According to MPJ on Feb 4th ... "Trafford Resources published a JORC (49,515 oz) gold resource for the un-mined Iron Stirrup Deposit of 49,515 oz.."
Not so !!.... or at best VERY confusing.
The un-mined resource is actually at the Old Faithful closed mine on P45/2629 which is clearly shown on page 20 of the Trafford report.. NOT the Iron Stirrup closed mine.
"The Iron Stirrup ultramafic is the host rock for gold mineralisation at the Old Faithful, Iron Stirrup and Darius prospects.".. which is true but different to what they say.
Also I got incredibly excited about the Littlefoot extension to Old Faithful which is discussed in some detail. However as can be seen, in 2014 Trafford may have had this northern E45/2375 containing it but it is NOT part of the the suite of tenements passed to MPJ.
Oopsies... forgot about that one.. sorry MPJ.
It is small consolation that there is some chance this "..Littlefoot strike extension may occur within the boundaries of (our) P45/2628.." Big deal. That is fine if you have E45/2375 because it is just a continuation of what is on it but if you don't (and we don't) then it is fundamentally useless. Bit like Global excising of the good bit in the southern tenement block.
Unless MPJ has come to some commercial understanding about it. However I will simply discount that event unless they state clearly otherwise. To me P45/2628 is useless. It even excludes that cool radiometric red zone.. next to it!! Useless.
OK.. now for the GOOD bit..
"Between 1966 and 1968 Electrolytic Zinc explored pegmatites in the area for lithium, tin and tantalum. A considerable tonnage of pegmatite was identified however it was considered not economically feasible to mine the deposit so they withdrew from the area."
It seems they are referring to the southern tenements.... and anyway who wanted lithium or even tantalum in 1966!!??? "Considerable tonnage" ???
You really have to do research with MPJ.
I hope some of this provides useful guidance for fellow posters.
As can be seen, I present the facts as best I can (which I never claim is 100% correct ) and if it is good or bad, I don't care... but it can always be verified with my quoted references.
Less-good stuff is never filtered out... I try and be open and honest... but unless MPJ explains it away, or another poster can (politely) show where I got it wrong, then it remains on the table.
I recommend the quoted report as a good read if you have your hard-earned (or otherwise) money in MPJ.
