Tag: Measured

Faraday Copper Announces PEA for Copper Creek with NPV US$713M and 4.2 Billion Pounds of Measured and Indicated Copper Mineral Resources

2023-05-03 14:29:17

VANCOUVER, BC / ACCESSWIRE / May 3, 2023 / Faraday Copper Corp. (“Faraday” or the “Company“) (TSX:FDY) (OTCQX:CPPKF) is pleased to announce the results from a Preliminary Economic Assessment (“PEA”) and an updated Mineral Resource Estimate (“MRE”) for its Copper Creek Project, located in Arizona, U.S. (“Copper Creek”). The PEA provides an economically viable base case for the development of Copper Creek.

All financial results are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated. The Company will hold a conference call and webcast on May 4, 2023 at 4:30pm ET to discuss the results of the PEA and MRE. Details are provided below.

Paul Harbidge, President and CEO, commented, “In the twenty months since restarting technical activities at Copper Creek, we have delivered an MRE with 4.2 billion pounds of copper in the Measured and Indicated category, an economically robust PEA and a pipeline of exploration targets. The PEA provides an excellent basis for the future development of Copper Creek and is the beginning of the Faraday story. The projected low initial capital and upfront open pit mine unlocks a large underground operation, for a combined mine life of more than 30 years. The project is expected to grow over time as the property is endowed with numerous untested exploration targets. Importantly, the results from our ongoing 10,000-metre drill program, which are not incorporated in the current studies, are anticipated to contribute to this growth in the future. We are planning a further 20,000-metre drill program to commence in the fourth quarter of this year as we continue to advance the project and unlock value for our stakeholders.”

Highlights of the Copper Creek PEA*

Attractive economics: Post-tax Net Present Value (“NPV”) _(7%) of $713 million and Internal Rate of Return (“IRR”) of 16% (Table 1) and significant upside to higher metal prices (Table 4).
Strong standalone open pit economics: Standalone open pit operation supports a pre-tax NPV _(7%) of $337 million (Table 2).
Robust project: Open pit mining provides a rapid payback on initial capital of four years and fully funds development of a bulk underground mine for a combined total mine life of 32 years (Table 1).
Long life production profile: Average anticipated payable production during active miningⁱ of 51,100 copper equivalent (“CuEq”)ⁱⁱ tonnes per year (“tpa”), with peak production of 82,100 tonnes CuEqⁱⁱ in Year 2. Generating 3.4 billion pounds (“lbs”) payable CuEqⁱⁱ metal over the anticipated life of mine (3.2 billion lbs copper, 45.1 million lbs molybdenum, and 9.7 million troy ounces (“oz”) silver) (Table 3, Figure 2).
Low initial capital investment: $798 million, with a construction period of two years (Table 1).
Competitive operating cost profile: Average life-of-mine (“LOM”) production cash costsⁱⁱⁱ of $1.67/lb copper and all-in sustaining costsⁱⁱⁱ (“AISC”) of $1.85/lb copper (Table 3).
Favourable strip ratio: Average open pit strip ratio of 1:1.2 due to the nature of the near-surface breccia mineralization that allows sequencing of high-grade production.
High metallurgical recoveries: Over 94% average copper recovery from sulphide material, producing high-quality clean concentrates.
Enhanced environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) practices: Dry stack tailings to reduce water requirements and environmental footprint as well as utilization of renewable solar power to reduce emissions.
Updated Mineral Resource Estimate: An updated MRE is the basis for the PEA. Measured and Indicated resources are 421.9 million tonnes (“Mt”) at an average grade of 0.45% copper for a contained 4.2 billion pounds of copper.
Exploration upside: The mineral resource remains open at depth and laterally, as highlighted by the intersection of massive sulphides beneath the Copper Prince breccia (see news release dated January 17, 2023). In addition, there are over 400 breccia occurrences mapped at surface, 35 drill-tested and 17 included in this MRE, as well as additional porphyry potential.

Zach Allwright, VP Projects and Evaluations, stated, “The outcome of the PEA demonstrates the potential for Copper Creek to become a significant source of U.S. domestic copper production. The study is underpinned by empirical data, acquired through extensive geological and geotechnical assessments, comprehensive metallurgical test work, first principles costing and diligent schedule optimization. This base case forms a foundation on which the Company can continue to add value through resource expansion, new discoveries on the property, the potential to add a gold by-product and various opportunities to increase the production capacity.”

^*_{The metrics presented in this news release are based on a PEA that includes an economic analysis of the potential viability of Mineral Resources. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. This PEA is preliminary in nature, includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves, and there is no certainty the PEA will be realized. See “Qualified Person and NI 43-101” below. For reference i, ii, and iii, please refer to endnotes at the end of the document.}

Conference Call and Webcast

Investors, media and the public are invited to join the conference call and webcast, during which management will discuss the result of the Copper Creek PEA.

Thursday, May 4, 2023, at 1:30pm PT (4:30pm ET)
Toll-free in U.S. and Canada: +1 (800) 319-4610
All other callers: +1 (604) 638-5340
Webcast: https://services.choruscall.ca/links/faradaycopper202305.html
Webcast replay: Available on the Company’s website for one year and by phone at +1 (855) 669-9658 or (604) 674-8052 for three months. Please enter passcode 3013#

PEA Overview

The 2023 PEA outlines a low initial capital project that processes approximately 345 Mt of mill feed material from a combined open pit and underground operation. The PEA contemplates a 30,000 tonnes per day (“tpd”) conventional flotation process plant producing high-quality copper and molybdenum concentrates, with silver by-product credits. The PEA also captures value from an additional 20 Mt of oxide material sourced from pre-strip mining and processed via a heap leach facility (“HLF”) utilizing solvent extraction and electrowinning (“SXEW”), further supporting a rapid payback on initial capital. The PEA does not incorporate any results from the Phase II drill program, which is currently ongoing and expected to conclude near the end of the second quarter of 2023.

Payback of initial capital is expected to occur in Year 4, with the post-tax cash flows funding the expansionary capital, which includes the addition of a molybdenum circuit and development of the underground footprint, both of which commence in Year 3 (Figure 1, Table 1 & Table 13).

Table 1: PEA Economic Highlights

Base Case Economics	Unit	LOM
Post-tax NPV_(7%)	$ millions	$713
Post-tax IRR	%	15.6%
Post-tax Payback Period	Years	4.1
NPV / Initial Capital	Ratio	0.9
Initial Capital	$ millions	$798
Sustaining and Expansion Capital	$ millions	$1,689
Closure and Reclamation	$ millions	$170
Economic Assumptions
Copper	$/lb	$3.80
Molybdenum	$lb	$13.00
Silver	$/oz	$20.00
Financial Metrics ^a
Annual Revenue	$ millions	$428
Annual Operating Costs	$ millions	$210
Annual EBITDA ^b	$ millions	$218
Annual Cash Flow (post-tax)	$ millions	$141

_{Notes to Table 1:}
^a_{Averages based on active mining during Years 1 – 29.}
^b _{EBITDA is a financial performance measure with no standardized definition under IFRS, defined as “earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization”.}

Table 2: Pre-Tax NPV Contributions

Pre-Tax NPV Contributions	$ million
Mill Initial Capital	($640)
Open Pit	$977
Underground	$509
Total	$846
Standalone Open Pit^a	$337

_{Notes to Table 2:}
^a _{Standalone open pit includes mill initial capital.}

Table 3: PEA Operating Highlights

Operating Statistics	Unit	Average LOM
Mine Life ^a	Years	32
Tonnes Milled ^b	ktpa	10.8
Open Pit Strip Ratio	Ratio	1.2
Payable Production (per year) ^{c, d}
Copper	Million lbs	106
Molybdenum	Million lbs	1.4
Silver	Thousand oz	324.6
CuEq ⁱⁱ	Kt	51.1
Costs (by-product) ⁱⁱⁱ
LOM Production Cash Costs	$/Cu lb	$1.67
LOM All-in Sustaining Costs	$/Cu lb	$1.85

_{Notes to Table 3:}
^a_{Mine life includes active mining (Year 1 – 29) and final processing of stockpiles (Year 30 – 32)}
^b _{Tonnes milled are exclusive of oxide and represent the average over the 32-year life of mine.}
_{^c Average annual production considers the period of active mining during Years 1 – 29, Year 30 – 32 includes processing of stockpiles only.}
_{^d Based on payability in concentrate of 96.5%, 95% and 98.5% for copper, silver, and molybdenum, respectively. Copper cathode payability of 98% is applied.}

Table 4: Economic Sensitivity

Parameter	Unit	PEA	Alternative Copper Prices ^a
Copper Price	$/lb	$3.80	$4.25	$5.00
Molybdenum Price	$/lb	$13.00	$13.00	$13.00
Silver Price	$/oz	$20.00	$20.00	$20.00
Post-Tax NPV_(7%)	$ millions	$713	$1,144	$1,843
Post-Tax NPV_(8%)	$ millions	$566	$951	$1,576
Post-Tax IRR	%	15.6%	21.0%	29.6%
Post-Tax Payback Period	Years	4.1	2.9	2.1

_{Notes to Table 4:}
^a _{An increase of $10/lb or $5/oz in molybdenum or silver price assumptions increases the post-tax NPV(7%)by approximately $129 million or $15 million, respectively.}

Figure 1: Annual Cash Flows Junior Mining Network

^{Note to Figure 1: Table 13 provides the amounts used to generate Figure 1. Total operating costs above are inclusive of royalties and offsite charges.}

Figure 2: Copper Equivalent Payable Metal Production Junior Mining Network

Design and Production Profile Overview

The open pit and underground mine plans were developed by SRK Consulting Inc. (“SRK”). Future mining is expected to be by contractor-operated conventional truck and shovel method at surface and during underground development (pre-production), transitioning to owner-operated block caving underground method to achieve a base annual mill feed rate of 11.0 Mt (30,000 tpd). Surface mining provides mill feed until Year 11. A four-year open pit ramp down coincides with the underground production ramp-up, achieving steady state production by Year 12 and continuing until Year 29. Current mine plan optimization has applied an open pit stockpiling strategy whereby low-grade material mined from the pits would be stockpiled and processed as supplementary mill feed or fed to the mill at the end of the mine life. The low-grade stockpile peaks at 56.5 Mt, 20.0 Mt of which would be processed as supplementary feed between Years 7 and 11, and the remaining 36.5 Mt would be processed between Years 28 and 32.

The base annual throughput would be primarily of sulphide material, with some transitional material mined from the open pits. Oxide material recovered near surface in the early years of the anticipated mine life would be segregated and processed separately in a heap leach facility, in addition to the 11.0 Mt base annual throughput (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Total Processed Material by Material Type Junior Mining Network

Figure 4: Mine Design Overview (isometric view looking northeast)

^{Note to Figure 4: Mammoth pit includes the Mammoth and Childs-Aldwinkle breccias, and the Copper Prince pit includes numerous breccias such as the Copper Prince, Copper Giant, Copper Duchess, and Copper Knight.}

Figure 5: Mined Material by Period Junior Mining Network

^{Note to Figure 5: All material reflected in this chart is mineralized mill feed unless denoted as ‘Waste’.}

Open Pit Mine Design and Schedule

Open pit mine designs utilized the updated MRE. The resource model was imported into Minesight mine planning software where a Lerch Grossman algorithm was applied to the model to determine possible open pit limits. Each open pit area was assessed across a series of revenue factors to target the optimal balance of NPV contribution, footprint requirements and strip ratio. The results of the assessment culminated in pit shell selections that are reflective of an average revenue factor of 0.81 ($3.06/lb copper). Upon selection of discrete pit shells for each pit area, a full pit design was completed in alignment with geotechnical parameters developed as part of the PEA. All pit designs incorporated ramp placement, haulage networks, pit phasing and backfill opportunities.

Open pits include Mammoth, the largest open pit, and several smaller satellite pits. Mammoth would be mined in three phases, generally from the northwest to the southeast, while each of the satellite pits would be a single phase. Table 5 summarizes the pit inventories.

Table 5: Inventory by Pit

	Processed Tonnage (Mt)		Processed Grade (% Copper)		Waste Tonnage (Mt)	Strip Ratio
Open Pit ^a	Sulphide/Transitional	Oxides	Sulphide/Transitional	Oxides	Waste Tonnage (Mt)	Strip Ratio
Copper Prince	20.7	5.9	0.45	0.36	11.5	0.43
Globe	9.9	2.7	0.40	0.37	5.0	0.40
Old Reliable	12.9	4.0	0.36	0.20	10.9	0.65
Mammoth	59.9	2.9	0.37	0.25	109.6	1.75
Marsha	21.1	4.3	0.24	0.25	3.2	0.12
Bald/Jailhouse	8.5	0.0	0.48	0.16	41.7	4.92
Rum	1.0	0.0	0.73	0.44	1.0	1.04
Total	133.9	19.8	0.37	0.29	182.9	1.19

_{Notes to Table 5:}
^a_{Numbers may not sum due to rounding.}

Mineralization is hosted in three material types: sulphide, transitional and oxide. Sulphide and transitional material would be processed at the flotation plant, while oxide material would be heap leached.

Table 6: Open Pit Summary – Material Processed by Year

	Units	Total	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	28-32
Total Processed Pit Material	Mt	153.7	10.3	14.3	16.3	14.6	12.6	14.7	10.8	9.3	7.4	5.2	1.7	36.5
Sulphides and Transitional	Mt	133.9	8.3	11.0	11.0	11.0	11.0	10.9	10.8	9.3	7.4	5.2	1.7	36.5
Sulphides and Transitional	%Cu	0.37	0.50	0.78	0.38	0.44	0.39	0.42	0.48	0.49	0.29	0.17	0.17	0.17
Oxides	Mt	19.8	2.1	3.3	5.3	3.6	1.6	3.8	0.0	0.0	–	–	–	–
Oxides	%Cu	0.29	0.29	0.27	0.41	0.20	0.21	0.25	–	–	–	–	–

Cut-off grades (“COG”) are dictated by metal price, and consider material type, processing costs, recovery, and selling costs. The direct feed CuEqⁱⁱ COG for sulphide and oxide material is 0.13% CuEqⁱⁱ, while for transitional material it is 0.14% CuEqⁱⁱ. Material reporting to a stockpile has a slightly higher COG than direct mill feed material to account for rehandling costs.

Grade bins were established to aid in mine planning, including low-grade, medium-grade and high-grade bins. Low-grade material reports to stockpiles unless available throughput allows direct feed to the mill in that period. The grade bins are defined by percent copper for sulphide and transitional material (Table 7).

Table 7: Open Pit Grade Bin Application for Mine Schedule Optimization

Grade Bin	Sulphide (% Copper)	Transitional (% Copper)
Low-grade	0.13% – 0.25%	0.14% – 0.27%
Medium-grade	0.25% – 0.45%	0.27% – 0.48%
High-grade	>=0.45%	>=0.48%

Where possible, waste is proposed to be backfilled into depleted pits which allows for shorter haulage and reduced surface disturbance. Otherwise, waste would be sent to the external waste facility. The waste facilities would be designed to simplify closure and allow for progressive reclamation.

It is expected that mining at the Mammoth pit would commence during the pre-production period and continue through the entirety of surface mining, while satellite pits would be mined in a sequence driven by value and haulage efficiencies. Mineralized material above COG would be sent to either the run-of-mine pad directly south of the Old Reliable pit or to one of two low-grade stockpiles further to the west. Oxide material would be crushed immediately and conveyed to the heap leach facility adjacent to the processing plant.

Copper Prince would be the first satellite pit to be mined. Waste in the early periods would be sent east to the external storage facility. Once the Copper Prince and Globe pits are mined out in Year 3, the pits would be expected to serve as a backfill facility for waste rock from the Mammoth, Globe, and Rum pits. After Old Reliable is depleted in Year 4, it would serve as a backfill facility for Mammoth waste. By Year 5 and 6, Phases 2 and 3 of the Mammoth pit would be advancing along with the eastern satellite pits Marsha, Bald and Jailhouse (the latter two would be mined together). Waste from these phases would be sent to the adjacent external waste facility due to haulage efficiencies. Mineralized material from Marsha and Bald/Jailhouse would be hauled along in-pit haul roads in the Mammoth pit. The Rum pit (not shown in Figure 4) is a small pit located in the northwest of the project area and would be mined in Year 7. Open pit mining is expected to conclude in Year 8 when Bald is exhausted.

Underground Mine Design and Schedule

The Keel and American Eagle block cave footprints and production schedule were generated using Geovia’s Footprint Finder software, an industry standard for cave optimization and scheduling, using the resource model. The economic parameters applied in the footprint finder optimization were maintained as per the resource constraints as part of the Reasonable Prospects for Eventual Economic Extraction (“RPEEE”) process, except for the maximum height of cave draw being set to 500 metres (“m”). The footprint finder outcome was then manually optimized to prioritize the higher-grade cave blocks whilst targeting the most practical footprint geometry for sequencing and productive capacity. This exercise culminated in a PEA underground mill feed inventory of 211 Mt.

Preliminary mine development design and scheduling were completed in Deswik Suite, encompassing detailed lateral and vertical development designs for all primary and secondary infrastructure. Excavation profiles were applied to each development type enabling discrete advance rates and costs to be applied, culminating in a practical integrated mine schedule.

The cave footprint(s) would be accessed via a twin decline system providing access and material conveying to surface. The mine plan for the underground block cave contemplates development of the twin declines commencing in Year 3 with initial cave production beginning six years after. Underground cave production would ramp up over approximately a 3-year period and would achieve a steady-state production rate of 30,000 tpd in Year 12. The Keel and American Eagle extraction horizons are located at approximately 900 m and 760 m below the portal elevation, respectively. The cave footprints are 300 m laterally offset. The average height of draw of the Keel and American Eagle domains is 375 m and 337 m, respectively. The maximum vertical height of draw was constrained to 500 m for the purpose of the PEA design.

Table 8: Underground Footprint Metrics (exclusive of development)

	Unit	Keel	American Eagle	Total
Mineralized Material	Mt	47.0	154.6	201.6
Copper Grade	%	0.55%	0.49%	0.51%
Molybdenum Grade	%	0.014%	0.007%	0.008%
Silver Grade	g/t	3.28	0.86	1.42
CuEqⁱⁱ Grade	%	0.60%	0.52%	0.54%
Footprint Area	m²	51,900	194,600	246,600
Hydraulic Radius	m	56	95	N/A
Drawbells	#	88	321	409
Height of Draw (Average)	m	375	337	346

Electric-drive loaders would deliver mill feed material to passes at the mid-point of each extraction level drive which connects to truck loading stations on the underlying haulage level. Trucks would haul mill feed material to one of three primary crushers, one servicing Keel and two servicing American Eagle. Following crushing, mill feed material would be conveyed 4.8 kilometres (“km”) to surface via the dedicated conveyor decline. At surface, the mill feed material would be transferred to the surface overland conveyor and transported directly to the process plant.

Table 9: Underground Production Schedule by source

Source	Unit	Total	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16-20	21-25	26-29
Keel	Mt	47.0	–	–	0.85	2.94	5.17	6.80	7.39	6.90	5.60	3.84	7.48	–	–
	Cu %	0.55	–	–	0.48	0.59	0.62	0.60	0.56	0.54	0.51	0.50	0.50	–	–
	CuEq ⁱⁱ %	0.60	–	–	0.54	0.65	0.68	0.65	0.62	0.60	0.57	0.55	0.53	–	–
American Eagle	Mt	154.6	–	–	–	–	–	1.61	2.78	3.27	4.55	6.30	44.11	54.95	37.08
	Cu %	0.49	–	–	–	–	–	0.39	0.40	0.45	0.49	0.49	0.53	0.53	0.40
	CuEq ⁱⁱ %	0.51	–	–	–	–	–	0.45	0.45	0.48	0.52	0.51	0.56	0.56	0.42
Development	Mt	9.7	0.11	0.25	0.88	0.65	0.61	0.92	0.78	0.77	0.79	0.81	3.16	–	–
	Cu %	0.39	0.30	0.37	0.39	0.56	0.36	0.35	0.34	0.31	0.32	0.35	0.43	–	–
	CuEq ⁱⁱ %	0.42	0.31	0.42	0.45	0.61	0.40	0.40	0.38	0.35	0.34	0.38	0.46	–	–
Total	Mt	211.4	0.11	0.25	1.73	3.60	5.77	9.33	10.95	10.95	10.95	10.95	54.75	54.95	37.08
	Cu %	0.50	0.30	0.37	0.44	0.59	0.59	0.54	0.50	0.49	0.49	0.48	0.52	0.53	0.40
	CuEq ⁱⁱ %	0.53	0.31	0.42	0.49	0.64	0.65	0.59	0.56	0.55	0.53	0.52	0.55	0.56	0.42

Figure 6 shows the underground footprint extraction sequence by period and the average recovered drawpoint grades.

Figure 6: Plan Views of Underground Footprint: Extraction Sequence by Period (left) and Mined and Recovered Grades (right). Junior Mining Network

Mine levels within and directly adjacent to the cave footprints comprise undercut, extraction, haulage and crushing and ventilation levels. Total pre-production lateral development requirements are estimated to be 24,900 m, plus associated drawbell establishment. Underground development activity generates 9.7 Mt of material above COG and contributes to economic mill feed. Total lateral development requirements have been generated based on the mine design and are estimated to be approximately 32,200 m and 31,850 m of capital and operating development, respectively. A raise system from surface supplies fresh air to the mine levels and is exhausted via the twin declines to the exhaust ventilation system. Total vertical development is estimated to be 6,400 m, comprised predominantly of fresh air raises, return air raises and material passes.

Figure 7: Underground Development Metres and Mill Feed by Period Junior Mining Network

Geotechnical

Geotechnical assessments of pit slope stability and underground caveability, including fragmentation analysis, subsidence and ground support requirements, were carried out by Call & Nicholas, Tucson (“CNI”). These assessments were based on geotechnical characterizations developed from geological assessments, core logging, downhole televiewing data and laboratory rock strength analysis from the Phase I exploration drilling program (holes drilled between February and June 2022). The geotechnical program was further supported by historical core logging data and prior geomechanical studies of the pit and underground deposits.

A geotechnical assessment of multiple methods was appraised for geotechnical parameters and suitability, shortlisted to open pit mining, block caving, sub-level caving and longhole open stoping. The outcomes of the geotechnical assessment supported the selection of open pit extraction for near surface deposits (predominantly breccia) and extraction of the underground resource (predominantly porphyry) via block caving methods. Underground mining interaction with the open pits was also assessed to ensure mine sequencing accounts for adequate phasing and realistic operability. Upon method selection for the PEA, a comprehensive geotechnical design parameter report was developed to guide an optimal and practical mine plan.

Key geotechnical assessment highlights from the PEA include:

Open Pit

Rock strength and joint orientations allows for favourable interramp slope angle between 50-53 degrees and overall slope angle of 50 degrees supporting low strip ratios
Assessment supports 24 m double bench height (12 m single bench height)
Geotechnical domains defined by wall dip direction informed optimal ramp placement and haulage networks between pits and material destinations

Underground Block Caving

Confirmed caveability of the rock mass with caving rate of 55 m/year (15 cm/day) with no requirement for preconditioning currently deemed necessary
Productive capacity of the current underground resource footprint suggests 30 to 45 kilotonnes per day (11 to 16 Mtpa)
Rock mass quality within the footprint domain offers favourable conditions for drawpoint spacing that optimizes capital development requirements. The extraction level layout is to employ a herringbone configuration with extraction drive spacing of 32 m by 20 m
Thermistors located in vibrating-wire piezometers indicate in-situ rock temperatures between 25 – 44 degrees Celsius, confirming the underground operation will benefit from favourable ventilation requirements

Mineral Processing

The Company recently completed a metallurgical test work program utilizing samples from the Phase I drilling to complement the historical test work conducted by Mountain States R&D International (“MSRDI”) and METCON Research (“METCON”). Metallurgical testing was conducted by ALS Metallurgy, Kamloops, and tailings filtration testing completed by BaseMet, Kamloops, with oversight by Ausenco Engineering USA South Inc. (“Ausenco”), based in Tucson. This test work program was designed to accomplish the following key objectives on samples taken throughout the open pit:

Develop process design criteria with test work results from spatially representative samples of the current mineral resource and grades
Comminution test work to optimize grind size
Confirm flotation recoveries for both open pit sulphide and transitional materials
Mineralogical analyses to inform future performance by domain
Solid-liquid separation test work to confirm dry stack tailings performance

The outcomes of the 2023 test work were assimilated with the historical test work from METCON (2008-2012) and MSRDI (1997) to form the basis of the process design criteria for the PEA. The PEA process design applies a primary grind passing 80 mesh size of 190µm for the sulphide material feed, however whilst processing transitional material during earlier open pit phases, a finer grind of 160 µm will be applied to achieve the recoveries reported in Table 10 for transitional material. A coarser grind (> 200 µm) may be optimized for sulphide materials in future with further test work. Copper concentrate grade is estimated at 30% and molybdenum concentrate grade is estimated at 50%.

Table 10: Process Design Criteria – Average Metallurgical Recoveries by Material Type

	Sulphide	Transitional	Oxide
Copper Recovery	94.4%	74.7%	75.0%
Molybdenum Recovery	74.9%	70.9%	–
Silver Recovery	78.1%	66.9%	–

The 2023 test work program, paired with a detailed metallurgical review of previous data, confirmed the following:

Sulphide zone materials responded well to froth flotation, with recoveries of greater than 94% achieved at primary grind sizes of approximately 200 µm passing 80 mesh size
Metallurgical testing on open pit representative samples complements historical test work
Sulphide zone materials are predominantly chalcopyrite and bornite with low levels of pyrite
Transitional zone materials returned recoveries averaging 75% after sulphidization
Historical test work supports 75% copper recovery from oxides via heap leaching with sulphuric acid
Assay data and metallurgical test work from variability sample concentrates confirmed no deleterious elements above penalty levels
Solid-liquid separation test work confirmed processed material is amenable to dry stack tailing storage

The simplified process flowsheet shown in Figure 8 was developed based on recovery methods required for processing mineralized materials and is supported by preliminary current and historical test work as well as financial evaluations. It includes a copper-molybdenum concentrator for sulphide and transitional minerals and a heap leach with SXEW operation for oxide minerals. The concentrator is designed to process, on average, 30,000 tpd (11 Mtpa) of mineralized material.

Sulphide and transitional materials would be crushed, conveyed, ground and processed by bulk rougher flotation. Bulk rougher flotation concentrate would be reground and upgraded by bulk cleaner flotation. Both bulk rougher and cleaner tails would be gravity-fed to the tails thickener and bulk cleaner concentrate would be further processed by a copper-molybdenum separation circuit. Limited copper-molybdenum separation testing is available, and therefore a typical molybdenum separation circuit recovery of 90% is estimated. Molybdenum rougher flotation tails or copper concentrate would be thickened, filtered and loaded onto weighed trucks for transport by rail to the port. Five stages of cleaning would be required to upgrade the molybdenum rougher concentrate prior to thickening, filtering, drying and packaging for shipment.

The oxide heap leach operation would consist of three stages of crushing, agglomeration, heap stacking, leaching with sulphuric acid and cathode production by an SXEW facility. Oxide materials would be fed through the same primary crusher as the sulphide materials with a belt element analyzer diverting oxide materials to a separate temporary stockpile where it would be crushed to 3/8 inch to improve leach performance on the heap.

Figure 8: Schematic Process Flow-sheet Junior Mining Network

Site Infrastructure

The site layout (Figure 9) is configured to optimize materials handling synergies between the open pit and underground production, to minimize environmental footprint and to prioritize the utilization of private and patented land to ensure operational scalability upon resource expansion. The project is expected to utilize existing infrastructure such as high voltage power provision near the property, dual site access roads (Copper Creek and Bunker Hill roads), major highway(s) for concentrate haulage and rail access with loadout facilities near the property.

The primary design objectives of the dry-stack tailings facility (“DSTF”) are the secure confinement of tailings and the protection of the regional groundwater and surface water during mine operations and closure. The design of the DSTF considers a staged development over the LOM and a stacking geometry that allows progressive reclamation in the form of slope cover.

