2021 Samples were sent to
Bureau Veritas Minerals Argentina for preparation by drying, crushing to 80% passing 10 mesh and then pulverizing a 250g split to 95% passing 150 mesh. Pulps were then sent to
Bureau Veritas Commodities Canada Ltd. for analysis of 45 elements by Inductively
Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) following a four-acid digestion (MA-200).
Samples over 4,000 ppm uranium are re-assayed after phosphoric acid leach by Inductively Coupled
Plasma Electron Spectrometry (ICP-ES). Approximately every 10th sample a blank, duplicate, or standard sample is inserted into the sample sequence for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) purposes. The QAQC internal assessment indicate that assays results are within standard industry limits.
2012 Aircore reverse circulation drill cuttings were collected from the drill cyclone in a
large sack and then passed through a Jones riffle splitter to reduce the sample size such that a
2 kilogram sample resulted for shipment to the
Alex Stewart facility in Mendoza. There, the
samples were prepared and analysed by
ICP-MS method following a four acid digestion. Blank, duplicate, and internal company standard samples were inserted into the sample
sequence sent to the lab for QA/QC purposes. One blank, two standards and two field
duplicates were inserted in every run of 79 samples.
2012 Tech Report - Page 56 https://blueskyuranium.com/site/assets/files/5667/amarillo-grande-technical-report.pdf Takeaway ?
2021 lab assaying involved 2 labs.
Argentina and Canada.
versus
2012 just one lab Chart - 2012 tech report
SUGGESTION ? Quick ore characterization would be ideal.
2012 chart sbove is kind of odd.
Chart mass ore characters should all tally to a sum of 100%
Versus total mass - 203.7 %
I have to assume
mass = amount of ore tested
if accurate.... it would be a bias test considering it favors specific ores
versus testing each ore caracter for true mineral values.
Show me each variety of ore type totalling 100% of tonnage in deposit.
Then... perform 1 Kg mass volume test on each ore character type.
= accurate assesment of each ore type + % uranium and vanadium ( and other minerals )
Though the 2012 chart applies to Anit zone
I have to wonder if former 2012 assaying practices were superior than 2021 standards.
What difference would it make ? = estimating actual size of resource.
2012 grades in metallurgy report ( chart )
have few to no ( 0's ) right side of decimal
= 2012 wayyyyy higher grades
Apply it to a combined indicated and inferred resource of
25,200,000 tonnes ( Ivana )
= could spell far more resources
Keep in mind Current Ivana resource estimate
only scrubbs and washes off uranium Rest of ore is stockpiled
2012 Tech report suggests uranium is precipitating from rocks
and also states... only atop surface of rock.
Question becomes...
uranium just can't appear without a source
if a considerble amount is attatchedto the rocks
= suggests rocks are precipitating uranium
if ores are washed, scrubbed and
fines are only leached makes for a qick mine model / low cost extraction
But... suppose rocks, gravel did host the minerals ? Wouldn't cost that much to ore sort ofter the scrub and wash phase
and once colored ore is imparted ( potential ore bearing )
Mill it = all the more resource tonnage. 2012 Tech Report
does show a few photos
i'm seeing uranium coming out of the rock interior.
Yup.
Cheers....