Arequipa versus GQC ProGeo
- Your map in a previous post shows an excellent overview of GQC holding in DR.
- Two interesting points observed a following post recalling the TO of Arequipa by Barrick:
1. Back in 1996 the exchange rate was 1 CAN = 1.36 USD
2. For $668 M USD (only $490 M CAN at that time) Barrick got approx 5M oz (using Barrick estimate). The grades for some Arequipa new drilled holes (34 new holes) were comparable to GQC grades on the average 2-7 gpt (but, they had grades around 1gpt and some short intervals @ 12gpt, noting that GQC has some higher grade over 7gpt as well, see holes #94 and #96). Arequipa intercepts were @ around 50-60m which are shorter than what we have seen so far for GQC, but their foot print was quite decent, some 300 m x 1200 m. Check link below for additional info.
https://www.northernminer.com/news/arequipa-intensifies-drilling-as-barrick-waits/1000096876/
It's premature to compare GQC with Arequipa since GQC has only 17 holes (in total), while Arequipa had some 34 holes (just the new holes alone), but the potential is there if GQC drilling could maintain grades above 2gpt with lateral extension and at depth.
If the "district" Las Tres Palmas (Romero, Hondo and La Escandalosa) contains some 3 M oz (Las Escandalosa has approx 0.5 M oz, and the rest, 2.5 Moz, from the currently available data...very crude projection of course using a shoe box model) then it should be feasible to reach the magic 5 Moz level which would start having some appeal for biggies like Barrick.
goldhunter