https://preview.redd.it/tager4rkie3b1.png?width=3500&format=png&auto=webp&s=c47b3d5a8ed7b07a3c67937fd063058b867053d5
TORONTO , June 1, 2023 /CNW/ - Nickel Creek Platinum Corp. (TSX: NCP) (OTCQB: NCPCF) ("Nickel Creek" or the "Company") is pleased to announce an updated mineral resource estimate at its 100%-owned Nickel Shäw Project located in the Yukon , Canada. Under the revised estimate, measured mineral resource tonnage has increased by 31% to 122,363 kt and indicated mineral resource tonnage has increased by 37% to 314,332 kt. Contained Ni in measured and indicated mineral resource categories have increased 31% to 2.47 billion lbs. Grades are largely unchanged with the measured and indicated mineral resource grades at 0.26% Ni, 0.13% Cu, 0.014% Co, 0.23 g/t Pd, 0.22 g/t Pt and 0.04 g/t Au. A complete tabulation of tonnage and grade by category is listed in the table below along with metal prices, recovery information, net smelter return ("NSR") cut-off grades and mining parameters.
https://preview.redd.it/ztba8mtkie3b1.jpg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=56733d90210e225dd832fe078a230a49002e3187
Stuart Harshaw , President and CEO commented: "The updated mineral resource estimate for the Nickel Shäw Project represents an important milestone in the path towards developing a large, long-life operation and puts us in excellent position for the delivery of our pre-feasibility study ("PFS") in Q3 2023."
The 2023 mineral resource estimate includes the addition of tonnes in both the measured and indicated categories relative to the Company's last mineral resource estimate. The results from the Company's 2022 drilling campaign (comprising 8 holes totaling 1,710 m ), along with updated metal pricing and revised pit constraints, supported the update to mineral resources at the Nickel Shäw Project. In addition, variability metallurgical testwork was completed on a series of core samples collected in 2022, allowing for a refinement of the recovery formula.
This Mineral Resource Estimate was prepared by AGP Mining Consultants Inc. in accordance with CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves.
Project Mineral Resources for the Wellgreen Deposit; effective date of 3 April 2023
https://preview.redd.it/vjxremukie3b1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=255a2186bde65ac277ecca033838c5c774039d68

Notes:
Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Summation errors may occur due to rounding.
Effective Date is 3 April 2023 .
Mineral Resources amenable to open pit extraction are reported within an optimized constraining shell.
Metal prices used for Mineral Resource determination ($US):
	Nickel: $12.10/lb, Copper: $4.45/lb, Cobalt: $25.30/lb, Palladium: $2,415/troy oz, Platinum: $1,150/troy oz, Gold: $2,015/troy oz
Net Smelter Return (NSR) cut-off grades range from $17.30 to $17.61 Canadian Dollars depending on Bulk Con and Split Con.
Mining Cost vary by bench, separately for ore and waste:
	Base waste mining cost @ 1330m = C$2.26/t, 10m bench incremental cost above =C$ 0.0.004/t, 10m bench incremental cost below = C$0.023/t
	Base ore mining cost @ 1330m = C$1.99/t, 10m bench incremental cost above =C$ 0.0.019/t, 10m bench incremental cost below = C$0.015/t
Process and G&A costs:	bulk con = C$17.30/t
		split con = C$17.61/t
Calculated process recoveries by concentrate type :
		Ni	Cu	Co	Pd	Pt	Au
	Bulk con:	Eq1	Eq2	57.0 %	54.0 %	47.8 %	74.4 %
	Cu con:	Eq3	Eq4	3.36 %	3.19 %	0.91 %	23.58 %
	Ni con:	Eq5	Eq6	53.64 %	50.81 %	46.89 %	50.82 %
		where:	Eq1 = Ni recovery to Bulk Con = MIN(23.21*LN(X)+30.362,88)
				where	X = (%S-%Cu)/%Ni Capped at 12.0%
			Eq2 = Cu recovery to Bulk Con = ((Cu-0.06)/Cu)) *100, Constant tail at 0.06% Cu
			Eq3 = Ni recovery to Cu Con = Ni recovery to achieve 25.6% Cu and 1.1% Ni grades in Cu Con
			Eq4 = Cu recovery to Cu Con = Cu recovery to Bulk Con * 0.623
			Eq5 = Ni recovery to bulk con - Ni recovery to Cu Con
			Eq6 = Cu recovery to bulk con - Cu recovery to Cu Con
			Details of the above equations to be available in the future technical report.
Capping of grades varies based on lithology for each metal.
The density is assigned based on lithology and varies between 2.76 g/cm 3 and 3.38 g/cm 3 .

