Tales from the Covid Bunker: Day 22

End of the world Jukebox: Highway to hell - Hayseed Dixie


Good morning old pals!

This morning has been a gentle one for most except EMX Royalty (+7%), ANX Anaconda Mining (+18%) FWZ Fireweed Zinc (+16%) - Starting the day nicely, but no major rocks or shocks.

Yesterday we hosted our second E-Conference event titled 'Around the world, with Corona'! Thanks to everybody who made it, despite me confusing the time differences for some of you (calculated last week, before the clocks changed!).

Our presenters, all geologists and experienced in mining operation and explorations made some strong points on the impacts of corona now, and up to 12 months down the line.:

Jorge Sanhueza - Independent Mining Consutant - presenting from Santiago, Chile - discussed how South American Corona cases have been mostly limited to cities, which has helped to save more remote mining operations, while some governments have simply banned operations altogether, a safe move, but a complete beheading for miners.

Tim Strong - Kangari Consulting - presenting from St Kitts - discussed West African geology and mining operations. One key point raised was how travel bans now, will impact the mental health of workers down the line with extended crew rotations. Mental health decline in a mine means more accidents and lower productivity (as well as the obvious issue that: your workforce are unhappy!).

Paul Metcalfe - Auramex Resource Corp. - presenting from Gabriola Island, BC -  said operations were going to be tough as a small exploration company, 'try staying 3m apart in a helicopter'. But being remote may actually offer some advantages. As long as they can access their projects, without putting local communities or teams at risk, they'll all be safer up there than in the city! He mentioned that field teams used to go into the mountains in May and come back in October without all of the modcons of today's explorers, which his team were still fully capable of, but couldn't get insured for anymore...

Grumble of the day relates to a news release:

'GR Silver Mining Reports High-grade Underground Sampling Results at Plomosas, including Assays up to 6,128 gpt Ag over 0.2 meters'

Now then, now then - firstly, It looks like the deal to acquire Polomas was completed and agreed  while data was unpublished, but in-hand, possibly naughty dealings and data management there...?

Reporting a grade over 20cm is a fun, but completely pointless while defining a resource. It means, in your randomised sample, you've just happened to hit a few chunks of acanthite, but not a continuous mineralised zone.

In the numbers: total intercepts of 33.35m were reported cut-off at >300g/t Ag.

Based on this its claimed that: 'These results provide support for the potential definition of wide, mineable, underground zones at San Juan'.

That’s not wide, or mineable... I don't see how 33.35m of data at thin vein grades can support a decision to go and mine something? I know its an active region and access is easy and wahoo, but this NR just seems to be pump-filler. It says to me, their writer and team will be promoting their stock on whatever numbers they can grasp, without due consideration for technical relevance or their application. I would question whether the writer here was a geo... And whether this news release was needed at all, surely there's something better going on?

I'm not judging our QP (Marcio fonseca) here at all, I would imagine his work in delivering this data was technically accurate and delivered as required. However, I've seen CEOs and high-level staff destroy perfectly good geological releases before and, this has all of those hallmarks of a micromanaged over-hyped news release, with far too much inane waffle based on not enough data.

Furthermore, while handy and cheap, their 4 acid ICP-OES and AAS analysis will not give sensitive, relative trace element data from their limited sampling of veins/breccia systems so, they are going to have to resample and reanalyse this region again (properly and thoroughly) if they want a decent understanding of its geochemical evolution. If so, we're looking at doubling the cost (from resampling teams, to sample bags, to shipping and analysis) for the same mediocre data in slightly better quality...

I've cancelled my buy order for now, but will still be following, I like Mexico and silver so... Let’s see how this one pans out.

As always, this is just my opinion and I've only recently started following GR. I welcome replies from all companies mentioned and publish them in full, when received. This is a fair bar-stool-court, and all are welcome to correct me, present themselves and share their stories.

In other news this week:

  • Riverside shareholders approve Capitan Mining spin-out - NEWS
  • William Gehlen strengthens Vangold board - NEWS
  • Oroco spanked their 43-101 on misreported data and withdraw it only 20 days after a private placement which featured that data

    They only fall 13% this week, a sure sign of an investor base and market that doesn’t really understand what that screw up means...? I’m looking forward to the revised version, hopefully it was just formalities or spelling errors, nothing malicious. Either way, this casts long-term doubt on the company’s data reporting ability and I feel sorry for those who came in on the placement… NEWS

Posted in Tales from the Covid Bunker

Liam Hardy View posts by Liam Hardy

With a family background in African mining exploration and a degree in geology, Liam brings a mix of technical ‘on-the-ground’ ore hunting and suit-booted office experience to the team. Liam worked in Liberia with Hummingbird Resources and spent 4 years as a geochemical analyst, before focusing on streamlining communications and development in exploration businesses, through the founding of ‘Spotlight Mining’.