Chidliak is only a couple of weeks away from learning the micro analysis results from the SRC (Saskatchewan Research Council) Laboratory.
How does one interpret the results?
The first number to hit the reader will be the grade. The number of carats per tonne. This will come straight from the lab results, but is not the most important aspect of the results.
An example of why this number is not the most important is to go back to the CH-6 mini-bulk.
14 tonnes of material was collected and processed to show results from the 0.85 mm and above sieve (commercial sizes). An associated 465.3 kg sample was also taken and was processed to collect some micro information from the 0.425 mm sieve and above. The results show the larger sample (14 tonnes) came across at 2.71 cpt (on the 1.18 mm sieve) and the smaller sample (465.3 kg) came across at 1.98 cpt (on the 1.18 mm sieve).
The larger sample will include a statistically amount of macro diamonds whereas a smaller sample will get lucky and hit a good macro stone that will skew the results up or get unlucky and not hit a good macro stone and that will skew the results down.
The real interpretation is to extrapolate a modeled grade based on the coarse distribution curve of the lab results. One would need a reference map on how to do that. That is where the 404.24 tonne bulk sample comes in. The sample has given the best knowledge of a macro grade to date at Chidliak. In conjunction with the 404.24 tonne bulk sample, there was also a 350 kg sample taken that went through micro analysis (caustic sampling) and that is where the map has been created. The macro coarse distribution curve is known for that 404.24 tonne bulk sample and that curve is associated with a micro coarse distribution curve for the 350 kg sample. The curve is more of a confirmation that things just line up with alternate caustic results. The number of stones from in an alternate coarse distribution curve will push the modeled grade up above the 404.24 tonne grade if the number of stones is higher...and it will be lower if the number of stones is lower.
One can look at the lab results and look at the grade (cpt) and can get out an excel spreadsheet and spend some time plotting a coarse distribution curve and all that detail.....but is there something easier that can be done?
Thanks to a fancy chart in the 2016 Chidliak PEA, the answer is yes. (Page 14-4 of the 2016 PEA)
Here is the chart in question:
It does a stone count per kg, but looks specifically at the stones that fall on and above the 0.212 mm sieve. A higher sieve then has been looked at the early exploration phases at Chidliak.
On the left chart, there is a lot of blue. That is the regular grade kimberlite at CH-6 (2 cpt+) and the blue equates to between 0.6 to 1.4 stones per kg on the 0.212 mm sieve.
On the right chart, there is a lot of different colours. This shows the inner Higher grade zone ( 4 cpt+) and the multiple colours there indicates between 1.4 to 5.15 stones per kg on the 0.212 mm sieve.
The samples taken from the core during the summer program were at fixed intervals. Something like every 10 metres, a sample was taken (20 kg is needed for a sample) and sent to the SRC. Peregrine Diamonds (owner of Chidliak) may just release a combined result to the world or it may be more discrete.
The key item to watch for is not specifically the grade, but the carat stone count. Look at the sieves at 0.212 and above. Anything above 2 stones per kg will be very valuable and high margin tonnage. Anything around 1 stone per kg and that will be the standard kimberlite for CH-6.
The difference between standard and very valuable is between is CAD$400 per tonne and CAD$1000 per tonne material. Anything in that range will have a big, positive impact to the NPV going into the PEA update.
