Unofficial estimate
Not sure if this has been posted before and/or how it will show up once posted as it is a cut/paste from a pdf, but it comes from an analyst's report on Volta and incorporates drill results as of April.
Disclaimer - these are totally unofficial numbers herein so nobody should take them to heart. They mention 225m depth, which is not the depth to which the 43-101 is supposed to go. They also use the results from only five reported sections and extrapolate out from there. I've done a bit of extrapolating as well, so it is all just estimates.
|
Jumping the gun on the resource update
We have reviewed all of Volta's reported drill results to date so as to get an impression of the geological potential of the mineralized zone at Kiaka. While our analysis is rudimentary and can not and should not be considered a resource estimate, we believe it demonstrates that the company is on its way to developing a significant deposit at Kiaka.
We approximate that each 50m section that has been reported to date has the potential to host from five to seven million tonnes of mineralized material to a depth of around 225m, with grades ranging from 0.8 g/t to 1.4 g/t (Figure 2, Table 2). We have approximated an average grade for the individual sections by weight averaging the uncut intersections from each section over the core widths, and tonnage potential has been determined by simple polygonal methods. Our analysis suggests to us that Volta may have already identified a geologic potential of around one million oz in the five reported sections that cover only about one-third of the currently recognized limits of the zone.
|
If it doesn't post, the entire report is public and can be found here:
https://www.minesite.com/fileadmin/content/pdfs/Brokers_Notes_April_10/Dundee%20Capital%20Markets%20-%20Volta%20Resources%20Inc%20-%201st%20April.pdf
On the plus side, they are saying that down to 225m and based on only about one-third of the recognized zone, the potential exists for about 1M ozs in that one-third zone. Multiply that by 3 and you get 3M ozs. Subtract the extra 1/9th for 25m deeper than the 43-101 is supposed to go, and you end up with about 2.7M ozs. That puts the number near the same as the Randgold study, and it went to 300m. Assuming the grades continue near the average for the 200-300m depth, which they appear to do (but see next para), that that might mean another 1M to 1.5M ozs in the lower depths. I'm not sure how deep you can go before you have to start considering underground mining, but the economics change due to strip ratios.
These estimates were done too early to incorporate the drill results announced May 10, which were some monster long holes with very consistent grades. Most of the grades in that news release were in excess of 1 g/t and in most cases were in the 1.5-2.25 g/t range with some intervals in the 5-7.5 g/t range. That section would be enough change the estimates seeing that the highest grade they used was 1.4 g/t for about 1/5 of the total tonnage.
I'm feeling encouraged by this and would be happy with the same result as the Randgold study on only 2/3rds the size, knowing that there is more potential deeper down and near-surface in the southern area. Yes, I'm a broken record now on the subject, but it is all about perception at this point. We can't rely on the 1M ozs inferred at Gaoua because that is part of a big porphry system. The "flagship" of the company needs to prove itself as such.
eebler