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.
KATX PR - revisited...
I have not been keeping a close eye on all the posts here over the past few days, so I apologize if this has already been addressed. On opening KATX's PR from their website I realized that they had some core photos attached (which I have not seen mentioned in any other posts to date). Unfortunately they did not label them (which has been their practice), so I will have to guess at which hole they originate from....
There is a clear in situ breccia in the second photo and the first photo seems to be from the top of Hole #2 based on the meter marks. The third and fourth pictures are probable closeups of the core form hole #1 and the probable reason why they think they have REEs. The purple mineral resembles fluorite with pink orthoclase (K-rich feldspar). Now there is also a purple zircon, which may account for the Zr concentrations or the fluorite have some fluoro-carbon, which would play host to REEs.
This evidence seems to suggest to me why they shifted their focus to REEs after the start of the second hole. The third and fourth pictures appear to have more of the purple mineral and hopefully they are lower in the hole and DO play host to REEs. As a disclaimer, I do not have experience with REE-type mineralization and just did a little research tonight to see if the dots lined up with what was presented in the PR.
On further digging just before I hit submit I check good ole DHZ (those that have taken mineralogy know this book).
Fluorite, or CaF2, can be substituted with Y and even Ce to form yttrofluorite. Also of note form DHZ: "Some Newfoundland deposits, in granite, consist of veins 5 to 20 feet thick, containing 75 to 95% CaF2."
Interesting stuff... at least to this geologist....
Yes you mentioned Canada in your post, but quoted a US government official. So your post was misleading. I think people just need to be aware that the US is the leading the charge to find a viable REE deposit on US soil and this does not necessarily mean that any REE potential in Canada would be expedited because of that need.
Golferman - I cannot PM... but to answer you question. Still in... there is unfinished business here and we are only getting into this story....
Again, this is what I hope to see... and I think current assay results were a small part of the sell off last week. I do not have direct experience in the REE side of things and I only based this guestimate on watching of REE plays.
Obviously the numbers do depend on a lot. I read a post here earlier today taking about China and their control. Prices are high now and will continue to be high as long as China threatens to reduce exports. But, they could easily crush the REE market by producing more... until there are other REE mines, China can control this market.
Now, what I would like to see, which is based on what I have been seeing in the REE market would be:
Total REEs of about 2 wt%, with HREEs making up more than 30% of this number. And of course a thick intersection would be nice (> 10 m is not asking to much) ;)
That is the key - "Proven reserves"! It takes a lot of money and time to get to that point.
You realize that those quotes are for the US. While many thing that Canada is the 51st State we do have our own laws, etc.
Nevertheless, you are correct that NL is mining friendly, but it is the US that is desperate to get a strategic reserve of REEs, particularly HREEs (which is why I have another REE spec play that is on US soil). And note that I said average... but it will still be many years before anything is produced, if at all, from RR, be it REEs or something else. And if the remaining assay results are not better then what was released last week, then REEs will not be the focus of any mine at RR.
Good points. Things to consider is that every State has their own regulations or they follow the Fed EPA rules. California has some of the toughest regulations in the US. Alaska has tough laws due to the sensitive nature of the environment, same goes for working in the Canadian territories.
All projects will require environmental impact reports (EIR) once they get to the production phase. During drilling you are required to get the necessary permits, but do not need to file an EIR (unless NL has different rules). Many States and Provinces are know as "mining friendly", such that it is easier to get the necessary permits, etc to explore and mine.
So it is not the environmental groups per se, but the different government entities that are the first hurdle. If, for some reason, the potential area is near a national forest, etc, then there would be more of a public response. In any case, most EIRs have to go through a public review for 30 days before approval.
And as you correctly point out, this takes years. The average time from epxloration to mining is around 10 years... it takes time to explore, drill, drill some more, reports, pre-FS, FS, then permits.... it is a long haul!
You realize you need 100% up to get back the 50% down....
Don't drink all the egg nog... I think we all need a round!
The timing is strange, but I believe they had to force their hand due to being bombarded by investor calls. And I think they really believed that having enriched concentrations of REEs would make investors happy.
Unfortunately most people were brainwashed to believe it would be an OD-light deposit. And the REE concentrations reported are not that high when compared to other REE exploration plays. The pending results will give us a better idea.... but we are back to waiting.
So cheers... double shots of egg-nog all around!
What does this indicate...
