Post by
Wangotango67 on Sep 22, 2021 7:49pm
BULL RIVER MINE - THOUGHTS
As per the latest video on Bull River Mine - Crux Investor
I'm not in agreence to labelling tha Bull River Mine - small sized mine.
Where i think some of the hang ups may exist are -
- Placid Oil Compnay had severa lopen pits in which they mined
I'm thinking along the lines of, Placid Oil encountered - PLACER GOLD - in surface pits
creating a forward issue for - Gallowai - when comparing the gold values in underground
Surface gold grams averaged - 10/g - 12/g
While underground drills placed the gold under a gram per tonne.
Now... there were many drill holes not factored into the present - resource size for Bull Mine.
Valid points were made with the inability to find the collars or, match the cores + core numbers.
If we examine a few of the pointers in a former 43 101 - we can see where this Bull Mine
" could " be far larger in size than what's promoted -
Page 8- 9 - former tech report
https://www.insolvencies.deloitte.ca/Documents/ca_en_insolv_Stanfield_RPA_041012.pdf
" The database, comprising 501 drill holes and underground rock channels, is, for the most part, still unverified. "
We can easily read - over 1,000 assays were omittred.
Assays that only checked for gold.
Now let's ask.. .why was the copper andsilver andcobalt not checked ?
Braveeahrt secured a contract with - Ocean - for a copper concentrate.
If we remind ourselves of the original contract - it was inked for - WET TONNES
Later it was changed ot dry tonnes.
I have to ask... how was the current Bull Mine resource size calculated ?
Braveheart chose to continue with Moose Mountain given they've have experience with the Bull over the years.
Would the same data be passed forward - in a collective gathering - to save on time for newer
43 101 reports ? Chances are... data would be ot save time.
Page 254 - former Gallowai tech report
https://aris.empr.gov.bc.ca/ArisReports/34090.PDF
We can read the indifference between - dry weight and wet weights.
Yet... the wet weight is lessor than the dry weight of ore.
My question is... would it make a difference if the resource was only calculatedwith the
weighing of hte ( heavier ore ) ?
I feel the wet weightsd should be ( fresh ores ) coming out of ground and should have the
higher weight value - am i wrong ?
If i'm right.. .why is the Moose Mountain values in wet values lessor in wegihts than the dry and more importantly... could this value of weights affect the over all tonnage weights of actual size of mine ores ?
SUM IT UP -
I feel many of the drill holes were rejected due to a potential conflict of perhaps the placer gold near surface stained the image of the mine below grade -had there been a proper discrimination between the two gold ore bodies the other drill cores could be incorporated into tthe " core " resource to augment its over all size.
Since the gold was always under scrutiny,
It reflected back onto tthe copper in terms of, copper took a back seat - we can read many of the cores were never assayed for copper or silver or cobalt, which obviously injures the overall size of resource.
Wassit smart for Braveheart to resume relations with Moose or would it have been better t obegin anew and have all rejected cores reassayed for all metal values in which would provide an entirely new view point on this bull river - mine ?
In one of the tech reports,
Either Purcell or Placid - DID - check for mineralization - striking - EAST WEAST.
This would " certainly " qualify and align with - my own theory - of the source of hte deposit
emminates from the nearby mountain - which has one good sized main access portal in which to checkthe ores.
Which begs.. why has Braveheart not focused on this main portal going into mountain and instead drilled all the deeperr - whn the obvious is - track the minerals towards the mountain
where the sulphides are literally oozing out ?
Lastly...
The cobalt wild card sure has been a well guarded mineral.
So much more could be done to further this topic - especially if the cobalt at .025% matches the value of the copper -
When will this junior polish up these important subjects ?
It's bene nearly stalemate all summer long.
Hearing small mine, when the reports scream otherwise - all in plight of- extrapolating the key data sets out of historical reports and the proving of them vs listening to a 3rd party like Moose which evaded reassay cores on the premise of, former gold controversies.
I don't think it would be that hard to distinguish between bul lriver ores, and surface core ores which match with same minerlaization - there'a a wack of cores not factored into the resource which compromises the true size of the resource - AGAIN - if the placer gold was compartmentalized from the underground ores such would define the distinct indifference and allow the bull river mine to lose the long standing ( hgher gold gram ) stain thereof .
Sadly... bull river mine has many core assays that were never checked for copper because of this fixation on higher gold discrepencies.
Even as much as... were the hang wall and foot wall ( outside veining ores ) ever factored into the over al lresouece ? some of thes eoutside vein ores amount to - 1 meters on either side of a vein that sometimes matches 1m in sizwe. Such could dramatically change the size of resource by double facotor - if basing it on a 1m t o1m comparison.
Cheers....
Comment by
Yuma007 on Nov 04, 2021 1:49pm
Wangotango67 where did you go? Liked hearing your thoughts on bul river.Made a person go " hmmmm!