The presently contemplated site arrangement considers primary surface infrastructure including (but not limited to):

Processing plant and supporting infrastructure:
- Primary crusher and overland conveyor
- Crushed sulphide stockpile
- Process plant, which includes: Semi-autogenous and ball mill crusher grinding circuit, copper-molybdenum bulk flotation and regrind, copper-molybdenum separation flotation, separate copper and molybdenum concentrate thickening, filtration and drying (molybdenum only), copper and molybdenum concentrate load out and storage, tailings thickening, filtration and dry stacking, reagents storage and distribution (including lime slaking, flotation reagents, and flocculant)
Heap leach operation:
- Two-stage mobile cone crushing, agglomeration, conveying and stacking, lined pad, heap leaching irrigation system and solution collection, process ponds, solvent extraction, electrowinning and tank farm
- The heap leach pad is designed to 20 Mt of crushed material capacity
Dry-stack tailings facility:
- A preliminary siting and deposition technology study was performed to minimize water consumption and footprint. The design, in accordance with the Global Industry Standard on Tailing Management, considers a rockfill stability embankment, unlined impoundment, and a seepage collection system and pond
Open pits, waste dumps, underground portals, and other major infrastructure to support the operations including: Main substation and power distribution lines, a guard house, security gate and truck weigh scale, administrative buildings, a fresh water supply line and storage tank, site drainage and contact water management systems including DSTF under drainage and seepage water ponds, a truck shop and mine dry facility, explosive storage, fuel depot, maintenance shop and warehousing

Figure 9: Site Layout

Capital Costs

The capital cost estimate for the project processing and associated infrastructure was developed by Ausenco using an engineering, procurement and construction management (“EPCM”) project development approach. Initial, expansion, sustaining, and closure capital cost estimates were developed for the project to reflect the phased approach of the project.

The figures presented in Table 11 are based on the cost estimated to install the major process equipment, associated infrastructure, facilities and other equipment requirements to support the project. The cost estimates are based on detailed, mechanical and electrical equipment lists developed for the project’s process design criteria. Pricing of the process equipment is based either on budgetary quotes obtained specifically for this project or on other recent Ausenco executed projects and studies of similar size and scope, regional labour rates and manhours associated with the physical installation of the equipment. Typical freight, growth and associated minor equipment costs required to operate the processing equipment were applied. Pricing for bulk commodities such as steel, concrete, in-plant piping, instrumentation, bulk electrical supply and platework were estimated by applying benchmarked percentages to the mechanical equipment supply. Ancillary facilities were sized for the anticipated staffing and priced according to historical estimates for similar sized modular/prefabricated buildings. Material take-offs for civil earthworks, the DSTF, and overhead powerline were generated and priced using regional construction labour rates and unit rates for bulk materials. These were obtained from Ausenco’s database of current and historical assessments and executed projects. The heap leach facility was benchmarked against studies of similar size and scope. The installed process plant cost estimates also include $120 million for indirect project costs. These costs are anticipated to be incurred during implementation of the project by the owner, engineer or consultants in the design, procurement, construction, commissioning, and construction contractor’s indirect costs. These estimates have a base date of the first quarter of 2023.

All mining-related capital costs (in-pit and underground) were estimated by SRK using first principles approach and leveraging the preliminary mine design outputs for appropriate mine development requirements. The preliminary mine plan and associated mine initial, growth and sustaining capital were prepared using current North American contractor development rates and current equipment prices. In-mine infrastructure was estimated using first principle buildups for purchase and installation costs, which were based on recent quotations where applicable and/or leveraged SRK’s database of open pit and block caving projects and operations.

Initial capital costs are estimated to be $798 million and sustaining/expansion capital costs are estimated at $1,859 million for a total LOM capital cost of $2,657 million. Expansion capital is associated with the process plant addition of a molybdenum circuit in Year 3 and bringing the underground block cave into production.

Table 11: Summary of Capital Costs

Item	Initial Capital ($ millions)	Sustaining & Expansion Capital ($ millions)	Total Capital ($ millions)
Installed Process Plant ^a	$280	$48	$328
Crushing and Materials Handling ^b	$108	$7	$115
Tailings	$117	$9	$126
Site Infrastructure	$67	$50	$117
Mining	$80	$1,376	$1,457
Owners Cost	$23	$2	$25
Contingency	$122	$197	$319
Closure and Reclamation	$-	$170	$170
Total ^c	$798	$1,859	$2,657

_{Notes to Table 11:}
_{^a Includes indirect costs.}
_{^b Includes costs for the oxide heap leach operation.}
_{^c Totals may not sum due to rounding.}

The initial capital costs associated with heap leaching total $84 million (including 20% contingency), which are comprised of an additional 2-stage crushing infrastructure, a heap leach facility and an SXEW facility. The cost associated with the molybdenum circuit installation in Year 3 totals $58 million (including 20% contingency). The initial capital costs associated with open pit mining total $80 million, as the surface operation is to be executed by a contractor. Most of the mining-related initial capital is for the pre-strip activity, which requires approximately 17.5 Mt of waste movement and 9.5 Mt of low-grade material (sulphide and transitional) to be stockpiled for processing later in the mine life.

A progressive closure and reclamation approach is expected to be adopted for the project, totalling $170 million (including 20% contingency), spread over the last 5 years of the mine life. These costs are driven by surface disturbance calculations related to all mining, processing infrastructure and stockpiling. The estimation considers re-contouring, revegetation activities, decommissioning costs, ongoing monitoring and maintenance activities. A capital allowance of $50 million (including EPCM and contingency) in Year 3 has been incorporated to cover any costs associated with waterway management.

Variable contingencies were developed for processing and mining capital costs due to the detailed method of estimation for both. The initial capital cost estimation for the processing infrastructure has a 20% contingency application. On aggregate, the total initial capital cost estimation has a 15% contingency consideration. The following contingencies were applied to project capital costing:

25%: Contractor mobilization
20%: Open pit mining related capital costs, crushing and materials handling, process plant direct costs, DSTF, on-site and off-site infrastructure, process plant indirect costs, owners cost and underground large excavations
15%: Lateral and vertical underground mine development, crushers and conveyors, ventilation hardware and installation, mine buildings, mine services (pumping, power, air, safety) and mobile equipment

Operating Costs

Operating costs were developed from first principles costing based on the quantities generated from the preliminary mine design, mine production schedule and processing applications by material type.

The unit operating costs used in the PEA are summarized in Table 12.

Table 12: Summary of Operating Costs

Operating Costs	Units	Open Pit	Underground
Mining ^a	$/t mined	$2.43	$7.30
Processing ^b	$/t processed	$6.26	$6.30
Offsite charges ^c		$2.51	$2.51
General and administrative (non-mill) ^d		$1.45	$1.45
Total unit costs ^e	$/t processed	$13.01	$17.56

_{Notes to Table 12:}
_{^a Open pit mining unit costs apply to both mineralized material and waste, but exclude stockpile rehandle costs of $1.47/t rehandled. Underground mining unit costs exclude capitalized development and mill feed generated from mine development.}
_{^b Includes processing-related general & administrative costs.}
_{^c Offsite charges are based on land transportation costs of $46.35 per wet metric tonne, treatment charges of $75.00 per dry metric tonne, refining charges of $0.080/lb, $0.50/oz, and $1.30/lb for copper, silver, and molybdenum, respectively.}
_{^d Includes $0.45/tonne average cost over the life of mine related to Arizona property tax.}
_{^e Amounts will not sum as mining costs are presented on a per tonne mined basis.}

Future mining is expected to be a contractor-operated conventional truck and shovel method at surface and during underground development (pre-production), transitioning to owner-operated block caving underground method. Open pit mining operating costs were developed from first principles costing and considered differential costs for materials handling based on a haulage assessment, which included discrete costing for material that would be stockpiled and reclaimed for future processing.

The open pit mining activity is expected to be conducted by a contractor and therefore costing is inclusive of contractor capital repayment (equipment) and all associated markups. The open pit operating cost has been estimated at $2.43/t mined and $1.47/t for stockpile rehandling costs, resulting in a LOM average total open pit material movement cost of $2.79/t mined, which excludes costs attributed to waste material. Underground mining operating costs associated with block cave production have been estimated from first principles costing with discrete cost buildups for key activities such as drawpoint mucking, secondary breaking, crushing, conveying, mine services and maintenance, definition drilling, rehabilitation and mine operating staff. The underground operating costs have been estimated at $7.30/t mined.

Processing operating costs have been developed for all three material types with consideration of primary crushing (for open pit processed material), conveyance reagent requirements, consumables, plant maintenance, power consumption, labour and plant specific general and administrative (“G&A”). Processing costs have been estimated as $5.91 and $5.74 per tonne for sulphide and transitional materials, respectively. The operating cost of the molybdenum plant contributes an additional $0.39 per tonne processed through the concentrator and will be applied starting in Year 3 when the molybdenum plant is commissioned and operational. Operating costs of the oxide heap leach have been estimates as $6.71 per tonne leached. An average site power unit cost of $0.065 per kilowatt hour was assumed, based on a portion of expected power requirements coming from a proposed solar and battery facility.

G&A cost of $1.45/t processed (exclusive of process plant related G&A) is comprised of $1.00/t processed based on regional benchmarks of comparative operational scale, plus $0.45/t processed average over the life of mine related to Arizona property tax. The project would not require a camp facility as the location is easily accessible from the townsites of Mammoth, San Manuel and Oracle, as well as being approximately 80 road km northeast from the city of Tucson.

Tax

The LOM expected effective income tax rate of 14.4% includes U.S. federal income taxes, state income taxes and state severance taxes. These were based on the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and the regulations thereunder, and the Arizona Revised Statutes in effect as of March 31, 2023. Amounts were calculated based on modelling expected future cash flows with the following assumptions:

The open pit and underground mines would be treated as separate depletable properties under Section 614
The project would deduct mine development costs as incurred under Section 616(a) subject to Section 291(b)(2) adjustment for corporate taxpayers
The project would elect to depreciate long-lived assets under the unit of production basis under Section 168(f)(1) and all other assets would be depreciated under Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System in accordance with Rev. Proc. 87-56
All metal sales would be delivered outside of the U.S. and are therefore expected to be eligible for the Foreign Derived Intangible Income deduction under Section 250. The project would use a third party outside of the U.S. for concentrate treatment and refining
No section 382 ownership change would occur during the construction or operation of the mine

Arizona property taxes, which are included as an operating cost within G&A, were determined based on the current Arizona Department of Revenue Appraisal Manual for Centrally Valued Resource Properties and observable market precedents. The valuation of the project uses the cost approach for Years 1 through 5, a 60% / 40% blend of the income and cost approaches during the middle of the mine life and the cost approach again for the final 5 years of the mine life.

Cash Flow Details

Table 13 provides a detailed breakdown of annual cash flows over the life of mine.

Table 13: Annual Cash Flows ($ millions)

Year ^a	-1	-2	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
Gross Revenue	–	–	342	687	449	431	345	452	412	417	343	362	456	480	464	449	435
Offsite Charges	–	–	-22	-46	-24	-29	-24	-30	-30	-30	-25	-26	-33	-35	-34	-33	-32
Royalties	–	–	-9	-12	-9	-13	-10	-13	-11	-12	-9	-10	-13	-13	-13	-12	-12
Operating Expenses	–	–	-190	-219	-239	-225	-209	-228	-148	-147	-119	-133	-151	-161	-160	-160	-159
Operating Costs	–	–	-221	-277	-272	-267	-243	-271	-189	-189	-154	-169	-197	-209	-207	-205	-203
Initial Capex	-185	-613	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Expansion Capex	–	–	–	–	-92	-69	-78	-84	-136	-172	-152	-105	-124	-108	-67	-60	-62
Sustaining Capex	–	–	0	-5	0	-57	-2	–	0	–	-5	–	–	–	–	–	–
Closure Capex	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Taxes Payable	–	–	–	-15	-2	-1	0	-2	-2	-3	-2	-4	-6	-7	-7	-21	-24
Post-Tax Unlevered Cash Flow	-185	-613	121	390	84	38	20	95	84	54	30	85	129	156	183	162	146

Year ^a	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32
Gross Revenue	450	461	434	440	502	489	484	470	455	433	401	357	304	208	144	144	99
Offsite Charges	-33	-34	-32	-32	-37	-36	-35	-34	-33	-32	-29	-26	-22	-15	-11	-11	-7
Royalties	-12	-13	-12	-12	-14	-13	-13	-13	-13	-12	-11	-10	-8	-6	-4	0	0
Operating Expenses	-160	-159	-159	-160	-163	-164	-164	-164	-164	-163	-162	-161	-156	-125	-96	-96	-66
Operating Costs	-205	-206	-203	-204	-213	-213	-213	-211	-210	-206	-202	-197	-186	-147	-111	-107	-73
Initial Capex	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Expansion Capex	-51	-37	-47	-37	-35	-25	-13	-18	-10	-10	-8	-18	-4	–	–	–	–
Sustaining Capex	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Closure Capex	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	-11	-3	-3	-17	-137
Taxes Payable	-29	-34	-28	-31	-42	-41	-42	-39	-38	-35	-30	-21	-16	-8	-4	-5	-3
Post-Tax Unlevered Cash Flow	164	184	156	168	212	210	216	201	197	181	160	120	87	51	26	15	-114

_{Notes to Table 13:}
_^a_{Amounts may not sum due to rounding.}

Mineral Resource Estimate

The effective date of the MRE is February 9, 2023, prepared by SRK. This resource represents an update to the MRE released in July 2022 and incorporates Phase I drill results and assay data from historical drill holes not previously sampled, together with the evaluation of 17 near-surface breccia units and the deeper porphyry zone.

Mineral Resources have been updated based on the following:

Drill hole database inclusive of Phase I drilling results (as of October 27, 2022)
Updated geological model and breccia wireframe domain models based on logging of Phase I and selected historical drill core
Increase of rock density used for MRE based on updated measurement method
Detailed topographic data
Updated open pit and underground resource constraints for RPEEE, which include variable COG based on material type

The MRE is based on the drill hole database, revised lithology from re-logging, discrete breccia wireframe domain models and current detailed topographic data. The resource estimation is supported by logging, drilling and sampling with a data cut-off of October 27, 2022. As of the data cut-off, the current drill hole database contained validated assay data from the majority of the Phase I drilling, except for drill hole FCD-22-001, which had pending results. Geological logging data was available from all nine Phase I drill holes and most historical drill holes.

SRK has defined the MRE (Table 14) based on variable COG derived from assumed economics for both open pit and underground mining potential. The estimation was constrained within discrete breccia domains based on geological logging and assay grades. SRK reviewed the breccia interpretations and updated the wireframe boundaries to reflect the results of the 2022 Phase I drill program. Estimation within the breccias considered only the composites and blocks within each unique domain and assumed hard boundary conditions at the breccia unit outer contacts to constrain smearing of high grades in the breccias. Estimation outside of the defined breccia units, within the deeper porphyry-style mineralization and halo zones around the near-surface breccias, considered a 5-metre soft boundary with the breccia units.

Table 14: Combined Open Pit and Underground Mineral Resource Estimate, Copper Creek Project

Category	Tonnage (Mt)	Grade				Contained Metal
Category	Tonnage (Mt)	Cu (%)	Mo (%)	Ag (g/t)	CuEq (%)	Cu (Mlb)	Mo (Mlb)	Ag (Moz)	CuEq (Mlb)
Open Pit
Measured	67.2	0.48	0.008	1.2	0.51	710.5	12.5	2.6	751.1
Indicated	59.9	0.31	0.008	0.6	0.33	412.9	10.1	1.1	440.5
Measured and Indicated (M&I)	127.1	0.40	0.008	0.9	0.43	1,123.4	22.6	3.8	1,191.6
Inferred	48.1	0.28	0.006	0.5	0.30	298.4	6.4	0.7	316.0
Underground
Measured	34.5	0.47	0.011	1.6	0.51	359.8	8.0	1.7	388.0
Indicated	260.3	0.47	0.008	1.2	0.50	2,720.6	43.9	10.0	2,876.8
M&I	294.8	0.47	0.008	1.2	0.50	3,080.4	52.0	11.8	3,264.8
Inferred	35.5	0.42	0.009	0.8	0.45	329.7	7.1	0.9	353.0
Total (open pit + underground)
Measured	101.6	0.48	0.009	1.3	0.51	1,070.3	20.5	4.4	1,139.1
Indicated	320.2	0.44	0.008	1.1	0.47	3,133.5	54.0	11.2	3,317.3
M&I	421.9	0.45	0.008	1.1	0.48	4,203.8	74.6	15.5	4,456.4
Inferred	83.6	0.34	0.007	0.6	0.36	628.2	13.4	1.7	669.0

_{Notes to Table 14 and 15:}

_{The mineral resources in this estimate were prepared in accordance with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”) Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines (CIM, 2014) prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions and adopted by CIM Council.}
_{Mineral Resource (MRE) copper equivalent (“CuEq”) values are calculated using commodity type and price, considering the relevant preliminary recovery rate based on domain. For example, sulphide CuEq = [(Cu grade/100 * 0.92 Cu recovery * 2,204.62 * $3.80) + (Mo grade/100 * 0.78 Mo recovery * 2,204.62 * $13.00) + (Ag grade * 0.50 Ag recovery * $20.00/31.10348)]/(0.92 Cu recovery * 2,204.62 * $3.80) * 100.}
_{Pit shell constrained resources with Reasonable Prospect for Eventual Economic Extraction (“RPEEE”) are stated as contained within estimation domains defined by the following cut-off grade (“COG”): 0.13% CuEq for oxide material, 0.14% CuEq for transitional material, and 0.13% CuEq for sulphide material. Pit shells are based on an assumed copper price of $3.80/lb, assumed molybdenum price of $13.00/lb, assumed silver price of $20.00/oz, and overall slope angle of 47 degrees based on preliminary geotechnical data. Operating cost assumptions include open pit mining cost of $2.25/t, processing cost of $7.60/t for milling transitional and sulphide material, $4.56/t for oxide processing, general and administrative (“G&A”) costs of $1.00/t, and treatment charges and refining charges (“TCRC”) and freight costs dependent on product and material type.}
_{Underground constrained resources with RPEEE are stated as contained within estimation domains above 0.31% CuEq COG. Underground bulk mining footprints are based on an assumed copper price of $3.80/lb, assumed molybdenum price of $13.00/lb, assumed silver price of $20.00/oz, underground mining cost of $7.30/t, processing cost of $7.60/t, G&A costs of $1.00/t, and TCRC and freight costs of $6.50/t. Cave footprint optimization was completed in Geovia’s Footprint Finder software and applied a 700 m maximum height of draw.}
_{Average bulk density assigned by domain is as follows: 2.47 grams per cubic centimetre (g/cm³) for all near-surface breccias, 2.60 g/cm³ for the deeper Mammoth and Keel breccias, porphyry mineralization, and all other areas outside of breccias.}
_{Preliminary variable metallurgical recovery by metal and domain are considered for CuEq as follows: copper recovery of 92%, 85%, and 60% within sulphide, transitional, and oxide material, respectively; molybdenum recovery of 78% and 68% for sulphide and transitional material, respectively; and silver recovery of 50% and 40% for sulphide and transitional material, respectively.}
_{Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resources will be converted into mineral reserves in the future. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.}
_{All quantities are rounded to the appropriate number of significant figures; consequently, sums may not add up due to rounding.}

Three domains are recognized within the open pit resource, referred to as Oxide, Transitional, and Sulphide. The underground resources stated in Table 14 are comprised only of sulphide mineralization. The open pit MRE is reported by domain in Table 15.

Table 15: Open Pit Mineral Resource Estimate by Domain, Copper Creek Project

Category	Domain	Tonnage (Mt)	Grade				Contained Metal
Category	Domain	Tonnage (Mt)	Cu (%)	Mo (%)	Ag (g/t)	CuEq (%)	Cu (Mlb)	Mo (Mlb)	Ag (Moz)	CuEq (Mlb)
Measured	Oxide	5.9	0.36	0.006	0.9	0.36	47.0	0.8	0.2	47.0
	Transitional	11.0	0.42	0.006	0.8	0.44	101.6	1.5	0.3	106.4
	Sulphide	50.3	0.51	0.009	1.3	0.54	561.9	10.2	2.2	597.7
	Total	67.2	0.48	0.008	1.2	0.51	710.5	12.5	2.6	751.1
Indicated	Oxide	7.1	0.29	0.009	0.6	0.29	45.7	1.4	0.1	45.7
	Transitional	10.8	0.31	0.008	0.6	0.34	74.4	1.8	0.2	80.0
	Sulphide	42.1	0.32	0.007	0.6	0.34	292.8	6.8	0.8	314.8
	Total	59.9	0.31	0.008	0.6	0.33	412.9	10.1	1.1	440.5
M&I	Oxide	13.0	0.32	0.008	0.8	0.32	92.7	2.2	0.3	92.7
	Transitional	21.7	0.37	0.007	0.7	0.39	176.0	3.3	0.5	186.4
	Sulphide	92.3	0.42	0.008	1.0	0.45	854.7	17.0	2.9	912.6
	Total	127.1	0.40	0.008	0.9	0.43	1,123.4	22.6	3.8	1,191.6
Inferred	Oxide	8.1	0.25	0.005	0.4	0.25	44.3	0.8	0.1	44.3
	Transitional	12.6	0.30	0.005	0.4	0.32	84.0	1.3	0.2	88.1
	Sulphide	27.5	0.28	0.007	0.5	0.30	170.2	4.2	0.5	183.7
	Total	48.1	0.28	0.006	0.5	0.30	298.4	6.4	0.7	316.0

_{Notes: See notes to Table 14.}

ESG & Permitting Considerations

The Company is committed to developing the Copper Creek Project in an environmentally responsible and socially sustainable way through the incorporation of environmental best practices; transparent and respectful engagement with our local communities, Native Americans, and other stakeholders; and to contributing to the electrification of a greener economy through the development of U.S.-sourced copper.

The project is in a historical mining jurisdiction which has experienced mining activities dating from the 1860s to as recently as the early 1980s. The project lies on the western flank of the Galiuro Mountains and is currently accessed via two gravel roads.

Copper Creek is an intermittent waterway through portions of its length and is dry at its lower reach, which is a gravel confluence with the San Pedro River. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality deems both Copper Creek and the portion of the San Pedro River that Copper Creek connects to as ‘impaired waterways’.

Additionally, the project is located outside of an Active Management Area administered by the Arizona Department of Water Resources, and therefore it is not subject to certain state statutory and administrative regulations for groundwater use.

Since resuming activities at the project, the Company has conducted routine environmental baseline monitoring, which includes data gathering via the following activities:

Installation of stream gauges (flow meters) in major drainages
Piezometer installation in selected drill holes to collect sub-surface water data
Surface water sampling of major drainages
Analytical water sampling and water elevation measurements from monitoring wells
Installation of a meteorological station, planned for 2023, for collecting site-specific climate data

All baseline data collected will be incorporated into future hydrogeological and site-specific water balance studies. The Company is updating existing biological and cultural surveys, as well as proactively assessing and classifying waterways, all of which will serve as the foundation for the regulatory permitting processes.

The project is in proximity to existing mining districts and associated infrastructure, while being outside of residential and urban centres. Since portions of the project are located on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), it is assumed that development of the project would require approval of a Mine Plan of Operations (“MPO”) permit. Critical path items related to environmental permitting for the project are expected to be:

BLM approvals including National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), and National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”) compliance
Clean Air Act permitting
Clean Waters Act Section 404 Permit (including NEPA, ESA, and NHPA) compliance
Aquifer protection permit

Historical small-scale production at the property resulted in various legacy tailings, waste rock piles, adits, and a settling pond system, which are primarily located on BLM lands.

The Company is dedicated to working collaboratively with all stakeholders throughout the lifecycle of the project.

The Company has signed a Letter of Intent with Proteus Power for the evaluation of a new solar photovoltaic power generation facility and battery energy storage system on recently acquired private ground (see news release dated March 9, 2023), which could facilitate reducing carbon emissions during production and increase renewable, clean energy generation in the State of Arizona.

Post-PEA Opportunities

Following the PEA, the Company will focus on growth of the MRE, new discoveries and scalability of the asset. The main catalysts include:

Phase II drill program: Results were not included in the MRE that formed the basis of the PEA. Results of Phase II released to date demonstrate the potential for expansion of the MRE, refer to news releases dated January 17, February 23, and March 14, 2023.
Gold program: Certain copper mineralized domains have been shown to contain elevated levels of gold. Approximately 12% of the drill core analyzed for copper was assayed for gold. A program to analyze additional historical samples for gold to obtain adequate data coverage for inclusion in future MRE updates has been initiated.
Asset scalability: Increased processing rates will be evaluated through continued metallurgical test work programs targeting coarser grind opportunities, assessments on alternative tailings deposition strategies and increasing mine production capacity.
Phase III drill program: A 20,000-metre drill program is planned to commence in the fourth quarter of 2023. This will focus on testing new targets on the property outside of the resource area, expansion of the MRE with additional step out and follow-up drilling from Phase II.
District Exploration: District exploration will utilize new information from ongoing geological mapping, recently reprocessed and newly acquired geophysical data, and a planned airborne spectral mineralogy survey to provide a pipeline of future exploration targets.

Copper Creek Project Overview

Copper Creek is a 100% owned project located ~80 road km northeast of Tucson, Arizona, and ~24 km northeast of the town of San Manuel, Arizona. The current resource area is ~3 km in length and open in all directions. The property consists of ~65 square km of patented and unpatented mining claims, private land and state prospecting permits. Additionally, the Company controls several grazing leases adjacent to the project. The area is in a mining friendly and politically stable jurisdiction with extensive infrastructure including power, rail, roads, and access to skilled personnel.

The property is in the prolific southwest porphyry copper region at the projected intersection of a major northwest belt of copper deposits (Ray, Miami/Globe, Superior/Resolution, Johnson Camp) and a major east-northeast belt of copper deposits (San Manuel/Kalamazoo, Silver Bell, Lakeshore, Safford, Morenci). The project hosts a porphyry copper deposit in addition to high-grade, near-surface, breccia mineralization. With over 200,000 m of historical drilling and modest past production, the Company believes significant exploration upside remains. There are over 400 known breccia occurrences mapped at surface, of which 35 have been drill-tested and 17 are included in the MRE.

Technical Report

A PEA, with an effective date of May 3, 2023, in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”), will be filed on SEDAR within 45 days of this news release and will be available at that time on the Faraday website.

For readers to fully understand the information in this news release, they should read the technical report in its entirety when it is available, including all qualifications, assumptions, exclusions and risks. The technical report is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context.

Qualified Persons

The PEA was compiled by Ausenco with contributions from a team of Qualified Persons as defined by NI 43-101. The scientific and technical information contained in this news release pertaining to Copper Creek has been reviewed and verified by the following independent qualified persons under NI 43-101:

Erin Patterson, P.Eng. of Ausenco; Processing, Infrastructure, Cost Estimating and Economic Analysis
Peter Mehrfert, P.Eng. of Ausenco; Metallurgy
Scott Elfen, P.Eng. of Ausenco; Tailings and Heap Leach Facility
Scott Weston, P.Geo. of Ausenco; Environmental
Berkley Tracy, P.Geo. of SRK; Mineral Resource Estimate
Bob McCarthy, P.Eng. of SRK; Open Pit Mine Planning and Costing
Jarek Jakubek, P.Eng. of SRK; Underground Mine Planning and Costing
Rob Pratt, P.Eng. of CNI; Geotechnical

The qualified persons have verified the information disclosed herein, including the sampling, preparation, security and analytical procedures underlying such information, and are not aware of any significant risks and uncertainties that could be expected to affect the reliability or confidence in the information discussed herein. The disclosure of scientific and technical information in this news release regarding resource and exploration has been reviewed and approved by Thomas Bissig, P.Geo., Faraday’s Vice President, Exploration. Disclosure regarding mine development and infrastructure has been reviewed and approved by Zach Allwright, P.Eng., Faraday’s Vice President, Projects and Evaluations.

