Thanks for the opportunity to give an opinion. Point 1. Is fine.
Point 2. This is one area of contention. Visual estimates vs Niton XRF. I would say straight up if they are a reasonable geologist and have worked on copper minerals in core for a while their skill at visually estimating the content of in this case chalcopyrite should be pretty good. From experience the less experience or junior the geologist is they tend to overestimate. One has to put the Niton into context it only analyses the surface region of the core over a very small area like a square cm or less. So where you place the Niton on the core determines the answer at a localised point. Place it right on some chalcopyrite and you will get a high number. Of interest to get 40% Cu it isn't chalcopyrite, could be some bornite or chalcocite mixed in with it as they have a higher percentage of Cu in their mineral composition. So I have no problem with the range of values given by the Niton. What is hard to guage over this 15m interval is how much is visually estimated at 5% chalcopyrite and how much is trace chalcopyrite? You really need to take a lot of Niton readings at even spacings along a piece of core and then average those over metre intervals to get something indicative of what maybe there within the core. Hard not to put any bias up or down on the answer. I have no problems with the calibration with the Niton, as they are generally calibrated to the use they will be used for. The final assays will be proof of what is really there. How they end up reporting them will be interesting.
Point 3. Most minerals can be determined visually, no real need for a Niton to do that for you. Because a Niton gives you its analyses back as elemental values, those values could be checked against the known proportions of elements within minerals. It has to be said most base metal minerals are quite easy to spot. Looks like they just wanted to make sure of what they had, to be honest the way they worded what the did and the fact that in my experience using a Niton for that (mineral speciation) is not a usual thing one would do. Ultimately Petrography or microprobe or SEM work would determine your exact minerals present.
Point 4. Personally bad wording and over exhuberance has made this one in my opinion. Most companies have a model that their exploration target is based upon, for example I am exploring for unconformity uranium mineralisation targets, I am going to go on about Athabasca basin type deposits like MacArthur River as it is the best example in the world, people in the know, know what it is. I think the comparison to Norilsk is far too much of a stretch especially at such an early stage. No need to drag the PhD student through the mud either, research is either proved right, wrong or not determinable either way at this stage.
Point 5. I am not really going to comment on the JORC code or wordings, but if it was the ASX that pulled them up on wording, they got the wording wrong the JORC code is quite specific about how you use certain words and the qualifiers recquired if you do so. But it can also depend on who at the ASX vets your announcements and their understanding of the mining industry, it can be an education that goes both way. There can be public ASX calls for explanations which you get to see the answers to and there are private ones, which you do not see the answers to.
Overall my biggest concern has been the reporting regarding Point 2 how that seems to have created its own momentum that shot the SP up as the tune has changed a few times as to what is really there. Hopefully most people don't get lead by the "marketing" of Norilsk.
PRW Price at posting:
9.3¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
