Ann: Mount Thirsty JV Exploration Update, page-114

I posted this a while ago, in another stock, so will just put it here again. More of a background post btw for others as drilling will decide here as will the assays obviously. My percption is we would be very happy given the initia;l geology assumed here of a chromite signature.

1. Is chromite a signature:

Peridotites mostly contain olivine and pryroxene.

Deposits where PGEs are evident can differ - so will be interesting what system they think they have here - here are some of the systems as per https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1802/n/pp1802n.pdf

In the CHN of 23 March 2020 they state the following around what they think is there without categorising it clearly IMO: "large layered ultramafic-mafic intrusion is very exciting, as it draws potential parallels with other large-scale nickel-copper-PGE sulphide discoveries worldwide". It would appear for CHN's Julimar it is a Magmatic Deposit - most likely Reef Type deposit IMO (refer N-12 of above link).

On the issue of chromite, in the Julimar discovery given geology, people were happy in seeing it btw in the soil samples especially with nickel/copper specks. Chromite in itself doesn't mean you have a viable resource or what you think might be there orelse where chromite is everyone would think Bob's Your Uncle and start drilling blowing cash because chromite might be an indicator of rock type but not the embedded (nor extent of) mineralisation in the rock itself per se IMO.
https://www.pitt.edu/~cejones/GeoImages/2IgneousRocks/IgneousCompositions.html

Olivine and Pyroxene is essentially within your ultramafic rock and Plagioclase and Pyroxene is within your mafic rock. Yes, chromite is commonly associated with olivine btw, just to be clear, (but chromite is also associated with a few other things, including certain metamorphic rocks, btw so just because you have chromite specks in say soil samples it is not indicative of what is below, but obviously the area having defined mafic/ultramafic rock types (which are igneous rock types) might give you more confidence to drill now hence why I have taken a punt here).

You can also find chromite as a layer, where concentrations are large, in some layered ultramafic intrusions btw as per pics you often see with the Bushveld system for example btw - infact this complex contains a hell of a lot of chromite btw - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushveld_Igneous_Complex) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromite (just use links if need help). The Bushveld complex has some layers that are 90% Chromite - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroxenite

Going to the Yilgarn Craton and specifically the Kambalda Region - obviously the point here is will the area where CHN others may have similar features - this is the geology there and the rock type at Kambalda and there are likely to differences by the looks of it, but time will tell only by the drill bit - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kambalda_type_komatiitic_nickel_ore_deposits and http://www.ga.gov.au/ausgeonews/ausgeonews200609/nickel.jsp

Point is komatiite, also a type of ultramfic volcanic rock, hosts nickel-copper sulfide mineralisation, which is what you see around the Kambalda region and why I have mentioned this rock type as well.

From - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layered_intrusion- "This is particularly true of a series of ultramafic-mafic layered intrusions in the Yilgarn Craton of ~2.8 Ga and associated komatiite volcanism and widespread tholeiitic volcanism." The area around OAR is on the Western edge of the Yilgarn Craton may have been influenced by Tholeitiic volcanism, but distinct lack of data on the specific mechanics to come to a view is my point (https://d28rz98at9flks.cloudfront.net/83884/Rec2016_001.pdf - page 81 and 82), which makes it interesting how the new Julimar discovery matches in terms of 'geology event' to say the discoveries around the Kambalda area.

Some pictures:
Here is a picture of some different deposit types, as well, noting the association - left hand side of the picture shows a likely chromite 'potential' zone, as a differing layering essentially, in the layering that has Ni-Cu-PGE btw http://www.ga.gov.au/data-pubs/data-and-publications-search/publications/critical-commodities-for-a-high-tech-world/mafic-ultamafic-orthomagmatic

The middle picture is also an interest as Olvine has also an assocation with chromite - from this link:
https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP12919&dsid=DS4
https://www.pitt.edu/~cejones/GeoImages/2IgneousRocks/IgneousCompositions.html

Page 3 and 4:



And finally this is a picture around where the PGEs can form between mafic and ultra mafic rocks, which I posted before, in a Magmatic Deposit (depending on whether it is a conduit type, contact type or reef type mineralisation play -:



For those wanting to understand PGE and geology, google "BGS Platinum September 2009". It is a good article explaining geology types and differences as well. Be interesting what the actual geology is around the area when more drilling is done and a better understanding of geology and rock types arises.