About Ausenco

Ausenco is a global company ‘redefining what’s possible’. Its team is based across 26 offices in 14 countries, with projects in over 80 locations worldwide. Combining their deep technical expertise with a 30-year track record, Ausenco provides innovative, value-add consulting and engineering studies and project delivery, asset operations and maintenance solutions to the mining & metals, oil & gas and industrial sectors.

About SRK

SRK is an independent international mining consultancy firm that provides focused advice and solutions to clients in the earth and water resource industries. The company has contributed to its clients’ success for over 45 years on over 20,000 projects globally. It is based across 44 offices worldwide with leading mining specialists in fields such as due diligence, technical studies, mine waste and water management, permitting and mine rehabilitation.

About CNI

CNI is an international mining consulting firm that specializes in geological engineering, geotechnical engineering, and hydrogeology. The company has been providing a wide range of engineering services to the mining industry for 42 years.

About Faraday Copper

Faraday Copper is a Canadian exploration company focused on advancing its flagship copper project in Arizona, U.S. The Copper Creek Project is one of the largest undeveloped copper projects in North America with open pit and bulk underground mining potential. The Company is well-funded to deliver on its key milestones and benefits from a management team and board of directors with senior mining company experience and expertise. Faraday trades on the TSX under the symbol “FDY”.

For additional information please contact:

Stacey Pavlova, CFA
Vice President, Investor Relations & Communications
Faraday Copper Corp.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Website: www.faradaycopper.com

To receive news releases by e-mail, please register using the Faraday website at www.faradaycopper.com.

Cautionary Note on Forward Looking Statements

Some of the statements in this news release, other than statements of historical fact, are “forward-looking statements” and are based on the opinions and estimates of management as of the date such statements are made and are necessarily based on estimates and assumptions that are inherently subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements of Faraday to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements and forward-looking information specifically include, but are not limited to, statements concerning the exploration potential of Copper Creek, the expected contributions of the Phase II drill programs, the expected mine life for Copper Creek, the expected upside of Copper Creek relative to the copper price, the anticipated economics of the standalone pit operation, the ability of the Company to fund development of a bulk underground mine through the open pit mine, the expected production during active mining, the expected construction timing, the low operating cost profile, the expected high-performance metallurgical recoveries, the anticipated exploration upside and the ability of the Company to reduce carbon emissions during production through its proposed partnership with Proteus Power.

Although Faraday believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements should not be in any way construed as guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements or information.

Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include without limitation: market prices for metals; the conclusions of detailed feasibility and technical analyses; lower than expected grades and quantities of resources; receipt of regulatory approval; receipt of shareholder approval; mining rates and recovery rates; significant capital requirements; price volatility in the spot and forward markets for commodities; fluctuations in rates of exchange; taxation; controls, regulations and political or economic developments in the countries in which Faraday does or may carry on business; the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development, competition; loss of key employees; rising costs of labour, supplies, fuel and equipment; actual results of current exploration or reclamation activities; accidents; labour disputes; defective title to mineral claims or property or contests over claims to mineral properties; unexpected delays and costs inherent to consulting and accommodating rights of Indigenous peoples and other groups; risks, uncertainties and unanticipated delays associated with obtaining and maintaining necessary licenses, permits and authorizations and complying with permitting requirements, including those associated with the Copper Creek property; and uncertainties with respect to any future acquisitions by Faraday. In addition, there are risks and hazards associated with the business of mineral exploration, development and mining, including environmental events and hazards, industrial accidents, unusual or unexpected formations, pressures, cave-ins, flooding and the risk of inadequate insurance or inability to obtain insurance to cover these risks as well as “Risk Factors” included in Faraday’s disclosure documents filed on and available at www.sedar.com.

All of the forward-looking statements contained in this press release are qualified by these cautionary statements. Faraday does not intend, and does not assume any obligation, to update these forward-looking statements, except as required under applicable securities legislation. For more information on Faraday, readers should refer to www.sedar.com for the Faraday’s filings with the Canadian securities regulatory authorities.

Risks Relating to Mineral Resource Estimates

The figures for mineral resources contained herein are estimates only and no assurance can be given that the anticipated tonnages and grades will be achieved, that the indicated level of recovery will be realized or that the mineral resources could be mined or processed profitably. Actual reserves, if any, may not conform to geological, metallurgical or other expectations, and the volume and grade of mineralized material recovered may be below the estimated levels. There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating mineral resources, including many factors beyond the Company’s control. Such estimation is a subjective process, and the accuracy of any resource estimate is a function of the quantity and quality of available data and of the assumptions made and judgments used in engineering and geological interpretation. Short-term operating factors relating to the mineral resources, such as the need for orderly development of the mineralized bodies or the processing of new or different mineralized material grades, may cause the mining operation to be unprofitable in any particular accounting period. In addition, there can be no assurance that metal recoveries in small scale laboratory tests will be duplicated in larger scale tests under on-site conditions or during production. Lower market prices, increased production costs, the presence of deleterious elements, reduced recovery rates and other factors may result in revision of its resource estimates from time to time or may render the Company’s resources uneconomic to exploit. Resource data is not indicative of future results of operations. If the Company fails to develop its resource base through the realization of identified mineralized potential, its results of operations or financial condition may be materially and adversely affected.

Non-IFRS Financial Measures

This press release makes reference to certain non-IFRS measures. These measures are not recognized measures under IFRS and do not have a standardized meaning prescribed by IFRS and are therefore unlikely to be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. Rather, these measures are provided as additional information to complement those IFRS measures by providing further understanding of Faraday’s results of operations from management’s perspective. Accordingly, these measures should not be considered in isolation nor as a substitute for analysis of Faraday’s financial information reported under IFRS. This press release makes reference to the following non-IFRS measures: “EBITDA”, production cash costs, and All-In Sustaining Costs.

This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities in any jurisdiction to any person to whom it is unlawful to make such an offer or solicitation in such jurisdiction. This news release is not, and under no circumstances is to be construed as, a prospectus, an offering memorandum, an advertisement or a public offering of securities in Faraday in Canada, the United States or any other jurisdiction. No securities commission or similar authority in Canada or in the United States has reviewed or in any way passed upon this news release, and any representation to the contrary is an offence.

ⁱ _{Active mining refers to years 1 – 29 and excludes years 30 – 32 when only stockpile processing occurs.}
ⁱⁱ _{Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) copper equivalent (CuEq) values are calculated using commodity type and price, considering the relevant recovery rate based on domain, applied using a regression formula as a function of grade. Recovery regression formulas are based on the outcomes of the 2023 metallurgical test work and associated recovery guidance. Metal prices used in the calculation include $3.80/lb copper, $13.00/lb molybdenum, $20.00/oz silver.}
ⁱⁱⁱ_{Production cash costs and all-in sustaining cash costs, net of by-product credits, per pound of copper or CuEq are non-IFRS financial performance measures with no standardized definition under IFRS. The Company believes these metrics are useful performance indicators based on industry standards and disclosures. Production cash costs are based on the direct operating costs, including mining, processing, and G&A, offsite charges, net of by-product credits. By-product credits are calculated using commodity prices: $13.00 per pound of molybdenum, and $20.00 per ounce of silver. Sustaining cash costs include sustaining capital expenditures and royalties.}

Source link

May 3, 2023

E3 Lithium Announces 16.0 million tonnes Measured and Indicated Resource Upgrade

2023-03-21 00:07:09

CALGARY, AB, March 21, 2023 /CNW/ – E3 LITHIUM LTD. (TSXV: ETL) (FSE: OW3) (OTCQX: EEMMF), “E3” or the “Company,” Alberta’s leading lithium developer and extraction technology innovator, today announced the upgrade of its mineral resource to Measured and Indicated (M&I). The mineral resource upgrade includes 6.6 million tonnes (Mt) of Lithium Carbonate Equivalent (LCE) Measured and 9.4 Mt of LCE Indicated for a total of 16.0 Mt M&I within its Bashaw District, outlined in Table 1.

“This resource upgrade is the largest of its kind in Canada and is significant on a global scale,” said Chris Doornbos, President and CEO of E3 Lithium. “The amount of data and geological work required to upgrade resources of this magnitude is significant and further increases our understanding of the Leduc Aquifer and as a result, our technical confidence in our commercialization plans.”

Measured & Indicated Upgrade Description

The upgraded 16.0 Mt of LCE is Canada’s largest and one of the largest Direct Lithium Extraction brine projects and M&I mineral resources globally. According to Natural Resources Canada, Canada currently has an estimated 3.2 Mt of M&I lithium resources located in hard rock deposits[1].

To complete this upgrade, E3 used data gathered through its 2022 drill program, ongoing reviews and analyses of core samples and the development of a comprehensive geological model of the Bashaw District. This model allows for a more detailed representation of reservoir properties and leads to a more accurate resource calculation.

Table 1: E3 Lithium’s Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources

Category	Location	Brine Volume (m³)	Median Lithium Concentration	Contained Lithium Carbonate Equivalent
Measured	Clearwater Area	4,426,751,508	74.5 mg/L	1.7 Mt LCE
Indicated	Clearwater Area	6,694,380,000	74.5 mg/L	2.6 Mt LCE
Sub Total	Clearwater Area			4.3 Mt LCE
Measured	Remaining Bashaw District	12,212,773,076	74.5 mg/L	4.9 Mt LCE
Indicated	Remaining Bashaw District	17,021,070,000	74.5 mg/L	6.8 Mt LCE
Sub Total	Remaining Bashaw District			11.7 Mt LCE
		Total Bashaw District M&I		16.0 Mt LCE

The Clearwater Area has been modified and expanded from previous releases to include a more representative aerial extent of the likely production zone, outlined in Figure 1. The resource outlined within this new area represents the volume contained within the new boundary.

In addition to its M&I resources, E3 has 0.9 Mt of Inferred LCE in its Rocky Area. Due to the work required and higher geological confidence provided by upgrading to M&I, it is common for the resource to decrease in size as it increases in quality.

Consistent with E3 Lithium’s prior resource estimates, the NI 43-101 Technical Report for the Bashaw District is being prepared and will be filed on SEDAR and the Company’s website within 45 days.

Mineral Resource Estimate

The resource estimate was completed by E3’s multi-disciplinary team and overseen by Daron Abbey, P. Geo and Alex Haluszka, P. Geo of Matrix Solutions Inc. acting as the Qualified Person (QP) required by National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) standards[2]. A 3-dimensional geological model was developed using Petrel™, a resource estimation software used to estimate volumetrics and grade distribution, to generate an improved understanding of the Leduc Reservoir in the Company’s Bashaw District. The geological model included the following reservoir characteristics: porosity, permeability, pressure and lithium concentrations. The 3D geological model was then utilized to evaluate scenarios of connected porosity that comprise the resource volume in the model domain. The mineral resource estimate benefited from a considerable amount of data collected by E3 over the past six years and compiled from the oil and gas industry, which is made public as a matter of normal practice by the Government of Alberta.

Key data sets used to determine aquifer brine parameters in the resource area, and their contribution to the resource estimate, are summarized below.

Data Source	Contribution to Resource Estimate
E3’s 2022 Production Test	Pressure validation; brine analysis; permeability estimation; flow system continuity
E3’s 2022 Evaluation Well Program	Core analysis porosity (total & effective), total porosity & permeability measurements; facies descriptions; downhole wireline logs (lithology, total & effective porosity); lithium concentrations
Public Well Data (logs, core, drill stem tests)	Formation tops, depths, and thicknesses; facies interpretations; lithology, porosity (total & effective); permeability measurements
Historical Production and Injection Volumes (hydrocarbons and brine)	Regional pressure measurements supporting continuity, rate data supporting producibility and injectivity
E3’s 2017-2022 Sampling Programs	Lithium concentrations

The concentration of lithium within the consolidated Bashaw District is relatively consistent laterally and vertically across the aquifer. E3 has collected sufficient data to demonstrate this statistically and this information was used to assign lithium grade in the geological model. The P50 lithium grade value is 74.5 mg/L, statistically derived from 85 brine samples from the Leduc Aquifer in the Bashaw District and was applied for both the Measured and Indicated resources described below. All lithium brine analyses were completed by an ISO certified 3rd party laboratory and followed a strict chain of custody process.

The methodology used to estimate the resource volumes using the 3D geological model is as follows:

1.	Total Original Lithium in Place:
	a.	Reported brine-filled, connected pore volume, above a 2% effective porosity cut-off, with a lithium measurement from 50 equiprobable realizations
	b.	Calculated P50 volume from the above, less the original hydrocarbon pore volumes
2.	Measured Lithium in Place:
	a.	Reported brine-filled, connected pore volume, above a 6% effective porosity cut-off, with a lithium measurement, from 50 equiprobable realizations
	b.	Calculated P50 volume from the above, less the original hydrocarbon pore volumes
3.	Indicated Lithium in Place:
	a.	The total original lithium in place, less the measured lithium in place

Using the methodology described above, the total Indicated and Measured resource estimate for the Bashaw District is 3,006,000 tonnes of lithium, which equates to 16,003,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE)[3].

The Indicated portion of the resource is 9,404,000 tonnes LCE and is classified as indicated due to the evidence being sufficient to assume geological, grade, and quality continuity between points of observation. This confidence is sufficient to allow the application of modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the resource.

The Measured portion of the resource is 6,598,000 tonnes LCE and is classified as measured due to the geological evidence being sufficient to confirm geological, grade and quality continuity between points of observation. This confidence is sufficient to allow the application of modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and final evaluation of economic viability of a resource.

Daron Abbey, P. Geo and Alex Haluszka, P. Geo, of Matrix Solutions Inc., are the QPs responsible for the preparation of the technical information relating to the Bashaw District resource that is contained in this news release and have reviewed and approved the use and disclosure of such information in this news release. Daron Abbey and Alex Haluszka are Qualified Persons as defined in NI 43-101.

³ LCE tonnes = Li tonnes x 5.323

About E3 Lithium

E3 Lithium is a development company with a total of 16.0 million tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) Measured and Indicated and 0.9 million tonnes LCE Inferred mineral resources¹ in Alberta. As outlined in E3’s Preliminary Economic Assessment, the Clearwater Lithium Project has an NPV8% of USD 1.1 Billion with a 32% IRR pre-tax and USD 820 Million with a 27% IRR after-tax¹. E3 Lithium’s goal is to produce high purity, battery grade lithium products to power the growing electrical revolution. With a significant lithium resource and innovative technology solutions, E3 Lithium has the potential to deliver lithium to market from one of the best jurisdictions in the world.

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Chris Doornbos, President & CEO
E3 Lithium Ltd.

1: The Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) for the Clearwater Lithium Project NI 43-101 technical report is effective Sept 17, 2021. The mineral resource NI 43-101 Technical Report for the North Rocky Property, effective October 27, 2017, identified 0.9Mt LCE (inferred). The mineral resource NI 43-101 Technical Report for the Bashaw District (measured & indicated) will be available in April 2023. All reports are available on the E3 Lithium’s website (e3lithium.ca/technical-reports) and SEDAR (www.sedar.com).

Forward-Looking and Cautionary Statements

This news release includes certain forward-looking statements as well as management’s objectives, strategies, beliefs and intentions. Forward looking statements are frequently identified by such words as “may”, “will”, “plan”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “estimate”, “intend” and similar words referring to future events and results. Forward-looking statements are based on the current opinions and expectations of management. All forward-looking information is inherently uncertain and subject to a variety of assumptions, risks and uncertainties, including the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development, fluctuating commodity prices, the effectiveness and feasibility of emerging lithium extraction technologies which have not yet been tested or proven on a commercial scale or on the Company’s brine, competitive risks and the availability of financing, as described in more detail in our recent securities filings available at www.sedar.com. Actual events or results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements and we caution against placing undue reliance thereon. We assume no obligation to revise or update these forward-looking statements except as required by applicable law.

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Source link

March 21, 2023

2022 Drilling Program Results Increase Graphite One Measured and Indicated Resource by 15.5%

2023-03-13 04:04:07

M&I Increase Comes After US Geological Survey Report Identifies Graphite Creek Deposit “as Among the Largest in the World.”

VANCOUVER, BC, March 13, 2023 /CNW/ – Graphite One Inc. (TSXV: GPH) (OTCQX: GPHOF) (“Graphite One” or the “Company”), planning a complete domestic U.S. supply chain for advanced graphite materials, is pleased to announce the results of the 2022 drilling program and updated resource estimate, which shows an increase of 15.5% in Measured and Indicated tonnage with a corresponding increase of 13.1% in contained tonnes of graphite. The Measured and Indicated Resources now stand at 37.6 M tonnes at 5.14% graphite, with an Inferred Resource of 243.7 M tonnes at 5.07% graphite.

“We’ve been very consistent about the potential we see in Graphite Creek,” said Anthony Huston, President and CEO of Graphite One. “The recognition by USGS coupled with this increase in our Measured and Indicated Resources and the fact that we have explored only 26% of our graphite anomaly underscores that Graphite Creek is truly a generational resource.”

“These strong results from our 2022 program will assist in developing our 2023 drilling plan,” said Mike Schaffner, Senior Vice President, Mining, “and the continued expansion of our Graphite Creek resource will support our plan to quadruple the annual production from our PFS study.”

Table 1: Comparison of Graphite Creek’s 2023 Resources to 2022 Resources¹

2023 Resources

2022 Resources

Category

Cg%

Cutoff

Millions

Tonnes

Cg%

Million

Tonnes Cg

Millions

Tonnes

Cg%

Millions

Tonnes Cg

YOY
Change
Tonnes Cg

YOY
Change
Tonnes

Measured

2 %

5.63

5.75 %

0.32

4.67

5.83 %

0.27

19.00 %

20.60 %

Indicated

2 %

31.96

5.03 %

1.61

27.87

5.15 %

1.44

12.00 %

14.70 %

Inferred

2 %

243.70

5.07 %

12.34

254.67

5.11 %

13.00

-5.10 %

-4.30 %

Measured
and Indicated

2 %

37.59

5.14 %

1.93

32.54

5.25 %

1.71

13.10 %

15.50 %

________________________________

¹ Mineral Resources are inclusive of Mineral Reserves. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves have not demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that any part of a Mineral Resource will ever be converted into Reserves. Inferred Mineral Resources represent material that is considered too speculative to be included in economic evaluations. Additional trenching and/or drilling will be required to convert Inferred Mineral Resources to Indicated or Measured Mineral Resources. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of the inferred resources will ever be upgraded to a higher resource category.

The updated resource did not include Hole 22GC079, drilled 2.1 km west of the current block model, which encountered 58 meters of 4.18% graphite, due to distance constraints used in the block model. The planned 2023 drilling program will target doubling the measured and indicated resources and increasing the inferred resource by infill drilling along trend to Hole 22GC079.

The resource updates from Graphite One’s October 2022 Pre-feasibility Study (“PFS”) and the 2022 Drilling Program come after the US Geological Survey report that states:

“The Graphite Creek graphite deposit, located in the Kigluaik Mountains 60 km north of Nome on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska, is the largest known flake graphite resource in the USA and is among the largest in the world.”²

Graphite One’s PFS was based on a proven and probable reserve that utilized 7% of the anomaly’s strike length. This updated Measured, Indicated and Inferred resource is based on drilling 26% of the surface area of the anomaly. The planned 2023 Drilling Program will continue to delineate the scope and size of the resource, as the Graphite Creek deposit remains open to the West, East, and down dip.

Mr. Rob Retherford, P. Geo, with Alaska Earth Sciences, Inc. provided oversite to the 2022 drilling and sampling program. Mr. Retherford is a Qualified Person as defined under NI 43–101 and has reviewed and approved the technical content of this release.

Marketing Awareness Program

As part of Graphite One’s ongoing strategy to raise the profile of the Graphite One Project to investors, the Company has entered into marketing agreements with CFN Media and Outside The Box Capital Inc. to provide investor and market outreach campaigns for a period of up to 12 months. Subject to the approval of the TSX Venture Exchange, the agreements’ effective start date will be March 13, 2023.

The Company will pay CFN Media US$8,000 per month for 12 months plus expenses of up to US$20,000 per month. The agreement may be terminated without penalty after 90 days.

The Company will pay Outside The Box Capital Inc. CA$100,000 for a 6-month period plus expenses of up to CA$25,000 per month for the duration of the agreement.

To the best of the Company’s knowledge, neither CFN Media, Outside The Box Capital Inc. nor any of its principals currently own any common shares in the Company.

Graphite One’s Supply Chain Strategy

With the United States currently 100 per cent import dependent for natural graphite, Graphite One is planning to develop a complete U.S.-based, advanced graphite supply chain solution anchored by the Graphite Creek resource. The Graphite One Project plan includes an advanced graphite material and battery anode manufacturing plant expected to be sited in Washington State integrated with the development of the Property. The plan includes a recycling facility to reclaim graphite and the other battery materials, to be co-located at the Washington State site, the third link in Graphite One’s circular economy strategy.

About Graphite One Inc.

GRAPHITE ONE INC. continues to develop its Graphite One Project (the “Project”) to become an American producer of high-grade anode materials that is integrated with a domestic graphite resource. The Project is proposed as a vertically integrated enterprise to mine, process and manufacture anode materials primarily for the lithium–ion electric vehicle battery market. As set forth in the Company’s 2022 Pre-Feasibility Study, graphite mineralization mined from the Company’s Graphite Creek Property, situated on the Seward Peninsula about 60 kilometers north of Nome, Alaska, would be processed into concentrate at an adjacent processing plant. Natural and artificial graphite anode materials and other value–added graphite products would be manufactured from the concentrate and other materials at the Company’s proposed advanced graphite materials manufacturing facility expected to be located in Washington State. The Company intends to make a production decision on the Project upon the completion of a Feasibility Study.

On Behalf of the Board of Directors

“Anthony Huston” (signed)

For more information on Graphite One Inc., please visit the Company’s website, www.GraphiteOneInc.com

All statements in this release, other than statements of historical facts, including those related to the results of the 2022 drill program, timing and completion of the anticipated Feasibility Study, future production, establishment of a processing plant and a graphite manufacturing plant, establishment of a battery materials recycling facility, and events or developments that the Company intends, expects, plans, or proposes are forward-looking statements Generally, forward–looking information can be identified by the use of forward–looking terminology such as “proposes”, “expects”, “is expected”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “projects”, “plans”, “is planning”, “intends”, “assumes”, “believes”, “indicates”, “to be” or variations of such words and phrases that state that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will be taken”, “occur” or “be achieved”. The Company cautions that there is no certainty that tests of the Company’s material will be successful or that such tests will result in the development of successful products. Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include market prices, exploitation and exploration successes, continuity of mineralization, uncertainties related to the ability to obtain necessary permits, licenses and title and delays due to third party opposition, changes in government policies regarding mining and natural resource exploration and exploitation, and continued availability of capital and financing, and general economic, market or business conditions. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on this forward-looking information, which is given as of the date it is expressed in this press release, and the Company undertakes no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking information, except as required by applicable securities laws. For more information on the Company, investors should review the Company’s continuous disclosure filings that are available at www.sedar.com.

Source link

March 13, 2023

BC Moly Provides Update on Storie Molybdenum Deposit, Including 27% Increase in Measured & Indicated Resources for Total of 241.6m lb Molybdenum, Inferred Resources of 23.4m lbs Molybdenum and Remains Open Along Strike, British Columbia

2023-03-09 06:20:13

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, March 09, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — BC Moly Ltd. (“BC Moly” or the “Company”) (TSX.V: BM) is pleased to provide an update on its 100% owned Storie Molybdenum Deposit located in Northern British Columbia (the “Storie Deposit”) as further outlined in the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Resources Estimate for the Storie Deposit” and dated March 3, 2023 (effective October 28, 2022), prepared by Sue Bird, P. Eng., an independent Qualified Person (as such term is defined in National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects), which updates the mineral resource estimate on the Storie Deposit (the “Technical Report”).

“We are very excited with the recently released updated mineral resource estimate on the Storie Deposit. Since first discovered in 1959, the Storie Deposit has been effectively advanced in the past few decades to grow into one of British Columbia’s largest molybdenum deposits today, further evidenced with the recent 27% increase in Measured and Indicated resources. With molybdenum prices approaching all time highs due to diminishing supply, the Company is in a strong position with its 100% owned Storie Deposit which contains significant defined molybdenum resources and the further potential to expand, supported by an experienced management team with a track record of success,” stated Jerry Wang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company.

Storie Molybdenum Deposit Highlights Include:

The Storie Deposit is comprised of four mineral tenures 100% owned by the Company and covers an area of 1,506 hectares

Measured & Indicated resource of 241.6Mlb Molybdenum (“Mo”) within 157.4Mtonnes grading 0.07% Mo at a 0.035% Mo cut-off

Inferred resource of 23.4Mlb Mo within 15.5Mtonnes grading 0.069% Mo at a 0.035% Mo cut-off

27% increase in Measured & Indicated resource compared to the previous 2014 resource estimate

Remains open along strike and down dip to the west

Road and airstrip accessible, located 6km southwest from the Town of Cassiar in Northern British Columbia

55,000+ metres of historical diamond drilling since first discovered in 1959

Maps and 3-D models of the project can be found at: https://bcmoly.com/maps-1

2023 Updated Mineral Resource Estimate

The updated mineral resource for the Storie Deposit comprises near-surface Measured and Indicated resources of 241.6M lbs Mo grading 0.07% Mo at a 0.035% Mo cut-off and Inferred resources of 23.4M lbs Mo grading 0.069% Mo at a 0.035% Mo cut-off using a restated Mo price of US$18/lb to define the resource. The deposit remains open along strike and down-dip in the west. The updated mineral resource represents a 27% increase in Measured & Indicated resource from the previous 2013 resource estimate and increase in grade from 0.068% Mo to 0.07%. Additional drilling opportunities available to extend mineralization along strike and at depth. The west of the deposit remains undrilled and is also open at depth. The property consists of four mineral tenures owned 100% by BC Moly in an area covering 1,506 hectares.

A summary of the resource at various cutoff is provided in the table below. The effective date of the resource estimate is October 28, 2022. The Qualified Person is of the opinion that issues relating to all relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work. These factors may include environmental permitting, infrastructure, sociopolitical, marketing and other relevant factors.

Classification	Cut-off – Mo%	Tonnage (ktonnes)	Mo (%)	Metal (Mlbs)
Measured	0.03	65,273	0.068	97.1
	0.035	57,695	0.072	91.7
	0.04	50,831	0.077	86.1
	0.05	38,912	0.087	74.3
	0.075	20,337	0.110	49.2
Indicated	0.03	116,585	0.063	161.9
	0.035	99,670	0.068	149.9
	0.04	84,779	0.074	137.6
	0.05	62,427	0.084	115.5
	0.075	29,618	0.110	71.5
Measured + Indicated	0.03	181,858	0.065	259.1
	0.035	157,365	0.070	241.6
	0.04	135,610	0.075	223.6
	0.05	101,339	0.085	189.8
	0.075	49,955	0.110	120.7
Inferred	0.03	18,898	0.062	25.9
	0.035	15,472	0.069	23.4
	0.04	13,099	0.074	21.5
	0.05	9,588	0.085	18.0
	0.075	4,365	0.115	11.0

Notes:

Resources are reported using the 2014 CIM Definition Standards and were estimated in accordance with the CIM 2019 Best Practices Guidelines.

Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

The Mineral Resource has been confined by a “reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction” pit using the following assumptions:
- Mo price of US$18/lb at an exchange rate of 0.75:1 ($US/$CDN);
- 84% metallurgical recovery, Offsite costs of CDN$0.8/lb, Payables of 99%, Royalties of 2.5%;
- Mining costs of CDN$1.75/tonne;
- Processing Costs of CDN$12/tonne and general and administrative of CDN$2.00/tonne processed; and
- Pit slopes of 45 degrees.

The resulting Net Smelter Returns (“NSR”) equation is: NSR (CDN$) = 84%*Mo Grade*22.366$CDN/lb.

