Resource Estimate (RE) for OrenadaEven with the 2018 Technical Report NI-43-101 is now available it is not an easy task to decode the detailed difference in the models and the data (exclusion, interpolation extrapolation) used the 2018 RE and the old 2009 RE.
Some general comments can be made, some would have more details than others. However, it would require a technical consulting group independent from those who did the work for the two REs to come up with an updated version of the 2018 RE using all data available from previous drilling, and perhaps some initial in-fill drilling? as recommended by the 2018 report. Here are what I have observed by looking at the 2018 RE, the 2009, and some pertinent data by going through most if not all recent NR.
- One NR I would single out is the 26 Oct 2017 (especially the Addendum, since it has quite a few pictures that can explain things better than words (I am a visual person). Link below.
https://www.azx.ca/addendum-to-press-release-october-26-2017/
- The first picture to look at is Figure 2 which show the boundary of the 2009 NR, L= 400m, D = 300m, and W = thickness of the tuff layer, variable but say ~50m. All dimensions are approximate.
- The second picture to look at is Figure 1 which show the top view with the drill holes east of the eastern edge of the pit and heading toward Zone 2 (RHS).
From these 2 figures one should have a good bearing of the main Orenada deposit.
- Figure 2 shows that the 2017 data show a mineralized zone is more than double the 400m used in the 2009 RE. The strike length would be a lot longer if Zone 2 (and the Western extension toward Triangle Too and Airport) are included.
- We can say with certainty that the 2018 Whittle model is a lot more restrictive than the the model used in the 2009, but may be the 2018 model is too restrictive? If I read the recommendations in the 2018 RE correctly, the authors were suggesting a review of the 2018 model (with some additional drilling?). But just by looking at Figure 2 alone perhaps the 2009 model was not too "liberal" judging from the 2009 green outline compared to the 2017 limits (in red).
- Presumably, the 2018 RE would include the 2017 data (up to 15 Dec 2017). But, I can't tell if the new model would exclude any 2017 data through interpolation, extrapolation or just exclude the data if the drilling spacing is not "tight" enough.
- The 2018 RE discussed the elimination of data in the gap between Zone 4 and Zone 2, data in the 600m western extension (See Fig 25.1, page 159), and of course anything after 15 Dec 2018 (Note: There are quite a bit cores that have not been sent out to the Lab. For about $100k, this should be done ASAP).
- Back to the 26 Oct 2017 NR, the results are quite significant even though they are lower grades than other results. What I like about them are: The intercepts are quite long, up to 131m @ an average grade of 1.65gpt (note that the grades for indicated and inferred in the 2018 RE are lower than this, 1.54 and 1.31 respectively). This is excellent for an OP operation. There is a good possibility that the yellow zones (tuff) are all Au-mineralized, see Figure 3/Section1350. And if they are open at depth, say to ~1000m (like Triangle) then the potential for a much larger deposit is possible x2, x3? Note that for this set of drilling the depth is limited to ~300m (hole 156 and 157 stopped short). In fact, the entire Orenada area has been "poked around" in a shallow manner, since deep holes would be expensive. No deep drilling in the range of 1000m has been carried out. Perhaps they should poke a hole or two?
Like they say, "go deep or go home".
Just some general observation to whet your appetite.
GH