o ESRC02 6m @ 1,108 g/t cobalt from 0-6m = 1108ppm Co or 0.11% Co = Waste Rock not Co ore
o ESRC03 4m @ 1,190 g/t Cobalt from 4 – 8m = 1190ppm Co or 0.12% Co = Waste Rock not Co ore
o ESRC05 3m @ 1,380 g/t Cobalt from 11 -14m = you get the idea by now
Indeed - look at those numbers again. As Midnight26 says and as Hoots has mentioned - they are reporting Co intersections that are uneconomic, but hey - announcing stuff such as 1108g/T Co - wow - that sounds like bonanza grades dosen't it?
What we are looking at here is uneconomic waste rock except for stuff like hole ESRC08 which has an intersection of 9m at 1.01g/T Au and 3.16% Cu - which is an interesting gold and copper intersection but in no way is anything close to a viable Co deposit.
The first thing that jumped out at me was that no reputable company will report Co in g/T - the g/T convention is generally reserved for precious metals like gold. Most low grade exploration results for Co are expressed in ppm (part per million) and once you have something decent in the way of Co grades I want to see a % sign and I am talking whole % numbers like say 1.4% Co - that would be a decent Co result in my opinion.
I love how they refer to the old QMC release from March 2011 at nearby Mt Freda (similar style of mineralization)- I dived back into the announcement and guess what their maiden resource numbers were?
1.6M tonnes at an average grade of 290ppm Co and 1.7g/T Au
(Yes you read that right - 290ppm Co)
using a 0.5g/T Au cutoff with Ordinary Kriging and generated from historic drill holes that don't all have down hole surveys, collars or complete assays and with the caveat that not all the tonnes are within the open pit shell....