The bulk density used is variable with an average value of 2.6.

Numbers may not add due to rounding.

About Molybdenum

Molybdenum is a critical metal used primarily in steel alloys, and enhances strength, hardenability, weldability, toughness, temperature strength, and corrosion resistance when added to steel and cast iron. Molybdenum was named one of six critical minerals that will be used in the green energy transition to a low-carbon future and 119% demand increase is estimated for molybdenum through 2050 under IRENA REmap scenario from energy technologies only (World Bank, 2020). International Energy Agency (2021) estimates a 290% demand increase for molybdenum through 2040 under the Sustainable Development Scenario for renewables. Based on data from the International Molybdenum Association and the European Commission Steel Report, the world produced around 576 million pounds of molybdenum in 2021, with the largest reserves located in China, USA and Chile.

Location

The Storie Deposit is located 20km west of Highway 37 within the Liard Mining Division (Figure 1), which provides access to Watson Lake, Yukon, to the north and Dease Lake and Stewart, British Columbia, to the south. The property is located 6 km southwest of the Town of Cassiar, British Columbia. Cassiar is 540 km from the tidewater at Stewart, B.C., 125 km north of Dease Lake, B.C., and 137 km from the Alaska Highway west of Watson Lake, Yukon Territory.

Accessibility

Cassiar is connected to Highway 37 by a 15 km macadamized paved road. Highway 37, a two-lane paved road in very good condition, provides access to the Alaska Highway (120 km from the Cassiar cut-off), Watson Lake, Yukon (143 km), and Dease Lake, British Columbia. Watson Lake (population about 1,500, including the Liard First Nation) is the nearest commercial centre. The closest major centre for supplies is Whitehorse, Yukon.

A 1,200 m long gravel airstrip is located three kilometres from Cassiar. It is now used infrequently but is in good condition. Charter aircraft are available from Whitehorse. Casual helicopter service is available from Dease Lake, Watson Lake and Whitehorse.

The east side of the Storie Deposit was accessible by four-wheel drive vehicles from the Cassiar airstrip, on a 5-km loose surface road but is currently cut-off just before the drillhole collars due to a recent wash-out. During the winter months, access could be maintained by daily bulldozing to clear deep accumulations of drifting snow. According to BC Moly, drifts of 6 m and more were encountered at higher elevations as late as June during the 2007 and 2008 field seasons; under such conditions, a backhoe might be necessary.

Exploration History

Since discovered in 1959, the property has seen various exploration work performed by various past owners and claim holders. This work comprised of, but is not limited to: geological, soil geochemical and geophysical surveys, IP and magnetometer surveys, geological mapping, rock sampling and prospecting, data verification and technical studies, trenching, BQ and BX diameter drilling, RAB drilling and diamond drilling.

Since acquiring the Storie property in 2006, the Company has performed extensive exploration on the deposit, including LiDAR surveys, geophysical and geographic surveys, IP surveys, geological mapping, geochemical soil sampling, Trimble GPS surveys, metallurgical studies, aerial photographic surveys on regional wildlife habitat and environmental details, HD magnetic sensor surveys, and 145 diamond drill holes totalling 48,972m.

Since 1978, the property has seen 176 total diamond drillholes (Figure 2) over 56,789m with 96% of total drill hole length assayed. Any previous drilling has not been included in the drillhole database used for modelling (Figure 3) of the Storie deposit. A summary of total drilling done since 1978 is provided below:

Year	Company	No. of Drillholes	No. of Assays	Total Assay Length (m)	Total Drill Hole Length (m)	% Assayed
1979	Shell Canada Inc.	10	809	2,432	2,432	100	%
1980	Shell Canada Inc.	21	1,728	5,266	5,385	98	%
2006	BC Moly	20	1,621	4,838	4,958	98	%
2007	BC Moly	75	7,907	22,675	23,050	98	%
2008	BC Moly	49	9,211	19,315	20,663	93	%
2010	BC Moly	1	61	121	300	40	%
Total		176	21,337	54,647	56,789	96	%

Deposit Type

The Storie Deposit is a low-fluorine porphyry molybdenum type, where intrusive rocks generally contain <0.1% F. Other examples in British Columbia include the Endako Mine, Boss Mountain, Kitsault, Ruby Creek, Carmi (Kettle River), Bell Moly, Red Bird, Trout Lake (MAX) and Chu. Deposits are low-grade but large and amenable to bulk mining methods.

The characteristic features of porphyry systems, whether they are enriched in copper, molybdenum, or other metals, are: (1) mineralization occurs in stockworks of quartz veinlets and fractures, veins and vein sets, and breccia, as well as disseminations in the intrusive rocks and surrounding country rocks; and (2) an extensive hydrothermal alteration system. In low-fluorine molybdenum porphyries, alteration consists of a core zone of potassic, and silicic alteration characterized by K-feldspar, biotite, quartz and, occasionally, anhydrite. A commonly pervasive and extensive zone of phyllic alteration (mainly of quartz, sericite, and carbonate) typically surrounds the potassic-silicic core. Propylitic (mainly chlorite and epidote) alteration may extend for hundreds of metres beyond the inner alteration zones. Irregularly distributed zones of argillic alteration, where present, are characterized by clay minerals such as kaolinite, and are usually overprinted on the other types of alteration.

Low-fluorine molybdenum deposits are generally set in high-level to subvolcanic felsic intrusive centres. Genetically related, commonly porphyritic intrusive rocks range from granodiorite to granite and their fine-grained equivalents. Multiple stages of intrusion are common, and the mineralized subvolcanic intrusive rocks may grade into or intrude tuffs or other extrusive volcanic rocks or sedimentary rocks which may also be mineralized. Deposits vary in shape from an inverted cup, to roughly cylindrical, to highly irregular. They are typically hundreds of metres across and range from tens to hundreds of metres in vertical extent. Molybdenite (MoS₂) is the principal economic mineral, with subordinate chalcopyrite, scheelite and galena. Low-fluorine molybdenum porphyry mineralization is often associated with silver-lead-zinc veins or molybdenum-bearing skarns.

Geology

The Storie property is in the vicinity of three main domains: 1) the Cassiar Terrane; 2) Paleozoic to Mesozoic rocks of the Sylvester Allochthon; and 3) to the west, the mid- Cretaceous Cassiar Stock, a 7 km x 33 km body along the eastern margin of the regional mid-Cretaceous Cassiar Batholith. The deposit is located within the Cassiar Stock, a discrete, 33 km x 7 km intrusion emplaced along the eastern margin of the Cassiar Batholith.

About BC Moly:

BC Moly is a Canadian mineral exploration company focused on the development of its Storie Molybdenum deposit. The property is situated about 6 km southwest of Cassiar, British Columbia. Cassiar is located 15 km (by paved road) west of Highway 37 which provides access to Watson Lake, Yukon, to the north and Dease Lake and Stewart, British Columbia, to the south. The deposit contains a Measured and Indicated resource of 157.4 million tonnes grading 0.07% Mo at a 0.035% Mo cut-off with 241.6 million pounds Mo within an optimized open pit shell and an Inferred resource of 15.5 million tonnes grading 0.069% Mo at a 0.035% Mo cut-off with 23.4 million pounds Mo⁽¹⁾.

^{(1) See the Company’s technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Resources Estimate for the Storie Deposit,” dated March 3, 2023 (effective October 28, 2022) prepared by Sue Bird, P.Eng., available under the Company’s profile at www.sedar.com.}

Qualified Person

Sue Bird, P.Eng., principal of Moose Mountain Technical Services is a Qualified Person and has reviewed and approved the contents of this news release.

Additional Information

David D’Onofrio
BC Moly Ltd.
Chief Executive Officer and Director
416.643.3880
bcmoly.com

Neither the TSXV nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSXV) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Cautionary Statements

Certain information in this news release constitutes forward-looking statements under applicable securities laws. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements and are based on expectations, estimates and projections as at the date of this news release. Any statement that involves discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions, future events or performance (often but not always using phrases such as “expects”, or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “anticipates” or “does not anticipate”, “plans”, “proposed”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “forecasts”, “estimates”, “believes” or “intends” or variations of such words and phrases or stating that certain actions, events or results “may” or “could”, “would”, “might” or “will” be taken to occur or be achieved) are not statements of historical fact and may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this news release include but are not limited to: the Company’s objectives, goals and exploration activities conducted and proposed to be conducted at the Company’s properties; future exploration plans, including drilling opportunities; relevant technical and economic factors, such as environmental permitting, infrastructure, sociopolitical, marketing and other relevant factors influencing the prospect of economic extraction; and the future use of and demand for molybdenum.

These forward-looking statements are based on certain assumptions and estimates of management of the Company at the time such statements were made, including: the Company’s ability to attract and retain qualified members of management to grow the Company’s business and its operations; the Company’s ability to raise any necessary additional capital on reasonable terms to advance exploration and development of the Company’s mineral properties; the Company’s ability to effectively manage unanticipated costs and expenses; the Company retaining and supplementing its board of directors and management, or otherwise engaging consultants and advisors having knowledge of the industries (or segments thereof) within which the Company may from time to time participate; current and future members of management abiding by the Company’s business objectives and strategies from time to time established by the Company; the Company’s ability to generate cash flow from operations; the Company’s ability to successfully compete in the mining industry; future prices and demand for molybdenum; the timing and results of exploration and drilling programs; general business and economic conditions; the Company’s ability to procure equipment and operating supplies in sufficient quantities and on a timely basis; the accuracy of budgeted exploration and development costs and expenditures; future currency exchange rates and interest rates; operating conditions being favourable such that the Company is able to operate in a safe, efficient and effective manner; the Company’s ability to attract and retain skilled personnel; political and regulatory stability; the receipt of governmental, regulatory and third-party approvals, licenses and permits on favourable terms; obtaining required renewals for existing approvals, licenses and permits on favourable terms; requirements under applicable laws; sustained labour stability; stability in financial and capital goods markets; results of operations and performance; industry trends; actual results of exploration, resource goals, metallurgical testing, economic studies and development activities will continue to be positive and proceed as planned; the market for molybdenum will continue to strengthen; the Company maintaining the Storie property; the Company having sufficient funds to meet its administrative overhead expenses for the next twelve months; and the TSXV will provide increased visibility, credibility, access to a broader pool of investors to the Company. While the Company considers these assumptions to be reasonable, based on information currently available, they may prove to be incorrect. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.

Actual future results may differ materially as forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, without limitation: risks associated with general economic conditions; adverse industry events; income tax and regulatory matters; the Company not utilizing the use of proceeds to expand its operations; the Company’s inability to find a commercially viable deposit at any of its mineral properties; additional financing may not be available to the Company when required or, if available, the terms of such financing may not be favourable to the Company; fluctuations in demand of molybdenum; the Company may not be able to identify, negotiate or finance any future acquisitions successfully, or to integrate such acquisitions with its current business; the Company’s exploration activities are dependent upon the grant of appropriate licenses, concessions, leases, permits and regulatory consents, which may be withdrawn or not granted; the Company’s operations could be adversely affected by possible future government legislation, policies and controls or by changes in applicable laws and regulations; there is no guarantee that title to the properties in which the Company has a material interest will not be challenged or impugned; the Company faces various risks associated with mining exploration that are not insurable or may be the subject of insurance which is not commercially feasible for the Company; social and environmental activism can negatively impact exploration, development and mining activities; the success of the Company is largely dependent on the performance of its directors and officers; the Company and/or its directors and officers may be subject to a variety of legal proceedings, the results of which may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business; the Company may be adversely affected if potential conflicts of interests involving its directors and officers are not resolved in favour of the Company; dilution from future equity financing could negatively impact holders of the Company’s securities; failure to adequately meet infrastructure requirements could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business; failure to identify any additional mineral resources or significant mineralization; the preliminary nature of metallurgical test results; uncertainties relating to the availability and costs of funding any exploration programs on the Company’s properties; risks and hazards associated with the business of mineral exploration, development and mining (including environmental hazards, industrial accidents, unusual or unexpected formations pressures, cave-ins and flooding); employee relations; relationships with and claims by local communities and indigenous populations; availability of increasing costs associated with mining inputs and labour; the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development; geological factors; actual results of current and future explorations; ongoing uncertainties relating to the COVID-19 pandemic; and those factors described under the heading “Risks and Uncertainties” in the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis dated December 30, 2022, available under the Company’s profile on SEDAR. Readers are cautioned that the foregoing list is not exhaustive. Readers are further cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements as there can be no assurance that the plans, intentions or expectations upon which they are placed will occur. Such information, although considered reasonable by management at the time of preparation, may prove to be incorrect and actual results may differ materially from those anticipated. Forward-looking statements contained in this news release are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement and reflect our expectations as of the date hereof, and thus are subject to change thereafter. The Company does not undertake to release publicly any revisions for updating any voluntary forward-looking statements, except as required by law.

Source link

March 9, 2023

Karora Resources Announces 8% Increase to Beta Hunt Nickel Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource

2023-03-07 05:34:03

Highlights:

Consolidated Nickel Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource increased by 8% to 21,100 nickel tonnes

Beta Block Nickel Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource increased by 11% to 15,100 nickel tonnes

TORONTO, March 7, 2023 /CNW/ – Karora Resources Inc. (TSX: KRR) (OTCQX: KRRGF) (“Karora” or the “Corporation”) is pleased to announce the Beta Hunt Nickel Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources increased by 8% to 21,100 nickel tonnes and Inferred Mineral Resources increased by 2% to 13,400 nickel tonnes, net of mining depletions.

Paul Andre Huet, Chairman & CEO, commented: “We continued to build our nickel inventory with an 8% increase to the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource to 21,100 nickel tonnes. This increase as of September 30, 2022 is a strong result being just eight months since the last update in January 2022 with only remnant mining completed over the course of 2022 as we await scheduled increased ventilation capacity later this year underground at Beta Hunt. The resource additions were all from the Beta Block area north of the Gamma Fault, primarily in the Beta West zone.

Over the balance of 2023, our nickel resource development drilling at Beta Hunt will be focused on upgrading and extending the East Alpha and 40C Mineral Resources in the Beta zone and the 50C and 10C Mineral Resources in the Gamma zone. As we have stated several times before, we are just beginning to unlock the potential for nickel mineralization south of the Gamma Fault where we have delineated only 800 metres in strike length of 2.6 km from the Fault to our property boundary. Upon expansion of our ventilation capacity via the addition of three vent raises this year, we will be able to increase both our drilling and development efforts in this area at the southern extent of our operation.”

Beta Hunt Nickel Resource Summary

Table 1: Nickel-Mineral Resources as at September 30, 2022
Note: Refer to detailed footnotes below

Sept-2022
Nickel Mineral
Resource

Measured

Indicated

Measured & Indicated

Inferred

K
tonnes

Ni
(%)

Ni
tonnes

K
tonnes

Ni
(%)

Ni
tonnes

K
tonnes

Ni
(%)

Ni
tonnes

K
tonnes

Ni
(%)

Ni
tonnes

Beta Block

–

548

2.8

15,100

548

2.8

15,100

183

2.8

5,200

Gamma Block

–

197

3.0

6,000

197

3.0

6,000

317

2.6

8,200

Total

–

745

2.8

21,100

745

2.8

21,100

500

2.7

13,400

At September 30, 2022, Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources totaled 745k tonnes grading 2.8% for 21,100 nickel tonnes. This marks an increase of 1,500 nickel tonnes, or 8% compared to the January 31, 2022, Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource estimate (see Karora news release dated May 11, 2022). September 30, 2022 Inferred Mineral Resources totaled 500k tonnes grading 2.7% for 13,400 nickel tonnes. The represents an increase of 200 nickel tonnes, or 2%, compared to the January 31, 2022 Inferred Mineral Resource estimate.

The new Nickel Mineral Resource incorporates the addition of the Beta West Resource and updates to the Beta Central Resource. Beta West covers remnant nickel mineralization west of the main Beta workings and comprises a Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource of 50,000 tonnes grading 2.3% for 1,160 nickel tonnes and an Inferred Mineral Resource of 5,000 tonnes grading 3.3% for 150 nickel tonnes. The updates to the Mineral Resource were undertaken by AMC Consultants Pty Ltd, Perth (AMC). The Beta Hunt Mineral Resource estimate is net of mostly remnant mine production depletion of 17,300 tonnes grading 1.6% for 275 nickel tonnes over the period February 1, 2022 to September 30, 2022. Mining over this period was from the 25C, 30C, 40C and 4C positions. The recently discovered 4C deposit is not yet part of the Nickel Mineral Resource inventory (see Karora news release, September 14, 2022).

Drilling for nickel in 2023 is planned to upgrade and extend the East Alpha and 40C resources in the Beta Block and the 50C/10C resources in the Gamma Block.

Compliance Statement (JORC 2012 and NI 43-101)

Mr. Stephen Devlin is Group Geologist for Karora, a full-time employee of Karora and a Fellow of the AusIMM. Mr Devlin has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralization and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the JORC Code, 2012 Edition, and fulfils the requirements to be a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of NI 43-101. Mr Devlin has reviewed and approved the disclosure of the technical information for the Beta Hunt Nickel Mineral Resource included in this news release.

The “JORC Code” means the Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves prepared by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Mineral Council of Australia. There are no material differences between the definitions of Mineral Resources under the applicable definitions adopted by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (the “CIM Definition Standards”) and the corresponding equivalent definitions in the JORC Code for Mineral Resources.

Detailed Footnotes relating to Mineral Resource Estimates as at September 30,2022

Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the Mineral Resources estimated will be converted into Mineral Reserves.

The Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources are inclusive of those Mineral Resources modified to produce Mineral Reserves.

The Mineral Resource estimates include Inferred Mineral Resources that are normally considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is also no certainty that Inferred Mineral Resources will be converted to Measured and Indicated categories through further drilling, or into Mineral Reserves once economic considerations are applied.

The Nickel Mineral Resource is reported within proximity to underground development and nominal 1% Ni lower cut-off grade for the nickel sulphide mineralization.

The Nickel Mineral Resource assumes an underground mining scenario and a high level of selectivity.

Mineral Resource tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate, and numbers may not add due to rounding.

About Karora Resources

Karora is focused on increasing gold production to a targeted range of 185,000-205,000 ounces by 2024 at its integrated Beta Hunt Gold Mine and Higginsville Gold Operations (“HGO”) in Western Australia. The Higginsville treatment facility is a low-cost 1.6 Mtpa processing plant, which is fed at capacity from Karora’s underground Beta Hunt mine and Higginsville mines. In July 2022, Karora acquired the 1.0 Mtpa Lakewood Mill in Western Australia. At Beta Hunt, a robust gold Mineral Resource and Reserve are hosted in multiple gold shears, with gold intersections along a 4 km strike length remaining open in multiple directions. HGO has a substantial Mineral gold Resource and Reserve and prospective land package totaling approximately 1,900 square kilometers. The Corporation also owns the high grade Spargos Reward project, which came into production in 2021. Karora has a strong Board and management team focused on delivering shareholder value and responsible mining, as demonstrated by Karora’s commitment to reducing emissions across its operations. Karora’s common shares trade on the TSX under the symbol KRR and also trade on the OTCQX market under the symbol KRRGF.

Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

This news release contains “forward-looking information” including without limitation statements relating to, among other items, production guidance, the organic growth profile and the potential of the Beta Hunt Mine and Higginsville Gold Operation and the Spargos Reward Project.

Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Karora to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Factors that could affect the outcome include, among others: future prices and the supply of metals; the results of drilling; inability to raise the money necessary to incur the expenditures required to retain and advance the properties; environmental liabilities (known and unknown); general business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties; results of exploration programs; accidents, labour disputes and other risks of the mining industry; political instability, terrorism, insurrection or war; or delays in obtaining governmental approvals, projected cash operating costs, failure to obtain regulatory or shareholder approvals. For a more detailed discussion of such risks and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements, refer to Karora ‘s filings with Canadian securities regulators, including the most recent Annual Information Form, available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com.

Although Karora has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results to differ from those anticipated, estimated or intended. Forward-looking statements contained herein are made as of the date of this news release and Karora disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise, except as required by applicable securities laws.

Source link

March 7, 2023

American Lithium Reports Large Increase in Lithium Resources at TLC – Measured LCE Resource Increases 25%; Indicated LCE Resource Increases 129%

2022-12-01 07:18:13

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Dec. 01, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — American Lithium Corp. (“American Lithium” or the “Company”) (TSX-V:LI | OTCQB:LIACF | Frankfurt:5LA1) is pleased to announce an updated Mineral Resource Estimate (“MRE”) that significantly increases the contained lithium resources for the Tonopah Lithium Claims (“TLC”) project located in the Esmerelda lithium district northwest of Tonopah, Nevada. This MRE was completed as part of the process of compiling the maiden preliminary economic assessment on TLC (“PEA”) and will be incorporated into the Mine Plan within the PEA scheduled to be completed and announced shortly.

Highlights: (see Table 1 New TLC MRE & Table 2 Original TLC MRE, below)
Link to: Figure 1 – TLC Project Mineral Resource Block Outline and Drill Hole Location Map (also see below)

Measured + Indicated Resource LCE increases 64% from original April 2020 Mineral Resource Estimate

Measured Resource – 4.2 Mt Lithium Carbonate Equivalent (“LCE”) (860 Mt @ 924 ppm Li)

Indicated Resource – 4.63 Mt LCE (1192 Mt @ 727 ppm Li)

Measured + Indicated Resource – 8.83 Mt LCE (2052 Mt @ 809 ppm Li)

Inferred Resource – 1.86 Mt LCE (486 Mt @ 713 ppm Li)

Base Case cut-off of 500 ppm Li employed – up from 400 ppm Li in the original resource due to anticipated increased processing cost inflation between 2020 and 2022.

Infill RC and Diamond drilling validates size and scale of existing measured core resource, expands the core resource and defines areas of high-grade shallow mineralization.

Using a 1200 ppm Li cut-off: Measured + Indicated mineral resource contains 1.60 Mt LCE comprising 214 Mt averaging 1,402 ppm Li, which should positively impact project economics.

RC exploration drilling highlights deeper lithium mineralization to the west and northwest of the core Measured resource and thinner, lower grade sections to east and south next to the sub-basin edge.

Simon Clarke, CEO of American Lithium states, “We are very pleased with the results of our 2022 drill programs culminating in a much larger mineral resource at TLC which underlines our position as one of the largest lithium projects in North America. In addition, the higher-grade shallow lithium mineralization identified in our core Measured resource area provides focus for early production that should have a positive impact on the economic potential of TLC. This will be reflected in a robust maiden PEA, which we are in the process of completing in conjunction with DRA Global, and should help fast-track the Project’s move through feasibility.

Of equal importance, the mineral resource block model and extensive new drilling has increased our geological understanding of the complexity, geometry, depth and location of the TLC mineralized claystone and has confirmed to us that American Lithium holds the most prospective ground for the location of shallow lithium-rich claystone in the TLC sub-basin.”

Table 1 – New TLC Mineral Resource Estimate – updated November 29, 2022

Cutoff	Volume	Tonnes	Li	Million Tonnes (Mt)
Li (ppm)	(Mm^3)	(Mt)	(ppm)	Li	Li2CO3	*LiOHH2O**
Measured
500	506	860	924	0.79	4.2	4.78
1000	203	345	1255	0.43	2.29	2.60
1200	104	177	1401	0.25	1.33	1.51
Indicated
500	701	1192	727	0.87	4.63	5.26
1000	80	136	1148	0.16	0.85	0.97
1200	22	37	1328	0.05	0.27	0.30
Measured +Indicated
500	1207	2052	809	1.66	8.83	10.04
1000	283	481	1227	0.59	3.14	3.57
1200	126	214	1402	0.30	1.60	1.81
Inferred
500	286	486	713	0.35	1.86	2.12
1000	31	53	1151	0.06	0.32	0.36
1200	8	14	1315	0.02	0.11	0.12

CIM definitions are followed for classification of Mineral Resource.

Mineral Resource surface pit extent has been estimated using a lithium carbonate price of US20,000 US$/tonne and mining cost of US$3.00 per tonne, a lithium recovery of 90%, fixed density of 1.70 g/cm3 (1.43 tons/yd3)

Conversions: 1 metric tonne = 1.102 short tons, metric m3 = 1.308 yd3, Li2CO3:Li ratio = 5.32, LiOH.H2O:Li ratio =6.05

Totals may not represent the sum of the parts due to rounding.

The Mineral Resource estimate has been prepared by Joan Kester, PG and Derek Loveday, P. Geo. Of Stantec Consulting Services Inc. in conformity with CIM “Estimation of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserves Best Practices” guidelines and are reported in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators NI 43-101. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that any mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserve.

Table 2 – Original TLC Mineral Resource Estimate – April 15, 2020

Cutoff	Volume	Tonnes	Li	Million Tonnes (Mt)
Li (ppm)	(Mm³)	(Mt)	(ppm)	Li	Li₂CO₃	*LiOHH2O**
Measured
400	400	680	932	0.63	3.35	3.81
1000	169	287	1256	0.36	1.92	2.18
Indicated
400	251	427	898	0.38	2.02	2.30
1000	95	162	1256	0.20	1.06	1.21
Measured + Indicated
400	651	1107	912	1.01	5.37	6.11
1000	264	449	1247	0.56	2.98	3.39
Inferred
400	213	362	912	0.33	1.76	2.00
1000	84	143	1228	0.18	0.96	1.09

CIM definitions are followed for classification of Mineral Resource.

Mineral Resource surface pit extent has been estimated using a lithium carbonate price of US10,000 US$/tonne and mining cost of US$2.00 per tonne, a lithium recovery of 80%, fixed density of 1.70 g/cm3 (1.43 tons/yd3)

Conversions: 1 metric tonne = 1.102 short tons, metric m3 = 1.308 yd3, Li2CO3:Li ratio = 5.32, LiOH.H2O:Li ratio =6.05

Totals may not represent the sum of the parts due to rounding.

The Mineral Resource estimate has been prepared by Derek Loveday, P. Geo. of Stantec Consulting Services Ltd. in conformity with CIM “Estimation of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserves Best Practices” guidelines and are reported in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators NI 43-101. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that any mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserve.

Mineral Resource Estimation Calculation Methodology

The geologic model used for reporting of lithium resources was developed using Hexagon Mining’s geological modelling and mine planning software, MinePlan version 16.0.4. The geologic model from which lithium resources are reported is a 3D block model developed using the Nevada State Plane Central Zone NAD83 coordinate system and U.S. customary units. Block size is 50ft-X, 50ft-Y and 20ft-Z. Modeling method and approach is similar to that described in the prior Technical Report (Loveday, 2020) but with a re-interpretation of geologic controls on mineralization using the additional exploration data and increased model size covering the expanded mineral claim boundary. A significant new addition to the resource is the recognition of an additional lithium clay resource below a tuffaceous marker horizon.

A base case lithium resource cut-off grade has been calculated based on the economics of a medium size (100 Mtpa) run-of-mine (ROM) surface mining operation that does not require blasting. Processing of the mineralized material would be onsite extracting lithium from claystone using an acid digestion method. Resources are reported from within an economic pit shell at 45-degree constant slope using Hexagon mining Pseudoflow algorithm. Maximum pit depth is limited to 1,000 feet (304.8 m) below surface. No underground mining is considered.

The following mining, processing, royalty, and recovery costs, in US$, were used to derive a base case cut-off grade to produce a lithium carbonate (Li₂CO₃) equivalent product:

Mining costs US$3/tonne;

Processing costs US$49/tonne;

Royalties US$1/tonne;

General and administration US$1/tonne; and Processing recovery 90%.

Revenue from a lithium carbonate product is estimated to be US$20,000/tonne for the cutoff grade calculation. Using the above inputs and Li₂CO₃:Li ratio of 5.32, a base case cut-off grade for lithium is estimated to be 500 ppm, rounded from 501 ppm. The base case cut-off grade of 500 ppm lithium is greater than the prior (Loveday, 2020) Mineral Resource Estimate (“MRE”) of 400 ppm lithium, mostly due to an increase in assumed processing costs when compared to the prior MRE.

