Victoria Gold Corp VITFF

Narrowing down the cast of characters

[mdjbrown]

The third party engineering firm who was hired to inspect the Eagle Mine site in 2022 set out several key recommendations in a report following their inspection, and it will be interesting to see who authorised what on whose authority after receiving those recommendations.

The company has already publicly reported the stacking rate was not capped at 275 days at 39,154 tpd, so who authorised the increased volume of ore being stacked on the HLP. 

That is an additional 90 days or 3 months of additional stacking at almost 40,000 tpd above licensing authorization.

Follow the paper work and you shall find the answer .....................


 “4. Discussion Points – Operations (Section 7) 4.1. Ore Stacking Plan (OMS Section 7.2) This section states that ore will be stacked at “39,154 tonnes/day thereafter for 275 loading days, or more, per year.” QML-0011 (Section 9.6) sets the maximum 12-month average stacking rate at 29,500 tonnes per day (tpd), which is consistent with the limit set by Clause 9.6 of QML-0011.

At an actual stacking rate of 39,154 tpd the loading period is thus capped at 275 days.”


Recommendations: 4.1: Reconcile the water balance model updates with the stacking rate and period set forth in the OMS and the limitations of QML-0011 Section 9.6. Clarify the relationship between daily ore stacking rate and stacking days per year to be in compliance with QML-0011 Clause 9.6.
 
https://emr-ftp.gov.yk.ca/emrweb/COMM/major-mines/eagle-gold/Eagle%20Gold%20Heap%20Leach%20Facility%20And%20Cyanide%20Management%20Review.pdf

[HoneyBadger77]

So mdjbrown, the licencing info you've provided states that VG licence authorizes ore stacking on the HLP for up to 39,154 tpd for 275 days or a maximum of 29,500 tpd over a 12 month period.  I don't see this licence as having a daily stacking limit so could VG theoretically stack 50,000 tpd one day and then 10,000 tpd the next as long as they don't exceed the 275 day or 12 month

[HoneyBadger77]

Correction to 2nd last para in my previous post: "The company is still onsite for a reason and YTG is allowing this, why?  My guess is because this event may have nothing to do with overstacking or negligence on the part of the company when a thorough investigation is finally completed.  From the licencing information you've provided, as long as VG was doing what they were

[Swingandmiss]

HB, how does the leak fit in to your theory. Maybe they didn't stack too high, but the leak may have made things unstable. 

[HoneyBadger77]

Well, the leak in the first liner should have been detected by the electroinic monitoring system and contained by the second liner as that's what the second liner is there for.  And then how do you explain the January slide where the ore wasn't even under leach, yet a slide still occurred? I don't have enough facts around the leak but both VG and EMR had to be aware of it. 

[mdjbrown]

I noticed that as well HB77 as I have been going through SEDAR MD&As and Q reports all afternoon.   Operational highlights – Fourth Quarter and Year Ended 2023 Ore stacked on the heap leach facility (“HLF”) in the quarter was 2.1 million t at an average grade of 0.65 grams per tonne (“g/t”). Ore stacked for the year was 9.0 million t at an average grade of 0.72 g/t

[HoneyBadger77]

Exactly mdjbrown, I think it's pretty clear they weren't over stacking and infact were understacking, Regarding Project 250, you probably weren't around / watching VG shares at the time but essentially that concept was based on using non-crushed ore (referred to as 'fines' following blasting).  They thought was that they could dump these 'fines' on the pad and