RE:RE:RE:Beta Hunt Lower Bound Resource EstimatePierre, @lexcon,
Thanks for the compliments. Just to provide a bit more background on the reason why I started from the lowerbound, even though I would like to see the blue sky potential as well (everybody has the right to dream), but to be a realistic person one must take into account what is do-able and what is not do-able taking into account the resources available, the money and the time required to achieve the blue-sky goal. The time I set for an investment is approximately 3 years, more or less, but not 5 years. So, any scheme must fit in that shorter time frame...people are not patient enough.
- The width: In my orgininal attempt I considered 150 m width, but it was criticized by various people from ceo.ca. So, I backed down to 50 m, since it was a number mentioned by the RNX (I went back and checked Fig 7.8 of the PEA, the one showing several vertical shear "pipes" for the WF. Some measurement indicates a width of more than 50m (from Winchester to Smith pipes). That is for Section BB'. If the section is moved NW (see inset) the width could be close to 100 m.
But, 50m would be conservative, since there are data to support the claim.
- The depth, 150m: MS said from 1-2km (but he was guessing just like anyone else). @lexcon went for the mid point 1.5km with his knowledge in geology. Yes, the Au source has to come from the womb of Mother Earth and 1- 2km is not that deep from the geological scale point of view (Swan zone in Fosteville is at this level).
Reason for choosing 150m was not arbitrary. It was based on Figure 2 of the 25 Feb 2019 NR. The depth of a box enclosing all the black, red and pink dots has the height of approximately 140m.
With additional drilling to complete the 40,000m drill program, it would be reasonable to assume the depth would reach more than 150m.
They may be able to sink a deep hole down one of the shear pipe to test out the "higher grade at depth" theory, but I would wait for the results to come out before using a higher number. In fact, the depth is just another parameter in the RE equation. One can always, adjust the RE results according, once drilling results have become available, or just use any number for sepeculation purposes, as long as reasonable supporting facts are available. Note: It's impotant to note that the new results are
outside the JORCE envelopes drawn on that figure. Whatever comes out of the RE using the new results are additional to the JORC figures. Note also, the resorces are OPEN to the W ans SW of the page.
Also, the two holes that have the highest grades (bonanza) WFN-029 and -063 seem be above the pyritic sediment layer (could be artist conception inaccuracy?), and the 3 holes starting with WFN-045 (the other 2 did not have the ids) were below the sediment layer. So, high-grade coarse Au (100 gpt would be considered high grade) in the shear pipes don't really need any catalysts from the sediment layer to cause Au puking @ +1000gpt?
To sum up, it's fine to have a blue sky estimate, but it would take years to be able to
show (to satisfy the regulator with enough drilling) a large resource and years to gear up for a large production. Starting from the lower end, let's say @ 1MozAu and go up from there, would be more realistic. I would not complain if RNX could make C$50M/yr profit (100,000 ozAu @6gpt head grade) and would scream Eureka (even if for the wrong reason) if the head grade became 12 gpt).
GH11
---------------------------
pierreg wrote: Good post on CEO.ca March 25th 2019 in reaction to the goldhunter11 Beta Hunt Lower Bound Resource Estimate «@PierreG01599501 great link, please pass
along to GH11 compliments for a nice lower bound estimate. Between his 150m at
depth and Mark Selby's 1 to 2 km at depth there will be some middle ground. If
we start at GH11 lower bound estimate (and I am leaning toward a 1M oz RE on
this initial update) and make allowances for growing RE annually...if we come
out in the end even 25% between his lower estimate and the upper potential of
this asset it will still be a big gold operation for years to come. two items
to note: GH11 used 2.6 S.G. which is pretty close to the PEA. PEA has WF at 2.8
S.G. based on drill core evaluations. I came up with the 100k oz/yr based on
the PEA estimate of 50k Tonne of gold ore production per month. (which is about
1600 t/d) The PEA was calculating a gold ore extraction rate and a simultaneous
nickel extraction operation. If nickel is suspended from the ore extraction
plan then the gold ore could be increased. I believe the ramp system can easily
handle 3000TPD (and I need to check the PEA but believe the upper limit was
stated at 5,000TPD.) So, while 100k 0z/yr is a reasonable starting point, once
they open multiple faces to work in the gold zones it would seem reasonable
that annual production could be increased to 200k oz+ per year maybe with a
250k top end using existing manpower and infrastructure. »