Mafic volcanic and intrusive rocks are probably the most abundant rocks on our planet. The oceanic plates are almost entirely mafic in composition, with only a thin veneer of continental sediment cover it. So the fact they found only tells me that found former ocean floor, which is exactly what the middle part of NL is; former ocean floor.
KATX themselves told us it was sub-economic Cu, no need for an interpretation.
And iron ore... where? Did they release any assays results? Tell us the thickness of the intersection? Ore is of economic value and hematite alteration is very common, particular close to subaqueous volcanic vents, which is what this section sounds like.
So again, what does this indicate... that KATX needs to report the actual assay results before a googlogist reports an iron ore deposit.
I think most everyone would agree (at least in private), that this PR raised more questions than answers. I want to see photos of the hematitized conglomerate; I want to see some assay results from hole #1; and of course I want to see the assay results from the lower part of hole #2.
This PR did not provide the reaction that KATX wanted, hence the high and tight buzz cut today. REEs are and will become an important resource, but the present results are not enough to get to excited, particularly as the HREEs were low.
Now the good news: REEs are the new buzz word and KATX probably has a few more people watching them now to see if the results from the lower part of hole #1 are elevated. If they come back at concentrations >5X the reported results we will have a lot of investor interest. And it was because of this that they probably staked the additional claims.
Elcheepo,
I appreciate the PM. If you want to chat via email drop me another PM with your address. I agree with some of the points you mention, but not all...
Peer pressure??? They have been hounded to release some information and they finally did it?
Maybe they figured releasing this news before the holidays was better than waiting for the New Year. I think I remember someone telling me that many people invest Xmas dollars in the New Year. So get the bad news out now and wait for new dollars, with the final results, in the New Year?!
I, and many others, can throw a lot of stuff against the walls to figure out what the rationale was behind this release.
It is a guessing game, at least for me....
I find it a little far fetched as something that is barely of economic grade is just that... barely economic grade. The money they would need to spend to try and prove that RR and/or any adjacent property is worth mining would probably outweight any gains.
And the present numbers do not suggest it.
Is it impossible... no, but I have my doubts.
There is definitely something missing...
My guess at the downturn, and I believe I read this here today, was that people were looking for OD type numbers. With KATX stating sub-economic Cu, that was probably what started people to the exits. Add people's stops and we cascaded down.
A lot of people bought into the hype of other posters because they talked to Ken, etc.
People have waited long enough...
People are taking their tax lost...
Damage control may be in order.
I am not familiar with the OD model, so I really cannot comment. Obviously there was some fluids that passed through these rocks as recorded in the conglomerate and the conglomerate would be the most porous and permeable rock in this area. So it makes sense that this is where the fluids would move and in doing so hematitized the host.
Now to examine this further. What was the original of the fluids? Could there have been other base metals associated with it? The sub-economic values mentioned in the PR hints that there is some cu-mineralization, could there be more? Where would the Cu-rich fluids be preferrentially precipitated?
And that could lead you to some other part of the anomaly. But they need some evidence in order to justify more drilling.
The premise is that you add claims around your existing claims because your initial property has good potential. It is common practice to add to your claims prior to releasing results, because if they are good there would be an all out blitz on getting any adjacent property. If you look at the claims surround Voisey's Bay you will see everyone jumped once they knew they had high Ni results.
The problem is that these results are not inspiring. I doubt we will see an increase in action in the area. So why did they increase their property position in the area?
My (wild) guesses:
They could have seen some down dip trends during the recent drilling that suggests a continuation to the NW (which I believe is the direction where they added to their claims). A shallow dipping vein/dyke to the NW would probably extend off their current claims, so they quickly grabbed it. Their basis was the logged cores and preliminary results. The present results are not great, but at least they are enriched.
Did they see similar lithology deeper in the hole, but at greater thickness? And extended off their claims?
It just doesn't add up by adding to your claims on the today's PR information. We are missing something...
To examine all sides (the dark side) to this:
Maybe they thought the addition of claims would be a positive enough sign to limit the negative information in the PR?
Maybe the claims were done a few weeks ago based soley on drill core observations and only reported to the recorder yesterday?
We just don't know at this point in time....
I do not think they are jumping on any bandwagon. These were two different properties in two different geologic terranes.
I believe results are back from hole one as they quote sub-economic Cu for hole one, which implies analytical results. Also, they did state they would post tabulated results on their website.
