Read on Twitter
I had a quick look at $mux Gold Bar problems.
1. Not enough recent drilling (38 holes for met/geotech purposes in 2015!). A FS based on early 1990s RC drilling cannot succeed, imo.
2. Almost no validation of previous drill results and geological structures/mineralized bodies...
1. Not enough recent drilling (38 holes for met/geotech purposes in 2015!). A FS based on early 1990s RC drilling cannot succeed, imo.
2. Almost no validation of previous drill results and geological structures/mineralized bodies...
You do not test your geol model by doing RC drilling only.
You need diamond drill holes (ddh) esp when dealing w structural gold.
They've drilled only ... 9 ddh for the whole project. And that was in 1993... (2)
You need diamond drill holes (ddh) esp when dealing w structural gold.
They've drilled only ... 9 ddh for the whole project. And that was in 1993... (2)
Both the FS guys and the $mux geo team should have known better and should have asked management to spend a few xtra bucks to properly drill it.
They are doing it now...after the f-up and a $84M loss. (3)
They are doing it now...after the f-up and a $84M loss. (3)
3. SRK covered their a..es but still mentioned all over the place that structural control is important.
Rob says that SRK is telling them now that structural control is more imp than lithological control and I won't get into too many details here even though the FS is juicy. (4)
Rob says that SRK is telling them now that structural control is more imp than lithological control and I won't get into too many details here even though the FS is juicy. (4)
Steeply dipping structures channeled Au minz which then upward encountered permeable (primary & secondary permeability) strata and dumped their precious metals load. All good but the model based on old data considered that numerous other pods of minz exist along the bedding...(5)
...and they were not there when $mux tried to mine them.
4. What else could have gone wrong? They have lots of unconstrained refractory & preg robbing dark (graphite) carbonate rocks which they need to mine and set aside (even though hi grade) bcs they cannot process them. (6)
4. What else could have gone wrong? They have lots of unconstrained refractory & preg robbing dark (graphite) carbonate rocks which they need to mine and set aside (even though hi grade) bcs they cannot process them. (6)
If their 3D extent is not well known, well Au production will suffer. The operator has to visually recognize them while mining.
5. In places there is such a hi variablity of oxidized (no graphite/good) and unoxidized (graphite/bad) material (mixed, intermingled) that ... (7)
5. In places there is such a hi variablity of oxidized (no graphite/good) and unoxidized (graphite/bad) material (mixed, intermingled) that ... (7)
... not even drilling on a tight pattern would be able to sort that out. Meaning: No other way but to mine them all together=> you f-up gold recovery.
6. This is one of a kind FS. Not only based almost exclusively on early 1990s data but also on hear-say :)
(8)
6. This is one of a kind FS. Not only based almost exclusively on early 1990s data but also on hear-say :)
(8)
A guy has told em that some Au minz *might* be found in depressions/negative relief paleo-features as the mineralized fluid might have ponded there => explains the discontinuous pods of minz along (parallel w) the bedding. (9)
So this was a personal communication and they've (both SRK & $mux) build their geol model (and a FS) on this hear-say 'personal communication.'
Un-be-lie-va-ble!
Well in reality the pods seem to be structurally controlled. (10)
Un-be-lie-va-ble!
Well in reality the pods seem to be structurally controlled. (10)
There is more to that but I just wanted to let you have a taste (must taste bad though) & maybe next time look what kind of data they have considered for their FS and if was properly validated or not.
Cheers.
Dan
Cheers.
Dan