2. Mafic/ultramafic or a 'greenstone belt'' - both appear to be around the Julimar area radius

"By way of background the key to PGE development is having mafic/utramafic tholoiitic or komatiites intrusions and obviously the historical maps IMO are not that much good because they failed to identify these types of rock in the first place btw. This post says what these types of rocks are that get people excited for PGEs btw, and CHN drills clearly showed what people thought was the predominant rock type there is not the fact in that specific location:
https://www.pitt.edu/~cejones/GeoImages/2IgneousRocks/IgneousCompositions.htmlIn effect, greenstone belts separate other types of igneous rocks, which in the Yilgarn Craton are your granitic rocks, by belts of greenstone. Granite is a common felsic rock and is not a mafic/ultramafic rock per se - http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/AskGeoMan/geoQuerry11.html and https://www.britannica.com/science/felsic-rock, so what I am saying is the rock types, which are based on essentially differences in silica levels, are different. In effect your greenstones are sequences of sedimentary and volcanic oceanic rocks (metamorphised mafic/ultramafic rocks - key word f metamorphised as mafic and ultramafic rocks are igneous rocks btw) that have been heated, pressurised, and dissected by large fractures (or faults). Here is simple wikippedia link that is ok - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenstone_belt


4. EMs and understanding what CHN did

Would be interesting if EMs have been done in the past on the GAL/CNJ/GSR lands, and how the results have come across, given EMs were critical in guiding CHN to its discoveries. The below picture goes into further explanation around signatures as EMs is part of a wider exploration type method for identifying targets. You generally try to complement EM results with some form of soil sampling or other low cost exploration method. And in identifying your 'host' type you need to guage both the conductivity and resistivity to come to a viewpoint.


From the above I presume this is the conductivity we are looking for. A key comment is surveys, whilst can pinpoint rock types, cannot tell you the extent of mineralisation with what you are seeking (obviously).
pp1802n.pdf (usgs.gov) Higher Siemen readings of 10,000 plus will be your sulphides per se, nickel yes I suspect if their is a payable load. There is paper which talks about Siemen results and conductivity as well, but sulphides may not conduct as one might theoretically think. I might just take some relevant extracts for yourselves


Sulphides may not be as conductive in EMs as one might think compared to other ore bearing metallic minerals hosts, but generally they should be and will be but a lot of work does go into interpreting them is my point. Especially at depth IMO. The length of a conductor can also impact conductivity - a short conductor makes current flow at higher rates than long conductors, so you do have a number of variables to take into account when interpreting results.


- Paper 132 (911metallurgist.com). A relevant paragraph from this article where there was a lot of hands on work to ensure things were interpreted correctly because of they hadn't they wouldn't have made that discovery



And here is one where the Siemen reading - 19000 - in drilling showed hypothesis correct nickel/copper albeit the width of the find and depth will take time to show feasibility without more discovery there. So confirms if have a high Siemens reading most likely nickel, but can have copper.
44vjgwcsh3106n.pdf (asx.com.au)
2216040.pdf (stgm.com.au)

In terms of CHN, a they also did soil sampling work and other work to overlay the EM results, or in other words sort signatures. A signature they sort for PGE was chromite levels in soil to aid the drilling as well target identification, when overlayed against the EMs. I posted in the past that CHNs main products, as per their METs, are a copper concentrate and nickel concentrate, both having Pd/Pt credits in the concentrates per se, so also stated to give some perspective that you could have nickel/copper in your results.

As a final comment this from CHN:

The Siemen readings can be broad, when referenced back to the picture above. When supported with sampling on site work and other methods, in totality they provide a confidence level per se of confirming a viewpoint around the readings themselves and therefore where to drill, and then from that it is luck that the ore body is mineral bearing in sufficient quantities. And what that means is in part dealt with how such deposits are formed in the first place. As a final point, I posted this as well a while ago. It is a good paper in understanding basic geology in relation to what type of minerals are been sort here, and the types of intrusions we hope to have.
2.5 Mafic-ultramafic orthomagmatic mineral systems | Geoscience Australia (ga.gov.au)


3. EVs


I note in this thread and the CNJ thread there is discussion around demand, so the embedded posts and graphs explain a viewpoint on demand. This post in a lithium stock gives my perspective of battery makeups, refer post Post #: 56535539, and the key point is the predominant EV batteries going forward are likely to be NCM8:1:1 and NCM 6:2:2 or NCA batteries (N= nickel, C = cobalt, M= Manganese, A = Aluminium). These are the cathodes in the battery, and obviously the anode is graphite. An EV also needs 3 times more copper than an ICE vehicle btw.

Also from this article - The key minerals in an EV battery - MINING.COM - is this table:



And finally this post gives this graph on just on how many EVs are estimated to be sold annually, which means a hell of a lot of required new supply across the minerals that make up EVs - you are going to need a number of new mines to meet demand need - Post #: 61005484 And the below is just for vehicles, and doesn't include other forms of transportation nor the energy storage market.


For lithium alone and depending on size of mine I estimated in the above embedded post the need for a lot of new mines, so may need to do the same exercise for nickel and copper at some point (have sort of done it for graphite).



Have become a holder. A bit of a sporadic dump of background info only to what may or may not be here

A few VBs downed and all IMO