And the stock is trending nicely upward in case you hadn’t noticed. |
ARCM covered from around 46 minutes in. |
From around 6 minutes and 20 seconds. |
Can anyone decipher the technicals here?
TIA. |
The groundbreaking news on LSE is that the worlds largest miner is interested in one of the worlds largest copper producing countries.In other news; England are interested in fish & chips, pandas are interested in bamboo and Real Madrid like football. |
Still waiting for an explanation on how arcm won't need to raise for "years" and if indeed Archer gets professional geologists to draft articles on his personal substack. Personally, if I write about basketball I don't tend to get Michael Jordan to write for me! |
A whiskey with charles a personal substack saying "views are my own" but he gets geologists to write for him.....hmmmmm OK kiddoAlso his article said "financing to last years without needing to go to the market "....put some meat on the bones there laddie as personally I'm sceptical about that on steroids!! Are they not drilling Botswana? G & A costs for years ROFLMFAO all imho dyor!!! |
You know he writes about lots of companies? |
Yep. 1.725 is closing mid. |
If you’re referring to my post Bukowski I would have thought it blindingly obvious that anything Charles Archer writes has to be cleared by the company, and he’s no geologist so he would have consulted Vasillios to help him draft it. |
Key word there kiddo is "could", and I don't do coulds baby boy. I don't do ifs but whens, it's just how I roll. |
Nick has been saying much the same thing..
Key point is previous holes at Cheyezae E have found copper oxide that had re-mobilised to that location.. but at the last hole the oxide Hasn’t relocated.. so the sulphides below could be much wider (potentially) down dip and a along strike, anyway, I’ll leave you to your negative thoughts. |
Another nice daily tick up. Hopefully promising results will continue to attract investors ahead of the, now expected, good news on exploration. Gla, especially LTH :-) |
Alright our kid: your lets settle this line followed by a piece by Charlie Archer would hold more weight if you quoted something from a qualified geologist, a qualified metallurgist or a mining engineer, rather than from Charlie " I'm not qualified in any of these" Archer.What qualifications has Archer got just out of interest??? |
Makes sense to me.. if Anglo find decent copper sulphide’s we won’t need to worry about filling in anything.. Apart from form SA108. |
 OK let’s make it simple with this extract from Charles Archer’s write up:
Sulphide vs Oxide considerations
I think it’s well worth spending a moment explaining why sulphides have excited the team so much. I want to be clear here that higher grade oxides (for example, the excellent grades found at Midnight Sun’s Kazhiba Target within the Solwezi Project) are valuable ores. They can be developed as stand-alone mines, or be incorporated into larger operations if close to a major mine.
But oxides are - as a general rule - not Tier 1 material.
And Arc is looking for Tier 1’s.
Oxide deposits are typically processed using heap leaching and SX-EW (solvent extraction-electrowinning), which requires sulphuric acid (not environmentally friendly) but more importantly, large amounts of water. This process can be expensive - and given the drought of recent years in Zambia, even getting sufficient water can be a challenge.
Sulphide deposits tend to be processed via floatation and smelting - this is up-front capex heavy but much more cost-effective over the long run if you have a sufficiently large deposit when economies of scale take over. This is important because sulphides - while they tend to be much lower grade - are almost always larger and deeper than oxide deposits, which tend to be shallow and deplete quickly.
Again - oxide deposits have advantages - especially if a junior is developing them itself. If Arc ends up with a reasonable Tier 2 oxide resource, this would not be a poor outcome by any means. But it’s just not what a major wants as the main course.
The other key factor to consider is that sulphide ores generally have much higher copper recovery rates, which compensates for lower grades. Meanwhile, oxides not only have lower recovery rates, they’re also more variable which can make mine planning harder. Copper concentrate from sulphides is also more widely traded, with more stable prices.
Of course, it’s often the case that oxide ores are found in the upper layers as part of a weathered cap of a deeper sulphide system - so seeing sulphides within a near-surface oxide core should excite you.
Which is exactly what Arc has just seen.
For perspective, the new KCDD002 assay results are already adding on to the oxide occurrences at Cheyeza - where previous hole CHDDE004 intersected 18m @ 2.35% Cu from 30.60m with a higher grade zone of 7.60m @ 4.15% Cu from 39m, and hole CHDDE060 intersected 39m @ 1.47% Cu with a higher grade zone of 10m @ 2.25% Cu from 41m.
But the key point is that the previous oxide was a ‘remobilised copper oxide occurrence.’ This new hole ‘may be the result of weathering of sulphide mineralisation at source, which is supported by the presence of sulphide mineralisation below the oxide zone.’ You can extrapolate the importance of this statement from the above, but to clarify further:
The original drill result being a remobilised copper oxide occurrence essentially means that the copper oxide was not formed in place but was transported from its original source by natural geological processes (for example, groundwater movement). Essentially, copper was dissolved from its primary mineralisation, moved through rock formations, and then re-precipitated elsewhere as copper oxide.
This new result, with weathering of sulphide mineralisation at source, means the oxide mineralisation was formed in place by the weathering - i.e., the sulphides oxidised due to exposure to oxygen/water, leading to the formation of copper oxides.
Because you have the sulphide mineralisation beneath the oxide zone, you can be almost sure that this oxidation occurred at the original deposit rather than due to remobilisation.
This matters on multiples levels: remobilised oxide deposits are unpredictable and scattered because the copper has been transported from its primary source. But more importantly, in-situ weathering of sulphides suggests a Tier 1 mineral source nearby (or lying underneath the weathering, just ready for a drill bit).
Okay does that all make sense?
It does to me - it’s hard to strike a balance between technical detail and accessibility. |
Don't you think it'd be handy to infill that circa 1.5 km before talking of a resource and stand alone operation! Also we have no idea about the continuity of Arc's previous CE drilling!! |
Wonder how the sad, imbecilic, ignored and filtered troll is feeling today. You all know who I mean, hey, Skip ;-D |
Nick recently said on Cheyezae E: Clearly an oxide resource with these sorts of grades is a viable operation, as a standalone. So that is good news to me.
A hole down dip from the 40 metres of mineralisation reported yesterday at Cheyezae, could (potentially) hit sulphide's, So from just the first target, we have something between good, or potentially huge. |
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
Hot Features
Premium
