HIGHLIGHTS & UPDATE:
- Intersection in SA-0004 with assays determined by metallic screen fire averages 19.76 g/t Au from 41.1 m to 54.9 m, versus 10.95 g/t Au previously reported from conventional 30 g fire assay
- Substantial variation in gold values between metallic screen fire and conventional fire assay observed in other samples from high grade zone in SA-0001 raises strong possibility of under-reporting gold values
- Changes to sample preparation and assay method protocols currently being implemented, along with re-assaying to identify zones where gold grade may be under-estimated and under-reported
Gold Bull CEO,
After observing visible gold in RC chips, and reviewing the repeatability of some field duplicate samples, it became apparent that the Company needed to investigate our laboratory technique. By improving the quality of our laboratory technique to suit our coarse gold geology at Sandman, we have an opportunity to include mineralization in the mineral resource estimate that might otherwise have be excluded, while also improving the accuracy of data used in the mineral resource estimate.The re-analysis with this different lab technique is indicating a significant increase in gold values in most samples which leads me to believe, some of the coarse-grained gold may have been getting missed in our original laboratory technique. Additional re-assaying is currently underway to rectify this, and we will report the new results to the market as we receive them.
Background
Drilling conducted since
High grade gold mineralization was also drilled at North Hill, including an interval from 41.1 m to 54.9 m with average grade 10.95 g/t Au, based on conventional 30 g fire assay and 5 g/t cut-off grade (refer to press release dated
Subsequent review of QAQC data (field duplicate samples) from a range of holes and the recent observation of visible gold in RC chips drilled at North Hill (refer to press release dated
The results of re-assaying the SA-0001 and SA-0004 samples using conventional fire assay (30 g charge) versus metallic screen fire assay are compared in graphical form (Figure 1) and tabulated (Table 1 and Table 2) below. Results from some samples are increased and others decreased. This is a consequence of the conventional fire assay determination being made on a small sample randomly selected from material where coarse grains of gold are distributed throughout, not necessarily uniformly. Efforts to fully homogenize coarse gold throughout samples by pulverization are not fully effective. Metallic screen fire assay utilizes a 1 kg pulp that is more representative of the drill sample.
The interval in SA-0004 from 41.1 m to 54.9 m returned an average grade of 19.76 g/t Au using metallic screen fire assay, versus 10.88 g/t Au using conventional fire assay with 30 g charge. The substantial increase in average grade in this interval is mainly due to the sample taken at 42.7 m to 44.2 m down-hole, where the metallic screen fire assay returned 116.738 g/t Au. It is not possible to recalculate the average grade of the 143.25 m to 149.35 m interval in SA-0001 because insufficient coarse reject material remained from the sample from 146.3 m to 147.8 m to conduct a metallic screen fire assay. However, substantial variation in grade between the two assay methods can be seen in the tabulated results (Table 1).
In future, Gold Bull will be submitting all samples within geologically identified mineralized zones that return greater than 0.1 g/t Au in conventional 30 g fire assay for re-assay using metallic screen fire assay, where sufficient sample material has been collected.
Next steps:
- Submit coarse reject samples from the recent drilling program, including those recently reported as containing visible gold (refer to press release dated
May 3, 2021 ), for metallic screen fire assay - Modify sample preparation and analysis technique moving forward
- Continue drilling program to test exploration targets and extend known resources at North Hill,
Silica Ridge , SE Pediment andAbel Knoll , commencing first week in June
Figure 1 Cross-plot on logarithmic axes of metallic screen fire assay versus fire assay determinations on selected samples from SA-0001 and SA-0004
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/f6cd0d73-9849-4c61-ab8b-d2c301694b0d
Table 1 Comparison of Metallic Screen Fire versus conventional Fire Assay results from selected samples in hole SA-0001 at Abel Knoll
Hole No. | From (m) | To (m) | From (ft) | To (ft) | Au (ppm) Screen Fire Assay | Au (ppm) Fire Assay (30g charge) | Change (ppm Au) SCRFA minus FA30 |
SA-0001 | 135.6 | 137.2 | 445 | 450 | 1.795 | 1.15 | 0.645 |
SA-0001 | 137.2 | 138.7 | 450 | 455 | 3.379 | 2.33 | 1.049 |
SA-0001 | 138.7 | 140.2 | 455 | 460 | 4.888 | 3.05 | 1.838 |
SA-0001 | 140.2 | 141.7 | 460 | 465 | 5.372 | 3.95 | 1.422 |
SA-0001 | 141.7 | 143.3 | 465 | 470 | 5.317 | 2.44 | 2.877 |
