SIFTING PHASE 1 & PHASE 2 MET'sOver the years Wellgreen ( Shaw ) deposit has seen a few owners.
As mentioned ( former posts ) Hudson Bay sank 4 shafts and several
km of tunnels underground.
As seen in former posts, the main sulphide minerology can range from
1 - 18m in thickness ( lenses ).
Underground drilling by Hudbay,
employed the practice of visually inspecting the ( cores ) inwhich
to selectively assay. ( common sense, only assay the best mineralized cores ).
10m intervals and even smaller intervals were used to assess the grades.
In my opinion,
such high grade zones can be block modelled and plotted.
And measured.
Type of block modelling ( is imperative ) why ?
Keeping to the 1 - 18m thickness of mineral body lenses.
Going outside these parameters will obvious result in lessor grades.
Fastforward ? Open pitting was chosen. ( Prophecy Resources bright ideal )
Which means, core meters outside the rich grade zone are factored
and blended percentage ( grades ) come into play.
This in my opinion sets the stage for radical discrepencies of grade.
Outside metersge compared with rich grade zones.
The collection of cores of 10m intervals were practiced in phase 1
emmulating the ( original ) high grade core lengths.
First thing that came to mind ? Chosing the wrong 10m interval - outside a rich grade zone.
If one happened to staggar the 10 meter intervals whereas,
10m cores chosen happened to ( fall ) outside the rich grade zones
one might / could create a ( sequence ) of low grade blocking thus skewing
the grades - all dependent upon where one chose to begin their - core grading.
At what depth or blocking.
Mixing underground high grade drilling results with new open pit above ground
including all zones can be a daunting task.
Interpolation and block zonation are imperative to accurately assess - grade / tonnage.
Side note:
Students were employed in phase one.
Page 97
Based on assay results, it
appears that
Hudson-Yukon only sampled intervals considered to be well mineralized. Long drill
intervals were not sampled, and the determination of when to and when not to assay is
inconsistent. Hudson-Yukon
assayed the core at their internal lab in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Here is where it can become tricky.
11.1.1 Historic Drill Programs 1952-1988
No type of acid was mentioned.
Hudbay - whay type of assay methods, mesh size, and digestion time
? Versus
Northern Platinum - time of difestion -
only partial ( digest ) Page 98
11.1.3
Northern Platinum Programs 1996-2005 and 2009-2010
There is no available documentation on sampling details for the older Northern Platinum
programs; however, based on handwritten assays on the paper drill logs, samples were taken
every 5 ft (1.52 m) and were assayed for Cu, Ni, and Co and sometimes for Pt, Pd, and Au.
Northern Platinum sampled core based on lithology and observed mineralization, and where no
contacts were present used a nominal 5 ft (1.52 m) sample interval.
Most samples, including field-inserted Standards and Blanks, were sent to Loring Laboratories inCalgary, AB for assaying. In 2009, samples were also analyzed at ALS Global in North Vancouver,BC. Loring Laboratories has ISO 9001:2000 certification and ALS Global has ISO/IEC 17025:2005and ISO 9001:2000 certification. A 30-element package, including copper, nickel, and cobalt reported in
parts per million was analyzed by aqua regia “
partial digestion” followed by ICP
analyses. Gold, platinum, palladium, and rhodium were analyzed by four acid digestion followed
by a 30 g fire assay with an atomic absorption (AA) finish.
IMC has verified the Northern Platinum data from 1996 through 2010 can be used for the economic minerals by comparing it to nearby recent Nickel Creek drilling. Details are provided in
Section 12
Link phase 1 https://s21.q4cdn.com/491660439/files/doc_downloads/2018/181109_Nickel_Shaw_43-101-Resource-Upate.pdf THOUGHTS ? Could Hudson Bay have used finer mesh, longer acid digestion ?
Different acids ?
What if only one acid such as sulphur to accommodate nickel sulphides ?
Over the years, i've read that single chloride bonds are difficult to detect
with spectrometry light.
Here's a curve ball...
Did Hudbay use spectrometry back in the day ?
Or....could spectrometry light detection have reduced the grade detection ?
And... with Northern's only partial ( digestion )
= partial grades
Difference between partial and full ( acid digestion ) Total digestion is more effective for aluminosilicates and heavy minerals, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/12/6/685 Notice the highlighted green caption of phase 1 ( excerpt )
Can be used if compared to nearby
Nickel creek drilling.
Here is where one has to consider what was compared, interpolation distsnce, same depth, and the what if hole was twinned
or, 50m 100m or more away from original high grade zone.
