Post by
Wangotango67 on Aug 12, 2021 12:48am
2012 - TECH REPORT - COBALITE
In the 2012 Tech report ( Bull River ) they knew about the - cobalite
Referenced from - year 2000.
Mineralization consists of pyrite, pyrrhotite, and chalcopyrite with minor local galena, sphalerite, arsenopyrite, and cobaltite and traces of tetrahedrite and native gold. Sulphides range from massive, irregular bodies within the vein system to thin discontinuous veins, veinlets, and disseminations in the host rock (Hy et al., 2000).
LINK - Page 28
https://www.insolvencies.deloitte.ca/Documents/ca_en_insolv_130316_FINAL_12V1249_Gallowai_BulRiverTechnicalReport_032713.pdf
Wango -
In my opinion - this statement of proof that cobalite is present with in the ores places a whole new lighton the bul lriver mine.
Back then, Stanfield was after gold.
And as the story goes, the gold gram value was questioned.
To fully understand the - greater picture - one almost has to place onseself back in those year classes - lots of presure on the junior- copper prices were only - $.65 cents, and the obvious attention getter would point to - gold. Copper was piddly squat in value.
Fastforward to 2021, copper is now in the limelight.
Gold is very nicely valued, but the grade of copper with in mine - copper now supercedes the gold value.
Preasure on former miner, chasing the gold, good copper grades were present, but, gold was what the former junor wanted.
B.C. Juniors - in my opinion - are reknown for overlooking extra mineral credits.
it's, copper, gold, silver... mention anything else and it never recieves gratitude.
Just of late, since the doning of battery metals - juniors been more attentive to seek out other potential credits.
I tihnk the greatestvantage Braveheart has right now....
Is the bility to rescan all the cores in the racks.
Easy to pass an XRF over these cores - preferrabley a LIBS - XRF - seeking out cobalt values.
Secondly, not often does a junior have theprivledge to walk below grade in a reasy made mine. I'd be taking the XRF below scanning all the mine walls, in plight of, COBALITE.
AS MENTIONED IN PRIOR POST -
I was quite please with the SGS results that mentioned a good portion of - cobalite - reported to the tailings when performing extraction tests.
This is quite advantageous -
All Braveheart has to do is add on an additional flotation unit ...
to deal with the cobalite.
It's what i would do.
Again... i would hope Braveheart has more insight on this subject of cobalite, and just maybe they'll treat this cobalite potential with further tsting of cores and mine walls.
I'm presently looking for a - petrograhic study - on the bul lriver mine.
As of yet, nothing.
I'm hoping there is one, inwhich identifies which host rock harbors the cobalite.
In a former tech report - 2012- when they tabulated the cores looking for gold, many of the cores were not checked for copper. Gold, was the main focal point.
I shudder the thought, when thinking of hte former operator not looking at al lthe mineral credits while scanning the cores - it so needs to be performed - it would clean up the project and provide that valued iinsight on - cobalite values.
Though former cores were not - collared - these were omitted fro mthe resource size- and if checking these cores would lead to contesting then.... it would be best to simply test al lthe walls of the mine. perhaps far better, checking the mine walls, all host rocks can be checked.
It would certainly provide the definitive - what's below .
Lastly....
I would love to see Braveheart take the initiative on this cobalite, and assure shareholders that they'll make every effort of not including the coblaite in a copper concentrate.
Cheers....
Excuse the typos...
I review the post beofre its sent, and al lhell breaks loose thereafter - my post is riddled with typos. Out of my control. ( is what it is )