First of all, as RJ so succinctly suggested, a huge congratulations needs to go to Mattilla and Billy et al for their magnificent research. I wish I’d been aware of this a year ago as I would have had a much lower entry point into Gln.
However I take it U guys will be well aquianted with this Godfrey Abstract.
Please bare with me and even read the Abstract until understanding it as imo it’s fairly significant in what Gln may eventually give us in terms of info relating to the potential REGENERATION of their Candelas resource !!!
Lithium-rich brine within the sub-surface of the Salar del Hombre Muerto (SHM) salt pan in the Andes of northwestern Argentina has a chemical and isotopic composition which is consistent with Li derived from SEVERAL SOURCES: the modern halite saturated lagoon, Li-rich salts and brines formed recently, and dissolution of halite which precipitated from ancient saline lakes. SHM lies in the closed basin that includes part of the massive Cerro Galán caldera which is drained by the Río los Patos, which is responsible for 90% of surface runoff into the salar. The low Li isotope composition, +3.4‰, of this river is consistent with SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS OF GEOTHERMAL SPRING WATER. As water drains through the volcaniclastic deposits which cover a large proportion of the basin, (Ur Ignimbrites Mattilla) Li removal, as indicated by decreasing Li/Na, occurs but without significant isotope fractionation. This indicates a mechanism of surface sorption onto smectite or ferrihydrite rather than Li incorporation into octahedral structural sites of clays.(Ur mechanism of Ignimbrite Li removal)These observations suggest that conditions in this high altitude desert have limited the dilution of hydrothermal spring water as well as the formation of clay minerals, which jointly have allowed the Li resource to accumulate rapidly. Changes in climate on a multi-millennial time scale, specifically in the hydrologic budget, have resulted in solute accumulation rates that have been variable through time, and decoupled Li and Na fluxes. Inflow to the salar under modern conditions has high Li/Na (7.9 × 10−3 by wt) with δ7Li INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM BASEMENT ROCKS (−0.3‰ to +6.4‰), while under pluvial climate conditions the Li/Na of the saline lake was 40 times lower than the modern lagoon (0.1–0.3 × 10−3 compared to 10.6–13.4 × 10−3) with slightly higher δ7Li, +6.9‰ to +12.3‰, reflecting the uptake of 6Li into secondary minerals which formed under a wetter climate.
So essentially what Godfrey is stating is that the influx of Li into the HM and ANY ASSOCIATED BASIN (Mattillas postulated MASSIVE REVERSE SWEEPING PALEOCHANNEL BASIN) is indeed being charged by surface waters, which I would assume come from seasonal snow melt from the tops of Cerro Galan and which percolate thru Mattillas Ignimbrites, which have the Li only loosely bound to the Ignimbrites, BUT ALSO that the hydrothermals make a significant contribution via this surface action as well. BUT given the very high Li/Na ratios, which are indistinguishable from BASEMENT ROCKS, the implication is clear that these combined waters that have percolated and eventually flow subterranean (or even in the case of the hydrothermal possibly via the extensive faulting and emerging into the coarse substrata that hole 1 at Calderas has shown to exist deep and close to basement) are separating these high available Li elements and giving the fast charge, geologically speaking, of these excellent salar Li sources.
HOW FAST ?
Well that can only be determined by just what Gln find imo as this will be the closest this region gets to fully understanding just how this paleo channel and Los Patos river system and any associated hydrothermal interacts to source the Gln Candelas basin.
Dont forget they will be doing detailed downhole studies of the Li concentrations which will go some way in indicating just how this resource is DYNAMICALLY working.
”As the drilling is still encountering flowing brines from within the fractured basement a decision is yet to be made to end the hole. Once completed, downhole geophysical profiling will be conducted comprising a spontaneous potential short/long electrical resistivity survey, which records the conductivity of the brine at 10cm intervals and interpreted to determine sections of PRIMARY BRINE INGRESS. The hole will then be cement cased to the top of the brine, cased further with PVC at depth, allowed to settle and then further brine samples collected.”
Notice they r very keen in this annmnt to state that there are actual FLOWS from these lower coarse strata that can be initially assessed as what may potentially be a FLOWING subterranean strata via visual assessment but that they will do porosity tests all the same.
“The hole initially intersected 8m of fluvial sediments before intersecting a thick layer of ignimbrite (a lithified volcanic pyroclastic flow) to 165m. The hole then encountered a sequence of sands and clays coarsening with depth and hosting salty waters which, at about 235m, turned to brines. Field conductivity measurements from brine samples exceeded the 200 milli‐siemens/cm limits of the recording instrument whilst field measurements of the specific gravity (‘SG’) of the brine ranged up to a consistent ~1.21 g/cc. DDH core samples have also been collected for porosity test work to determine specific yield (drainable porosity) and other petrophysical parameters. Visual estimations of porosity suggest medium to high porosity for the sand and conglomerate whilst the fractured basement is reporting GOOD BRINE FLOWS from double packer testing.
Notice that they mention under reporting of Lithium grades/concentrations as well.
I dont want want to pre-empt a possible blockbuster annmnt, And this stuff is all due to Mattilla et al with a possible stronger hydrothermal contribution from this post.
However it’s quite possible someone here may have already come to this conclusion and joined these dots. I’m sorry R.J. but it’s probably easier and more reinforcing for me to personally source this info rather than relying purely on the excellent research already posted. I apologise if the case and give credit where credits due.
This for me is a way to disseminate my thoughts on my research and hopefully get feedback, it’s not a way to outdo or take credit for others research.
NOTE WELL, until Gln makes any statement or annmnt that confirms the above this is all conjecture and postulation. A complete model of Candelas will only come with the completed drilling and data analysis which hopefully we may see some of by Monday. SURELY Billy is right in saying when they asked for only one more day that that’s all they need to complete their analysis of hole 1 sufficiently to MAYBE give us some info on the above particularly the electrical resistivity survey of hole 1 with possible Li concentrations to give us a more complete picture of just how the Lithium is being sourced.
Good luck all on Monday, IF that’s the day Gln comes out of VS.
I can personally fully appreciate why these guys have taken as long as they have with this annmnt either if it was to complete analysis of hole 1 or assemble as much analysis as they possibly can from both holes.
IF they were to come up with some form of dynamic lithium source model this early I would be a bit surprised but not entirely. But then this does need to be done within the Asx confines and as U guys and the annmnts have noted this is very unique geology.
Roll on Monday
First time in a while I’ve said THAT !!!
Gr
GLN Price at posting:
61.5¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Not Held
(20min delay)
