Hello Nabaru, I apologise for not replying sooner as I was undergoing some medical procedures and I abhor using the pissy buttons on the “Smart Phone”?? to write lengthy messages. So, here I am at station and happy to reply to your mail. I also am happy to see that your reply to my post got many TU’S. So, obviously I did not express myself adequately on answering HELL’s question and I must have upset many people. In which case, I apologise for this as well. To express my view; perhaps more succinctly and at the risk of getting into more hot water, I elaborate on the following thoughts. Because this was a trial exercise, and one representing a very small parcel of selective ore from various orebodies, and one of very high grade ore at that, I never placed much importance on what was going to be lost in the tailings and the plant nooks and crannies. And the reason why I said the plant was a success was because I was trying to address the discussion in the posts of the trial mining period which concentrated on whether final clean up would yield +/-1000 ounces, And concluded therefore that whatever the case the difference was/is, it is going to be miniscule in view of the average grade in the parcels treated. In the scheme of things and my logic, this parcel was too much of a melange to be a true representative sample. So, if we are getting; very conservatively; +90 % of the gold from this very rich feed, it is a very good comforting result indeed. Furthermore, as has been suggested before, the tailing of any operations from the Old Pirate et al will ultimately be treated with ore from the porphyry operations at Buccaneer, albeit many years down the track. But, even a generous 10% loss from the reef operations locked up in the tailings, will go a long way to enriching the ore treatment of the Porphyry. Now, I appreciate that with your extensive experience in plant operations and many of your thumbs up readers who are Metallurgy savvy, my comments would have been ; and still would be viewed as very broad brushed, and I agree with all of you. I know, it is important to figure out the head grade, how the gold is tied up, how easily it is liberated in the ore crushing process and a number of other parameters which will be important for the future mining and treatment processes. I am afraid that with the new direction of the company’s plan? This appears to be of secondary importance at this stage until it is time to review the JORC. I also would like to point out at the risk of losing credibility with all the miners and metallurgists who disagree with me, is that the head grade from this trial mining will not mean much as the orebodies are better defined structurally, lithologically and I’m sure metallurgically in some parts of it; particularly between orebodies.
Without being cynical, this trial mining I viewed as an interim filling operation whilst preparing and clearing the path to the land council agreements and the application for a ML grant. But, it is deplorable that the exercise has not reach a conclusion as yet, information is needed in order to tweak the plant if it is to treat these small parcels. However, I think that this plant will be upgraded and enlarged significantly over the next two to three years if it is to treat serious tonnages of ore. I agree that much more information should have been reported to the shareholders as was promised in former more friendly days. On this point I would also have to agree that the new shareholders may be “treated preferentially to the rest of us”. In fact, the enthusiasm and candidness to Darren’s reporting has been lost and one has to wonder how much influence they have had in the decision for this opaque reporting. I have other speculative thoughts regarding this recent marriage but I shall refrain exposure on this thread for the time being. Let us still remain positive, if for no other reason but for the sake of this exceptional mineralised field. No offence meant to anyone folks. Cheers, Helmenesh
As I finished this post, I see that a report is out. I haven't read it yet in detail NABARU but I trust it will give you some better answers than my ranting.
ABU Price at posting:
2.3¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)