Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Those are strange comments. Seems to be more behind the scenes going on there....
Let us hope that it comes in May. Otherwise it will give some people ammunition to bash the stock. I believe the listing is in the hands of the board now, not LODE.
B402 - could you expand on what you meant by "a poor mention about the Geo James"?
The only person confused here seems to be you.
I never said that a PhD in geology may mis-interpret the results, however it certainty depends on the disciple of your PhD consultant. I know a geochemist that could not identify the simplest rock type, but if you give him an analytical data sheet he could tell not only tell you the rock type, but the tectonic setting.
And if you actually looked back on my initial response on the HC drill results you would know that I was encouraged by the results as an initial drill program. I do not believe I said they were "good" by themselves (i.e., grade, etc), but that the intersections and drill locations were enough to move ahead with a Phase II.
Mappo - everyone can read a simple drill result, even a bird. To those people, having gold above background levels in all 12 holes on HC seem like a dream situation. However, those same people do not know how to interpret the results. Even a college freshman does not have the knowledge to make that interpretation. A little knowledge is dangerous in this game.
Sorry but your argument or line of reasoning does not work in the real world.
Sounds like your paleontologist is sticking with majors, not juniors. Heck I know some non-geologists that own 2-3 major mining companies too. I even know some hydrogeologists that own some major and minor exploration companies, but guess what, they have no idea what the drilling results mean.
Are you sure you did not leave out some info when you PhD geo talked to you about the results?? Quote "He said the HC results are good", or was it more like "the HC results are a good start to an exploration program". Devils in the details....
Mappo...
are you
saying you
don't know
the background
of your
source?
Yikes...
You realize
that there
are many,
many, many
branches of
geology?
Hope he/she was not a paleontologist?
Please enlighten me with these points since you seem to have the answers....
Hi Rick,
Overall I agree with your assumptions, but with funds being allocated to two different license #, then KATX is telling the NL government that they had these expenditures on the surrounding area. Several choices for this:
1. some of the original work was outside the 011745M block, thus put on the 17308M block'
2. they are double dipping with expenditures on one block and claiming on the other;
3. some phase II work has been done to the tune of $80K.
However, no matter how you slice it, the $80K cannot include drilling, unless they used a hand auger and a LOT of labour! Or maybe the drill crew donated their time??? ;)
Agree with you 1000% on the side show bickering.... too tiring to even comment on...
I'll give my two-cents worth as my name was mentioned in a few threads.
Some interesting info, but not all of it new. You will have to forgive me as I read through as many posts as I could so that I would not duplicate any thoughts, etc so I cannot give credit, where credit is due for some posters input.
From my searching of NLs website I pieced together some information. One is that these claims have separate entries and expenditures.
Claim 011745M, which was the focus of last years drilling, had a yr "7" expenditures of $391,179.66
Claim 017308M - Yr 1 expenditures of $80,563.48
Seems clear cut to me that these are two separates things. So I agree with Tink's initial assessment. However, I do not agree that this 80K includes all the work stated, such as a drilling program. We already knew they paid for the line cutting, which extended outside the original 011745M claim set, as someone pointed out.
Their form 8K outlined a budget of $35K for line cutting and $100K for the IP survey (total of $135K). And since this grid overlaps with claim 011745 (thus offsetting some of the costs to that claim), then it could be that they completed the IP survey??? But a drilling program is highly unlikely at this cost. So I have to disagree here. Nevertheless, why would they complete the IP survey without any sort of PR? An IP survey could easily be done in the winter on a ski-doo.
In addition, during my search of the 2nd yr work on 011745 (then owed by David Mercer) the drilling by Falconbridge was called out. But the 3rd yr report written by KATX seemed to omit all work after 1976? The funny thing is that the earlier report notes "about 40 km along the Trans Canada Highway, to the west of the town of Badger", when the property is actually ~40 km north (compass north) of Badger. Here is the funny part... the TCH out of St. John's is always WEST, since, even if the road turns a different direction. So if you turn onto the TCH out of Badger toward Springdale, you take the TCH "west", even though you are driving north...
Go here for file info:
http://gis.geosurv.gov.nl.ca/minesen/geofiles/
And enter lic# 011745M for the files.
