Sageyrain, Hollisters contained ounces after today’s results from ARU are even smaller now compared to ARU's contained ounces.
I don't think production costs will be over $350 oz at Hollister, so I think it will be quite profitable and therefore $65/oz is good deal for GBN. But that's just my laymen's viewpoint, Hah!
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.
You didn't answer my question. How do you do your calculations? I think you just go with the crowd cause that's where your sperience takes you. Your really aren't interested in facts but you cleverly present your bluff and bluster.
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.
You should look up the word epithermal. You obviously don't know what it means and are too lazy to look it up.
Also, this is a large mine. The access ramp cost will be very small compared to the overall cost of ground control while mining. So why are you diverting the attention from mining to access. Yes your tiny access cuts across the unstable contacts, but, unfortunately, your orebody, everywhere, has contacts. And as this will be bulk-mined, you will also be dealing with constantly changing internal mineface contacts. All of which has to be kept stable while you are mining and this is where your major cost comes in, not the friggen access. Interesting that I have to digress into this mining 101 biz so that I can explain to the laymen that you are using clever diversion again, and I am sitll not sure that you even know what you are talking about. Oh thats right, its because I am a laymen,right, LOL.
/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.
Ahh, clever nitpicking to avoid the truth. Experts know that dikes are common features in volcanic terranes. This sounds like a fluidized, milled matrix breccia dike, kind of a diatreme type feature, only smaller or peripheral, common in volcanic terranes associated with gold mines. But you wouldn't know that I think. You expose your clever bluff of expertise. If you do not know that sheaing, faulting, fracturing associated with clay alteration often causes bad ground conditions in epithermal deposits, you expose your bluff. You are clever with words, a very good hypester.
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.
Once again, you have said nothing. Oh, sorry, it only looks like nothing to my laymen's eyes. Do you believe that the average person on this board cannot see through this?
/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.
Interesting, that you just happened to pick Red Lake to compare considering it is the most arguably the most profitable, and one of the highest grade mines on the planet.
Here is another prime example of your bluff and bluster. Mines are not made on the highest grade core that is pulled. They are made of an average of the highest grade core with all the rest of the lower grade core that is above the cut-off grade. That is about a basic mining 101 point that most knowledgeable laymen in this area know. And you don't. Bluffing, but its getting so transparent it is laughable. So yes, ARU has pulled some brilliant core, long intervals of 6-11 g/t in some holes. But I think that your not particularly versed laymen's mind does not understand that these grades will be averaged in with much bigger, relative volumes of 1 to 5 gram material.
And that leads to another question to you that you dodged. What do you estimate the average mined grade will be at FDN, based on the current grade? I think it will be 3-4 g/t, maybe 5.
So what is the average grade being mined right now at Red Lake, and the average for the mine history. Look it up. It's real easy, right on the internert. Google is the most popular one, so I imagine that is the one you will choose.
So, give me those numbers that I have asked for, and then tell me if you expect there is a danger of rock bursts at the depths that FDN will be mined at. That's your next mining 101 assignment. Then please come back and tell me if you think this is really a valid comparison. |