SA-0001 | 143.3 | 144.8 | 470 | 475 | 8.691 | 18.6 | -9.909 |
SA-0001 | 144.8 | 146.3 | 475 | 480 | 6.727 | 6.18 | 0.547 |
SA-0001 | 146.3 | 147.8 | 480 | 485 | Insufficient sample for SCRFA | ||
SA-0001 | 147.8 | 149.4 | 485 | 490 | 6.76 | 5.29 | 1.47 |
SA-0001 | 149.4 | 150.9 | 490 | 495 | 2.839 | 3.92 | -1.081 |
SA-0001 | 150.9 | 152.4 | 495 | 500 | 2.67 | 1.74 | 0.93 |
Table 2 Comparison of Metallic Screen Fire versus conventional Fire Assay results from selected samples in hole SA-0004 at North Hill
Hole No. | From (m) | To (m) | From (ft) | To (ft) | Au (ppm) Screen Fire Assay | Au (ppm) Fire Assay (30g charge) | Change (ppm Au) SCRFA minus FA30 |
SA-0004 | 39.6 | 41.1 | 130 | 135 | 0.032 | 0.017 | 0.015 |
SA-0004 | 41.1 | 42.7 | 135 | 140 | 18.629 | 24.9 | -6.271 |
SA-0004 | 42.7 | 44.2 | 140 | 145 | 116.738 | 3.47 | 113.268 |
SA-0004 | 44.2 | 45.7 | 145 | 150 | 31.095 | 39.3 | -8.205 |
SA-0004 | 45.7 | 47.2 | 150 | 155 | 8.021 | 23.9 | -15.879 |
SA-0004 | 47.2 | 48.8 | 155 | 160 | 2.079 | 1.78 | 0.299 |
SA-0004 | 48.8 | 50.3 | 160 | 165 | 0.383 | 3.6 | -3.217 |
SA-0004 | 50.3 | 51.8 | 165 | 170 | 0.652 | 0.33 | 0.322 |
SA-0004 | 51.8 | 53.3 | 170 | 175 | 0.103 | 0.168 | -0.065 |
SA-0004 | 53.3 | 54.9 | 175 | 180 | 0.135 | 0.492 | -0.357 |
About Sandman
In
Qualified Person
Quality Assurance – Quality Control
Drilling was completed using Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling utilizing double wall drill pipe, interchange hammer and 4¾ inch hammer bits to drill and sample the rock formation. Samples were taken over 5 foot intervals (1.52m) and were collected after separation of the sample using a rotary splitter situated at the base of the cyclone. A small portion of the rock chips for each 5 foot interval was placed into chip trays for record keeping and geological logging. The samples bagged at the rig were taken to
Samples are submitted to American Assay Laboratories’ analytical facility in
About
Gold Bull’s mission is to grow into a US focused mid-tier gold development Company via rapidly discovering and acquiring additional ounces. The company’s exploration hub is based in
Gold Bull’s core asset is the
Gold Bull is driven by its core values and purpose which includes a commitment to safety, communication & transparency, environmental responsibility, community, and integrity.
President and CEO,
For further information regarding
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
Neither the
This news release contains certain statements that may be deemed “forward-looking statements” with respect to the Company within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts and are generally, but not always, identified by the words “expects”, “plans”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “intends”, “estimates”, “projects”, “potential”, “indicates”, “opportunity”, “possible” and similar expressions, or that events or conditions “will”, “would”, “may”, “could” or “should” occur. Although Gold Bull believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance, are subject to risks and uncertainties, and actual results or realities may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Such material risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the Company’s ability to raise sufficient capital to fund its obligations under its property agreements going forward, to maintain its mineral tenures and concessions in good standing, to explore and develop its projects, to repay its debt and for general working capital purposes; changes in economic conditions or financial markets; the inherent hazards associates with mineral exploration and mining operations, future prices of copper and other metals, changes in general economic conditions, accuracy of mineral resource and reserve estimates, the potential for new discoveries, the ability of the Company to obtain the necessary permits and consents required to explore, drill and develop the projects and if obtained, to obtain such permits and consents in a timely fashion relative to the Company’s plans and business objectives for the projects; the general ability of the Company to monetize its mineral resources; and changes in environmental and other laws or regulations that could have an impact on the Company’s operations, compliance with environmental laws and regulations, dependence on key management personnel and general competition in the mining industry. Forward-looking statements are based on the reasonable beliefs, estimates and opinions of the Company’s management on the date the statements are made. Except as required by law, the Company undertakes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements in the event that management’s beliefs, estimates or opinions, or other factors, should change.
Figure 1
Cross-plot on logarithmic axes of metallic screen fire assay versus fire assay determinations on selected samples from SA-0001 and SA-0004
2021 GlobeNewswire, Inc., source