Latest PR was excellent with more excellent results. Any company would be extremely excited to have such core results.
This is a long read but it should answer allot of misconceptions.
Welcome Heloboy and Sakinkoylu, good to have you over here also. Eric if you read the latest PR you will find the answer to your question about width. 100m wide is very impressive.
Sageyrain I do enjoy facts because from them a logical person can find the truth and then make his investment decisions accordingly
/Facts are good. Indeed, no two deposits are exactly alike, that is why I presented a lower $/oz buyout example to contrast against the higher dollar values being thrown around here of late./
I am not understanding you logic Sageyrain. Cumberland's deposit does not compare favourably to ARU so then why would you compare the Hollister deposit to ARU when Hollister does not even compare favourably to Cumberland.
Cumberland got 244/ounce CND and since it does not compare to ARU one logically would think ARU would get more than this, not less.
/correct, Hollister is much smaller and the grade is considerably higher, 31+ g/t. What is your estimate of the mine able grade for FDN? I am assuming at this point that most of it will be mined underground, using bulk mining techniques. It looks to me like it might average 3-4 g/t overall. Maybe a little higher./
Sageyrain once again you misrepresent the facts. Hollisters core intercepts or the ones of any significant are measured in 3 ft or less. If you want to compare ARU intercepts by that standard then Hollister does not even come close to the hundreds and in one case over a thousand grams per ton ARU hit.
Most of ARU at the moment will be mined underground and a number of mining techniques will be used depending on the size and orientation of the vein. This is common in all underground gold mine. I will elaborate on this another day because it is long and complex.
Sageyrain, Hollisters contained ounces after today’s results from ARU are even smaller now compared to ARU's contained ounces.
ARU has an estimated 15,000,000 ounces open in all directions compared to 1,000,000.
/Curious as to where you derive your ARU resource estimate. I keep a running cross-sectional resource estimate that I post to the board. I currently get about 10.6 m oz at FDN, and 11.1 with B/LP. I use a very rough, eyeball cut off of about
1.5 to 2 g/t. Am always glad to have new data points to add to the mix. I would have a very difficult time, if possible at all, coming up with 4 million additional ounces given present drill data. Not that the picture can't change pretty quick given new, significant intercepts./
Your calculations do not seem to relate to mine or a number of analysts that that have estimated ARU having 12 - 15 million ounces before they added another 300 meters of strike. This also does not include the high probability that many more ounces will be discovered. You invest for the future and not the present.
The ground conditions are not similar at all.
/From this statement I gather that you are directly familiar with mineralised- and wall-rock ground conditions at FDN as you present this as a fact. As no information has been released by ARU concerning potential ground conditions at FDN, I am assuming that you are privy to inside information./
I present this as a fact from having worked in these types of ground conditions all over the world. Host rock type is show very clearly on there Diamond Drill Hole layouts on there Web Site. This type of rock is very competent to mine in. I also can deduce from the nice long relatively unfractured core lengths that the ground is highly competent. Therefore one does not have to be privy to inside information if he has the experience and knowledge to comprehend what is being shown in the PR. It is forgivable that a layman such as yourself though would not be able to pick up on this.
ARU is in volcanic while Hollister is in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is very difficult to mine in due to its weak nature. This type of ground condition requires very expensive time consuming ground support which cuts back on productivity thus increasing cost per ounce. Volcanic are relatively easy to mine through.
/The statement that "volcanic are relatively easy to mine" may represent a "fact" at a very general rule-of-thumb level, but it certainly does not apply universally to all epithermal (relatively low-temp and generally close to surface) volcanic hosted deposits. Wall rocks in these systems are often moderately to intensely clay altered and/or sheared and faulted, creating difficult ground conditions. If one looks at enough of these types of deposit this is very evident./
Sageyrain while the first part of your statement is correct, the rest is not really applicable to ARU or the discussion. First ARU deposits so far starts 100 m below surface which is not close to surface in the context you imply. Second wall rocks or contact zones are not where any sane mining engineer would plan his underground development. This is in part for the reason you state and in part because all contact zones are unstable to a certain degree. You plan your development so that access to the ore zone cuts across these zones perpendicularly. This development is planed in the competent waste rock and from the footwall side of the ore body. Once again the waste rock they describe is quite competent.
/Here is an example from the Ken Snyder mine, in N. Nevada, hosted by volcanic rocks-
"In the accident area, the clastic dyke was a pale green, generally friable rock composed of mostly angular fragments of lapilli tuff with occasional thin, disseminated calcite veins. Hand samples collected near the fall were easily broken with hand pressure......"
msha.gov
"Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) - Metal and Non-metal Mine Fatal Accident Investigation Report: 10/23/1999 - Fatality #44 - Fall of Roof/Back - Gold - NV - Dynatec Mining Corporation,.."
Friable means that the rock can be crushed in your hand. They also state that the rock can be broken by hand. This is unstable ground by any measure, in volcanic rocks. That's a fact./
Sageyrain once again your lack of experience has caused you to misinterpret this report.
"In the accident area, the clastic dyke was a pale green, generally friable rock composed of mostly angular fragments"
This is the telling statement in the report that states the accident occurred in the clastic dyke zone and not in the host volcanic. A dyke is an intrusive body that is not part of the host volcanic and can be zones of danger sometimes. Once again it is a contact zone which can be dangerous and Dykes are not encountered relatively often underground.
Ecuador has virtually no taxation on mining, low labour costs and very little red tape compared to Nevada as well.
/Could you elaborate on this? I have found that red tape in some developing parts of the world can be just as bad or worse than the U.S., and I include in this such things as problems with local jurisdictions, indigenous folks, labour activists, etc., etc. I find your "fact" in this case as a useless generalisation. Could you please elaborate on how much simpler Ecuador is to operate in than the U.S. or Canada?/
Well you may find it a useless generalization but the fact still remains. Ecuador has no income tax, royalty tax or profit share. One of the reasons mining companies like South America is it's relatively low or non existent taxation.
ARU has also been working in Ecuador for over 5 years with no problem to any of your other concerns.
The same cannot be said about the US.
/I find the comparison to the Red Lake mine odd, unless you have access to inside info about ground stability at FDN. Red Lake is a mesothermal (relatively high temp. and deep) deposit in metamorphic rocks that, as a rule-of-thumb, present better ground conditions than epithermal volcanic hosted deposits. They rarely have significant amounts of strong clay alteration associated with them. Red lake is also much higher grade than FDN./
Well I have already answered part of this for you. However Red Lake is also an older mine that is getting quite deep with lots of old workings. This supposed competent ground you talk about has been highly stressed and fractured over time resulting in rock bursting, deaths and the loss of a whole level a couple of years ago. Your lack of experience in this field is evident.
As for your statement that Red lake has higher grade than ARU that is not true also. Red lake has never pulled core that compares to ARU in length or average grade. No other mine has either.
/Good, always good to have more experienced inputs./
Yes it is good to have experience, thus common misconceptions that are made by the inexperienced layman can be corrected.
This should answer any questions concerning what kind of premium ARU will command. It will be high.
Regards,
F.F. |
