8462015 PEA defined
329 M tonne ( M + I ) and 846 M tonnes inferred.
I've covered the topic of, CIM standard
trenching, pits, outcrop testing is permissable to estimate an inferred resource.
If one analyzes this image below they'll see numerous treching and sample pits.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53515856826_321aaf3ac9_c.jpg
Using certain satellite maps,
the trenching and pits are better seen.
I would estimate trenches are no more than, 3m - 5m
Apply the yellow PEA constraint ( 3200m x 900m x 3m x 2.7 ore weight )
and one will see the tonnage is a far cry from the 846 M tonnes inferred.
Where could the 846 M tonnes come from ?
My hunch says...
Deeper intercepts.
350m - 500m - 650+m
Former post i used a rough example of only 200m deep
and this was the total tonnage
3200m L ( east to west )
900m W ( N to S ) though wider, i used 900m to sq the pit constraint
200m D
2.7 ore weight
= 1,555,200,000 billion tonnes
Logic dictates
some tonnage mineralized
some are waste
Evenstil,
1.5 billion tonnes using only 200m depth
Which begs,
what if the deeper intercepts were factored towards 2015 inferred ?
Even in former reports,
i came across a few drill holes not showing.
Such can break up the " interpolation " connectivity of a mineralized body.
Thus, affecting the preception and blocking of a deposit.
In addition,
Changing cutoffs can dramatically affect the size of resource.
Bumping up a cutoff from 0.15% to 0.20% could axe considerable lower
grade tonnage. Using the excuse or justification, spot metal prices are low
as reason to only seek higher grade - is not the right move.
What is the right move ?
Keeping all resources on the table.
No matter if, spot metals are not favorable.
versus
At some point in time - they will be.
Or better techniques to extract, mine, or other.
Or... other metals discovered with better assaying.
EX - chromium, titanium, magnesium + iron credits.
If we bring forth the 200m resource size example ( above )
= 1,555,200,000 billion tonnes
What if.... the 846 M tonnes inferred was already baked into this figure ?
Could very well be.... given, i have come across 500 M tonnes waste.
329 M t M + I
846 M t inferred
500 M t waste
---------
1,675,000 B tonnes ( very close to the 200m depth = 1.55 billion tonnes )
What might these 846 m iferred tonnes be ?
We were told - 75% sulphide gabbs and 25% peridotite
2015 YELLOW PIT RESOURCE EXAMPLE
200m depth resource ( 1.5 billion tonnes ) still doesn't account for,
- 350m - 500m - 650m+ intercepts
- silicate nickel with bonus ( plat, exotics, chromium, titanium, iron )
Depending on which assay report one refers to,
there is, 0.30% Ni to 0.40 Ni solid solution in silicates.
2015 crew even deducted 0.10% Ni solid solution.
Using the lessor 0.30% Ni solid solution deduct 0.10%
= 0.20 Ni remaining
What if wellgreen's 20% cutoff increase
axed all metallic and solution nickel 0.20% and below ?
Would it create an 86% inferred reduction ?
Yes.
2015 PEA used 0.15% cutoff eq for ni eq + pt eq
imagine if... Cr and Ti or Mg or excess Fe were factored ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is such a thing as, measuring metallics for a resource
There also exits... solid solution = ion salt resources + carbonate resources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNC has only a 0.22% Ni average grade with a 41% avg recovery
FPX still used 0.12% nickel in metallic and 0.12% solid solution
and is still profitable
Trying hard not to be trite,
but... i truly think this is a superb topic that discusses several valid
points and at same time offers solutions to achieve more value for
not only shareholders but... junior aswell.