CCZ (ASX) Capital Raising at $0.050 Imminent

Originally posted by seals: ↑

hey @ozbucheron

I went digging a bit further for some answers for myself re that historic drilling. I hadn't read this announcement from 2017, anyway I used it to dig into the JoRC statement at the time. A few snips below but it looks like:
CCZ knew of 10 diamond drill holes from those 3 explorers, 8 of which core was stored at the NSW Geological Survey repository
only 2 holes were over 400 m (by CRA), we know they hit little. I'd assume they are the ones that got to 0RL based on the levels in the picture you posted. Lots more room beneath to explore imo
In 1991, when CRA did those holes, they had doubts as to "whether the historic drilling was well suited to test for copper ore extensions" - my guess is that comment is prior to their own drilling
at this pre JoRC stage CCZ expectations were relatively low - "No JORC Resources have been outlined to date at Cangai, but there is potential for further economic mineralisation of (probably) moderate size" - certainly lower than what they ended up delivering in their JoRC
separate from the drilling question, there's an interesting comment on previous explorers who were pondering the things I was re possible feeder systems. If they are one day proven correct (totally hypothetical) then I'm looking in the wrong direction - they were speculating eastward. I have no idea if those theories have been tested by anyone ever, they interest me because I'm speculating what might but I could see them not being tested in any near time horizon.

Back to my earlier questions. Comparing the sum of CCZ exploration with the results from the 10 diamond drill holes (was there RC as well??), it is probably fair to say that CCZ has found more than the previous 3 combined. I'd say it's worth while testing it out further some day - maybe if they have cash flowing out of Mt Oxide?

Diamond drill hole details, with depths and year.

Cores at the Survey repository

CRA comments re past drilling and Cangai spec re potential:

Comment re possible feeder systems

Expand

Hey @ozbucheron

I’ve been trying to investigate your challenge re the Sellars model at Cangai. I’ve gone as far as I can with it, my conclusions:

the model reflects the inferred stage of the JORC
historic model in JORC was drawn at 13% cutoff (snip 1 below)
historic interpretations of the resource is of structurally controlled ore shoots, implies skinnier widths per the historic model
historic mining, over 100 years ago, was manual hence high cut off
CCZ have calculated to 0.5% (I think) and then modelled to 1% cutoff
each lode had been modelled separately, based on a variety of techniques, most of which involve at least some inference - and where inference then informs inference you have potential problems
logically shoots modelled at 13% are going to be significantly narrower than shoots modelled at 1%. The question is how much? Based on the level of inference involved I would say that core available is inadequate to the task of assessing that now. however they have noted (see snip below) that they widened the wireframes to capture 1% cutoff so that’s not obscured. I think it’s important to note, in relation to your challenges, that the width of 38m is not claiming to be a 38m 3%+ grade. Rather it’s an inferred 1% grade and that modelled off 0.5% calculations so a fair portion of what you are highlighting is probably halo, if it’s there. That doesn’t discount it as potentially economic however it all should be held within context of being an inferred Jorc, the lowest level of reliability
fwiw, I would expect Sellars to be the largest shoot based on historic mining

thanks for the challenge. I’ve enjoyed being forced to read up more by your clearly informed critique. Cheers

snip 1: historic example of model

snip 2: CCZ model
snip 3: comments re modelling cutoff grade