purcell.
Aeonian's website - https://aeonianresources.com/koocanusa-copper/# What happened in B.C. ? Why are they - late to the party ?
All because they didn't test - other lenses - assay for other minerals.
That simple.
Most dolomite depoists are treated as, basic dolomite.
Looking ofr the highest grade to justify the acceleration of the projec.t - mining quarry stlye.
Wile dismissing other importanrt minerals that can associate to - reefs, such as - ree's.
Only, drilling specific zones,
drilling down so far, not drilling into the good stuff, several lenses down.
YET - some of these lenses can be seen along side Driftwoods ranges - if one zooms in.
thick sediment bands that seaparte the dolomites from other lenses.
Which means... these lenses are easy to access and test .. which brings into play,
if the side of the mountaion is riddled in
purple sands... could these puple hues be emmanating from the shales and sediment argilites ?
What others call - philips lense ?
Now... Some think dolomite is pink... but, there are many other minerals in the purcell formation other than, magnesium, other minerals that also tuen pink or purple, or green, yellow, red, etc...
And several reports now... point to pink/purple dolomites as - cobaltoan with in.
zinc- turns purple
cobalt - turns purple
uranium - turns purple.
copper - blue, green, red.
And now, Aeonian's quck run down on the - Purcell's philips lenses -
describes - how Montana's philips lense - contain the purple - unranium.
I knew uranium can change colors to - orange, yellow, green and blue...
But... i didn't think purple was also one of it's colors...
Here's a photo of uranium in a purple huie.
https://static-02.hindawi.com/articles/geofluids/volume-2018/7847419/figures/7847419.fig.003a.jpg --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANADIAN MINERALS AND METALS PLAN - 6 Strategic Directives
out of all their literature i do not see any mention of... shareholders tied to listed stocks.
what i do see is... a catered strategy towards -
stakeholders, partners, tech/universities, first nations, gov't.
what about juniors and shareholders ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question - if a junior is on the exchange,
has critical minerals - why are the valuations depressed ?
Our cheif issues is, many of the juniors do not have - in situ metals value - tied to thier stock -
if in situ metal values were factored - valuations would be far higher.
no consideration for, costs, time spent, the very fact of finding a deposit is
in it's own right - amazing - hard to come by.
With depressed valuations, junior is forced to dilute shares - just to keep the lights on.
over time... it forces a situation of, consolodating the shares which wipes out, common investors.
bUT... the junior now has a pigeon hole to walk through...
that being - seeking funding through - stakeholders.
Who are the stakeholders ?
Is it a pick and choose ?
Doesn't sound like capitalism now does it.
While... waiting for a strakeholder -
many juniors have to jump throughseveral hoops - several phases of permitting and environmental which places the junr at a compromise with their shareholders and valuations.
If in situ metal values were applied to the junior, the stock valuation would have ample cushion with a metal in situ backing.
Thus,,, protecting the junior, depoist, sharestructure, valuation, and shareholder.
What we have now is...
under valued stocks - some with billions in situ...
playing the waiitng game... and as time pushes forward, with no advancements due to gridlock - valuations are decresing to unpresedented - levels.
BHT - is a classic exmaple of how to write a creative press release while still trying to smile,
when it's passed through only one of the hoops, and is nowon the road to several more hoops.
This is not right, and junior and shareholders are suffering.
Ontario, and Saskatchewan, did not enter into the - new mining policies.
And.. muchof the funding and directives are focused on, nunavut or north west territories.
Anything left for B.C. ?
Are we wittnessing a shift as to where one can mine, while making current jurisdictions into parks with an activist backing of support and carbon initiatives ?
From what i can gather.... these new policies are catering to a selct group -
stakeholders, partners, first nations, universities, and a few others.
PRESENT MINERS ? those already mining have escaped the majority of these new policies, and are only experiencing a fraction of what those are going thorugh just to get to the mining phase.
Which essentially paves the road for these current miners to have no competition.
Allowing them to reap the highest prifits in battery metals with little to no competition.
How... ? Other juniors ( many ) are still jumping the hoops.
Which acts as a block and defence, allowing the majors with blue sky, unimpedences.
This new mineral mining plan...
was suppose to - quicken permitting, expedite proceedures - but, has it ?
Junior stock valuations say it all.
If one walks through the - 6 stratrgic directives for - mining + minerals...
who was consulted ?
were shareholders?
how about junior explorers ?
What i did read on thier website was...
Stakeholders and indigenous were consulted.
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING FOR - B.C. - ANYONE ELSE ?
https://www.minescanada.ca/en/strategic-directions/advancing-participation-indigenous-peoples If b.c. junior explorers are crushed ( financially ) on the echange,
then... so are the shareholders who are - attached.