About Nickel Creek Platinum Corp.
Nickel Creek Platinum Corp. (TSX: NCP; OTCQB: NCPCF) is a Canadian mining exploration and development company advancing its 100%-owned Nickel Shäw Project (Project"). The Project has exceptional access to infrastructure, located three hours west of Whitehorse via the paved Alaska Highway, which further offers year-round access to deep-sea shipping ports in southern Alaska.
The Company is led by a management team with a proven track record of successful discovery, development, financing and operation of large-scale projects. Our vision is to create value for our shareholders by becoming a leading North American nickel, copper, cobalt and PGM producer.
Qualified Persons
The scientific and technical information disclosed in this news release in relation to metallurgical testing, including with respect to 2022-23 variability testwork, was reviewed and approved by Gordon Marrs , P. Eng., of XPS who is a "Qualified Person" as defined in NI 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects ("NI 43-101"), and an independent consultant to the Company. The technical information disclosed in this news release in relation to the Nickel Shäw resource was reviewed and approved by Paul Daigle of AGP Mining Consultants Inc. Mr. Daigle is a "Qualified Person" as defined in NI 43-101, and an independent consultant to the Company. All other scientific and technical information disclosed in this news release was reviewed and approved by Cameron Bell , Nickel Creek's Geological Consultant and a "Qualified Person" as defined in NI 43-101. Please see the technical report ( September 2018 ) filed under the Company's profile at
www.sedar.com
, for a description of the Company's data verification and QA/QC procedures.
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Information:
This news release includes certain information that may be deemed "forward-looking information". Forward-looking information can generally be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as "may", "will", "expect", "intend", "believe", "continue", "plans" or similar terminology, or negative connotations thereof. All information in this release, other than information of historical facts, including, without limitation, regarding the results of technical test work, the estimated mineral resource, the prospect of any future potential economic viability of the Project, future commodity prices and the potential for them to improve, that a pre-feasibility study ("PFS") will ever be completed, the potential to identify additional mineralization beyond the known resource, timing of further work on the Project, future demand for nickel and copper concentrates, future demand for battery products, the ability of the Company to identify additional opportunities to create shareholder value, and general future plans and objectives for the Company and the Project, are forward-looking information that involve various risks and uncertainties. Although the Company believes that the expectations expressed in such forward-looking information are based on reasonable assumptions, such expectations are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those in the forward-looking information.
This news release also contains references to estimates of mineral resources. The estimation of mineral resources is inherently uncertain and involves subjective judgments about many relevant factors. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The accuracy of any such estimates is a function of the quantity and quality of available data, and of the assumptions made and judgments used in engineering and geological interpretation, which may prove to be unreliable and depend, to a certain extent, upon the analysis of drilling results and statistical inferences that may ultimately prove to be inaccurate. Mineral resource estimates may have to be re-estimated based on, among other things: (i) fluctuations in nickel, copper or other mineral prices; (ii) results of drilling; (iii) results of metallurgical testing and other studies; (iv) changes to proposed mining operations, including dilution; (v) the evaluation of mine plans subsequent to the date of any estimates; and (vi) the possible failure to receive or maintain required permits, approvals and licences.
For more information on the Company and the key assumptions, risks and challenges with respect to the forward-looking information discussed herein, and about our business in general, investors should review the Company's most recently filed annual information form, and other continuous disclosure filings which are available at
www.sedar.com
View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nickel-creek-platinum-announces-updated-mineral-resource-estimate-at-nickel-shaw-project-301839787.html
SOURCE Nickel Creek Platinum Corp.
​
View original content to download multimedia: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2023/01/c7183.html
https://preview.redd.it/nxkwzrvkie3b1.png?width=4000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e51d498012344de7529d985d714edd29c7d24ec6

Universal Site Links
NICKEL CREEK PLATINUM CORP
STOCK METAL DATABASE
ADD TICKER TO THE DATABASE
www.reddit.com/Treaty_Creek
REPORT AN ERROR

1) Should I get these appraised somewhere local ( location PHX Arizona ) and if I'm able to do that through online so where ?
2 ) I was offered $6 per coin from local shop of this a fair price? I'm new to this but know some of the lingo
3 ) I have a nice size collection and with the condition they are in (non collectable condition) would I get full face value or would I be able to get Melting price only ?
4) last but not least should just have them melted in to bars or just keep them in coin form? Thanks for you time look forward to hearing answers and suggestions?