The updated base case MRE represents an increase of 64 percent Li₂CO₃ equivalent tonnes in the Measured plus Indicated category (500 ppm Li cutoff) when compared to the prior MRE (400 ppm Li cutoff). Inferred Li₂CO₃ equivalent tonnes have increased by 6 percent when compared to the prior MRE for the base case.

Resource Estimate Parameters:

Resource Update Effective Date – October 6, 2022:
- 29,757’ (9070 m) additional drilling from 53 drill holes (2020 to 2022)
- The new total of 39,062’ (11,906 m) from 82 drill holes (2019 to 2022)
- 8 Sonic holes – 2020 to 2022
- 35 RC holes – 2021 to 2022
- 10 Core holes – 2022
- 20 Core holes (2022) awaiting assays and not yet used in model

Quality Assurance, Quality Control and Data Verification

Diamond drilling was conducted by First Drilling of Montrose, Colorado using large diameter, PQ-size drilling entirely vertical holes. Drill core samples are nominally 5-foot (1.53 m) length and are cut longitudinally, and one half is cut a second time longitudinally with a diamond saw with one-quarter of the core placed in sealed bags and shipped to analytical laboratories.

Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling was conducted by Harris Exploration Drilling and Associates Inc., of Fallon, Nevada with 5.5-inch diameter face centred bit on vertical drill holes. Sampling was conducted using a riffle splitter or a cyclone splitter depending on the moisture content of the sampled material. Sampling was conducted over 5-foot (1.52m) intervals with individual samples placed in sealed bags and transported to the respective analytical labs.

Samples were shipped to either American Assay Laboratories (AAL) in Sparks, Nevada or Paragon analytical laboratories in Reno, Nevada for sample preparation, processing and ICP-MS multi-element analysis. Pulps and rejects are returned and retained by the Company. AAL and Paragon are ISO/IEC 17025 certified assay laboratories. The QA/QC program includes a comprehensive analytical quality assurance and control routine comprising the systematic use of Company inserted standards, blanks and field duplicate samples, internal laboratory QA/QC standard operating procedures, and cross check analyses at other accredited laboratories. Downhole lengths (depths) for vertical drill holes are considered accurate true depth intersections for the essentially flat-lying, to gently dipping TLC host stratigraphy.

Mineral Resource Estimate Preparation

The Mineral Resource estimate has been prepared by Joan Kester, PG and Derek Loveday, P. Geo. of Stantec Consulting Services Inc. in conformity with CIM “Estimation of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserves Best Practices” guidelines and are reported in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators NI 43-101. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that any mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserve.

Qualified Persons

Ms. Joan Kester, PG and Mr. Derek Loveday, P. Geo. of Stantec Consulting Services Inc. are Qualified Persons as defined by National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, have prepared or supervised the preparation of, or have reviewed and approved, the scientific and technical data pertaining to the Mineral Resource estimates contained in this release, and will be preparing the NI-43-101 Technical Report for filing on SEDAR within 45 days.

Mr. Ted O’Connor, P.Geo., Executive Vice President of American Lithium, and a Qualified Person as defined by National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, has reviewed and approved the scientific and technical information contained in this news release.

About American Lithium

American Lithium, a member of the TSX Venture 50, is actively engaged in the development of large-scale lithium projects within mining-friendly jurisdictions throughout the Americas. The Company is currently focused on enabling the shift to the new energy paradigm through the continued development of its strategically located TLC lithium claystone project in the richly mineralized Esmeralda lithium district in Nevada, as well as continuing to advance its Falchani lithium and Macusani uranium development-stage projects in southeastern Peru. Both Falchani and Macusani have been through robust preliminary economic assessments, exhibit strong significant expansion potential and enjoy strong community support. Pre-feasibility work has now commenced at Falchani.

The TSX Venture 50 is a ranking of the top performers in each of 5 industry sectors in the TSX Venture Exchange over the last year.

For more information, please contact the Company at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or visit our website at www.americanlithiumcorp.com for project update videos and related background information.

On behalf of the Board of Directors of American Lithium Corp.

“Simon Clarke”

CEO & Director

Tel: 604 428 6128

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward Looking Information

This news release contains certain forward-looking information and forward-looking statements (collectively “forward-looking statements”) within the meaning of applicable securities legislation. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this news release include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the ability to appeal the judicial ruling, and any other statements regarding the business plans, expectations and objectives of American Lithium. Forward-looking statements are frequently identified by such words as “may”, “will”, “plan”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “estimate”, “intend”, “indicate”, “scheduled”, “target”, “goal”, “potential”, “subject”, “efforts”, “option” and similar words, or the negative connotations thereof, referring to future events and results. Forward-looking statements are based on the current opinions and expectations of management are not, and cannot be, a guarantee of future results or events. Although American Lithium believes that the current opinions and expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable based on information available at the time, undue reliance should not be placed on forward-looking statements since American Lithium can provide no assurance that such opinions and expectations will prove to be correct. All forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain and subject to a variety of assumptions, risks and uncertainties, including risks, uncertainties and assumptions related to: American Lithium’s ability to achieve its stated goals; risks and uncertainties relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and the extent and manner to which measures taken by governments and their agencies, American Lithium or others to attempt to reduce the spread of COVID-19 could affect American Lithium, which could have a material adverse impact on many aspects of American Lithium’s businesses including but not limited to: the ability to access mineral properties for indeterminate amounts of time, the health of the employees or consultants resulting in delays or diminished capacity, social or political instability in Peru which in turn could impact American Lithium’s ability to maintain the continuity of its business operating requirements, may result in the reduced availability or failures of various local administration and critical infrastructure, reduced demand for the American Lithium’s potential products, availability of materials, global travel restrictions, and the availability of insurance and the associated costs; the judicial appeal process in Peru, and any and all future remedies pursued by American Lithium and its subsidiary Macusani to resolve the title for 32 of its concessions; risks regarding the ongoing Ontario Securities Commission regulatory proceedings; the ongoing ability to work cooperatively with stakeholders, including but not limited to local communities and all levels of government; the potential for delays in exploration or development activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic; the interpretation of drill results, the geology, grade and continuity of mineral deposits; the possibility that any future exploration, development or mining results will not be consistent with our expectations; risks that permits will not be obtained as planned or delays in obtaining permits; mining and development risks, including risks related to accidents, equipment breakdowns, labour disputes (including work stoppages, strikes and loss of personnel) or other unanticipated difficulties with or interruptions in exploration and development; risks related to commodity price and foreign exchange rate fluctuations; risks related to foreign operations; the cyclical nature of the industry in which American Lithium operates; risks related to failure to obtain adequate financing on a timely basis and on acceptable terms or delays in obtaining governmental approvals; risks related to environmental regulation and liability; political and regulatory risks associated with mining and exploration; risks related to the uncertain global economic environment and the effects upon the global market generally, and due to the COVID-19 pandemic measures taken to reduce the spread of COVID-19, any of which could continue to negatively affect global financial markets, including the trading price of American Lithium’s shares and could negatively affect American Lithium’s ability to raise capital and may also result in additional and unknown risks or liabilities to American Lithium. Other risks and uncertainties related to prospects, properties and business strategy of American Lithium are identified in the “Risks and Uncertainties” section of Plateau’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis filed on January 19, 2021, in the “Risk Factors” section of American Lithium’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis filed on January 29, 2021, and in recent securities filings available at www.sedar.com. Actual events or results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. American Lithium undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking statements except as required by applicable securities laws. Investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Cautionary Note Regarding Macusani Concessions Thirty-two of the 169 concessions held by American Lithium’s subsidiary Macusani, are currently subject to Administrative and Judicial processes (together, the “Processes”) in Peru to overturn resolutions issued by INGEMMET and the Mining Council of MINEM in February 2019 and July 2019, respectively, which declared Macusani’s title to 32 of the concessions invalid due to late receipt of the annual validity payments. In November 2019, Macusani applied for injunctive relief on 32 concessions in a Court in Lima, Peru and was successful in obtaining such an injunction on 17 of the concessions including three of the four concessions included in the Macusani Uranium Project PEA. The grant of the Precautionary Measure (Medida Cautelar) has restored the title, rights and validity of those 17 concessions to Macusani until a final decision is obtained at the last stage of the judicial process. A Precautionary Measure application was made at the same time for the remaining 15 concessions and was ultimately granted by a Court in Lima, Peru on March 2, 2021 which has also restored the title, rights and validity of those 15 remaining concessions to Macusani, with the result being that all 32 concessions are now protected by Precautionary Measure (Medida Cautelar) until a final decision on this matter is obtained at the last stage of the judicial process. The favourable judge’s ruling confirming title to all 32 concessions from November 3, 2021 represents the final stage of the current judicial process. However, this ruling has recently been appealed by MINEM and INGEMMET. American Lithium has no assurance that the outcome of these appeals will be in the Company’s favour.

Source link

December 1, 2022

Measured plus Indicated resources at Turnagain increase by 42% to 1.52 billion tonnes

2022-10-27 08:48:15

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Oct. 27, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Mark Jarvis, CEO of Giga Metals Corp. (TSX.V – GIGA), announced today that the Company has updated its NI 43-101 mineral resource estimate based on an additional 15 drill holes totaling 6,295 metres drilled in 2021 that were drilled for resource expansion and resource classification upgrade in addition to supplying geotechnical data.

Table 1: Mineral Resource Statement^(1,2,3,4^,5⁾ for the Turnagain Project
Open Pit Mineral Resources – Base Case Estimate

Classification	Tonnes (million)	Ni Grade (%)	Contained Ni (000s lbs)	Co Grade (%)	Contained Co (000s lbs)
Measured	423.4	0.214	1,998.4	0.013	125.1
Indicated	1,095.6	0.209	5,039.7	0.013	308.0
Measured and Indicated	1,519.0	0.210	7,038.1	0.013	433.1
Inferred⁽⁴⁾	1,222.3	0.206	5,555.1	0.012	325.3

(1) All mineral resources have been estimated in accordance with Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”) definitions, as required under National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”).
(2) Mineral resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell in order to demonstrate reasonable expectation of eventual economic extraction, as required under NI 43-101; mineralization lying outside of these pit shells is not reported as a mineral resource. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
(3) Mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.1% Ni. Cut-off grades are based on a price of US $9.00 per pound nickel and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a contingency.
(4) Inferred mineral resources are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. However, it is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to Indicated.
(5) Due to rounding, numbers presented may not add up precisely to the totals provided and percentages my not precisely reflect absolute figures.

“The updated mineral resource estimate for the Turnagain Project represents an important milestone in the path towards developing a large, long-life operation,” said Mark Jarvis, CEO of Giga Metals Corp, “The updated geological modelling has increased our level of certainty in the contained resources to feed a global-scale nickel sulphide concentrate facility. The new model reflects resources in the Horsetrail zone, north of the Turnagain river (95% of M&I resources) and the Hatzl zone south of the river, but excludes resources which underlie the river and an ecological setback on either side.”

2022 Updated Mineral Resources comparison to 2019 Mineral Resource

Since the 2019 mineral resource update, Giga Metals has performed resource expansion and geotechnical drilling in addition to revising its geological modeling. In addition, the schema for classification of resources has been adjusted to reflect drill spacing and reflect confidence that the proposed production rate can reasonably be realized within specified periods of time (i.e. quarterly and yearly). In addition, metal prices have been adjusted to reflect the current economic environment.

As a result, the Measured plus Indicated resources have grown; however, the Inferred resources have also grown as the volumes of the ultimate conceptual pit have expanded. This comparison is provided for information purposes only. This comparison should not be interpreted as a statement of mineral reserves; mineral reserves can only be defined in a Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility study.

Table 2: Comparison of 2022 and 2019 Consolidated Mineral Resource Statement⁽^1,2,3,4,5) for the Turnagain Project

Classification	Tonnes (million)	Ni Grade (%)	Contained Ni (000s lbs)	Co Grade (%)	Contained Co (000s lbs)
2022 Update
Measured and Indicated	1,519.0	0.210	7,038.1	0.013	433.1
Inferred⁽⁴⁾	1,222.3	0.206	5,555.1	0.012	325.3
2019 Estimate
Measured and Indicated	1,073.3	0.220	5,206.1	0.013	312.4
Inferred⁽⁴⁾	1,142.1	0.217	5473.9	0.013	327.3
2019 to 2022 Absolute Change
Measured and Indicated	445.7	-0.010	1,832.1	0.000	120.7
Inferred⁽⁴⁾	80.2	-0.011	81.2	-0.001	-2.0
2019 to 2022 Relative Change
Measured and Indicated	41.5%	-4.5%	35.2%	-0.5%	38.6%
Inferred⁽⁴⁾	7.0%	-5.0%	1.5%	-7.1%	-0.6%

For footnotes 1-5, see Table 1.

For the purpose of advancing engineering studies, the confidence level in enough of the resource has been increased to the Measured plus Indicated categories to support advancing studies to the Pre-Feasibility and Feasibility levels.

2022 Mineral Resource Classification Methodology

The mineral resource estimates for Turnagain were prepared to industry standards and best practices using commercial mine-modeling and geostatistical software. Garth Kirkham, P.Geo. is the Independent Qualified Person responsible for the Turnagain mineral resource estimates for the purposes of NI 43-101.

Mineral Resources are classified under the categories of Measured, Indicated and Inferred according to Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) guidelines. Mineral resource classification was based primarily on drill hole spacing and on continuity of mineralization.

The grid spacing for each resource category to classify the resources assuming the current production rate of metal production estimation is used as the driving factor. Therefore, no Measured Resources can be declared based on one hole. The uncertainty based on current information suggests sampling must be on a scale of approximately 75 x 75 m to delineate Measured resources. Indicated Resources are delineated from multiple drill holes located on a nominal 150 m grid pattern and Inferred Resources are based on material not falling in the categories above and within a maximum 200 m of at least one drillhole. Final resource classification shells were manually constructed on plan and section for reasonable prospect of eventual economic extraction.

The spacing distances are intended to define contiguous volumes and they should allow for some irregularities due to actual drill hole placement. The final classification volume results typically must be adjusted manually to come to a coherent classification scheme.

Greg Ross, P.Geo., a Qualified Person as defined by National Instrument 43-101, is responsible for the implementation and supervision of the Turnagain Project QA/QC program. Among other measures, prepared standards and blanks were inserted at the project site, and lab-reported results reviewed, to monitor the quality of the assay data. See reports dated December 5, 2011, titled “Turnagain Project Hard Creek Nickel Corporation Preliminary Economic Assessment”; and dated February 25, 2019, titled “Giga Metals Releases Final Drill Results from 2018 Program”; and dated May 2019, 2022, titled “Giga Metals Releases Drill Results from 2021 Program” filed on SEDAR for details on geology, mineralization, data verification, sampling procedures, and lab information.

Garth Kirkham, P.Geo. and Greg Ross, P.Geo., Qualified Persons as defined by NI 43-101, have reviewed and approved the contents of this news release.

About Giga Metals
Giga Metals Corporation is focused on metals critical to modern batteries, especially those used in Electric Vehicles and Energy Storage. The Company’s core asset is the Turnagain Project, located in northern British Columbia, which contains one of the few significant undeveloped sulphide nickel and cobalt resources in the world. Giga Metals has formed a joint venture with Mitsubishi Corporation to develop the Turnagain nickel/cobalt project in Canada and plans to complete a Prefeasibility Study in H1 2023.

Disclaimer for Forward-Looking Information

Certain statements in this news release are forward-looking statements, which reflect the expectations of management regarding the Turnagain Project. Forward-looking statements consist of statements that are not purely historical, including any statements regarding beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions regarding the future. Such statements include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to the future financial or operating performance of the Company and its mineral projects, the estimation of mineral resources, steps to be taken towards commercialization of the resource, the timing and amount of estimated future production and capital, operating and exploration expenditures. Such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results, performance or developments to differ materially from those contained in the statements. No assurance can be given that any of the events anticipated by the forward-looking statements will occur or, if they do occur, what benefits the Company will obtain from them. These forward-looking statements reflect management’s current views and are based on certain expectations, estimates and assumptions which may prove to be incorrect, including that Giga has created confidence levels sufficient in Turnagain to support a Pre-feasibility study and ultimately a Feasibility study, and statements relating to future exploration and development of the Project and mineral resource and mineral reserve estimations relating to the Project. A number of risks and uncertainties could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including: (1) the mineral resource estimates relating to the Project could prove to be inaccurate for any reason whatsoever, (2) Giga is unable to finance the Project, (3) prices for nickel and cobalt or project costs make any commercialization uneconomic, (4) indicated resources may not materialize, (5) permits, environmental opposition, government regulation or any of many other factors may prevent the Company from commercializing the Turnagain, and (6) even if the Project goes into production, there is no assurance that operations will be profitable. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this news release and, except as required by applicable securities laws, the Company assumes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements, or to update the reasons why actual results differed from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Additional information about these and other assumptions, risks and uncertainties are set out in the “Risks and Uncertainties” section in the Company’s most recent MD&A filed with Canadian security regulators.

On behalf of the Board of Directors,

“Mark Jarvis”

MARK JARVIS, CEO
GIGA METALS CORPORATION

Contact Information
Office Phone: +1 (604) 681-2300
Investor Inquiries: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Company Website: www.gigametals.com

Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Source link

October 27, 2022

Updated Mineral Resource Estimate Doubles Measured & Indicated Resources at Canada Nickel’s Crawford Nickel Sulphide Project

2022-07-06 04:07:08

Crawford Mineral Resource Estimate Update

Total M&I resources more than doubled to 1.43 billion tonnes at 0.24% nickel and Inferred resource was 0.67 billion tonnes at 0.23% nickel (see Table 1). The East Zone M&I resource increased by more than 14-fold to 701 Mt at 0.23% nickel and the Main Zone resource increased by 17% to 724 Mt at 0.25% nickel. With 3.48 Mt of contained nickel in M&I resources, the company believes Crawford has the fifth largest contained nickel sulphide resource globally. M&I resources also include 93.9 Mt of iron, 8.5 Mt of chromium, 183 kt of cobalt, and 1.06 million ounces of palladium + platinum.

This updated resource is based on a combined total of 113 drillholes and 56,286 metres of drilling. Consistent with previously reported resources, a cut-off grade of 0.15% nickel was used in the Mineral Resource Estimate. Higher grade-Lower grade, and block model views of the resource estimate are provided in Figures 2 and 3 below. Sixty percent of assays from 54 additional exploration drillholes in the East and Main Zone that had not yet been received as of the resource cutoff date will be subsequently incorporated into the final feasibility study resource. Given the focus on the Main and East Zone as resources for this phase of the feasibility study, resources for North Zone (15 drill holes) and Western Extension (38 drill holes) are expected to be completed later this year and incorporated into the final feasibility study.

This Mineral Resource Estimate was prepared by Caracle Creek International Consulting Inc. in accordance with CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves. A Technical Report in support of the Mineral Resource Estimate will be filed on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) within 45 days. The Mineral Resource Estimate is effective as of July 6, 2022.

East Zone

Drilling completed during 2021 and early 2022 joined the two previously isolated sections of mineralization. The updated resource, consisting of a total of 47 drill holes and 22,563 metres, extended the resource by 500 metres to the east for a total of 2.6 kilometres in strike length, up to 350 metres in width, and more than 650 metres deep. Drilling extended mineralization a further 200 metres to the east and mineralization remains open at depth. Higher grade mineralization continues at depth beyond the current resource as tested by hole CR22-230 which was completed to a depth of 1,155 metres. Assays for this hole are pending.

Main Zone

Drilling in the Main Zone focused near the west extension as well as testing the continuation of higher-grade targets at depth. The Main Zone resource now consists of a total of 66 drillholes and 33,723 metres of drilling and is defined across strike length of 1.9 kilometres, a width of up to 580 metres and 700 metres deep. Higher grade mineralization continues at depth beyond the current resource as tested by hole CR22-198 which was completed to a depth of 1,044 metres. Assays for this hole are pending.

Next Steps – Exploration:

‒        A technical report with respect to the Mineral Resource Estimate Update disclosed today will be filed within 45 days as required by The National Instrument NI 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure of Mineral Projects.

‒        Mineralogical studies and metallurgical test work will continue through the fall of 2022 and will be incorporated into the Feasibility Study expected to be completed by the end of calendar 2022.

‒        Additional exploration drillholes in the East and Main Zones will be added to the resource once assays are received and any final drilling to upgrade any inferred resource remaining within the feasibility study mine plan.

‒        Regional exploration program remains ongoing.

Table 2 – Additional Drill Results from the Crawford Nickel Sulphide Project Main Zone Included in the Resource Estimate.

Table 3 – Additional Drill Results from the Crawford Nickel Sulphide Project East Zone Included in the Resource Estimate.

Table 4: Drill Hole Orientation.

Assays, Quality Assurance/Quality Control and Drilling and Assay

Edwin Escarraga, MSc, P.Geo., a “qualified person” as defined by National Instrument 43-101, is responsible for the on-going drilling and sampling program, including quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC). The core is collected from the drill in sealed core trays and transported to the core logging facility. The core is marked and sampled at 1.5 metre lengths and cut with a diamond blade saw. One set of samples is transported in secure bags directly from the Canada Nickel core shack to Actlabs Timmins, while a second set of samples is securely shipped to SGS Lakefield for preparation, with analysis performed at SGS Burnaby or SGS Callao (Peru). All are ISO/IEC 17025 accredited labs. Analysis for precious metals (gold, platinum and palladium) are completed by Fire Assay while analysis for nickel, cobalt, sulphur and 17 other elements are performed using a peroxide fusion and ICP-OES analysis. Certified standards and blanks are inserted at a rate of 3 QA/QC samples per 20 core samples making a batch of 60 samples that are submitted for analysis.

Qualified Person and Data Verification

Stephen J. Balch P.Geo. (ON), VP Exploration of Canada Nickel and a “qualified person” as is defined by National Instrument 43-101, has verified the data disclosed in this news release, and has otherwise reviewed and approved the technical information in this news release on behalf of Canada Nickel Company Inc.

About Canada Nickel Company

Canada Nickel Company Inc. is advancing the next generation of nickel-sulphide projects to deliver nickel required to feed the high growth electric vehicle and stainless steel markets. Canada Nickel Company has applied in multiple jurisdictions to trademark the terms NetZero Nickel^TM, NetZero Cobalt^TM, NetZero Iron^TM and is pursuing the development of processes to allow the production of net zero carbon nickel, cobalt, and iron products. Canada Nickel provides investors with leverage to nickel in low political risk jurisdictions. Canada Nickel is currently anchored by its 100% owned flagship Crawford Nickel Sulphide Property in the heart of the prolific Timmins-Cochrane mining camp. For more information, please visit www.canadanickel.com.

For further information, please contact:

Mark Selby, Chair and CEO Phone: 647-256-1954
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains certain information that may constitute “forward-looking information” under applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward looking information includes, but is not limited to, drill results relating to the Crawford Nickel Sulphide Property, the potential of the Crawford Nickel Sulphide Property, timing of economic studies and mineral resource estimates, the project mine plan, the ability to sell marketable materials, strategic plans, including future exploration and development results, and corporate and technical objectives. Forward-looking information is necessarily based upon a number of assumptions that, while considered reasonable, are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors which may cause the actual results and future events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information. Factors that could affect the outcome include, among others: future prices and the supply of metals, the future demand for metals, the results of drilling, inability to raise the money necessary to incur the expenditures required to retain and advance the property, environmental liabilities (known and unknown), general business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties, results of exploration programs, risks of the mining industry, delays in obtaining governmental approvals, failure to obtain regulatory or shareholder approvals, and the impact of COVID-19 related disruptions in relation to the Company’s business operations including upon its employees, suppliers, facilities and other stakeholders. There can be no assurance that such information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such information. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. All forward-looking information contained in this press release is given as of the date hereof and is based upon the opinions and estimates of management and information available to management as at the date hereof. Canada Nickel disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

Source link

July 6, 2022

Benchmark Increases Overall Gold Ounces by 44% and 77% in the Measured & Indicated Classification with Expanded Mineral Resource Estimate Further Derisking the Gold-Silver Project

2022-06-13 00:07:19

Edmonton, Alberta–(Newsfile Corp. – June 13, 2022) – Benchmark Metals Inc. (TSXV: BNCH) (OTCQX: BNCHF) (WKN: A2JM2X) (the “Company” or “Benchmark“) is pleased to announce a significant increase to its global bulk-tonnage Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) for its flagship Lawyers Gold-Silver Project. The MRE comprised of 1,097 drill holes totaling 200,000 metres collectively from the Cliff Creek, AGB and Dukes Ridge deposits were used for Mineral Resource Estimation. The 100% owned Lawyers Gold-Silver Project is located within a road accessible region of the prolific Golden Horseshoe area of north-central British Columbia, Canada.

John Williamson, CEO, commented, “The expanded Mineral Resource Estimate is demonstrating the world-class potential of Benchmark’s multi-million-ounce gold-silver deposits. The Company has provided one of the highest-grade, open pitable mining projects in North America. The 2021 drill program and winter 2022 drill program has significantly de-risked the project with approximately 90 percent of the Mineral Resource within the Measured + Indicated classification. With the deposits open, further resource growth is possible and the Project has numerous targets that may develop into near mine satellite deposits. The company has drilled-out a significant amount of gold and silver ounces that is not included in the $1700 pit shell. At higher precious metals prices, the contained gold increases significantly. The MRE comprises of proven economically minable material while the remaining, outside of pit gold and silver will provide a significant opportunity as the price of precious metals increases.”

Ian Harris, VP Engineering, commented, “The Project is demonstrating potential for economic mining methods with high-grade mineralization extending from surface to depth. The higher-grade core zones at surface will have a positive impact on economics in the forthcoming Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA). Benchmark’s drill-to-build philosophy is delivering the results to develop the Project into a world-class gold-silver mine located in one of the best mining jurisdictions in the world.”

Benchmark Metals invites you to a webinar to discuss the Mineral Resource Estimate on Tuesday, June 14^th at 8 am PST, 11 am EST, and 6 pm CET. Webinar Link.

Highlights: 2022 Expanded Mineral Resource Estimate

Indicated Mineral Resource of 3.14 million ounces grading 1.45 grams per tonne (g/t) gold equivalent (AuEq), contained within 67.4 million tonnes as per Table #1;

Inferred Mineral Resource of 415,000 ounces grading 2.63 g/t AuEq contained within 4.9 million tonnes;

The Mineral Resource shows excellent continuity and consistency, demonstrated by increasing AuEq cut-off grades having marginal impact on the pit-constrained AuEq ounces as demonstrated in Table #2;

High Grade Zones – Indicative Starter Pits with higher-grade;

Cliff Creek and Dukes Ridge deposits show 5.2 million tonnes at 1.74 g/t AuEq for approximately 292,000 oz AuEq at a preliminary strip ratio of 2.2:1
AGB deposit 7.5 million tonnes at 1.74 g/t AuEq for approximately 418,000 oz AuEq at a preliminary strip ratio of 1.7:1

Strip ratios – Overall OP preliminary strip ratio for the full MRE is 5.6:1 for CC-DR and 2.9:1 for AGB;
The MRE will form the basis of a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) to be completed in Q3, 2022;
All of the zones remain open for further expansion, and;
The Project holds multiple satellite targets for discoveries and additional gold-silver mineralization.