The more pressing question RE drilling, is getting a tender out due to the availability of rigs. Schedules are being made, etc and if KATX/KATG is going to drill this year, they need to thing about getting some outfit scheduled sooner rather than later.
FYI - drilling can occur any time of the year. Actual field work, such as mapping, etc can only be done when the ground is clear of snow. Geophysical surveys can be done anytime of the year too, but during mud season (spring and fall), it would be more difficult.
Newfie time zone... 1.5 hours later than EST.
(Or half an hour later in Newfoundland)...
RE: Ken's email vs. photo
If Ken is willing to answer a shareholder's email and give permission for this email to be posted in numerous places, then he should simply post a quick reply on KATX's blog space.
Until I hear something directly from KATX I will regard most, if not all, posts on any MB as suspect. And this stems from the simple fact that we, as shareholders, have heard nothing official from KATX/KATG.
Geologic time, like waiting for a KATX PR, ticks on...
I did ask him whether it was Mon-Tues of this week/month/year... but he was confident in it being this week....
I agree.. if I did not think that they would be moving ahead with HC I would probably move on....
I can think of two right off the top of my head. Of course I also own them. Their programs have much higher gold gold intercepts too. The only difference is that both have had more historic work and one is in a former gold/silver mining camp.
Believe me... if someone digs they can find similar programs that are just as or more successful than KATX's phase I.
Of (a) next week, (b) next month, or (c) next year?
I would prefer option (a).....
Unfortunately, based on public results and reporting none of the minerals are at high enough concentration to be economical; i.e., ore.
Mappo.... why do you always give the impression that this company went from 0.07 to over $2 in a few weeks.
You know that is not the case!
yes... some people do not realize when they are wrong... runs in the family it seems...
This was all stated in past.... as well as stating they would need additional funding.
Oh and did you noticed they called out that Falconbridge drilling on the HC prospect. Hmmmmm....
Someone needs to take the computer away from their kids... playground insults have no place here....
I don't blame KATX for using the IOCG term... I discussed this before with ARRGUS (I believe) that the geologic information available at the time was enough to term the property as IOCG. Any company beginning exploration will attempt to link it to some known deposit type and I don't think it is wrong to do so. As you gather additional information you modify your interpretation.
Of course other entities will run with the usage. And any perceived "pump" was not directly from KATX.
You are not getting my point... I am referring to what they are NOT calling it now?!
And I doubt they need Ken's permission to mention KATX property, but heck, it is free advertizing.
Mappo.... that does not make complete sense as people/investors focus(ed) on those phrases. The IOGC... OD... etc use was played out. The use of REE at the top of hole #2 then was trumped after the pre-Xmas PR. So while I agree that it is the mineralization that is important... the models and deposit type, etc are certainity important. Look at HC... many are excited that VMS was used in describing it too!
So I would same that it is of interest that certain terms are NOT being used when they were in the past.
It is interesting that they call it an REE project.... didn't they initially call it an IOCG porject in older PRs???
Really don't know about the relevance either...
I remember REE numbers, but did they publish Au numbers (?).
Maybe we will all be told something in the near term... like this year? ;)
This is an interesting tidbit of information that was brought to my attention....
KATX themselves stopped using the term "IOCG" in their PRs after they had finished the drilling starting with the 22 Nov 2010 PR. Prior to that they always used IOCG when describing RR.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm......
No worries....
Mappo - hopefully not within DV as it is a National park...
But Molycorp's mine is near the CA-NV border, so from that I would assume that the geology is right. I would have to look at the geology of the MCP deposit and do some digging (pun intended) to find out if that package of rocks extends to the northwest. That whole area is part of the Basin and Range Province due to extension, so that is a good environment to begin.
Here is a little bit better link. Look at Figure 2 to get the relationship between Newfoundland and Europe. The black line on the figure is the beginning of the Mid-Atlantic ridge that split Pangaea. Quite clearly you can see that the Avalon zone did not come from Greenland.
http://www.newfoundlandquarterly.ca/issue410/rock.php
Most of this stuff is in textbooks and professional papers, so this link will have to do, but it shows clearly that you (or at least your superior) are mistaken on the origin of the Avalon Zone.
You can report back to your boss on the error and lack of good DD.
That pull apart is limited to a small area and does not continue along the trace placed on the map. It is common to have such basins where strike slip faults change direction and the orientation of that change in direction effectively pulls apart the area creating a depression or basin - hence the name pull apart basin. Of course structural geologists like to use a fancy term called a rhomochasm. Death Valley is an example of such a process.
