Orenada Resource Approach - my theoretical interpretationFirstly, hey goldhunter11, drill hole AAX-07-07 (1 km southwest of Triangle Too) in 2007 was just an isolated test hole. No follow up drilling was ever done. As such, no cross section profile or other profiles were ever published. You`re right, the AAX-07-17 hole is within the Cadillac Break, similar to Orenada 4 and 2. It is likely a separate system (or subsystem) than the Triangle system. The data shows that AAX-07-17 has
quartz-ankerite veins. I believe some, if not all, of Orenada 4 and 2 veins are also quartz-ankerite veins. Thus, all the data I have seen thus far suggests that the AAX-07-17 area could be a northwest (intermittent) extension of Orenada (either a minor extension or the real deal), within an Orenada Cadillac Break trend.
With the other high-grade quartz vein subsystem, Triangle, quartz-tourmaline is the dominant vein. That is the vein type at Integra`s Triangle deposit. It is also the vein type that has been confirmed (via previous drilling) to exist at Alexandria`s Triangle Too property. As a side note, Alexandria is going after new quartz-tourmaline veins that originate within the Alexandria diorite plugs (as oppose to the ones coming from Integra`s property). If we find them, we might (eventually) find some of the veins starting not all that far from the surface.
Anyway, with regards to the 2007 hole, AAX-07-17, here is a link to the NR (the only piece of info ever published):
https://www.marketwired.com/press-release/alexandria-intersects-new-gold-zones-in-the-cadillac-break-on-the-airport-property-tsx-venture-azx-752920.htm
Now, with regards to the topic of this post, I think the Orenada grade and overall resource should increase meaningfully (if my basic / common sense approach is correct).
The last resource profile was done in 2009. At the time, little was known about the high-grade veins. As such, the 43-101 resource consultant did not make any special overlays for the high-grade veins. The resource was profiled as strictly a (100%) bulk-tonnage resource.
To me, that means that no extrapolations, interpretations, inferred, or any other projected considerations were build into the 2009 resource to account for the high-grade component / veins.
For example, let`s say a vein showed 6.0 g/t at one spot and 8.0 g/t located 100m east (at another spot) along the same vein. My interpretation is that the 2009 resource profile would not have made any related connections between the 2 spots of the vein. It would have build a small high-grade spot for the 6.0 g/t hit and another, separate, small high-grade resource spot for the 8.0 g/t hit. In between the 2 spots, the resource would have profiled a bulk tonnage type lower grade (as the resource was profiled using a 100% bulk-tonnage approach) - maybe, say, 1.0 g/t was applied in between. Thus, the average grade for the whole 100m length in the resource might have been profiled at, say, 1.8 g/t - not, at all, accounting for this actually being a continuous high-grade vein.
The next resource profile (later this year / early 2018) will be build completely different, if my interpretation is correct. The deposit is still a bulk-tonnage deposit. However, now, there will be a major overlay to account for the significant high-grade veins. It should completely transform the Orenada deposit/resource. Using the example above, the 6.0 g/t hit and the 8.0 g/t hit should be extraploated throughout the entire 100m portion of that vein, as the current drilling is clearly determining strong high-grade relationships within the veins. Thus, the grade components of that 100m length could end up showing a 7.0 g/t average grade vs the 1.8 g/t from our example above.
That would represent, say, a 5.2 g/t increase in grade for that particular 100m part/vein (length) of the resource (in our example). This increase in grade would also translate to a very significant increase in ounces for this particular 100m section of this high-grade vein, relative to what was profiled using the old approach.
Now, take this example and apply it to all 13 high-grade veins throughout the deposit (though, not all of the high-grade sections are going to average 7.0 g/t grade - some might average, say, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 8.0, etc., and with various thickness, depth and length). One would get the sense that we are looking at a material change here (both grade and volume), just from accounting for the high-grade veins within the deposit - for the first time.
Of note, the lower grade bulk-tonnage resource areas (outside of the high-grade veins) will still remain in the upcoming resource profile. We are not going to lose anything from the original resource (especially within 250m of the surface). We are just going to gain.
Add to that the fact that we are extending the veins both east and west, and at depth - also identifying new veins.
Even the most basic logic approach is strongly suggesting a major transformation here.
I think Peter Gundy understands this.
I think Eric Sprott understands this.
I don`t think the market understands any of this as yet.
As the chair now, hopefully Peter Gundy will choose to one day get out there and help Eric Owens (a great geologist, but not necessarily a great promoter, strictly in my opinion of course) to educate the market about what we have here.