Table #1: Lawyers Expanded Mineral Resource Estimate ^(1-⁹⁾

Pit Constrained Mineral Resource Estimate @ 0.4 g/t AuEq Cut-Off
Resource Area	Classification	Tonnes	Au	Ag	AuEq	Au	Ag	AuEq
Resource Area	Classification	k	g/t	g/t	g/t	k oz	M oz	k oz
Cliff’s Creek	Measured & Indicated	54,434	1.26	19.17	1.36	2,204	33.6	2,380
Cliff’s Creek	Inferred	2,114	1.03	12.98	1.08	70	0.9	74
AGB	Measured & Indicated	11,373	1.05	43.93	1.60	384	16.1	584
AGB	Inferred	151	0.58	27.02	0.92	3	0.1	5
Total	Measured & Indicated	65,807	1.22	23.45	1.40	2,587	49.6	2,964
Total	Inferred	2,265	1.00	13.92	1.07	73	1.0	78

Out of Pit Mineral Resource Estimate @ 1.5 g/t AuEq Cut-Off
Resource	Classification	Tonnes	Au	Ag	AuEq	Au	Ag	AuEq
Resource	Classification	k	g/t	g/t	g/t	k oz	M oz	k oz
Cliff’s Creek	Measured & Indicated	1,158	3.49	55.55	3.80	130	2.1	141
Cliff’s Creek	Inferred	2,302	3.88	65.46	4.26	287	4.8	315
AGB	Measured & Indicated	411	1.55	89.33	2.66	20	1.2	35
AGB	Inferred	306	1.83	33.5	2.25	18	0.3	22
Total	Measured & Indicated	1,569	3.00	66.65	3.54	150	3.2	177
Total	Inferred	2,608	3.66	62.80	4.06	305	5.2	337

Total Mineral Resource Estimate @ 0.4 g/t and 1.5 g/t AuEq Cut-Off
Resource	Classification	Tonnes	Au	Ag	AuEq	Au	Ag	AuEq
Resource	Classification	k	g/t	g/t	g/t	k oz	M oz	K oz
All	Measured & Indicated	67,376	1.26	24.39	1.45	2,738	52.9	3,141
All	Inferred	4,873	2.39	39.41	2.63	378	6.2	415

Notes:

Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.
The Inferred Mineral Resource in this estimate has a lower level of confidence than that applied to an Indicated Mineral Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral Reserve. It is reasonably expected that the majority of the Inferred Mineral Resource could potentially be upgraded to an Indicated Mineral Resource with continued exploration.
The Mineral Resources were estimated in accordance with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions (2014) and Best Practices Guidelines (2019) prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions and adopted by the CIM Council.
Historical mined areas were removed from the block modelled resources.
Metal prices used were US$1,750/oz Au and US$20/oz Ag and 0.78 US$ICDN$ FX with process recoveries of 90% Au and 83% Ag. A C$14.50/t process cost and C$5/t G&A cost were used. The Au:Ag ratio was 80:1.
The constraining pit optimization parameters were C$3.15/t mineralized and waste material mining cost and 50° pit slopes with a 0.30 g/t AuEq cut-off.
The Out-of-Pit Mineral Resource grade blocks were quantified above the 1.5 g/t AuEq cut-off, below the constraining pit shell and within the constraining mineralized wireframes. Out-of-Pit Mineral Resources selected exhibited continuity and reasonable potential for extraction by the long hole underground mining method.
A new NI 43-101 technical report will not be produced as the total tonnage or total contained metal have not materially changed. An NI 43-101 technical report will be produced with updated Mineral Resources in conjunction with a PEA.

Figure 1: Plan map of the deposits with higher-grade core zones

Table #2: Sensitivity using various AuEq cut-off grades and gold prices ^(1-⁹⁾

Global Measure & Indicated
Cutoff AuEq ppm	Tonnes	Avg Au ppm	Avg Ag ppm	Avg AuEq ppm	Au oz	Ag oz	AuEq oz
0.20/1.5	99,483,000	0.94	18.14	1.08	3,004,100	58,011,800	3,443,600
0.30/1.5	81,834,000	1.09	21.11	1.25	2,871,100	55,549,000	3,293,900
0.35/1.5	74,107,000	1.08	21.34	1.35	2,583,600	50,842,100	3,219,100
0.4/1.5	67,376,000	1.26	24.39	1.45	2,737,500	52,866,900	3,140,500
0.5/1.5	56,205,000	1.44	27.78	1.65	2,595,800	50,190,600	2,979,700
0.6/1.5	47,762,000	1.61	31.09	1.84	2,464,900	47,733,900	2,831,100
Global Inferred
0.2/1.5	6,396,000	1.90	30.99	2.09	391,500	6,372,400	430,000
0.3/1.5	5,615,000	2.14	34.82	2.35	385,600	6,286,700	423,600
0.35/1.5	5,193,000	2.29	37.30	2.51	381,500	6,228,000	419,200
0.4/1.5	4,873,000	2.39	39.41	2.63	377,700	6,187,000	415,400
0.5/1.5	4,368,000	2.64	43.40	2.91	371,000	6,094,600	408,100
0.6/1.5	4,046,000	2.81	46.33	3.09	365,700	6,026,300	402,400

Figure #2: Resource expansion with de-risked, higher quality gold & silver ounces

Indicative Starter Pits

‘Indicative Starter Pits’ are provided within two of the deposits with higher-grade Mineral Resources located at surface. The AGB Deposit contains 7.5 million tonnes at 1.74 g/t AuEq for approximately 418,000 oz AuEq at a strip of 1.7:1. A second Starter Pit at the Cliff Creek Deposit has generated 5.2 million tonnes at 1.74 g/t AuEq for approximately 292,000 oz AuEq at a strip of 2.2:1. The ‘Starter Pits’ provide high quality mineralization with an expected low strip ratio at surface that has generated clean sulphide mineralogy free of deleterious elements with 93% gold metallurgical recovery. The Starter Pits contain lower strip ratios that result in mining less total material to generate improved economics in the initial years of mining.

Additional Mineral Resource Expansion Potential

Ongoing drilling is focused on open extensions of near surface, high-grade mineralization. Recent results, that were not included in the MRE are providing additional Mineral Resource expansion potential in several key areas including Dukes Ridge and Cliff Creek Mid. The Dukes Ridge Deposit recently generated positive results yielding 54.60 metres of 2.51 grams per tonne (g/t) gold and 97.05 g/t silver or 3.73 g/t AuEq, including 9.60 m of 13.39 g/t gold and 480.26 g/t silver or 19.39 g/t AuEq (see June 2, 2022 news release). The deepest holes drilled at Dukes Ridge to date have extended mineralization, which remains open to nearly 300 metres vertical depth. In addition, the 20 kilometre long mineralized trend has provided clusters for multiple satellite deposits that require drill testing for additional new discoveries and Mineral Resource growth.

Near-Term Advancement to Mining

The historical mining footprint has logistical and structural advantages set within the mining district featuring access to highway, abundant and low-cost hydroelectric green power, fresh water, labour and in a Tier 1 mining jurisdiction that has proven world-class mines. Benchmark anticipates completion of the Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) during Q3, 2022. The Company has already completed significant progress with the PEA and includes recent metallurgical test work reconfirming an industry standard processing flowsheet with gold achieving 93% recovery. The Company has received initial geochemistry static test work for environmental analysis of waste rock and mineralized rock. To date, mineralized rock and waste analysis show insignificant and benign impacts to the environment. The majority of engineering work is completed, pending optimization of the mine plan and schedule. The PEA mine schedule will include the at surface, Starter Pit areas of higher-grade gold and silver mineralization and lower associated strip ratios. The core zones and initial starter pit areas have potential to positively impact the initial years of mining in the PEA.

The majority of engineering tasks to support development of the Feasibility Study (“FS”) are in progress or complete. Significant outstanding activities include on-going geotechnical work for major infrastructure, and geochemical test work. Additional work has focused on mine optimization and trade-off studies to determine robust economics and engineering efficiencies.

Measured and Indicated Classification

Benchmark has de-risked the gold and silver ounces by elevating the quality of the total Mineral Resource to the Measured and Indicated classification. The term “Measured & Indicated Mineral Resource” refers to that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics can be estimated with a level of confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. The estimate is based on drill holes that are spaced closely enough for geological and grade continuity to be reasonably assumed. The new MRE is at a sufficient classification to be utilized in the Feasibility Study for 2023.

Quality Assurance and Control

Results from samples were analyzed at ALS Global Laboratories (Geochemistry Division) in Vancouver, Canada (an ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accredited facility). The sampling program was undertaken by Company personnel under the direction of Rob L’Heureux, P.Geol. A secure chain of custody is maintained in transporting and storing of all samples. Gold was assayed using a fire assay with atomic emission spectrometry and gravimetric finish when required (+10 g/t Au). Analysis by four acid digestion with 48 element ICP-MS analysis was conducted on all samples with silver and base metal over-limits being re-analyzed by atomic absorption or emission spectrometry. Rock chip samples from outcrop/bedrock are selective by nature and may not be representative of the mineralization hosted on the project.

The technical content of this news release has been reviewed and approved by Michael Dufresne, M.Sc, P.Geol., P.Geo., and Eugene Puritch, P.Eng., FEC, CET both Qualified Persons as defined by National Instrument 43-101. Mr. Puritch, President of P&E Mining Consultants Inc., is independent of Benchmark.

About Benchmark Metals

Benchmark Metals Inc. is a Canadian based gold and silver exploration and development company advancing its 100% owned Lawyer’s Gold-Silver Project located in the prolific Golden Horseshoe of northern British Columbia, Canada. The Project consists of three mineralized deposits that remain open for expansion, in addition to +20 new target areas along the 20-kilometre trend. The Company trades on the TSX Venture Exchange in Canada, the OTCQX Best Market in the United States, and the Tradegate Exchange in Europe. Benchmark is managed by proven Mineral Resource sector professionals, who have a track record of advancing exploration projects from grassroots scenarios through to production.

www.metalsgroup.com

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

s/ “John Williamson”
John Williamson, Chief Executive Officer

For further information, please contact:
Jim Greig
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Telephone: +1 604 260 6977

NEITHER TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE NOR ITS REGULATION SERVICES PROVIDER (AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THE POLICIES OF THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE) ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS RELEASE.

This news release may contain certain “forward-looking statements”. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other factors that may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this news release and, except as may be required by applicable securities laws, the Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise.

Source link

June 13, 2022

Stuhini Exploration Completes Molybdenum Resource Estimate for Ruby Creek Project, Defines Measured and Indicated Resource of 433 Million Lbs Molybdenum

2022-03-15 07:07:58

VANCOUVER, BC, March 15, 2022 /CNW/ – Stuhini Exploration Ltd. (the “Company” or “Stuhini”) (TSX-V: STU) is pleased to announce a pit-constrained Mineral Resource Estimate (“MRE”), for the Ruby Creek molybdenum deposit (“Ruby Creek Molybdenum Deposit”), located 35 kilometres (km) by road east of Atlin, BC. The MRE was undertaken by Mine Development Associates (“MDA”), a division of RESPEC. The effective date of this MRE is March 10, 2022 and an NI 43-101 Technical Report (the “Technical Report”) will be filed on SEDAR within 45 days of this news release and posted on the Company’s website.

Open Pit Resource Estimate

The pit constrained Measured and Indicated resources contain 432,991,000 pounds (“lbs”) of molybdenum (“Mo”) hosted within 369,398,000 tonnes at an average Mo grade of 0.053 % at 0.020 % Mo cutoff (Table 1). Resources within the Inferred category include 43,650,000 lbs of Mo hosted within 41,946,000 tonnes at an average Mo grade of 0.047 % (Table 1).

“MDA, has developed a very robust resource model that will form the basis for future economic studies” notes Ehsan Salmabadi, P.Geo, Stuhini’s Vice President of Exploration. “Our efforts in the coming months will focus on internal scoping studies to give us guidance on our next steps in assessing the economics of the Ruby Creek Molybdenum Deposit.”

Mr. David O’Brien President & CEO of Stuhini goes on to add, “We are very excited about being able to update the Ruby Creek Molybdenum Resource and look forward to what the future holds, especially in light of the dramatic increase in molybdenum prices in the last 20 months. I wish to thank our consultants and our in-house technical team for their efforts and professionalism in bringing this MRE to fruition.”

Table 1: Ruby Creek Measured plus Indicated and Inferred open-pit resources reported at various Mo cut-off grades.

Measured + Indicated

Inferred

Cutoff (Mo%)

Tonnes

Mo%

lbs Mo (x1,000)

Cutoff (Mo%)

Tonnes

Mo%

lbs Mo (x1,000)

0.015

392,179,000

0.051

441,726

0.015

52,578,000

0.041

47,640

0.020

369,398,000

0.053

432,991

0.020

41,946,000

0.047

43,650

0.025

339,466,000

0.056

417,930

0.025

36,404,000

0.051

40,850

0.030

303,203,000

0.059

395,929

0.030

31,666,000

0.055

38,050

0.035

264,499,000

0.063

368,629

0.035

26,998,000

0.058

34,700

0.040

225,911,000

0.068

336,773

0.040

23,062,000

0.062

31,420

0.045

191,616,000

0.072

304,656

0.045

19,666,000

0.065

28,270

0.050

160,991,000

0.077

272,762

0.050

15,739,000

0.070

24,180

0.060

111,516,000

0.087

212,848

0.060

10,521,000

0.077

17,880

0.070

76,167,000

0.097

162,549

0.070

6,175,000

0.086

11,710

0.080

51,026,000

0.108

121,118

0.080

2,891,000

0.099

6,280

0.090

33,852,000

0.119

89,150

0.090

1,773,000

0.108

4,210

0.100

23,209,000

0.131

66,966

0.100

926,000

0.119

2,430

Table 2: Ruby Creek Measured and Indicated open pit resources reported at various Mo cut-off grades.

Measured

Indicated

Cutoff (Mo%)

Tonnes

Mo%

lbs Mo (x1,000)

Cutoff (Mo%)

Tonnes

Mo%

lbs Mo (x1,000)

0.015

52,381,000

0.063

72,406

0.015

339,798,000

0.049

369,320

0.020

49,638,000

0.065

71,351

0.020

319,760,000

0.051

361,640

0.025

46,478,000

0.068

69,780

0.025

292,988,000

0.054

348,150

0.030

42,768,000

0.072

67,509

0.030

260,435,000

0.057

328,420

0.035

38,876,000

0.076

64,709

0.035

225,623,000

0.061

303,920

0.040

35,037,000

0.080

61,563

0.040

190,874,000

0.065

275,210

0.045

31,495,000

0.084

58,256

0.045

160,121,000

0.070

246,400

0.050

28,462,000

0.088

55,092

0.050

132,529,000

0.075

217,670

0.060

22,272,000

0.097

47,578

0.060

89,244,000

0.084

165,270

0.070

16,997,000

0.107

40,059

0.070

59,170,000

0.094

122,490

0.080

12,838,000

0.117

33,228

0.080

38,188,000

0.104

87,890

0.090

9,416,000

0.129

26,820

0.090

24,436,000

0.116

62,330

0.100

7,025,000

0.141

21,836

0.100

16,184,000

0.127

45,130

Ruby Creek Mineral Resource Estimate Notes:

The mineral resources disclosed in this press release were estimated following the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”) Definition Standards – For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions adopted May 10, 2014.

Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resources estimated will be converted into mineral reserves.

The number of metric tonnes and pounds were rounded to the nearest thousand. Any discrepancies in the totals are due to rounding effects.

As defined by NI 43‑101, the Independent and Qualified Persons for the Technical Report are Steven Ristorcelli, C. P. G., Peter Ronning, P. Eng., Finley Bakker, P. Geo., and John Eggert, P. Eng.

Reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction were determined by applying open-pit mining and operating parameters in pit optimization to build a resource-constraining pit.

This MRE was derived from a database containing 305 diamond drill holes, four rotary holes, plus underground bulk samples entered as 17 “drill holes”.

The Effective Date of the Ruby Creek database used in the MRE is January 27, 2020.

Mo price used for the resource pit was US$15/lb Mo.

Estimated operating costs used in the MRE (in US$) were $2.00/tonne for mining, $1.00/tonne for G&A, $5.00/tonne for processing and a roasting charge of $1.77/kilogram (“kg”) of Mo. Metallurgical recoveries of 92% were utilized in the determination of cut-off grades for the open-pit resource.

The resource is reported at a cutoff of 0.02% Mo. Cut-off calculations were based on metallurgical recoveries, operating costs for mining and processing, and metal prices described above.

Tonnage was estimated from volumes using specific gravities ranging from 2.57 to 2.60 for different igneous lithologies.

The geologic models and 3D block model were created in HxGN MinePlan by Steven Ristorcelli, C. P. G., an associate of MDA, and Finley J. Bakker, P. Geo., of Finley Bakker Consulting.

The database auditing and quality assurance/quality control (“QA/QC”) was conducted by Peter Ronning, P. Eng.

The review of the historic metallurgical work was conducted by John Eggert, P. Eng.

A rotated block model with block sizes of 10 m by 10 m by 10 m was used. The block dimensions were chosen to best reflect potential block sizes for open-pit mining

Inverse distance cubed (“ID^3″) was used for estimation.

The deposit was divided into three estimation domains with unique orientations: (1) a main mineralized horizontal domain; (2) a steeply northwest dipping domain along the Adera fault zone and (3) shallow dipping in the footwall of the Adera fault zone.

The drill samples were coded by domain and were capped to different grades depending on the domain.

The main mineralized horizontal domain samples were capped to 0.90% Mo. The steeply northwest dipping domain along the Adera fault zone and the shallow dipping footwall zone was capped to 1.5% Mo. Along the southwest end of the deposit where drilling is spaced widely, grades were capped to 0.4% Mo in four holes.

The mineral resources estimate was done in two passes. A quadrant search with a maximum of two composites per quadrant was used in the domains because of significantly clustered data. Volumes outside the domains were estimated in a single pass.

The quantity and grade of reported Inferred mineral resources in this estimation are uncertain in nature and there has been insufficient exploration to re-define these Inferred mineral resources as Indicated mineral resources. It is uncertain if further exploration will result in upgrading them to the Indicated mineral resources category.

Qualified Persons

The Independent and Qualified Persons for the Ruby Creek Technical Report are Steven Ristorcelli, C. P. G., Peter Ronning, P. Eng., Finley Bakker, P. Geo., and John Eggert, P. Eng., who have reviewed the technical disclosure in this release. In accordance with National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, Ehsan Salmabadi, P. Geo. Vice President Exploration, is the Qualified Person for the Company and has also validated and approved the technical and scientific content of this news release. The Company adheres to CIM Best Practices Guidelines in conducting, documenting, and reporting its activities on its various exploration projects.

Proactive Investor Interview

A brief video highlighting this release can be found on the Company website or by clicking the link below:
Proactive Investor interview with Dave O’Brien, President & CEO of Stuhini Exploration.

About Stuhini Exploration Ltd.

Stuhini is a mineral exploration company focused on the exploration and development of it’s base and precious metal properties in western Canada. The Company’s portfolio of exploration properties includes its flagship the Ruby Creek Property located approximately 20 km east of Atlin, BC, the Que Project located approximately 70 km north of Johnson’s Crossing in the Yukon, the South Thompson Project located approximately 35 km northwest of Grand Rapids, Manitoba and the Big Ledge Property located approximately 57 km south of Revelstoke, BC.

Forward Looking Statements

This news release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Canadian securities legislation. Such forward‑looking statements concern the Company’s strategic plans, future price estimates for Molybdenum (“Mo”), and updating the historic Mo resource to a current resource estimate. Such forward‑looking statements or information are based on a number of assumptions, which may prove to be incorrect. Assumptions have been made regarding, among other things: conditions in general economic and financial markets; accuracy of assay results; geological interpretations from sampling results, price estimates for Mo; the effect of Covid-19 on the Company’s ability to conduct exploration; performance of available laboratory and other related services; effects on general economic conditions and commodity prices, including Mo,; and future exploration costs. The actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward‑looking statements as a result of the risk factors including: downturn in future price estimates for Mo, the timing and content of work programs; results of exploration activities and development of mineral properties; the interpretation and uncertainties of sampling results and other geological data; receipt, maintenance and security of permits and mineral property titles; environmental and other regulatory risks; project costs overruns or unanticipated costs and expenses; availability of funds and general market and industry conditions. Forward-looking statements are based on the expectations and opinions of the Company’s management on the date the statements are made. The assumptions used in the preparation of such statements, although considered reasonable at the time of preparation, may prove to be imprecise and, as such, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date the statements were made. The Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements included in this news release if these beliefs, estimates and opinions or other circumstances should change, except as otherwise required by applicable law.

Source link

March 15, 2022

Desert Gold Ventures Reports Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources of 310,300 Ounces of Gold and Inferred Mineral Resources of 769,200 Ounces of Gold at SMSZ Project, West Mali

2022-01-17 03:03:52

Delta, British Columbia–(Newsfile Corp. – January 17, 2022) – Desert Gold Ventures Inc. (TSXV: DAU) (FSE: QXR2) (OTCQB: DAUGF) (the “Company”) is pleased to announce initial, pit-constrained Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources of 8.47 million tonnes grading 1.14 g/t Au totalling 310,300 ounces of gold and Inferred Mineral Resources of 20.7 million tonnes grading 1.16 g/t Au totalling 769,200 ounces of gold.

Desert Gold’s initial Mineral Resource comprised pit constrained gold mineralization from five deposit areas all lying within a 12km radius of each other (Figure 1). A summary of the initial resources is presented below.

Table 1. Mineral Estimate Resource Summary

Resource Category	Tonnes	g/t Gold	Ounces
Measured	2,380,000	1.28	97,800
Indicated	6,090,000	1.08	212,600
Measured and Indicated	8,470,000	1.14	310,300
Inferred	20,700,000	1.16	769,200

1. The effective date of the Mineral Resource Estimate is January 12, 2022.
2. Mineral Resources are reported in accordance with the CIM guidelines.
3. A marginal COG of 0.40 g/t Au for all material is applied.
4. Mineral Resources were estimated at a gold price of US$1,800/oz, mining cost including G&A at $11/t, mining costs ranging from $2.25 to $2,75/tonne, process recoveries of 92% and slope angles from 45 to 50 degrees.
5. Figures have been rounded to an appropriate level of precision for the reporting of Mineral Resources.
6. Due to rounding, some columns or rows might not add up exactly as shown.
7. The Mineral Resources are stated as dry tonnes. All figures are in metric tonnes.
8. The in-situ ounces are in troy ounces.

Desert Gold’s President & CEO Jared Scharf commented, “The publication of this initial Mineral Resource is a significant milestone for the Company and represents a great starting point. We believe, that with more drilling, the Company will be able to significantly expand on these resources and develop new resource areas like the Gourbassi North West discovery. We expect a busy 2022 as we work towards a 20,000 metre plus drill program with high expectations of the results.”

Other News

The Company has completed its recently announced drill program over the exciting new discovery at Gourbassi North West. 72 air core holes totalling 2,890 metres were completed along the 1.5km initial projected strike extent. Assay results are expected to be released in the coming weeks.

Mineral Resource Technical Details

The Mineral Resources are derived from five deposit areas, all in the southern half of the property, including, in order of size, Mogoyafara South, Barani East, Gourbassi West, Gourbassi East and Linneguekoto West (see Figure 1 for locations). These combined resources comprise 2.38 million tonnes at 1.28 g/t gold totalling 97,800 ounces of Measured Mineral Resources at Gourbassi West and Barani, 6.09 million tonnes at 1.08 g/t gold totalling 212.600 ounces of Indicated Mineral Resources at Gourbassi East, Gourbassi West and Barani and 20.7 million tonnes at 1.16 g/t gold totalling 769,200 ounces Inferred Mineral Resources. The deposit areas containing Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources have been subject to confirmatory drilling by the Company to validate the interpreted zone interpretations. A detailed summary of the deposit areas is presented in the Table 2.

Table 2. Mineral Resource Estimate Summary by Deposit

Mineral Resource Category	Project	Project Sub Division	Tonnes (In Situ)	Gold Grade	Gold Content
Mineral Resource Category	Project	Project Sub Division	Mt	g/t	kg	oz
Measured	Gourbassi	Gourbassi West	1.77	0.96	1,700	54,600
	Barani East	Barani East	0.61	2.20	1,340	43,200
	Total Measured		2.38	1.28	3,040	97,800
Indicated	Gourbassi	Gourbassi East	2.24	1.22	2,730	87,900
	Gourbassi	Gourbassi West	2.97	0.80	2,390	76,700
	Barani East	Barani East	0.88	1.70	1,490	48,000
	Total Indicated		6.09	1.08	6,600	212,600
Total M&I			8.47	1.14	9,650	310,300

Mineral Resource Category	Project	Project Sub Division	Tonnes (In Situ)	Gold Grade	Gold Content
Mineral Resource Category	Project	Project Sub Division	Mt	g/t	kg	oz
Inferred	Mogoyafara	Mogoyafara South	12.29	1.05	12,840	412,800
	Linnguekoto	Linnguekoto West	1.39	1.48	2,060	66,200
	Gourbassi	Gourbassi East	1.88	1.37	2,570	82,800
	Gourbassi	Gourbassi West	2.44	0.94	2,280	73,400
	Barani East	Barani East	1.01	1.62	1,650	52,900
		Barani Gap	0.85	1.03	870	28,100
		Keniegoulou	0.42	2.58	1,080	34,800
		KE	0.42	1.35	560	18,100
Total Inferred			20.70	1.16	23,920	769,200

Mineral Resource Category			Tonnes (In Situ)	Gold Grade	Gold Content
Mineral Resource Category			Mt	g/t	kg	oz
Total M&I			8.47	1.14	9,650	310,330
Total Inferred			20.70	1.16	23,920	769,160

These resource numbers have been further subdivided into oxide, transition and fresh, with the bulk of the gold mineralization hosted in fresh rocks as per Table 3. Resource sensitivity to various grade cut-offs is presented below in Table 4.

Table 3. Mineral Resource Estimate Summary by Weathering Category

Weathering Zone	Resource Category	Tonnes (In Situ)	Gold Grade	Gold Content
Weathering Zone	Resource Category	Mt	g/t	kg	oz
Oxide	Measured	1.99	1.32	2,630	84,700
	Indicated	0.68	1.23	840	27,100
	M&I	2.67	1.30	3,480	111,800
	Inferred	2.15	1.20	2,590	83,300

Transition	Measured	0.32	0.90	290	9,200
	Indicated	0.75	0.92	690	22,100
	M&I	1.06	0.91	970	31,300
	Inferred	2.24	1.26	2,830	90,900

Fresh	Measured	0.07	1.79	120	3,900
	Indicated	4.67	1.09	5,080	163,400
	M&I	4.73	1.10	5,200	167,300
	Inferred	16.30	1.14	18,500	595,000

Table 4. Mineral Resource Summary Sensitivity Table

Category	Cut-off grade (g/t)	Tonnes (million)	Grade Au (g/t)	Au (kg)	Au (oz)
Measured & Indicated	0.30	10.01	1.02	10,200	327,800
Measured & Indicated	0.40	8.47	1.14	9,650	310,300
Measured & Indicated	0.50	6.98	1.29	8,990	288,900
Measured & Indicated	0.75	4.62	1.64	7,570	243,400
Measured & Indicated	1.00	3.30	1.95	6,420	206,400

Category	Cut-off grade (g/t)	Tonnes (million)	Grade Au (g/t)	Au (kg)	Au (oz)
Inferred	0.30	22.63	1.09	24,610	791,300
Inferred	0.40	20.70	1.16	23,920	769,200
Inferred	0.50	18.28	1.25	22,830	734,100
Inferred	0.75	12.96	1.51	19,520	627,500
Inferred	1.00	8.68	1.82	15,800	508,100

Figure 1. Plan Map Mineral Deposits and Zones, significant drill hole intercepts*, soil geochem summary on color-contoured analytical signal; magnetic data

*All gold grades over width, with the exception of the Soa, Berola and Gourbassi prospects, represent drill holes with the true widths, for most holes, ranging from 65 to 95%. Estimated true widths for the Soa and Berola prospects are unknown. Estimated true widths at the Gourbassi Zones are estimated to range from 60% to 90%.