Assay method of
Northern versus Nickel creek.
Pages 99 - 100
Samples from 2011 to 2013
Different assay methods were used
Full digestion
Full Digestion ?
Grades were indifferent ?
Or... were the cores chosen well outside the zones ( of Hudson ) ?
I would need to see the compared holes - interpolation and depths compared.
What if depth of one juniors zone was staggard with compared junior's cores ?
These rich lenses are only 1 - 18m thick.
Solution ? Send mineral sensors through the underground holes inwhich
Hudson drilled.
Instead of redrilling - grade sensors would rule ( in/out ) Hudsons grades.
I have to give benefit of doubt, Hudson was gear for targeting select rich
lenses and not - open pit.
From what i can best understand is..
Rich grades ( underground style mining from Hudson )
did not correlate with Nickel Creeks.
Sounds like rich grades were excluded and deposit was modelled with
more recent drill cores.
Again.... i'd make a beeline back to Husdon's cores and holes.
Test using grade sensors.
Compare Hudsons digitized meter plotting to see if infact the rich grades
reported were in the sweet spot - rich grade zones.
I'd further compare mesh sizes Hudson used and assay methods.
Looking for smaller mesh, longer digestion, diff acids and whether
spec light was used to determine mineral grade.
Another consideration ? Knowing where Northern drilled
Seeing full digestion is good
but.... What if it were mowhere near Hudbay' zones ?
What if Northern was off yonder looking to expand other zones ?
Page 98
The
resampled intervals from 1987 and 1988 were used in the estimation of mineral resources. Otherwise, the
pre-1987 data was rejected by IMC and not used in the estimation of mineral resources. Details are provided in Section 12.
Page 99
Starting in 2012 through 2017, the core was sawn twice
All samples collected in 2011 and 2012, including field-inserted Certified Reference Materials and Blanks, were sent to ALS Global in Vancouver, BC, for assaying. In 2013 all samples were sent to Bureau Veritas (formerly ACME Laboratories) in Vancouver, BC, for analysis.
250 g of split sample is pulverized to 85% passing 75 microns
gold, platinum, and palladium are assayed by fire assay fusion of 30 g with an
ICP-ES finish;
the resulting values reported in parts per million
copper, nickel, and cobalt are assayed by four-acid
“near total” digestion ICP-ES
(
note ) near is not full digestion.
diff assay methods too.
Page 102
New crew comes along and tests 5 holes
Holes that were - visual easy to get to ?
Inside mineralized zones or fringing, outside ?
During the site visit, the QP and the Company team members hiked to five drill holes that could
be observed during an afternoon of walking. Their collar coordinates were spot checked by GPS
or by recording the collar ID and back calculating the location against the GPS estimate. Page 104
Crew move onto....
IMC requested the
original certificates of assay for 24 drill holes contained in the database.
The selection of holes was established by IMC to cover the entire life of the Project drill program from
1988 through the end of 2016 and the spatial distribution of the deposit.
They confer with 9 wellgreen drill holes comparing data. The nine holes received contained 1,253 assay intervals or about 5% of the database used for
resource estimation. Within those 1,253 intervals, IMC did not find any situation where the
Wellgreen database did not match the certificate of assay. Only
5% used for resource estimate ?
Keep in mind...
this crew discarded ( pre 1987 ) drilling.
lol
Just Northerns + Nickel Creeks.
Page 105
Assay reference used by Wellgreen
Chart - look at the grades ?
IMC used which year class of drill holes ? 1988 through the end of 2016
Let's pull forward 2013 Keep in mind ( east zone is the core body deposit ) seen most drilling
Sept 13 2013 The Company has identified a significant, newly interpreted area of mineralization towards the eastern end of the deposit that included 353 metres of continuous mineralization grading 2.62 g/t platinum equivalent (“Pt Eq.”) , comprised of 0.93 g/t 3E PGMs (Pt+Pd+Au), 0.31% Ni and 0.33% Cu. Please refer to the footnote below regarding the Company’s use of Pt Eq. Highlights
Re-logging and analysis of previously unreleased drill core assays by the Company’s geological team has identified a broad mineralized area in the Far East Zone which is believed to extend the main Wellgreen deposit to the north. Historically, drilling in the main Wellgreen deposit was stopped upon entering the “footwall” sediments, which were assumed to be the northern boundary to mineralization.