There are many depoists in b.c. - why so much gridlock with permititng and environmental ?
some juniors won't even speak about it.
whose side are they on ?
If this metals plan is also supporting - technology,
would this gateway be accessed through - universities ?
HYPOTHETICAL
What if a junior explorer thrrew monies at a university looking for, LITHIUM TECH -
But what if... the university is also working on thier own lith tech ?
Is this not in conflict ?
Should the junior who threw monies at the university,
ask for thier monies back ?
lol
EXPLORING THE 6 STRATEGIC DIRECTION - quick read https://www.minescanada.ca/en/strategic-directions I SEE IT AS - . 1 - Economic develp and competition -
foreign companies gaining canadian contracts
2 - Indigenous -
more involvement under these new plans
3 - Environment - this is the
environmental card played - delay, and drag projects out
while current miners (majors ) gain the beneifit of controlling battery metals= high profits
while juniors are placed on the merry go round - block and defence - tactic.
4 - Science + tech - donate more to
universities creating competiton for juniors while propping
up the colleges and universities.
5 - Federal, provincial and
territorial governments,
partners and
stakeholders must address
structural and systemic human resources challenges.
6 - Foreign investment - Provide
stakeholders and partners with a suite of tools and
resources to leverage the brand ( sounds like a pigeon hole gateway ) enter in if you want
to advance - our way - our policies - our terms.
Did you open the link ?
Did you readanything about current shareholders tied to resources ?
Was there a definition for - partners, stakeholders ?
Or.. .is this all about, introdice new strignant, environmental policies - restructure the entire mining industry
at the launch of covid - have everyone align to the new polies ?
I would say.... the largest example one could use to determine the current success of these new policesor program is... best seen with the current valuations of - stocks.
If critical metals are needed that bad... And if infasctructure is preached to assist with building out mining facilities, and there's a supply crunch, then... why are most stocks in the battery sector, under vlaued ?
What was wrong with the old treaties - lol
Why more involvement with the - indigenou, stakerholders,m partners and governements...
Is... there any left over for the junior and shareholder ?
lol
In 2019 the
Canadian Minerals and Metals Plan (CMMP) was launched – a Plan with an ambitious vision and targets that will drive Canadian mining to the forefront.
Is Canada at the forefront since this launch CMMP ?
2023 will be thier 5th year - how are they doing ?
Are these new policies working ?
I will say it again and again....
The best policy - one could ever implement is -
providing juniors - an in situ metal value - valuation.
it safe guards the resource.
it safe guards the shareholders interest.
it safe guards the stocks from downward presure.
it safe guards the minerals, junior, shareholder - from new policies - wink.
BASING THE IN SITU VALUATION- on the costs, efforts, drilling,spot prices ( fraction percentage ) and attaching a value to the stock which would deter many downward effects that coulddamage the valuation, company, or shareholders.
These current valuations tied to juniors with billions in situ in the gorund,
leaves them wide open for - all sorts of games.
It makes no sense... seeing valautions worth billions sitting under a dime.
Permitting cards and Environmental cards are the - new referees.
But from someone elses stance - it makes perfect senseto the - stakeholders, partners, indigenous, gov't.
Question must be asked... are shareholders being squeezed out of thier rightful valuations with these
new mining directives / policies ?
if it continues it course... all the more juniors delayed through environmental or other permitting, it will drive the valuations down futher and wipe out junor + shareholfer alike.
Leaving the metals / deposits - to, whom ?
hmmm...
if one reads about the inception of, CCMP - Again i ask... were juniors and shareolders given a voice ?
Or... were only stakeholders and a few others ?
Here's an excerpt from thier website -
- The mining sector is a top employer of indigenous peoples and a major supporter of community involvement, including Indigenous businesses.
- Challenges around Indigenous land rights might affect the pace of mineral development.
- An increase in recognition of Indigenous decision-making, early engagement of Indigenous communities, and provide capacity support for communities to engage at all stages of a mine's life.
- Many participants want to see more done around resource revenue-sharing with Indigenous communities.
I guess those participants...
they asked, were all shareholders in junior metals - right ?
tease.
Navigate their website - lots of info will be under thier - 2019, 2020, 2021, links.
https://www.minescanada.ca/en LASTLY... Were mining stocks- better - before this new initiative ?
Were original treaties perfectly fine ?
Are shareholders and juniors with depoists being squeezed out ?
IF...OTHERS ARE INTERESTED IN THE IDEA - FORMULA 73 take a look - what i think the industry should do.
Backing the stock with a drilled out resource - partial percentage of spot value
tied to stock price - fixes alot of things.
https://stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard?symbol=v.bmk&postid=35024126 Cheers....