Mogoyafara South

This deposit was acquired in 2021 as part of the Kolomba concession application, a contiguous claim at the south end of the SMSZ property package. The Company’s database included most of the work completed over this zone by Hyundai, which was carried out in the early 2000’s. Multiple gold-bearing lenses have been discovered within an open-ended 1,900 metre by 1,300 metre area (see Figure 2). The modelled deposit, based on 24,362 metres of drilling in 329 drill holes comprises 34, generally shallow dipping, northeast- and northwest-trending, gold mineralized wire frames. Individual lenses returned highlight intercepts of 2.15 g/t Au over 29 metres (estimated true width 25 metres), 2.04 g/t Au over 41 metres (estimated true width of 35 metres) and 1.40 g/t Au over 55 metres (estimated true width of 40 metres). Higher grade intercepts include 20.87 g/t Au over 6 metres (true width is unknown due to lack of data).

The resource totals 12.29 million tonnes grading 1.05 g/t gold for 412,800 ounces of gold. Modelling indicates that the zone is likely open to depth with additional lenses possible to the east and west.

This deposit, is hosted by, in order of abundance, quartzite, siltstone, conglomerate, felsic intrusions and mafic intrusions. Desert Gold has validated the location of 54 of the drill collars. The Mogoyafara South Zone lies just east of the interpreted location of the Senegal Mali Shear Zone. Anomalous rock samples and gold-in termite samples show potential to extend the zone to the south for another 1,200 metres. As well, gold-in-auger values shows the potential to extend the target area another 800 metres to the north.

Figure 2. Mogoyafara South modelled wire frames and resource pits

Barani

The Barani East zones comprise the Barani East, Barani Gap and Keniegoulou (as a group, referred to as Barani), which are all deemed to be part of one structural zone and the KE Zone, which lies to the northwest of the Barani East Zone. The Barani Zone, shown below in Figure 3, which was wire framed, was not added to the resource model due to uncertainties with the interpretation.

Resources for the Barani East Zone group comprise 0.61 million tonnes Measured Mineral Resource grading 2.20 g/t gold totalling 43,200 ounces of gold, 0.88 million tonnes Indicated Mineral Resources grading 1.70 g/t gold totalling 48,000 ounces of gold and 2.70 million tonnes Inferred Mineral Resources grading 1.54 g/t gold totalling 133,900 ounces of gold.

The Barani East lenses are interpreted as a curved mineralized structural feature, which varies from aligned semi-parallel to the Senegal Mali Shear Zone to parallel to a northeast-trending cross-structure. Mineralization along this structure can be traced for approximately 2,500 metres along strike and appears to be open both along strike and to depth. This group of deposits are hosted by a mixture of sandstone, siltstone, limestone and locally dolerite. Some of the best mineralized intercepts on the property, occur in the cross-cutting portion of the Barani East zone with intercepts to 6.28 g/t Au over 13 metres and 7.82 g/t Au over 13 metres.

The KE Zone lies on the western edge to the Barani area. It is a flat-lying, northerly-trending mineralized series of gold-bearing lenses with a best drill intercept of 5.89 g/t gold over 6 metres (approximately 5.5 metres true width). The zone has been intersected for 450 metres along strike, from 20 to 70 metres vertical depth and is locally 100 metres wide. It is open to both the north and the south. All drilling on this gold system was carried out by Hyundai.

Figure 3. Barani East Area modelled wire frames and resource pits

Gourbassi West

The Gourbassi West Deposit lies in the southwest corner of the SMSZ Property, just north of the Senegal-Mali border, which is marked by the Faleme river. The concession that hosts this and the Gourbassi East deposits was acquired in 2019 through the acquisition of Ashanti Gold. Since acquisition, Desert Gold has developed a new mineralization model and tested the revised model with a drill. The Gourbassi West deposit is a north-northwest trending to northly trending series of gold-bearing lenses. The Gourbassi West Zone consists of 36, interpreted, lenses of gold mineralization that have been traced for approximately 1,100 metres along strike (see Figure 4) and to 185 metres depth. It is locally open along strike and is open to depth. It consists of Measured Mineral Resources of 1.77 million tonnes grading 0.96 g/t gold totalling 54,600 ounces, Indicated Mineral Resources of 2.97 million tonnes grading 0.80 g/t gold totalling 76,700 ounces of gold and Inferred Mineral Resources of 2.44 million tonnes grading 0.94 g/t gold totalling 73,400 ounces of gold.

Drill holes have returned intercepts to 3.52 g/t gold over 33 metres (approximately 28 metres true width). Thicker mineralized zones appear to plunge shallowly to the north. The mineralized lenses are hosted by intermediate volcanic rocks, silicified hydrothermal breccias and quartz-rich sediments, immediately to the east of a major, north-northeast trending, likely structural, geological contact. Hydrothermal breccias are common in the Gourbassi West area and are often gold bearing. The hydrothermal breccias and siliceous, chert-like units continue intermittently for at least 1,100 metres to the north of the Gourbassi West Zone, where weak to moderate strength, gold-in-soil anomalies to 170 ppb gold, have been noted. Induced polarization (IP) resistivity high anomalies correlate quite well with the mineralized zones, which are generally silicified, sericitic and pyritic.

Figure 4. Gourbassi West Resource modelled wire frames and resource pit

Gourbassi East Zone

The Gourbassi East Zone (see figure 1 for location) consists of at least seven, north-northwest trending lenses of gold mineralization up to 37 metres wide, that have been traced for approximately 800 metres along strike to 250 metres depth (see Figure 5). One of the deeper holes returned 7.49 g/t gold over 11 metres (true width approximately 6 metres). This zone is dominantly hosted by pyritic, quartz-veined, sericitic, high titanium, intermediate composition volcanic rocks. It consists of Indicated Mineral Resources of 2.24 million tonnes grading 1.22 g/t gold totalling 87,900 ounces of gold and Inferred Mineral Resources of 1.88 million tonnes grading 1.37 g/t gold totalling 82,800 ounces of gold.

Felsic volcanics have been noted in the area, but, their relationship with the mineralized zones is uncertain. Magnetic and mapping data, indicates that the thickest part of the gold zone lies near a northerly-trending, shear zone contact with a northwesterly-trending magnetite iron formation. Induced polarization resistivity high anomalies, correlate quite well with the trend of the gold mineralized lenses.

Figure 5. Gourbassi East modelled wire frames and resource pit

Linnguekoto West

The Linnguekoto West Deposit lies on the Kolomba concession near the southern part of the SMSZ property.

The northwest-trending Linnguekoto West Zone lies immediately east of a northeast-trending mafic dyke that is related to the Barani East gold zone. This dyke is believed to occupy a shear zone that is locally gold-bearing that can be traced for approximately 25 kilometres as it passes through the property. Previous exploration at Linnguekoto West comprised 78 holes totalling 6,532 metres. This northeast-trending zone can be traced for 500 metres along strike (see Figure 6) with the deepest holes intersecting gold mineralization to approximately 140 metres vertical. Gold mineralization remains open to depth and along strike. Best fit modelling suggests a steep west dipping, generally higher grade, 1.5 to 7 metre wide gold bearing lens, that is both cut by and related to, up to six, shallow-east-dipping subordinate gold-bearing lenses with grades to 2.62 over 15 metres (estimated 14 metres true width). The steeply dipping lens has returned highlighted grades to 16.07 g/t Au over 7 metres (estimated true width of 4.0 metres), 7.78 g/t Au over 19 metres (estimated true width 4.9 metres) and 3.51 g/t Au over 29 metres (estimated true width of 8 metres).

While the Company has a complete drill database and have validated the location of several drill holes in the field, the location of the core/RC chips and original assay certificates is unknown. However, from the Company’s follow-up of other exploration prospects that Hyundai has worked on such as Barani East, the Company has high confidence in the quality and accuracy of the drill dataset. That said, drilling to validate the grades and interpretation of the interpreted gold-bearing lenses will still be required.

Figure 6. Linnguekoto West modelled wire frames and resource pit

Next Steps Guidance

Drill results for a recent 72 hole, 2,890 metre drill program, that tested the new, Gourbassi West North Zone are pending. Follow-up drilling is planned pending results.

An additional, exploration program consisting of approximately 17,000 metres of drilling will be carried out subject to financing with work plans as follows.

Model validation and exploration holes with a goal to resource expansion, have been planned over Mogoyafara South and Linneguekoto West. This drilling is proposed to commence once surface geological mapping and ground magnetic surveys have been completed over Mogoyafara South.

Follow-up drilling of gold-bearing drill intercepts from 2021 and previous exploration programs is planned at the Manakoto, Kamana, Soa, Kolon, Sorokoto North, Barani East, Frikidi, Gourbassi West, Gourbassi East and Gourbassi Northeast Zones. The goal of testing these targets is to determine potential for Mineral Resources.

Untested gold-in auger anomalies have been prioritized will be tested with a focus on anomalies >100 ppb gold.

Additional auger surveys are being contemplated in the Gourbassi West North and Mogoyafara areas.

QAQC

All auger and drill samples are delivered to SGS in Bamako, Mali where they are prepped. The prepped samples, are both shipped by truck to SGS’s facility in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, or remain at SGS’s laboratory in Bamako, for Au determination by fire assay. Standards, assay blanks and sample duplicates, are inserted into the assay stream every 22 to 30 samples, respectively equaling one control sample for every approximately every 8 assay samples. All assay batches are reviewed for quality with re-assays requested 20 samples on either side of standards that assay more than 2 to 3 SD from an excepted value and for blanks that contain more than 10 ppb gold.

Ashanti Gold drill results QAQC Procedures for the Gourbassi Zones

Certified Reference Materials and Blanks were inserted into the sample stream at the rate of 1:20 samples. Field duplicates are collected at the rate of 1:50 samples. All samples have been analyzed by SGS Laboratories in Bamako with standard preparation methods and 50g fire assay with atomic absorption finish. SGS does their own introduction of QA/QC samples into the sample stream and reports them to Ashanti for double checking. Higher grade samples are reanalyzed from pulp or reject material or both.

Hyundai QAQC Procedures

Desert Gold does not have any information regarding Hyundai’s QAQC procedures. However, based on follow-up of historic drill results in the Barani Area indicates an acceptable level of accuracy.

This press release contains certain scientific and technical information. The Company is solely responsible for the contents and accuracy of any scientific and technical information related to it. Uwe Englemann, Director Geology & Exploration of Minxcon and Don Dudek, P.Geo. a director of Desert Gold both Qualified Persons under National Instrument 43-101, have reviewed and approved the scientific and technical information contained in this press release.

On Behalf of the Board

“Jared Scharf”

___________________________
Jared Scharf
President & CEO

About Desert Gold

Desert Gold Ventures Inc. is a gold exploration and development company which holds 2 gold exploration permits in Western Mali (SMSZ Project and Djimbala) and its Rutare gold project in central Rwanda. For further information please visit www.SEDAR.com under the company’s profile. Website: www.desertgold.ca.

This news release contains forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements entail various risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in these forward-looking statements. Such statements are based on current expectations, are subject to a number of uncertainties and risks, and actual results may differ materially from those contained in such statements. These uncertainties and risks include, but are not limited to, the strength of the capital markets, the price of gold; operational, funding, liquidity risks, the degree to which Mineral Resource estimates are reflective of actual Mineral Resources, the degree to which factors which would make a mineral deposit commercially viable, and the risks and hazards associated with mining operations. Risks and uncertainties about the Company’s business are more fully discussed in the company’s disclosure materials filed with the securities regulatory authorities in Canada and available at www.sedar.com and readers are urged to read these materials. The Company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement or to update the reasons why actual results could differ from such statements unless required by law. Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its regulation services provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy the securities described herein in the United States. The securities described herein have not been and will not be registered under the United States securities act of 1933, as amended, and may not be offered or sold in the United States or to the account or benefit of a U.S. person absent an exemption from the registration requirements of such act.

Contact
Jared Scharf, President and CEO
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Tel. No.: +1 (858) 247-8195

Source link

January 17, 2022

Rockcliff Metals Files Bur Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate 3.02Mt Measured and Indicated at 3.84 % Copper Equivalent and 2.34Mt Inferred at 4.00% Copper Equivalent

2021-11-22 06:56:08

Toronto, Ontario–(Newsfile Corp. – November 22, 2021) – Rockcliff Metals Corporation (CSE: RCLF) (FSE: RO0A) (WKN: A2H60G) (“Rockcliff” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce the filing of a National Instrument 43-101-Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101“) technical report titled “Technical Report Bur Zone Project Manitoba, Canada” (the “Technical Report“) in respect of a Mineral Resource Estimate prepared by Mr. Derek Loveday P.Geo., Project Manager of Stantec Consulting Ltd. (“Stantec“) on the Bur Property.

Don Christie, interm President and CEO, commented, “We are very pleased to add a project with the significance of Bur to our existing portfolio of development projects. Bur is a material, high-grade, resource of copper and zinc which remains open in all directions and is strategically located in the active Snow Lake mining camp. We look forward to further testing the deposit in order to determine its actual size and to investigate numerous priority areas along strike of the deposit that remain underexplored.”

A copy of the Technical Report is available on the Company’s SEDAR issuer profile at www.SEDAR.com and the Company’s website at http://rockcliffmetals.com.

The Technical Report prepared by Stantec with an effective date of October 26, 2021 is summarized below.

Bur Property Mineral Resource Estimate at 2.3% CuEq Cut-Off ^(1-1¹⁾

Classification Tonnes
(k) Cu
(%) Zn
(%) Au
(g/t) Ag
(g/t) CuEq
(%) Cu
(Mlbs) Zn
(Mlbs) Au
(koz) Ag
(koz) CuEq
(Mlbs)

Measured 338 1.54 3.58 0.05 12.94 2.87 11.48 26.68 0.54 140.62 21.39

Indicated 2,679 1.70 6.45 0.02 3.41 3.97 100.41 380.95 1.72 293.71 234.48

Measured/Indicated 3,017 1.69 6.13 0.02 4.48 3.84 112.37 407.59 1.94 434.41 255.33

Inferred 2.342 1.03 8.65 0.00 0.91 4.04 53.18 446.62 0.00 68.52 208.59

CIM definitions are followed for classification of Mineral Resource.

Mineral resources are contained within a mineralized vein (zone) dipping at approximately 60 degrees towards the northwest whose closest vertical depth from surface is 6 m and maximum vertical depth is 1,274 m.

Resources are constrained to a minimum true vein thickness of 0.2 m and where calculated block revenues after recovery are greater than costs for mining.

CuEQ (%) = Cu(%) + Zn(%) x 0.347 + Au(gpt) x 0.430 +Ag(gpt) x 0.005

ZnEQ (%) = Cu(%) x 2.885 + Zn(%) + Au(gpt) x 1.241 + Ag(gpt) x 0.016

CuEQ and ZnEQ formulas are calculated using the following revenue inputs: Cu US$ 3.26/lb, Zn US$ 1.13/lb, Au US$ 1,744/oz, and Ag US$ 22.05/oz. Metal recoveries are: 80% Cu, 80% Zn, 40% Au and 40% Ag.

Mining costs used to determine prospects for eventual economic extraction total C$110/t.

US$ to C$ exchange rate applied is 1:1.31.

Specific gravity for the mineralized zone is fixed at 3.1.

Totals may not represent the sum of the parts due to rounding.

The Mineral Resource estimate has been prepared by Derek Loveday, P. Geo. of Stantec Consulting Services Ltd. in conformity with CIM “Estimation of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserves Best Practices” guidelines and are reported in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators NI 43-101. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that any mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserve.

The 100% owned Bur Property is part of the Company’s extensive Manitoba property portfolio, has excellent infrastructure with a year-round access road, clearing for portable buildings, and a box cut and portal. The Bur Property lies within the Flin Flon-Snow Lake greenstone belt (“the Belt“), the largest

Paleoproterozoic VMS district in the world and the most prolific VMS district in Canada.

The 100% owned Bur Property is part of the Company’s extensive Manitoba property portfolio (see Figure 1), has excellent infrastructure with a year-round access road, clearing for portable buildings, and a box cut and portal (see Image 1). The Bur Property lies within the Flin Flon-Snow Lake greenstone belt (“the Belt“), the largest Paleoproterozoic VMS district in the world and the most prolific VMS district in Canada.

Figure 1: Rockcliff’s property portfolio (in purple) within the Flin Flon-Snow Lake greenstone belt

Image 1: Bur site is accessible by road leading to a previously constructed box-cut and portal.

Bur Mineralization and Resource Expansion Potential

The Bur Deposit is a sediment hosted stratiform volcanogenic massive sulphide (VMS) deposit that occurs within a narrow turbidite assemblage of interbedded metagreywacke, metasiltstone and graphitic meta-argillite in a basinal area situated between two granitic intrusions. The northeast striking deposit dips 60-70 degrees northwest, averages 2.0 metres true thick and ranges from <0.3 metres up to 9 metres thick and to date has a known lateral extent of approximately 8,000 metres. Historic and recent drilling throughout the Bur Property has encountered near surface, disseminated, semi-massive and massive sulphide mineralization below shallow overburden along a strike length of over 6,000 metres and to a vertical depth of 1,274 metres (see Figure 2). Mineralization consists of sphalerite, chalcopyrite, pyrrhotite, pyrite, galena and arsenopyrite. The Bur Deposit remains open in all directions and contains up to 20% felsic or cherty nodules consisting of wall-rock and late quartz fragments displaying a brecciated texture to the mineralization.

Figure 2: Bur Deposit Longitudinal Projection Highlighting Measured (green), Indicated (yellow) and Inferred (orange) Mineral Resources

Resource Estimate Methodology

The Mineral Resource Estimate reported herein, considered drilling information available up to 2020 and was evaluated using a geostatistical block modeling approach constrained by polymetallic mineralization wireframes utilizing MinePlan 3D© software Version 15-80-2 modeling software. The evaluation of the Mineral Resource Estimate involved CuEq cut-off value determination, constraining wireframe solids creation, compositing, grade capping, variography, grade Interpolation and Mineral Resource Estimate quantification.

A total of 238 drill holes (totalling 107,101 metres) from the entire database were reviewed and 208 of those drill holes (totalling 101,676 metres) were utilized to create the constraining wireframes (mineralized zone). The constraining wireframes have an overall strike length of 6,060 metres, down dip projection of 1,464 metres and average true width of 2 metres. There were 1,116 assays captured by the constraining wireframes that were combined into 436 regular 1-metre composites with an average core length of 2.25 metres. A grade capping evaluation was performed and grades were capped at 6.5% for copper (Cu), 30% for zinc (Zn), 0.35 g/t for gold (Au) and 40 g/t for silver (Ag). The capped composites were evaluated using variography to determine the grade interpolation search ranges and also used for resource assurance (classification). Resource classification is influenced by distance to the nearest drill hole sample composite, age of the exploration data and number of drill hole intercepts through the mineralized zone. For measured resources, a minimum of 3 sampled intercepts within 50 metres from Rockcliff-only drill holes is used as a guide. For indicated resources 3 sampled drill hole intercepts up to 100 mtertes and for inferred a minimum of one sampled intercept per drill hole up to 200 metres is used as a guide.

Grade interpolation was undertaken from 1-metre regular drillhole composited through the mineralized zone into a horizontally rotated 3D block model orientated along strike (045 degrees) of the mineralized zone. An ID3 method of estimation was used for Cu, Zn, Au and Ag grade data that was estimated in a regular block size of 20 metres along stike, 2.5 metres across-strike and 5 metres vertical. Bulk density was derived from 61 specific gravity (SG) measurements taken from within the mineralized zone that ranged from a minimum of 2.76 to 3.76, generating a median and average SG of 3.1. Density from within the mineralized zone for resource reporting was fixed at 3.1. The subsequent block model grades and tonnages were quantified for the Mineral Resource Estimate at a 2.3% CuEq cut-off value.

Neither Rockcliff’s Qualified Person, Ken Lapierre, P.Geo., nor Stantec’s Qualified Person, Derek Loveday, P.Geo., nor management of Rockcliff are aware of any known environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing or other relevant issues that may materially affect the estimate of the Mineral Resource.

Quality Control and Quality Assurance

Samples of half core were packaged and shipped directly from Rockcliff’s core facility in Snow Lake to TSL Laboratories (TSL), in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. TSL is a Canadian assay laboratory and is accredited under ISO/IEC 17025. Each bagged core sample was dried, crushed to 70% passing 10 mesh and a 250g pulp is pulverized to 95% passing 150 mesh for assaying. A 0.5g cut is taken from each pulp for base metal analyses and leached in a multi acid (total) digestion and then analyzed for copper, lead, zinc and silver by atomic absorption. Gold concentrations are determined by fire assay using a 30g charge followed by an atomic absorption finish. Samples greater than the upper detection limit (3000 ppb) are reanalyzed using fire assay gravimetric using a 1 assay ton charge. Rockcliff inserted certified blanks and standards in the sample stream to ensure lab integrity. Rockcliff has no relationship with TSL other than TSL being a service provider to the Company.

The Mineral Resource for the Bur Property disclosed in this press release has been estimated by Mr. Derek Loveday, P.Geo. a Project Manger for Stantec and is independent of Rockcliff. By virtue of his education and relevant experience Mr. Loveday is a “Qualified Persons” for the purpose of National Instrument 43-101. Mr. Loveday has read and approved the technical contents of this press release as it pertains to the disclosed Mineral Resource Estimate.

Ken Lapierre P.Geo., VP Exploration of Rockcliff, a Qualified Person in accordance with Canadian regulatory requirements as set out in NI 43-101, has read and approved the scientific and technical information that forms the basis for the disclosure contained in this press release.

About Rockcliff Metals Corporation

Rockcliff is a Canadian resource development and exploration company with several advanced-stage, high-grade copper and VMS dominant deposits in the Snow Lake area of central Manitoba. The Company is a major landholder in the Belt which is the largest Paleoproterozoic VMS district in the world, hosting high-grade mines and deposits containing copper, zinc, gold and silver. The Company’s extensive portfolio of properties totals approximately 4,000 km² and includes seven of the highest grade, undeveloped VMS deposits in the Belt. Rockcliff has a joint venture with Hudbay at the Company’s 49% owned Talbot Copper Deposit.

For more information, please visit http://rockcliffmetals.com
YouTube: Rockcliff Metals Corporation
Twitter: @RockcliffMetals
LinkedIn: Rockcliff Metals Corp
Instagram: Rockcliff_Metals
Facebook: Rockcliff Metals Corporation

For further information, please contact:

Rockcliff Metals Corporation
Don Christie
Interm President & CEO
Cell: (416) 409-8441
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements:

This news release contains “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. Generally, these forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “plans”, “expects”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates”, or “believes”, or the negatives and / or variations of such words and phrases, or state that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will be taken”, “occur”, “be achieved” or “has the potential to”. In particular, the forward-looking statements in this press release include, without limitation, statements regarding: future projected production, capital costs and operating costs, recovery methods and rates, development methods and plans, commodity prices and Mineral Resource Estimates. Statements relating to “Mineral Resources” are deemed to be forward-looking information, as they involve the implied assessment that, based on certain estimates and assumptions, the Mineral Resources described can be profitably produced in the future.

Forward looking statements are based on the certain assumptions opinions and estimates as of the date such statements are made, and they are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include: delays resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, changes in market conditions, unsuccessful exploration results, possibility of project cost overruns or unanticipated costs and expenses, changes in the costs and timing of the development of new deposits, inaccurate resource estimates, changes in the price of copper or zinc, unanticipated changes in key management personnel and general economic conditions. Mining exploration and development is an inherently risky business. The Company believes that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable but no assurance can be given that these expectations will prove to be accurate and results may differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements. For a discussion in respect of risks and other factors that could influence forward-looking statements, please refer to the factors discussed in the Company’s Management Discussion and Analysis for the year ended March 31, 2021 under the heading ‘Risk Factors’. These factors are not and should not be construed as being exhaustive.

Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The forward-looking information contained in this news release is expressly qualified by this cautionary statement. Any forward-looking information and the assumptions made with respect thereto speaks only as of the date of this news release. The Company does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking information after the date of this news release to conform such information to actual results or to changes in the Company’s expectations except as otherwise required by applicable legislation.

Source link

November 22, 2021

Elevation Gold Announces 36% Increase to Measured and Indicated Resources at the Moss Mine, Arizona in New Technical Report

2021-10-21 04:03:22

Current Reserve Larger than Total Gold Ounces Mined to Date

VANCOUVER, BC, Oct. 21, 2021 /CNW/ – Elevation Gold Mining Corporation (TSXV: ELVT) (OTC: NHVCD) (the “Company” or “Elevation Gold”) a U.S. gold and silver producer with district scale exploration projects in the Walker Lane Trend of Nevada and Arizona is pleased to report updated Mineral Reserve, Mineral Resource estimates and Technical Report for its Moss Mine, located in Mohave County Arizona. The Company also provides production results for the quarter ended September 30, 2021.

Elevation Gold’s new leadership believes the Moss Mine and surrounding 168 square kilometer land package possesses unrealized gold exploration potential. Consequently, the Company began an aggressive near mine and regional exploration drilling program in March of this year to deliver new resource ounces while beginning to demonstrate the potential of the property.

The updated Mineral Reserve and Resource Estimates disclosed in this press release will be included in a technical report (the “Technical Report”), to be filed on SEDAR under the Company’s profile within 45 days of this press release. The Technical Report represents an interim update, which only incorporates the results of the drilling to a May 24, 2021, cut-off.

Since this cut-off date, Elevation has completed approximately 100 drill holes and continues to encounter significant mineralization, which are not included in the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates presented in this new Technical Report.

Dollar amounts are United States Dollars unless otherwise noted.

Technical Report Highlights:

Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves of 12,744 ktonnes with grades of 0.45 g/t gold and 5.4 g/t silver containing 184,500 ounces of gold and 2.2 million ounces of silver (Table 1)

Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources of 38,857 ktonnes with grades of 0.39 g/t gold and 4.6 g/t silver, containing 490,200 ounces of gold and 5.75 million ounces of silver with Inferred Mineral Resources of 6,562 ktonnes with grades of 0.35 g/t gold and 4.5 g/t silver, containing 73,800 oz gold and 940,000 oz silver (Table 3)

Life of Mine plan only based on the Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve estimate extends the Moss Mine Life to 2025, mining ore at 11,000 tons per day, with an average strip ratio of 0.88:1

Pre-tax NPV(5%) $50.8 million, after-tax NPV(5%) $45.3 million at $1,700/oz gold and $18.50/oz silver

Chairman, Douglas J. Hurst commented, “The Moss Mine has been historically constrained by tenure and permitting that limited the mine’s footprint and production capacity. It has also hindered the Company’s ability to expand the resources and reserves. These constraints have now largely been removed, and the potential of the property is just beginning to be realized.”

President, Michael G. Allen commented, “The updated reserve estimate and mine plan for the Moss Mine is a foundational piece in the transformation of the Company. Approximately 100 drillholes have been completed since the data for the resource was cut off and results received to date continue to demonstrate growth potential of the resource. Additional near-mine to regional exploration opportunities on our 168 square kilometer land package are being targeted and will systematically drilled later this year and well into 2022.”

Mineral Reserves and Resources
The current reserves are larger than the total ounces produced by the mine to date, demonstrating our ability to replace ounces through exploration. The Proven and Probable Reserve estimate was constrained by the existing infrastructure of the mine. In the future, infrastructure may be relocated to allow the Moss Mine to realize the full economic benefits of the additional near mine mineralization being defined by the ongoing exploration drilling program.

Table 1 Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve Effective, July 1, 2021

Ore

Gold

Silver

Cont. Au

Cont. Ag

Classification

ktonnes

g/t

g/t

000’s oz

000’s oz

Proven

4,611

0.46

5.8

68.1

858.8

Probable

8,133

0.44

5.1

116.4

1,342.0

Proven + Probable

12,744

0.45

5.4

184.5

2,200.8

Notes:

Metal Prices used for Mineral Reserves: $1,525/oz gold; $18.50/oz silver

Reserves are tabulated at a 0.21 g/t gold cutoff grade.

The topography date used for tabulating the Mineral Reserve is 1 July 2021.

Metric tonnages are reported. Ktonnes are 1,000 metric tonnes.

The Mineral Reserve estimate was prepared by Jacob Richey, of Independent Mining Consultants Inc.

g/t is grams per metric tonne.

Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding.