TL;DR: Inconsistent test procedures, incomplete details, and results that are incompatible with previously stated results make it impossible to draw any solid conclusions from the data
We finally have some more data on Hardge’s EMM device than the bits and fragments that have been found previously. Kudos to Cal for acquiring it from Hardge and sharing it publicly. Here’s my analysis of what has been shared. As usual, this is long, because the details matter.
The data shows dyno runs from two different days, the first on Jan. 5 (Run A) and the second on Jan. 20 (Run B). While there is nothing in the data itself that labels the runs such, it seems that we are supposed to assume that Run A shows the Mullen 1 cargo van without an EMM installed, while Run B is supposed to be the data for a van with the EMM installed.
SOC % Over Time
The tables shown indicate the battery State of Charge (SOC %) at different hourly time intervals. The data shows that the van in Run A completely ran out of charge after 5 hrs 37 min, while the van in Run B still had 44% of charge after that same amount of time. I put the data into a simple graph to show that based on the data presented the van in Run B (w/ EMM, we assume) clearly used less battery charge over the same time interval. If we extrapolate Run B linearly then the data implies that it could have run for a full 10 hours before reaching 0% SOC.
The graphs plot both Power (hp) and Calculated Speed (mph) as a function of Time (seconds). It essentially provides a timeline of how much power was required to rotate the dyno wheel at the indicated calculated speed at each moment of the run. It provides much more detail than the tables for Time and MPH, which appear to be manually recorded at far fewer intervals.
Run A Graph
Run B Graph
This is especially significant because the Run A graph displays quite a lot more variance in the vehicle speed and power, at least in the first half of the run, compared to Run B. When analyzing data, the differences can often provide clues for a meaningful understanding of the results.

Analyzing the Run A and Run B Differences

The reason it is important to carefully consider the differences is because we need to determine if the different results are caused by the device/phenomenon that we are actually studying, or by differences in the testing conditions. This is why scientists and engineers try to keep test conditions between trials as close as possible, in order to minimize the effects of environmental differences and make it easier to conclude that the result is due to the thing being tested. Unfortunately, there are several notable differences in the Run A and Run B testing conditions that may undermine how confidently we can conclude that the observed results were due to the EMM itself.
First, the NOTES indicate that Run A was conducted at a temperature of 63 F while the temperature during Run B was 74 F. Temperature can affect EV range, with collected data showing that EV range generally peaks at around 70-71F. This is due to a combination of the battery thermal management systems working to maintain an ideal temperature for the battery around that range, as well as the lower need for HVAC usage to maintain a comfortable interior temperature. The test notes indicate that “all acc on” for both tests, and Hardge has said in previous comments that this includes lights, radio, and even air conditioning. But the notes do not indicate what temperature the HVAC control was set to. A higher temperature would have the heater drawing more energy in Run A. To be fair, if the A/C was set to a lower temperature, then cooling would draw more energy for Run B. Without the details we are unable to assess the impact of the temperature difference.

Significant Fluctuations in Driving Procedure

But the data does show that there were significant differences in how the van was driven between Run A and Run B. The speed for Run B remains essentially flatline between 44-45 mph for essentially the entire run, and it is most likely that cruise control was set to maintain this consistency. In contrast, the first half of Run A exhibits significant speed fluctuation, with speeds dropping as low as 33 mph and rising above 53 mph, including two sharp accelerations that increased speed by about 15 mph. Even without overlaying the light blue lines indicating the range of speed for Run B over the data for Run A the fluctuations are obvious.
Speed Fluctuations
Fluctuating speeds can significantly affect energy consumption and range for an EV. This study showed that:

Driving speed oscillations negatively influence energy consumption of BEVs. The larger the oscillations, the higher the energy consumption. While small oscillations of 0.1 m/s^2 don’t significantly influence energy consumption, larger oscillations of 0.3 m/s^2 do (with a gain of 14% for eco-drivers, 37% for normal drivers and 53% for aggressive drivers).

