Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

GT Gold Corp. V.GTT


Primary Symbol: GTGDF

GT Gold Corp is a new company focused on exploring for gold in the terrain of British Columbia's Golden Triangle. Its only operating segments include the acquisition, exploration, and development of mineral properties in Canada. The company's flagship asset is the wholly-owned Tatogga property, located off highway 37 in northern British Columbia.


OTCQX:GTGDF - Post by User

Comment by AuM2018on Oct 15, 2018 1:54pm
125 Views
Post# 28803436

RE:RE:Estimated Tonnes and Grade

RE:RE:Estimated Tonnes and GradeYou're both part right.....long342 the only issue I have with your calculation is this:

First, you're not going to mine from surface, for 2 reasons:
1) strip ratio would be too high - the mineralization is in a valley, so you're going to have to start cutting down the mountain on either side to mine it, which adds to the strip, which will make mining uneconomic; and

2) The first, say 300m of mineralization is too low grade....remember hole 62 from last year? The first ~ 300m averages less than 0.2g/t Au and 0.2% Cu.... that's below cut-off grade, therefore uneconomic.

Also, you need to factor in that the reported width is not true width, so apply whatever factor you want, but it's likely something less than 100%

As far as depth, it looks like they've only drilled 700-800m vertically (the hole was drilled at a 60 degree angle, and it was 920m down hole).

And, along strike, they've only drilled about 400m....

But, you are correct in saying that the "Potential" is 1,000m along strike, given the IP anomaly, and beyond 1,000m at depth potential..... But can only prove with more drilling, which costs $$$ (and dilution to shareholders).

Just my thoughts.

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>