Post by
Wangotango67 on Aug 02, 2021 4:47pm
GALLOWAI'S - 2012 - REPORT
I know, I know, i thought i was done researching but,
i took the deep dive and decided to read the entire - Gallowaii 2012 report. - bull river mine.
I feel there are certain ( gem ) takeaway's with in this report
that shed light on the entire project.
Yes, the report leads the reader on several times when speaking of the drill data only to veer the subject and fades, several times.
I could read this report in a negative context, and simply notate al lthe wrongs or, look at it
in a stance of, collecting al lthe gems, fro ma stance of, investor or fresh new owner.
I will say, there's a theme of, two worlds colliding that;s woven into the report, old world mining meets new 43 101 compilance standards, whereas, ( own opinion ) typical junior encounters the new 43 101 standards and is met with a constant resistence. All new compliances such as larger drill cores, logginh of cores, - etc - and the unceretainty of drill cores performed outside of the core ore body come into question .
Thus, only 1/2 the drill meters were used in this report to obtain a resource estimate.
Yeah... only 1/2 the meterage.
And, only veining material was used.
Host rock aside of the veining was not taken into account.
Which is why Braveheart should pul la few historical cores that are ( compliant ) and
reassay the ( rock ) outside the veining to see if the copper mineralization is present.
Only specific drilling data was compiled - select - surface drills and interior of mine drills.
My greatest takeaway is,
they would not proceed with underground portals if the surface drilling were duds.
Which promted the portals and further underground drilling.
Which did prove the copper and other minerals were there.
Sizr of ( estimated tonnage ) is all over the map -
PG&M estimate ( all categories ) = 8.7 million tonnes.
SMG's independent consultant reported = 5.3 million tonnes
The report uses a conservative estimate far lessor than the tow estimates above.
And, so does, Braveheart.
This 2012 report should've went the distance and taken the time to document the dril lcore data with each hole - holes that were acceptablea - comprising the resource size.
And i stress, a conservative estimate. Were they overly cautious - perhaps, but, it is what it is.
Besides the 4 companies mentioned - two of which ran the bull river mine, made it all the more complex to decipher the mine data - . tracking down the data.
The resource size - back then - and though conservative only using 1/2 the meterage - while
other estimates of, 5+ million tonnaes to over 8 million ore tonnes does leave a healthy margin of - promising expectration ofwhat the mine could - offer in mineralized tonnage,
While reading the rteport - I was specifically on the hunt for - electrolysis equipt.
I wanted ot see if such equipt existed... but, most of the time, and even in another court report, it would mention most of the equipt bot not all and left it as, other equipt qwith no definities.
Leaving bias on the sidelines,
I can see how officials would want more - production - which could also be read as, find more resources. But, on the flip and with a measure of bias, this project should be looked at as, it does have a good frasmework of resources and placing such an imposition on a junior to increase production could also be looked at as impedence. ( own opinion )
It's the quivelency of, telling a current mine operator whose left with a few million tonnes to find more resource or, they can't mine when the mine offered up all it could. Hnece, does one park the resource or, permit the junior to pull what remains out with the clear vantage of, current mine has the equipt to do so.
With in this report -
there is indication that outside areas away from the mine does host minerlaization.
But, where the tangle resides, is the suspicion of former operator incorporating outside dril ldata wirth core mine. Hnece, the conservative resource size. But, this is where an astute individual will want ot seaparate each zone and probe further to see what outside areas can offer - here is where i have yet to find data on what the cores encountered outside the main mine area. ( mineral values in cores ) Now what's interesting is, some of the core data was tested in Germany, ugh... but, i have ot ask, why would the junior go to lengths to do so ? And there are always two sides ot any story, and what i have come across on other juniors is, well, let's just say it's good to try out other assay labs - right... hey, it's the mining industry - lol - don't get me started on that subject - tease.
Page 54 - revela the drill meterage over the years.
Impressive.
Again, one can see the nitpicking of compliance when it discusses the measurements used when tabulating the cores for assaying from feet to meters. I feel, once the picking starts on a retro junior who must convert to the new 43 101 comppliance - it never ends...wink.
Now i'll park bias again, and on page 76 we can see how a 3rd party recommended a lab to crush the ores instead of onsite - which i have to agree.... but, i do like ot see a junior sometimes crush their own ores and use XRF to compare with lab resluts just to see if the lab is accurate - goes both ways...
Page 87 - i like -
Here we can see how the copper mineralization forms in grade value in veins.
13% - 1%
What caught my eye was... the captioned words on right side columb -
- brecciated vein with chalcopyrite, cut by carbonate veinlets
- argillaceous quartzite, with minor blebs of pyrrhotite
- argillaceous siltstone, with minor quartz-carbonate-chalcopyrite veinlets
- massive chalcopyrite, minor pyrrhotite; barite
What's so great ?
Aside of the main focus " quartz vein " minerlaization, here we can see there are veinletes
in other host rock - and veinletes with mineralization - which is quite important - wne looking at this deposit with a new set of eyes that steps outside the specifics of just- quartz vein minerlaization - keep in mind - the resource calualation in this jistorical report - only included veined minerals - when i see veinletes with in the argilites - well - hello, hello - i like it.
