The grades are too lowAfter looking at the assay results, the grades appear to be low and not overly exciting. Typically the mining company posts the high grade results in the core assays and these posted numbers look too low.
If the posted assay numbers are the "best results" the rock between the quoted assays would likely be lower or significantly lower in metal grades of the overall deposit. I think that's what the press release is trying to inflect that deposit has metals but they just haven't found a zone that is significantly high to pursue for a possible mine and detailed infill drilling. I'd expect some of the copper numbers as a indicator mineral to be in the whole number percent and over significant meter intervals.
For a comparison I looked at a mine about to open in BC. This comparison mine is a copper mine and isn't comparable for a Ni mine but usually the Cu mineralization is gange to Ni and can be used as an mineralization indicator.
https://www.cumtn.com/sitemanager/_pdf_presentation/cumtn_PP.pdf
This mine is one that closed during the 1990's but is now in play with Cu prices being at record highs; have a look at the grades they're chasing. The mine costs were lessened too as all the energy and road infrastructure is already in place with rail and highway infrastructure nearby. The ring of fire deposits need to be even more comparatively mineralized as these pre-mine costs (roads, power, rail, etc.) would need to factor into the profitability model for development of the deposit.
I think all the noise about PGM and Vanadium is fluff and is trying to keep the excitement up for the deposit and the stock.
I'm out of the stock now and will place it on watch list for future drill programs but I can't see much exciting yet and certainly don't want to be in the stock if future financings further dilute the float.
Regards,