This drilling had defined the main Wellgreen deposit as a south dipping tabular body approximately 2.5 kilometres in length that is typically 100-300 metres in width with some zones of over 500 metres of continuous mineralization grading in excess of 2 g/t Pt Eq. Based on this new interpretation of drill holes in the Far East Zone, the historic footwall sediment package thought to define the northern boundary of the Wellgreen deposit does not extend to depth, but rather exhibits a wedge-like geometry. This suggests that there is potential for a large area of additional PGM-Ni-Cu mineralization in the pit model beneath and to the north of the sediment package. In addition, this newly recognized zone may connect the North Arm ultramafic body to the main Wellgreen deposit, potentially converting a large area which was modeled as unmineralized in the pit model to an area which has potential to become mineralized blocks. This could have the positive effect of reducing the life of mine strip ratio for the project.
This Far East Zone also exhibits areas of significantly higher grades than the average of the Wellgreen deposit that may be amenable to selective mining of higher grade material early in the mine life.
- WS-154 intersected five intervals totaling 501.2 metres grading 1.84 g/t Pt Eq. (0.55 g/t 3E PGMs with 0.26% Ni and 0.19% Cu) for a total Pt Eq. grade thickness of 922 g/t-m
- WS-160 intersected two intervals totaling 443.6 metres grading 2.46 g/t Pt Eq. (0.84 g/t 3E PGMs with 0.31% Ni and 0.30% Cu) and including 352.7 metres of 2.62 g/t Pt Eq. (0.93 g/t 3E PGMs with 0.31% Ni and 0.33% Cu) for a total Pt Eq. grade thickness of 1,094 g/t-m
- WS-165 intersected two intervals totaling 194.1 metres grading 2.99 g/t Pt Eq. (1.24 g/t 3E PGMs with 0.26% Ni and 0.55% Cu) and including 60.7 metres of 4.24 g/t Pt Eq. (2.02 g/t 3E PGMs with 0.24% Ni and 0.99% Cu) for a total Pt Eq. grade thickness of 581 g/t-m
- WS-193 intersected two intervals totaling 410.7 metres grading 1.77 g/t Pt Eq. (0.46 g/t 3E PGMs with 0.29% Ni and 0.10% Cu) and including 357.7 metres of 1.84g/t Pt Eq. (0.49 g/t 3E PGMs with 0.30% Ni and 0.11% Cu) for a total Pt Eq. grade thickness of 726 g/t-m
https://www.nickelcreekplatinum.com/investors/news-releases/press-release-details/2013/Prophecy-Platinum-Announces-First-Results-from-2013-Wellgreen-Field-Program-including-Interpretation-of-new-Far-East-Zone/default.aspx What are my thoughts ? Iron credit would be nice especially if other peers use iron as a credit
Green energy ( river ) would be nice too.
My thoughts on high grades - Pre 1987 ?
Different assaying methods come to mind.
Moving the years forward assaying grades weaken ?
Underground vs open pit.
Extra, ores in open pit ( unmineralized ) causes dilution.
Throw a wild dart hope to hit the bullseye ?
2013 drill results are indeed head turners.
How do i precieve the acronym - PGM ?
Platinum Group Metals
Platinum Gold Metals
What do i see in 2013 assaying above ?
Platinum Eq
Which questions...
Could Pt Eq mean Platinum Group Eq's ?
And could those assays have included Rhodium and several other
platinum group ( pricey minerals ) ?
What did Stew promise in video prior to PFS...?
Rhodium.
No...Rhodium in PFS.
Nor.... all the other platinum groups which Hudson Bay did detect.
Prophecy was into platinum.
Hence providing platinum equivelants.
Hudbay was into nickel copper
Could Hudbay's high grade nickel be a blend of platinum Eq's
resulting in Nickel geade - Eq's ?
All diff kinds of junior explorers out there matching what ever
vogue mineral is most saught after.
Sometimes copper takes the prize as most loved, or gold, nickel, platinum's.
It would explain lots....if the platinum group was used in blend with Hudson's
nickel and copper, ring true with prophecy keeping to Pt ( eq's )
And of course.... Wardrop, not including the 6 suite platinum group.
Turning point - Wink.
Might / Could - explain the grade discrepencies as each junior over the years
shaped and molded the wellgreen / shaw.
.
Not investment advice.
Let's hire a new 3rd party crew whose in favor of 6 platinum suites.
Tease.
To think...
i didn't even get to speak about the " inital " bulk concentrate.
If 53.3% nickel comprised the bulk concentrate and these bulk cons
only saw the locked extraction testing by XPS.
I ask....
could the other ores not included containing the rest of 46.7% Nickel...
be considered a second bulk con ?
lol
Cheers....