LETTERS Nickel plate skepticism

The article by David Duval (Third Time Lucky) in the July issue mentioned my name in association with the open pit operation of Mascot Gold Mines on Nickel Plate Mountain, near Hedley, B.C. Mr Duval wrote: “Following up suggestions made by consulting geologist Martin Kierans, who worked at the property for a time, Bill Hainsworth (another consultant) also began pushing the open pit potential.” Your reporter is a talented and skilled technical journalist for whose work I have always had a great deal of respect. I am certain that he meant well in associating my name with the Nickel Plate open pit. During a visit to the property in 1980 or 1981, he and I did discuss possible surface mining at Nickel Plate. But I really do wish that he had left my name out of his article.

I did work at Nickel Plate during the 1950-52 period and again as field project geologist for about one year during the 1980-81 period. Frank Holland, who ran the project then under Lou Stark (the late “Rolly” Foisy was field project manager), did approve some recommendations for surface drilling targets that I had made. However, the targets for proposed surface mining were targets of very limited extent. At no time did I even come near proposing any drilling on the very extensive scale carried out by subsequent geologists and management at the mine. The concept of a very large, bedded, mineralized deposit is not an original one. The concept was negatively tested by Billingsley in the 1940s with widely spaced surface and underground diamond drill holes.

My basic exploration philosophy was then (1980-81), and still is, that Nickel Plate could support for many years a successful, medium-grade (0.25 oz gold per ton), small-to-medium- tonnage (500 tons per day) underground operation. The underground operations could be supplemented by production from a number of small- surface open-cut ore bodies.

The surface mining proposals I recommended to Frank Holland were confined to the projection to surface of a few good-grade ore zones known from previous underground operations. We expected that these would be distinct small bodies with stripping ratios in the range of about 1:1 or 1:2 and grades about 0.08 oz gold per ton. Surface drilling directed, logged and sampled by myself did indeed indicate modest tonnages (300,000- 600,000 tons) in two zones at about the above grade during the 1980-1981 period. I did not complete formal ore reserve calculations of these possible reserves before I voluntarily left the project in June, 1981.

The idea of a very large-tonnage surface, open pit, bulk-mining project, based on submarine-exhalative concepts, was proposed and drill-tested by subsequent geologists and managers. So far as I knew, the managers I worked for neither proposed nor followed up that concept. And the idea certainly was never proposed by me to anyone.

In fact it is my opinion that the extensive, closely-spaced drilling carried out on the surface of Nickel Plate Mountain was, and is, based on an erroneous geological concept. This is not the time nor the place to go further into this. Because of detailed knowledge of Nickel Plate structures, rocks and drilling results up to June, 1981, I am very skeptical about the near-term or ultimate operational profitability of the Nickel Plate 2,700-ton-per-day open pit operation. I do hope that the open pit operation will not ruin the chances for going underground after the smaller, high- grade ore bodies. In any case, I think David Duval should give credit or blame to those to whom it is due. So far as the large open pit operation at Nickel Plate is concerned, neither is due to me. Martin Kierans, P.Eng. Vancouver, B.C.