Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Precious and Base Metal Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frankly Speaking who wrote (24716)	11/29/2003 10:57:03 AM
From: jpthoma1	Respond to of 39344

Of the two (CZZ, and KNP), which one do you like better? That's a good question. But I have the answer! KNP is drilling on the «North Raglan Trend», a well known and characterized mineralized ultramafic horizon. After one year, they have discovered one nice occurrence and a few more potential targets. It's an early exploration play. They need more tonnage in one or more deposits, which means a few more years or exploration. For the time being, it's kind of a one project company. CZZ is working on the less known «South Raglan Trend». But after two years, they have found one deposit (Mesamax), are «upgrading» another one (Expo-Ungava) and are working at defining a few more interesting prospects (TooToo, TK...). At the QuébecExploration Show, I have attended to a presentation of the geological setting of these deposits and was quite surprized: very different from to the North trend. CZZ is a also more mature and well financed exploration play. CZZ has also optionned some Ungava properties to other juniors and also own royalties on NVE ground. And it owns dozens of other properties in Québec and has optionned some ground from INCO in the Thompson belt in Manitoba. I definitively prefer CZZ on the long term. But, even if I have prematurely sold KNP last month<gggg>, I may be ready to buy some this spring before the beginning of the drilling season for a short term gain on good follow-up drilling results. So, the conclusion: two interesting plays! JP

To: Frankly Speaking who wrote (24716)	11/29/2003 3:44:57 PM
From: jpthoma1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39344

Here is a summary of the conference about the CZZ deposits. I have highlighted the most surprizing content to me. The South Raglan trend constitutes a series of magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE sulfide deposits and showings along approximately 100 km strike length running parallel to the currently producing deposits of the main Raglan trend. The two most significant occurrences are the Expo-Ungava deposit and the Mesamax deposit. The Expo-Ungava deposit is a 15 Mt resource grading 0.6% Ni and 0.8% Cu and estimated to contain 1 to 3 g/t of Pd. The resource at Mesamax consists of 1.45 Mt of massive to disseminated sulfide mineralization hosted by pyroxenite and grading 2.1% Ni, 2.7% Cu, 0.3 g/t Au, 1.0 g/t Pt and 4.2 g/t Pd. Mineralization consists of massive pyrrhotite, pentlandite, chalcopyrite and magnetite, or of disseminated pyrrhotite, pentlandite and chalcopyrite. Evolution of the sulfides is consistent with nearly complete equilibrium crystallization of monosulfide solid solution from sulfide magma followed by outward migration of fractionated sulfide melts rich in Cu, Pd, and Au to form extremely Pd-rich selvedges around bodies of massive sulfide. Mineralization is hosted by irregularly zoned mafic to ultramafic intrusive bodies hosted by metasediments and metavolcanics of the Povungnituk Group in the New Quebec Orogen. Whereas preliminary fieldwork led to the interpretation that the mineralized ultramafic rocks were channelized flows belonging to the Povungnituk Group, extensive mapping in 2003 has shown that they are sharply discordant magmatic conduits in all cases. Mineral fabrics, metamorphic grades, detailed drill sections and map patterns show that the entire South Raglan trend can be interpreted as a series of en echelon or parallel dikes trending approximately N70E, which can collectively be termed the Expo Dikes. The Expo Dikes were emplaced into the New Quebec Orogen after the development of km-scale open folds in the metasedimentary and metavolcanic supracrustal succession and after their host rocks had cooled from peak metamorphic conditions. Post-emplacement metamorphism has largely replaced primary phases with a greenschist mineral assemblage, but some large masses of gabbro-norite and pyroxenite remain very fresh. Locally intense ductile shear produced greenschist facies assemblages and is associated with a later deformational episode. Although the overall similarity of the mineralization in the Expo Dikes invites correlation with the Raglan trend, the grossly different Cu/Ni ratios (1.0 in the Expo Dikes, 0.3 at Raglan) suggest that the two suites are unrelated. The timing of emplacement of the Expo Dikes is problematic and may require re-evaluation of the tectonic evolution of the New Quebec Orogen.