Page 89 - excerpt
The independent underground sampling conducted by RPA returned copper values in a range of 0.01% Cu to 6.39% Cu with a median of 1.45% Cu and a mean of 1.77% Cu. Silver grades varied from a low of 0.50 g/t Ag to a high of 44.2 g/t Ag with a median of 10.3 g/t Ag and a mean of 11.8 g/t Ag. Gold results ranged from 0.010 g/t Au to 2.360 g/t Au with a median grade of 0.390 g/t Au and a mean grade of 0.794 g/t Au
Page 91 -
I'm not partial to the methodology of sampling -
I feel the sampling could have bene performed more thouroghly - when i see
level 5 - with two indifferent grades then a muck sample kicked in, i would have preferred to see level 5's ( 1.4% copper ) kept and the muck sample omitted - and the first weak sample of copper retested - imagine - one chip and its a casino spin on whether the person taking the chip knows what they're doing or... hmmmm
Another takeaway on this page 91 - ?
Level 8 sample - .95% copper - found in - 5 cm massive cpy stringer in argillite
Boom - argilites show up again - with good copper grades - i'd take that any day all day long .95% copper - outside the quartz and most likely argilites with veinletes -
Page 92 - dril lcore sampling - right form cores -
very nice results - even higher grades -
Page 93 - median grades
1.77% - 2.92% - copper
In RPA’s opinion, results from the small RPA verification sample group are sufficient to confirm the presence of base and precious metal values associated with quartz-siderite veining and stockwork and host rocks in the underground workings.
Again - minerals are confirmed outside the quartz veining - and to reiterate - the resource estimate only considered mostly quartz veining - which brings into question a resource tonnage of 1 million ore tonnes right up to 8+ million ore tonnes all catergories - thing is, just how much Cu Eq could Bull River offer up - current estimates are al lconservative and Bravehearts is really conservative -
Does the junior piss away more monies ( shares ) trying ot prove up more resources ?
Chances are it will lead ot dilution - -
The current - 75,000/t per year permit - not in use but on file - should be put to use -
Stockpiles + 75,000/t per year using the exisiting 750/t per day mill would allow the junior cash flow to function without dilution or less of, and allow the junor the expendable cash to further dril land outline the ful lscope of what Bull River has ot offer.
If the 75,000/t could be reinstated or put into motion - then - drystacking is al lthat remains -
75,000/t may not sound like much but if the junior could maintain a 1.5% copper grade just on its own it would fair far better than present course of - using shares to further drill.
75,000 tonnes /year
~ 12 months
= 6,250 tonnes month
Braveheart has a 750/ t per day mill.
= 8.3 days of milling / month
if they brought in am electrolysis - small scale - they could capture full value of trhe copper.
2200 pounds per tonne
x .015% copper
=33 lbs copper per ore tonne
x 75,000
=2,475,000 lbs copper
x $4.5
= $11,137,500 usd
This is what's needed.
Aside of the stockpile ores above grade,
i would recommend bringing forth the - 75,000/t small mine permitting.
All that would be left to pass = tailings / drystacking.
Now, if there's underground zone with high grade that cna be exploited firstly -
and suppose 2.3% Eq was implemented basing it on - 75,000/t small mining permit
= even more profits.
PERMIT + FORWARD CONTRACT = SMALL SCALE MINING
= CASHFLOW
IT would allow the junior to then,
frame this entire mine model for larger scale mining with additional drilling to exploit its fullest potential.
Anyways,
It's just my own opinion, i maybe wrong but then again i maybe right.
Do your own DD.... my opinion is certainly not investment advice.
I personally like this project- i see good potential - it's just the permitting office tether -
if this was cleared i'd buy nore stock - lol
Yeah... i do like tihs porject.
I would make that comparision and say....
suppose an unknown junior drilled for copper and had a current resource reported over
2 million tonnes of ore graded at - 1.5% copper - what would they be valued ?
Secondf example - suppose an unknown junoior switched lanes and went from gold mining to copper mining and bought a mine with a resource and all of its equipt - what soret of valuatio nwould occurr upon junior securing the mine and equipt 100% owned ?
Yeah... i'm sure other have thought the same -
which begs - why is this stock so undervalued ?
Maybe, the junior could implement the 75,000/t small mining permit applied ot undergeound ores ( in addition to the stockpiles ) and consider milling the spent ores and refilling the mine cavity in places where no minerlaization occurs which might allieviate the need for evne dry stacking ?
All i know is.. .any other junior - with a resource size as this - with copper in a run - would be priced far higher- add in al lthe 100% owned mine and equipt -= helluva lot higher.
Throw in an extra copper gold platium palladium ine -fully owned with a shhh load more of copper and well.... this stock is really undervlaued.
The hinge effect is - permit office granting 75.t small mine permit + tailings
Now.. one last thing - i did come across a papaer on what's needed to permit -
it goes onto mention - they prfere one submission as to prevent duplication of the application as it might create an issue with application with 2 departments.
I did notice - Braveheart mentioning they performed 2 applications.
But.. i would have to reread it again as per - what 2 exact applications and if they would conflict with 2 offices in permittting. Perhaps, a hangup based on 2 application on file ?
Not sure....
GALLOWAI - 2012 REPORT - BUL LRIVER MINE -
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiFsIWI7JLyAhUvnOAKHf7XCQsQFjABegQIAxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.insolvencies.deloitte.ca%2FDocuments%2Fca_en_insolv_Stanfield_RPA_041012.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3nX8tFodRCV-b9hjEYGoZ2
Cheers....