Are you (and Jack) only referring to the second hole? As I read the PR, all the results are available from the first hole (i.e., sub-economic Cu).
However, I got the impression they got some preliminary data from the second hole and sent the samples to another lab for a better analytical method for REEs. This would explain why they have not received all the results back.
They are not required to get us all the results, but they could be provided in a report (hopefully NI 43-101 compliant) or just uploaded to their website in a table. There may be a requirement to provide all the results to the NL government.
The less results provided, the less of economic interest they intersected.
What we know/assume from the PR:
They have had initial REE results from the second hole and based on those results have sent the samples to another lab to get more accurate REE concentrations. The initial lab package they probably used did not give the necessary detection limits, therefore that is why they only reported the upper part of the second hole in this PR. What that means from the lower part of the hole is anyone's guess.
For the first hole, they report sub-economic grades of Cu (i.e., no massive sulphides) and only a brief description of the remaining part of the hole, but at least indicated the source of the anomaly. No assay results were provided, except to mention the sub-economic Cu. None of this sounds positive to me.
The wild card is the additional claims? If they were truly "claimed" yesterday before releasing the results, it would suggest something positive. Unfortunately, I do not see it in this PR... do they have another PR up their sleeve before COB?
While your statement is true, there are a lot better REE plays to investment in than KATX's initial results. I hope the remaining results are a lot better because these initial numbers will not support a lot of new funding for future work.
Hole one appears barren. A hematitized conglomerate is not that interesting and they did not provide any Fe numbers.
Some have thrown out some quotes on hematite and mafic, etc. Unfortunately, from the information provided in the PR this hole is not going to make anyone rich.
Maybe they are holding something back (i.e., the additional claims)?? In any case, this PR on RR does not instill confidence.
I am a long way from the island and cannot answer your question. My guess would be that they could do it both ways and seeing as the NL website is fairly advanced I would think they could do it via a map, rather than by hand. But again, this is only a guess. Someone could pose that valid question to KATX IR.
So would you say it would be a great time to release bad news??
And since we have not had any news, this could mean....
While I appreciate the vote of confidence, I have not said anything negative or positive of SNEY. And I have never made statements on the future PPS for any stock, whether I owned it or not.
I have not read any of these reports, so I cannot give an opinion out of the box. If I get the time of the next few days I will let you know.
Overall, alluvial deposits can be tricky due to the dynamics of the transport medium, that being water. Of a distance of less than a meter things can change very quickly, such as the energy (water discharge), which influences depositional processes. And tt is the depositional processes that are important when exploring an alluvial deposit
Ouch that hurts (and they say the truth hurts)...
I second the "not the best investor/trader" as fact.... keep moving people nothing to see here...
Take a look here for the history of the 43-101:
http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/15019.htm
Some amendments in the works, but I doubt the mining community will shy away from this standard. Heck they are even have short courses at some American conferences on using the 43-101 reporting standard.
True, but the international mining community and investors recognize and trust it. So most mining companies, whether they are Canadian, American, etc will try to adhere to the NI 43-101 standard.
I know... I know... I highjacked the question...
I have not worked any REE-related properties, but I have some geochemist friends that do this stuff all the time. A large rock sample could be broken down and analyzed for every element, but as I mentioned you would need to use different instruments for different elements of interest based on their individual properties. Certain methods are better than others for base metals versus REEs for example. The geologist would fill out a chain of custody (COC) for the samples and on that COC he/she would ask for which analyzes they want. The COC should also indicate the method to be used.
At the lab, the chemist takes the sample, crushes it, and takes the necessary amount of each analytical run indicated on the COC. So it would not take longer.
You take Rock A. Crush it. Take X amount of crushed rock for this analyzes and X amount for this analyzes. Calibrate the individual instrument and away it goes. No delay. While one machine performs the base metals, another is probably doing the REEs.
If it is the same method, then they would need to recalibrate the machine between runs as the detection limits would be different. This would not cause that much of a delay as they would run all the base metals first, then recalibrate, then run the REEs or whatever else they were interested in.
The point is that they probably have a contract that states a 2-week turn-around time, which is standard. If they submit 10 samples and want a large suite of analyzes it still should take 2-weeks, unless other prior arrangements have been made.
Sorry....
but I think he will add a few things as this was a brief intro. I think our biochemist friend could also add more technical info as it has been a few years since I did any geochem work.
