ENGULFING PARK SPRAWL ?I will say this, I've read quite a few reports on junior explorers.
I've noticed an
ever increasing anomally over the years. National Park Sprawl, that has an uncanny manner of converting
prized mineral lands into National Parks.
Question What came first in the
Wellgreen Mine area ?
Wellgreen Mine or.... National Park ?
= The Mine.
= It could not have become a mine - if it were designated, park.
Based on this map, coloration.
Klauane Nation is lighter coloration.
Darker green =
appears to be National Park. ?
What do others think ?
Has a Provincial Park invaded an existing mine area ?
Does it fit the Quill boundary parameters ?
Dark green does consume, mine, lower base camp + runs
westerly with a thin path and would fit the mold of,
QUILL lands between
base camp and burwash.
If i'm at all accurate, how could a National Park overstep the
boundary and consume an
existing mine and drilled lands ?
While investors are still invested ?
Could this mean, all former excuses for 86% resource loss are
not quite accurate and moreso, Park has all the high grade mine
and deep mineralized depths ?
What do others think ?
Am i wrong ?
Open for feedback.
Need some help on this subject by another shareholder.
06/26/2017
TSX: WG
OTC-QX: WGPLF
VANCOUVER, June 26, 2017 /CNW/ - Wellgreen Platinum Ltd. ("Wellgreen") is pleased to report the results of its recently completed mineral resource estimate (the "2017 Resource Estimate") for its 100%-owned Wellgreen Ni-PGM-Cu project in the Yukon Territory, Canada ("Wellgreen Project").
Since the publication of the July 24, 2014 mineral resource estimate, an additional 74 drill holes were completed during four drill programs from 2013 through to 2016. These drill holes and assay data were incorporated into the new geologic model and 2017 Resource Estimate. The result of the additional drilling contributed to an approximate 10% increase in the Measured and Indicated classes of mineralization. By comparison to the 2014 resource model, if the metal prices, costs and recoveries used in the 2014 resource estimate were applied to the 2017 model, there would have been an approximate 25% increase in the Measured and Indicated Resources. However, lower US dollar metal prices, additional metallurgical testwork, which revealed lower recoveries (see news release dated March 1, 2017), and operating cost updates have partially offset some of the gains in tonnage, so the net increase in the tonnage of Measured and Indicated mineralization from 2014 to 2017 is approximately 10% at similar grades.
The Inferred class of mineralization declined in tonnage by approximately 86%, but increased the grade of nickel by 20% and decreased the grade of copper by approximately 14%
due to the following reasons:
- Additional drilling combined with the revised geologic interpretation resulted in establishing boundaries of mineral bearing rock types that were previously reported as open. The result is physically less mineral bearing rock that can host mineralization.
-
- Inferred mineral resource estimation in the 2017 Resource Estimate utilized a search radius based on the statistical range of influence derived from variography as measured by the Qualified Person. Previous estimates of the Inferred mineralization applied larger search radii.
-
- Changes to metallurgical recoveries and processing costs also impacted the Inferred category by increasing cut-off grades in Net Smelter Return ("NSR") terms. This contributed to the loss of tonnage and an increase in reported inferred nickel grade.
Near-surface peridotite hosted mineralization however, remains open to the south in certain areas of the deposit. Higher-grade mineralization remains open at depth below the eastern end of the resource pit and mineralized intercepts remain open to the east. These areas will be the target of future exploration drilling.
And....
03/01/2017 Testing has focused upon the geometallurgical domains which comprise the predominance of the resource. This area was categorized into two geometallurgical domains in the 2015 PEA: (i) Clinopyroxenite / Pyroxenite and (ii) Peridotite. The recently completed testwork has demonstrated that the geometallurgical domains are, and as such they will be referred to as: (i) Peridotite, which makes up the largest part of the resource, and (ii) Clinopyroxenite, which makes up a smaller part of the resource. The Massive Sulphides and Gabbro constituting a smaller volume of material than the Clinopyroxenite may be tested during any subsequent metallurgical testing. Corresponding volumes of the various geometallurgical domains will be determined upon completion of an updated geology and block model which is currently underway. A suitable mini pilot plant exists within the XPS laboratory facility in Sudbury, Ontario."
Quantitative mineralogy has been used to estimate metallurgically recoverable nickel and copper ("Practical Entitlement").
Practical Entitlement recognizes that part of the feed metal units exist in a form that is either mineralogically unsuitable for recovery (e.g. nickel as low-concentration solid solution in magnetite or silicates) or in a form that is physically unsuitable for recovery (disseminated microcrystalline inclusions of metal sulphides within silicates). These values can be compared to the physically achieved recoveries in metallurgical testing, which reveal the magnitude of process losses associated with upgrading.
| 1 | Note that the Peridotite and Clinopyroxenite domains are referred to in different terms in the 2015 PEA. The Clinopyroxenite / Pyroxenite domain referred to in the 2015 PEA includes the current Clinopyroxenite domain and a portion of the current Peridotite domain. The basis for comparison in the 2015 PEA is the domain that it refers to as Clinopyroxenite / Pyroxenite. |
| 2 | Note that the basis for comparison in the 2015 PEA is the domain that it refers to as Peridotite. |
| 3 | Note that basis for comparison in the 2015 PEA is the domain that it refers to as Clinopyroxenite / Pyroxenite. |
| 4 | Note that the basis for comparison in the 2015 PEA is the domain that it refers to as Peridotite. |
| 5 | Note that basis for comparison in the 2015 PEA is the domain that it refers to as Clinopyroxenite / Pyroxenite. |
| 6 | Note that the Peridotite and Clinopyroxenite domains are referred to in different terms in the 2015 PEA. |
| 7 | Note that the basis for comparison in the 2015 PEA is the domain that it refers to as Peridotite. |
| 8 | Note that the basis for comparison in the 2015 PEA is the domain that it refers to as Clinopyroxenite / Pyroxenite. |
Well Kriken, If i'm at all accurate, not sure... but if i was,
i would answer you with... Junior is not incompetent.
They just didn't explain in detail what was going on.
They should've.
Overreaching Park Entitlement...?
Wellgreen Mine came first.
Even 2023 PFS does not explain the Quill identity.
Why it came about.
And not labelled on 2023 PFS map as, Park.
That is... if i am at all accurate.
But if my research is on the right trail,
many of the anomalies are making sense with the Park Sprawl theory.
Who would ever want these
extra billions...lol
iron, exotics, dual nickel, chromium, titanium.
Maybe, just maybe...
Gov't shoild be making shareholders an offer ?
Cheers...