So the trace on that map is inaccurate. But they were still formed in a basin, just not a pull apart basin.
I will have to search for a link because I am going from memory on the original of the Avalon Zone. It has been a long time since my undergrad days on the island, but I am fairly confident that these rocks are part of the the UK.
You can probably google the "Avalon Zone" and find some references.
The suture between the Avalon and Gander zones record the closing of the former Iapetus Ocean (Proto Atlantic). ahh here is a link...
http://www.jamestown-ri.info/alleghenian.htm
If you take a look at this link it gives you some basic history on the formation of Pangaea and the various orogenies that happened along the east coast. In addition, the lowermost figure illustrates that the western part of NL is part of the same mtn range that extends from the US through the UK and Greenland. However, the Avalon Zone is part of the UK (southern) only and Baltica.
Hope this helps clear things up.
Correction to my post...
I mistakenly referenced the "RR area", when it should have been in reference to the Lucky properties on Bonavista Bay. Although the rocks in the RR area are also significantly younger than those from Voisey's Bay.
My apologies for any confusion.
What is you reference to this pull apart basin line through the area?
Also, Voisey's bay rocks are almost three times OLDER that those in the RR area.
A pull apart basin would infer extensional processes (i.e., pulling it apart). The Avalon Zone, which this area belongs, did come from the east but not Greenland; actually the UK.
Voisey's Bay is related to intrusive suites, whereas the RR area is a sedimentary basin.
All-in-all they do not share many traits.
Oh forgot to add this good reference, which shows some nice photos of the Red Cliff Property.
http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/mines&en/geosurvey/publications/cr2002/OBrien_King.pdf
Could you be more transparent?
I have trusted information that this company has performed the work with the personnel stated in the various PRs.
Your accussations are without merit and completely false.
While management has dragged their heels on getting info out to shareholders and the share distro has been a PR nightmare, to call this stock a scam is borderline criminal.
Plus I do not see how you could have had a loss at 0.06 given your stated buying.
KATX is a junior exploration company, which means it is highly speculative. If they hit something the stock goes up a lot... if they don't, it goes down a lot. They have followed the rules setout by the NI and have land positions in favorable tectonic setting(s) to host mineralization. These are all facts.
It was hyped (too much) and that is why it moved to 0.25 and the reality of the properties has us sitting at under 0.02. This is a common trend in the junior world. After the hyped has been cleared we now are waiting on some news with meat to it. There are a lot of questions to be answered and how they are answered will be the driving force on KATXs PPS direction.
Issachar2010 - I cannot PM. But to answer your question. That partial sentence raises more questions? To be reserves, there must have been a lot of drilling and a reserve report, etc. And it has to follow some recgonzied standard, etc, etc...
Mappo... there is certainty something happening at Fox I will give you that...
Prior to drilling, it had a lot of characteristics similar to an OD-type deposit. And that is why it was mentioned as such in numerous PRs and reports.
An exploration geologist uses all the tools in his/her tool belt to assess the potential for any property. And you gain this through years of experience beginning as a junior assistant during your undergrad years. Not glamorous, as many times you are just humping rocks for the head geo, but it is valuable experience.
RR had several things going for it. The tectonic setting is the first thing. Geophysics, surface sampling, etc. But the present drilling information is not helping us out. KATX even indicating in their pre-Xmas PR that they explained the anomaly in hole #1 and they did not find any economic values of Cu. We can only assume that there was nothing else of economic interest (unless they are holding back and that doesn't make sense). Hole #2 is a different kettle of fish. It is related to the tectonic environment, but would not play host to any significant IOCG-type mineralization as the model indicates the need for a large intrusive complex.
However, there are still some unknowns (i.e., where is the source of the volcanism). But the question is whether KATX has enough data to justify further work.
So the IOCG / OD potential has decreased... we don't have all the info yet to determine whether that potential is completely gone.
Thanks and all the best to you as well.
I apologize for some of my comments that, while posted in response to you is more of a reflection of my general frustration with some posters. I am all for being positive, but when I perceive an unjustified statement, etc (be it for or against KATX) I speak up. And as I have mentioned before I try to restrict my comments to geology related statements.