I'm jumping the question... just because I am bored and need a diversion from real work...
Most minerals can be analyzed at the same time, but not all are analyzed by the same method. Different instruments can/would be used on split samples therefore there would be no delay.
For example, an ICPMS and similar instruments, you match element signatures, which then determine what elements are present and at what concentration.
If KATX submitted all the samples at once, then it would take more than 2-weeks to finish the job, but I highly doubt they did that; rather, they probably submitted a bunch at a time that coincided with a trip to the city. Or they had a courier available.
So in answer to your question... yes, all the analyzes are being done contemporaneously. Of course, they may only ask for certain data packages (Au, Ag, Pb, and Cu, or AU and base metals, etc) and then later ask for additional work to be perform. It is like a menu and you pick which package you want. Obviously if your a Au explorer you are interested in Au... etc, etc. You don't want to waste money....
Well done... and I think a smart move on your part!
Be careful over there...
Let us make a simple comparison to support your equation.
Barrick Gold, a little gold company... it last announced news related to operations (and they only have 25 mines and 2 in the works) on October 25th of this year. That is a LONG time...
Glad I don't work for them, probably a scam...
Using your strange chart versus assay logic then you must secretly like all the HC results as the charts predicted? No?
Heck, we don't even need to drill anymore. Just get a stock trader / chart specialist to the property and he can make the call. Why waste all this money on drilling, permits, etc...
The perceived negative market is just over 3.3 million (~sells for today) on a stock that traded below $0.07. Seems like a lot, but if there WAS a leak I think the sell volume would have been a little higher. Or there are just not that many people with a lot of money that are in "the know"?
I can't explain the drop, but the difference between the number of sells vs. buys was not that great...
Obviously I would like to have seen a move up with this higher than normal volume, but I am not panicking after today’s action.
I agree with your assessment on trading volume. When it is broken down into a dollar value there is not that money changing hands here. Until we get near $1 million (or a volume > 15 million) in daily trades the PPS will be controlled by the MMs and there is nothing to get excited about. The volume will come on the release of the RR assay results or some other positive news (JV, etc).
Until then we are just sitting on the edge of our seat staring at the PPS and guessing.
In regard to RR - there isn't much to say. KATX has gone through the proper steps to get to the drilling phase. I cannot comment beyond that until results are released.
Results and a report should be completed (or already done) by the end of next week based on the time table counting down from the end of the drilling program. Holidays are fast approaching, so I would hope they get them out before then. If not, then this "delay" could be positive (JV, etc), or negative (bad results, etc). This is all dependent on no delays out of KATXs control (i.e., lab problems). And I base this on my experience and the time line from the release of the HC results.
Agreed!
I look at all sides of each argument to come to my decisions. And I have taken acceptation with many of Gump's posts. Your blind faith is commendable, but I like to have my eyes open. If you want to throw me under the bus for agreeing with a valid point, then so be it.
I don't fault anyone for enthusiasm. But I like to err on the side of caution particularly when I don't know these people and my money is involved.
It is your choice to agree or disagree. But realistically the CEO of a company should not be providing important information to an investor that is not available to the general public. I would be surprised if Ken did this and would think that this would reflect negatively on the company in general.
We can agree that we where both not there at the conference, etc. But I could make glowing interpretations of almost any data in such a manner that while not wrong could be interpreted in the wrong way. Of course I am assuming that the Pope has no geologic knowledge. I have read several reports related to other properties that were just wrong geologically, but had people all excited. I don't think these reports were meant to be misleading, but the authors just did not have the proper training in the area they were writing about. I have asked Ken et al questions on their property that were more academic in nature as I have that background and the answers were satisfactory, but it illustrates the disconnect between the exploration world and research fields. In the same breath there are many aspects that I am not familiar or have limited experience. And I have no problem admitting that.
I will reiterate that this is my opinion, but I strongly believe in this opinion based on the information that I have read and personal knowledge.
My 'terrible' post, as you describe, may just be an artifact that I have not offered glowing support for obscure posts by someone that I don't know. I work on facts and things I can check, and while that could be interpreted as a flaw, I am quite comfortable with it. Everyone is free to make their own investment choices based on whatever information they feel is true/important. I am invested here based on the geology, potential mineralization, management, and ongoing work, not on the words of an unknown layperson. In that light people can take anything I say in the manner as everyone here doesn't know me either. It is a two-way street....