Repeatedly accelerating and decelerating uses up considerably more energy than travelling at a constant rate of speed, causing up to 53% higher energy consumption according to that study. Those who have driven EVs for an extended amount of time know personally how different driving styles can impact efficiency. The exact same car driven over the exact same route in different manners can result in meaningful differences in the expected range (this very unofficial test showed a difference of 7% in battery charge from just a 30 mile drive).
This is also evident in the graph of Power between the two runs, with the power in Run A fluctuating significantly out of the range exhibited in Run B, with multiple periods showing double or triple the power draw. Again, the blue lines show the limited range of power draw for Run B compared to Run A.
Power Fluctuations
While it appears that cruise control was activated for Run B starting around the 12500 second (3.5 hour) mark, it is important to note that the cruise control was set to a higher speed of 53 mph, compared to the 45 mph speed set for Run B. The vehicle was then kept at 53 mph for more than 2 hours until the battery was depleted. In an indoor dyno test without the effects of aerodynamic drag, higher speed will have less of an impact on power, but there is still a meaningful difference. This is why the EPA uses different drive cycles to determine the EV efficiency and range at different speeds, and why the “city” rating is almost always higher than the “highway” range rating for EVs.
It is baffling why Mullen did not keep the driving profiles more consistent between Run A and Run B. The major differences in driving profile compromise being able to conclude that the greater efficiency displayed in Run B is due to the EMM as opposed to Run A being driven in a much less efficient manner.
This issue is compounded even more by the fact that only a single trial was conducted for each configuration. Everyone who has conducted scientific testing knows that multiple trials are important to average out the effects of random extremes. Why did Mullen chose to do only a single run with and without the EMM? Or, did Mullen and Hardge in fact do multiple runs, and cherry-picked only a single sample to share? It should be noted that it was a period of 15 days between Run A and Run B. Why did it take more than two weeks between the tests? We don’t even know if they used the same van for both Run A and Run B.

What about the Distance Travelled?

I will finish this post with one more factor I noticed that calls into question the legitimacy of the testing procedures performed. For a graph of speed versus time, the area under the line represents the total distance travelled. Using a tool like Graphreader allows you to plot out and generate a data set to match a given graph, and then with a bit of Google Sheet-fu we can derive the total distance travelled by the vehicle for each run.
https://preview.redd.it/iesv5qgitb3b1.png?width=1017&format=png&auto=webp&s=5e054035302f4afdce8a56237a3ed24079f69c55
I leave it to the reader to try it for themselves, but the result I obtained was:

• Run A = 262 miles
• Run B = 242 miles

With 44% SOC remaining and that distance traveled in Run B, a linear extrapolation would end up with a distance of 432 miles (65% higher than Run A) by the time the battery is fully depleted. But here is why this range figure does not make sense in light of what Mullen has previously stated.
In the PR statement that Mullen issued on April 20 (which remains deleted), Mullen stated that the testing of the EMM on the M1 “showed more than a 75% increase in range” (stock M1 is claimed to go 110 miles), resulting in a “calculated EPA estimated range of 186 miles”.
April 20 Mullen PR Statement
And yet the results shown in the data would imply that the estimated range ought to be an incredible 432 miles! Why would the company claim 186 miles as the improved result, rather than 432 miles? Are they not understanding the implications of their own data? Or are there some other factors that disallow claiming the 432 miles range?
But here’s another questionable aspect of this range value from the test results. Run A indicated that the stock Mullen 1 van travelled 262 miles total, which is nearly 240% the actual rated range for the vehicle. This strongly suggests that there are aspects with how the test was conducted that are unrealistic and depart from what you would see in real-world usage. You may recall that when Hardge had Element Materials test his golf cart, it was done with the drive wheels lifted off the floor and spinning freely, thus greatly reducing the load and allowing much longer (and entirely unrealistic) runtimes.
With so many details of the test procedures and other aspects of how the runs were conducted missing, it is difficult to draw any firmer conclusions based on what has been presented. Though at least it is more than what we had before.

I have a 2000 Jeep TJ with 128k miles, the I6, and the 3 speed auto. I’m looking to sell it as I need something better for highway driving, but I am not sure on pricing due to the current market. It has been lifted 3 inches, has 33in tires, and I have both a soft and hard top. It is custom painted in Mango Tango orange, but it has two rust spots on the passenger fender and under the passenger door. It is in good mechanical condition and I just had the front bushings and control arms replaced. Anyone have any price suggestions?

He’s 2nd best performing pitcher - sometimes outperforms my D McLain with CM. But I’m not sure if I should just BD + look for legend skill on R Johnson because he’s a non-team sig.