Mineral Reserve estimate was prepared in accordance with CIM Definition Standards

The final pit design and internal phase designs that contain the Mineral Reserve were guided by the results of the Lerchs-Grossman (“LG”) algorithm using the following parameters. The inputs in Table 2 were chosen early in project work and therefore are similar to but different from the final costs and recoveries reported in the Technical Report. A check was completed at the end of project work to confirm the designed ultimate pit geometry was appropriate for the updated costs and recoveries.

Table 2: Input Parameters to Reserve LG Algorithm

Input Parameter

Value

Gold Payable

100

%

Silver Payable

20

%

Royalty

4.50

%

Marketing Cost

10.00

$/oz gold

Gold Recovery

77

%

Silver Recovery

55

%

Mining Cost Insitu

2.84

$/t material mined

Incremental Cost Below 1900′

0.02

$/t/bench

Bench Discounting

0.50

%/bench

Mining Cost for Fill

1.87

$/t material mined

Process Cost

4.33

$/t ore

G&A Cost

1.77

$/t ore

Mineral Resources

The updated Mineral Resource estimate represents a 36% increase in Measured and Indicated Resources when compared to our December 2019 Mineral Resource Estimate. Elevation Gold’s history of being able to replace and expand on Measured and Indicated Resources, as well as our improved understanding of the geological controls on mineralization at the Moss Mine bodes well for Elevation Gold’s ability to further expand the Mineral Resources going forward.

Table 3: Moss Mine Project Mineral Resources, Effective July 1, 2021

Material Type

Cutoff
Grade

Tonnage

Head Grade

Contained Metal

Classification

g/t Au

ktonnes

Au
(g/t)

Ag
(g/t)

Au
(koz)

Ag (koz)

Measured

0.15

8,398

0.40

5.1

107.4

1,389.0

Indicated

0.15

30,460

0.39

4.5

382.8

4,365.0

Measured +
Indicated

0.15

38,857

0.39

4.6

490.2

5,754.0

Inferred

0.15

6,562

0.35

4.5

73.8

940.0

Notes:

The Mineral Resource is inclusive of the Mineral Reserve

Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability

Mineral Resource was prepared in accordance with CIM Definition Standards

Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding

Metal Prices used: $1,800/oz gold, $22.00/oz silver

Metric tonnages are reported. ktonnes are 1,000 metric tonnes, koz are 1,000 troy ounces, g/t is gram per metric tonne.

The Mineral Resource estimate was prepared by Jacob Richey, of Independent Mining Consultants Inc

The mineral resource is constrained within an LG pit shell; the inputs to the pit optimization are set out in Table 4.

Table 4: Pit Optimization Parameters for Defining Mineral Resource

Input Parameter

Value

Gold Payable

100

%

Silver Payable

20

%

Royalty

4.50

%

Marketing Cost

10.00

$/oz gold

Gold Recovery

77

%

Silver Recovery

43

%

Mining Cost in situ

2.89

$/ton

Incremental Cost Below 1900′

0.02

$/ton/bench

Bench Discounting

0.00

%/bench

Mining Cost Fill

1.97

$/ton

Process Cost

4.18

$/ton ore

G&A Cost

1.77

$/ton ore

Slope Angles:

North Wall

63

degrees

South Wall

45

degrees

Fill Material

37

degrees

Economic Analysis

The Moss Mine economic analysis is a conventional discounted cash flow. The analysis, based solely on Mineral Reserves, calculates annual cash flow projections over the life of mine as it is currently understood and incorporates metal sales costs, royalties and taxes. The analysis is based on 2021 third quarter U.S. dollars.

Since the Moss Mine has already been operational for four years, the only metric used to summarize the economic model is the discounted and non-discounted net present value (“NPV”).

The base case metal prices for the financial analysis are $1,700/oz for gold and $18.50/oz for silver. Table 5 summarizes the economic model results at three sets of metal prices:

1)    Base case prices ($1,700/oz gold and $18.50/oz silver),

2)    Spot metal prices at October 1, 2021 ($1,757/oz gold and, $ 22.10/oz silver), and

3)    Mineral Reserve metal prices ($1,525/oz gold, $18.50/oz silver).

Table 5: Financial Model Results ($USD Millions)

Metal Prices:

$1,700/oz Au

$18.50/oz Ag

$1,757/oz Au

$22.10/oz Ag

$1,525/oz Au

$18.50/oz Ag

After-Tax Cash Flow (Undiscounted)

54.2

60.3

31.6

After-Tax NPV(5%)

45.3

50.6

25.9

Pre-Tax Cash Flow (Undiscounted)

60.7

68.8

35.7

Pre-Tax NPV(5%)

50.8

57.8

29.4

The start date for the economic analysis is July 1, 2021. All discounted metrics are discounted to 1 July 2021. The second half of 2021 is treated as a full year when applying discounting for simplicity.

Post Resource Drilling

The Company has continued drilling since the drilling data cut-off dates for the Mineral Resource estimate contained in the Technical Report, with numerous significant mineralized intercepts as reported in the Company’s news releases dated June 10, July 27, and September 8, 2021 indicating that the resource and reserve are capable of expansion. Approximately 100 holes have been drilled since the drillhole database was finalized for the purposes of the Mineral Resource estimate.

Operating Results for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2021:

Production in the quarter was negatively impacted by the transition from the Phase 2 leach pad to the Phase 3 leach pad, which constrained the Company’s ability to stack and leach crushed ore for a period of 40 days of this quarter (Table 6). In addition, grade was impacted as marginal ore was stacked as overliner, which is coarsely crushed and placed on top of the liner before ore is stacked. Low-grade ore is used for overliner as the coarser crush decreases recovery.

Operations are normalizing and consequently management expects gold production to improve in the 4^th quarter of 2021.

Table 6: Operating Results Q3 2021

Quarter Ended
Sep 30, 2021

Quarter Ended
Sep 30, 2020

Ore mined ⁽¹⁾

tonnes

730,447

706,629

Gold Grade mined ⁽¹⁾

g/t

0.40

0.69

Ore tonnes stacked

tonnes

602,589

683,706

Ore tonnes stacked per calendar day
(average) ⁽²⁾

tpd

6,550

7,432

Gold ounces Produced

Oz

6,526

13,083

Silver ounces Produced

Oz

51,221

119,257

Gold equivalent ounces Produced ⁽³⁾

Oz

7,209

14,673

(1) Includes 112,000 tonnes of overliner material.

(2)   Ore tonnes stacked per calendar day excludes crushed overliner placed in advance of commissioning the new 3A heap leach pad. During Q3 2021, 19 calendar days were dedicated to placing overliner material.

(3)   Gold equivalent = Gold oz + (Ag oz / 75)

Qualified Persons

Jacob Richey P.E. of Independent Mining Consultants Inc. (“IMC”) is the primary author of the Technical Report, is a Qualified Person (“QP”) as defined in NI 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) and is independent of the Company. Mr. Richey has reviewed and approved the technical disclosure in this press release relating to the Technical Report.

A further description of the key assumptions, parameters and methods used to estimate mineral reserves and resources at the Moss Mine, as well as data verification procedures and a general discussion of the extent to which the estimates of scientific and technical information may be affected by any known legal, political or other relevant factors relating to the potential development of the Mineral Resources or Mineral Reserves, will be included in the Technical Report titled, “Technical Report on the Mineral Resource, Mineral Reserve, and Mine Plan for the Moss Mine” with an effective date of July 1, 2021 which is being prepared by Jacob Richey, Robert Cuffney (Geologist), Adam House and Nick Gow of Forte Dynamics (Metallurgists) and John Young of Great Basin Environmental Services.(Environmental/Permitting). The authors, by virtue of their education, experience and professional association, are QPs as defined in NI 43-101, are members in good standing of recognized professional organizations, and are independent of the Company.

Mr. Joseph Bardswich, P.Eng., President of Golden Vertex, is a Qualified Person (“QP”) as defined by NI 43-101 and has reviewed and approved the scientific and technical information contained in this news release as related to reported mining and mine production.

The exploration information in this news release was reviewed and approved by Dr. Warwick Board, Vice President of Exploration for Elevation Gold Mining Corporation. Dr. Board is a Qualified Person as defined by National Instrument 43-101.

About Elevation Gold Mining

Elevation Gold Mining offers investors a rare combination of cash flow, production, top-tier management, and exceptional exploration potential within two projects on the Walker Lane Gold Trend of western Nevada and Arizona. Management is executing a clear strategy that expands production and resources at the Moss Mine in Arizona while aggressively exploring the Hercules Project in Nevada.

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF ELEVATION GOLD MINING CORPORATION

“Michael G. Allen”

President

Cautionary Statement on Forward-Looking Information

Certain of the statements made and information contained herein is “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. All statements other than statements of historical facts included in this document constitute forward-looking information, including but not limited to statements regarding the Company’s plans, prospects and business strategies; the Company’s guidance on the timing and amount of future production and its expectations regarding the results of operations; expected costs; permitting requirements and timelines; timing and possible outcome of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimations, life of mine estimates, and mine plans; anticipated exploration and development activities at the Company’s projects; net present value; design parameters; economic potential; processing mineralized material; the potential of robust economic potential at the Moss Mine Project. Words such as “believe”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “contemplate”, “target”, “plan”, “goal”, “aim”, “intend”, “continue”, “budget”, “estimate”, “may”, “will”, “can”, “could”, “should”, “schedule” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking information is necessarily based upon various estimates and assumptions including, without limitation, the expectations and beliefs of management, including that the Company can access financing, appropriate equipment and sufficient labour; assumed and future price of gold, silver and other metals; anticipated costs; ability to achieve goals; and assumptions related to the factors set forth below. While these factors and assumptions are considered reasonable by the Company as at the date of this document in light of management’s experience and perception of current conditions and expected developments, these statements are inherently subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Known and unknown factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements and information. Such factors include, but are not limited to: risks inherent in mining, including, but not limited to risks to the environment, industrial accidents, catastrophic equipment failures, unusual or unexpected geological formations or unstable ground conditions, and natural phenomena such as earthquakes, flooding or unusually severe weather; uninsurable risks; global financial conditions and inflation; changes in the Company’s share price, and volatility in the equity markets in general; volatility and fluctuations in metal and commodity prices; the threat associated with outbreaks of viruses and infectious diseases, including the COVID-19 virus; delays or the inability to obtain, retain or comply with permits; risks related to negative publicity with respect to the Company or the mining industry in general; health and safety risks; exploration, development or mining results not being consistent with the Company’s expectations; unavailable or inaccessible infrastructure and risks related to ageing infrastructure; actual ore mined and/or metal recoveries varying from Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates, estimates of grade, tonnage, dilution, mine plans and metallurgical and other characteristics; risks associated with the estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves and the geology, grade and continuity of mineral deposits, including, but not limited to, models relating thereto; ore processing efficiency; information technology and cybersecurity risks; potential for the allegation of fraud and corruption involving the Company, its customers, suppliers or employees, or the allegation of improper or discriminatory employment practices; regulatory investigations, enforcement, sanctions and/or related or other litigation; estimates of future production and operations; estimates of operating cost estimates; the potential for and effects of labour disputes or other unanticipated difficulties with or shortages of labour or interruptions in production; risks related to the environmental regulation and environmental impact of the Company’s operations and products and management thereof; exchange rate fluctuations; climate change; risks relating to attracting and retaining of highly skilled employees; compliance with environmental, health and safety laws; counterparty and credit risks and customer concentration; litigation; changes in laws, regulations or policies including, but not limited to, those related to mining regimes, permitting and approvals, environmental and tailings management, and labour; internal controls; challenges or defects in title; funding requirements and availability of financing; dilution; risks relating to dividends; risks associated with acquisitions and related integration efforts, including the ability to achieve anticipated benefits, unanticipated difficulties or expenditures relating to integration and diversion of management time on integration; uncertainties relating to interpretation of drill results and the geology, continuity and grade of mineral deposits; uncertainty of estimates of capital and operating costs, production estimates and estimated economic return; uncertainty of meeting anticipated program milestones; and other risks and uncertainties including but not limited to those described the Company’s public disclosure documents which are available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com under the Company’s profile. All of the forward-looking statements made in this document are qualified by these cautionary statements. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, forecast or intended and readers are cautioned that the foregoing list is not exhaustive of all factors and assumptions which may have been used. Should one or more of these risks and uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those described in forward-looking information. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that forward-looking information will prove to be accurate and forward-looking information is not a guarantee of future performance. Readers are advised not to place undue reliance on forward-looking information. The forward-looking information contained herein speaks only as of the date of this document. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise forward–looking information or to explain any material difference between such and subsequent actual events, except as required by applicable law.

Source link

October 21, 2021

Discovery Silver Reports Measured & Indicated Resource of 910 Moz AgEq and Inferred Resource of 140Moz AgEq for Cordero

2021-10-20 04:03:28

TORONTO, Oct. 20, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Discovery Silver Corp. (TSX-V: DSV, OTCQX: DSVSF) (“Discovery” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce an updated Mineral Resource Estimate (“Resource”) on its flagship Cordero silver project (“Cordero” or “the Project”) located in Chihuahua State, Mexico. The Resource is pit-constrained with an estimated waste-to-ore ratio of 1.1 and is supported by 224,000 m of drilling in 517 drill holes and reinterpreted structural and geological models of the deposit. 87% of the contained metal is in the Measured and Indicated category. The Resource will be used to support an updated PEA scheduled for completion later this quarter. The size of the Resource positions Cordero as one of the largest development-stage silver projects globally. Highlights include:

SULPHIDE RESOURCE (assumed to be processed via mill/flotation)

Measured & Indicated Resource of 837 Moz AgEq¹ at an average grade of 48 g/t AgEq¹ (541 Mt grading 20 g/t Ag, 0.06 g/t Au, 0.29% Pb and 0.51% Zn)

Inferred Resource of 119 Moz AgEq¹ at an average grade of 34 g/t AgEq¹ (108 Mt grading 14 g/t Ag, 0.03 g/t Au, 0.19% Pb and 0.38% Zn)

High-grade subset – at a $25/t NSR cut-off a Measured & Indicated Resource of 509 Moz AgEq¹ at an average grade of 101 g/t AgEq¹ (42 g/t Ag, 0.11 g/t Au, 0.64% Pb and 1.04% Zn)

OXIDE/TRANSITION RESOURCE (assumed to be processed by heap leaching)

Measured & Indicated resource of 74 Moz AgEq¹ at an average grade of 23 g/t AgEq¹ (98 Mt grading 19 g/t Ag and 0.05 g/t Au)

Inferred Resource of 22 Moz AgEq¹ at an average grade of 20 g/t AgEq¹ (35Mt grading 16 g/t Ag and 0.04 g/t Au)

High-grade subset – at a $15/t NSR cut-off, a Measured & Indicated Resource of 26 Moz AgEq¹ at an average grade of 60 g/t AgEq¹ (52 g/t Ag and 0.09 g/t Au)

Taj Singh, President and CEO, states: “This resource estimate represents a huge step forward in advancing Cordero for two key reasons. First, close to 90% of the contained metal is in the Measured and Indicated category. This achievement is reflective of the tight drill spacing supporting the resource along with the continuity of mineralization within each estimation domain. Second, the resource demonstrates the large volume of higher-grade mineralization within the deposit. This, along with the low strip ratio, excellent metallurgy and adjacent infrastructure, provide a strong platform as we pursue our target of outlining an average production rate of at least 15 Moz of AgEq per year for a minimum of 15 years with cash costs in the lowest half of the industry cost curve in our PEA later this quarter. Finally, we would also like to acknowledge the excellent work of our Mexican team in managing our sizeable drill program to deliver this very large and technically-robust resource.”

SULPHIDE RESOURCE:

Sulphide mineralization is categorized as all mineralization that sits beneath the oxide/transition boundary and is assumed to be processed via standard flotation processing. Sulphide mineralization extends to depths of more than 800 m below surface. The estimates in the below table sit within a pit shell that extends to a maximum depth of approximately 600 m.

The Sulphide Resource as outlined in the table below assumed a $7.25/t Net Smelter Return (“NSR”) cut-off (see Resource Estimate Summary section below).

NSR $/t cut-off Class Tonnes Grade Contained Metal

Ag Au Pb Zn AgEq Ag Au Pb Zn AgEq

(Mt) (g/t) (g/t) (%) (%) (g/t) (Moz) (koz) (Mlb) (Mlb) (Moz)

$7.25/t Measured 128 22 0.08 0.31 0.52 52 89 328 881 1,470 212

Indicated 413 19 0.05 0.28 0.51 47 255 707 2,543 4,663 625

M&I 541 20 0.06 0.29 0.51 48 344 1,035 3,424 6,132 837

Inferred 108 14 0.03 0.19 0.38 34 49 99 451 909 119

Please refer to the Supporting Technical Disclosure section for cautionary statements and underlying assumptions for the Resource.

Sulphide Resource Estimate – NSR Cut-off Sensitivity

A significant portion of the Sulphide Resource persists at higher NSR cut-offs as highlighted in the graph below. At an NSR cut-off $25/oz, the Measured & Indicated Resource is 509 Moz AgEq¹ at an average grade of 101 g/t AgEq¹ representing over 60% of the total Measured and Indicated Sulphide Resource.

OXIDE/TRANSITION RESOURCE:

Oxide/transition mineralization is categorised as all mineralization that is at or close to surface that is weathered (oxide) or partially weathered (transition). Oxide/transition mineralization is assumed to be processed via heap leaching. Lead and zinc are not incorporated in the Oxide/Transition Resource given these metals are not recoverable through heap leaching. The depth of the oxide/transition zone varies across the deposit from approximately 20 m in the Pozo de Plata zone to depths of up to 100 m in certain areas in the South Corridor and in the far north-east of the deposit.

The Oxide/Transition Resource as outlined in the table below assumed a $4.78/t NSR cut-off (see Resource Estimate Summary section below).

NSR $/t cut-off Class Tonnes Grade Contained Metal % Oxide / % Trans

Ag Au AgEq Ag Au AgEq

(Mt) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (Moz) (koz) (Moz)

$4.78/t Measured 23 20 0.06 25 15 43 19 92% / 8%

Indicated 75 19 0.05 23 45 125 56 87% / 13%

M&I 98 19 0.05 23 60 168 74 88% / 12%

Inferred 35 16 0.04 20 18 44 22 63% / 37%

Please refer to the Supporting Technical Disclosure section for cautionary statements and underlying assumptions for the Resource

Oxide/Transition Resource Estimate – NSR Cut-off Sensitivity

A graph showing sensitivities to the NSR cut-off is also provided below. At a $15 NSR cut-off the Oxide/Transition Measured & Indicated Resource is 26 Moz AgEq¹ averaging 60 g/t AgEq¹ highlighting the excellent potential to generate meaningful cash flow via heap leaching in the early years of the mine life.

RESOURCE SUMMARY:

Resource estimation:

The Resource was compiled by Rock Ridge Consulting Resource Geologists. Mo Srivastava of Red Dot 3D was retained to complete an independent third-party review of the Resource estimation methodology.

Supporting drill dataset consists of 224,000 m of drilling (517 drill holes); of this drilling 92,000 m of drilling (225 drill holes) was completed by the Company.

The Resource incorporates geological and structural constraints and is an in-pit resource containing a total of 782 Mt of Mineral Resource and 893 Mt of waste.

Net Smelter Return (NSR) cut-off:

NSR is defined as the net revenue from metal sales (taking in to account metallurgical recoveries and payabilities) less treatment costs and refining charges.

Sulphide mineral resources are reported at a $7.25/t NSR cut-off based on the estimated processing and G&A cost for sulphide mineralization.

Oxide/transition mineral resources are reported at a $4.78/t NSR cut-off based on the estimated processing and G&A cost for oxide/transition mineralization.

Pit constraint & NSR calculation assumptions:

Key assumptions are outlined directly below (the full list of assumptions can be found in the Appendix):

Commodity prices: Ag – $24.00/oz, Au – $1,800/oz, Pb – $1.10/lb, Zn – $1.20/lb.

Metallurgical recoveries: sourced from the Company’s 2021 test program – sulphides were based on locked cycle test work and oxides/transition was based on coarse bottle roll test work.

Operating costs:

Base mining costs of $1.54/t for ore and $1.64/t for waste (with incremental costs of $0.024/t per 10 m bench below the 1550 elevation) were developed by AGP Mining Consultants Inc.

Processing costs of $6.39/t for mill/flotation and $3.92/t for heap leaching and G&A costs of $0.86/t were developed by Ausenco Engineering Canada Inc.

Pit slopes: pit slope assumptions were based on a pit slope assessment completed by Knight Piésold and Co. (USA).

Commodity price assumptions were guided by the NI 43-101 requirement for the Resource to have ‘reasonable prospects’ of economic extraction. The Company plans to use a more conservative price deck for the PEA.

Growth Opportunities:

Bulk-tonnage targets: follow up drilling of historic holes that returned encouraging intercepts in the far north-east of the deposit within Domain 6 (see Estimation Domains below).

High-grade vein targets: future drilling to test extensions along strike and at depth at Todos Santos and along strike to the north-east of the Josefina vein trend.

SUPPORTING TECHNICAL DISCLOSURE:

Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

AgEq for the Sulphide Resource is calculated as Ag + (Au x 16.07) + (Pb x 32.55) + (Zn x 35.10); these factors are based on commodity prices of Ag – $24.00/oz, Au – $1,800/oz, Pb – $1.10/lb, Zn – $1.20/lb and assumed recoveries of Ag – 84%, Au – 18%, Pb – 87% and Zn – 88%.

AgEq for the Oxide/Transition Resource is calculated as Ag + (Au x 87.5); this factor is based on commodity prices of Ag – $24.00/oz and Au – $1,800/oz and assumed recoveries of Ag – 60% and Au – 70%.

The Resource is constrained by a pit optimisation; supporting parameters for this pit constraint are provided in the Pit Constraint Parameters section in the Appendix below.

Individual metals are reported at 100% of in-situ grade.

Sensitivity cut-offs reported are a subset of the in-pit Resource.

The effective date of the Resource is October 20, 2021, and is based on drilling through July 2021.

All figures are in US dollars unless otherwise noted.

There are no known legal, political, environmental or other risks that could materially affect the potential development of the Resource.

A full technical report will be prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 and will be filed on SEDAR within 45 days of this press release.

APPENDIX:

An appendix with the following supporting information can be found at the end of the release.

Resource Estimation Methodology

Estimation Domains

Variability & Capping

Pit Constraint Parameters

Long Sections / Cross Sections

Resource NSR Cut-off Tables

About Discovery

Discovery’s flagship project is its 100%-owned Cordero project, one of the few silver projects globally that offers margin, size and scaleability. Cordero is located close to infrastructure in a prolific mining belt in Chihuahua State, Mexico, and is supported by an industry leading balance sheet with over C$75 million available for aggressive exploration, resource expansion and future development. Discovery was a recipient of the 2020 TSX Venture 50 award and the 2021 OTCQX Best 50 award.

On Behalf of the Board of Directors,
Taj Singh, M.Eng, P.Eng, CPA,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

For further information contact:

Forbes Gemmell, CFA
VP Corporate Development & Investor Relations
Phone: 416-613-9410
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Website: www.discoverysilver.com

Qualified Person

The scientific and technical content of this press release was reviewed and approved by R. Mohan Srivastava who is a “Qualified Person” as defined by National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”). Mr. Srivastava is a consultant to Red Dot 3D, a geological consulting company specializing in mineral resource estimation, and is considered to be “independent” of Discovery for purposes of section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS:

Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy nor shall there be any sale of any of the securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful, including any of the securities in the United States of America. The securities have not been and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”) or any state securities laws and may not be offered or sold within the United States or to, or for account or benefit of, U.S. Persons (as defined in Regulation S under the 1933 Act) unless registered under the 1933 Act and applicable state securities laws, or an exemption from such registration requirements is available.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This news release may include forward-looking statements that are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. All statements within this news release, other than statements of historical fact, are to be considered forward looking. Although Discovery believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements include fluctuations in market prices, including metal prices, continued availability of capital and financing, and general economic, market or business conditions. There can be no assurances that such statements will prove accurate and, therefore, readers are advised to rely on their own evaluation of such uncertainties. Discovery does not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements except as required under applicable laws.

APPENDIX

RESOURCE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY:

Resource database: The resource database consists of a total of 224,148 m of sampling in 517 drill holes. Of the total holes in the database 221,839m of sampling from 478 holes are included in the Resource. A total of 91,713 m (225 drill holes) was completed by the Company with the remainder drilled historically between 2009 and 2017. Lithologic types logged in 195,553 m of drill core were used to support an updated geological model of the deposit.

Compositing: The Cordero drill core was predominantly sampled at an interval of 2m or less. Assay records were assigned a domain code and then composited to approximately 2m intervals. The composite interval was varied where required to avoid excessively short composites from forming at domain boundaries or at the ends of holes.

Estimation domains: Six estimation domains were created, bounded by major faults. Within each of these six domains, there are two sub-domains; a high-grade sub-domain and a medium to low-grade stockwork domain. An additional sub-domain representing a mostly barren, glomerophyric dyke was also modeled. Hard boundaries for the block model were then applied to these thirteen estimation sub-domains. A graphic representation of the estimation domains is provided in the plan map below.

Capping: The presence of high-grade outlier values was investigated, as these low probability values could adversely influence the estimate. In all estimation domains and for all elements, the locations of the high-grade outliers were not concentrated in a given area, but rather disseminated throughout each domain. Appropriate capping limits were selected by studying coefficient of variation plots, probability plots and decile plots. The capping applied to the composite dataset resulted in a reduction in total silver content of 1.6% and a reduction in total metal content (Ag-Au-Pb-Zn) of 1.8%. Additional geostatistics summarizing variability and capping for each sub-domain is provided in the table below.

Variography & interpolation: Experimental pairwise relative semi-variograms were calculated and modeled for each metal in each mineralized domain. Spherical two structure models were fitted to all experimental semi-variograms. All the domains had sufficient samples to create acceptable experimental semi-variograms for each metal. Strong anisotropy was observed for the most part and thus directional variogram models were used. Nugget values (i.e., the sample variability at close distance) were established from downhole variograms. Nugget values were on average approximately 33% of the total sill value for all elements in all domains. Major axis ranges for the short first structure of all the variograms were approximately 25 m and the ranges for the second structure were 115 m on average. Anisotropic search radii with variable orientations along mineralization trends were used to select data informing block estimates. Search radii were based on the variogram ranges. Ordinary kriging was used to estimate all blocks into the model in three estimation passes.

Block model: The block model was constructed to fill the domain volumes with 20 m x 5 m x 10 m in the X, Y and Z directions rotated to an azimuth of 55⁰ to best represent: the data density; the narrower, steeply dipping deposit shape; and to minimize blocks unsupported by data. Accurate representation of the domain volume was achieved by allowing sub-blocks to be created at domain boundaries. Each parent cell could be split in the X, Y and Z directions. For both sets of parent cell sizes described above, blocks in the X and Y directions were split, with a minimum possible size of 2.5 m, while the height of the block was truncated precisely against the wireframe boundary. Each sub-block was assigned the estimate derived for the parent block.

Classification: The block model was classified into Measured, Indicated and Inferred resource categories. Blocks were assigned a preliminary classification based on the variography, drillhole spacing and number of samples in each pass as well as by domain. Search distances for the first pass were half the variogram range; this was used as the initial classification for assigning blocks to the Measured resource category. Blocks estimated in the second pass employed a search distance of the full variogram range and were allocated to the Indicated resource category. Blocks estimated in the third pass that allowed a relaxed search up to three times the range were assigned to the Inferred resource category. The preliminary classification boundaries were then adjusted to create continuity of blocks within the corresponding resource category classification.

Overburden/Weathering profile: Drill logs differentiating the weathered near-surface material from the un-weathered underlying rock, as well as a transition zone, were used to model surfaces for oxide, transitional and fresh material. These surfaces were included in the model to estimate density values as well as code blocks into each category. An overburden volume was also modeled from the drill logs. The bottom of the overburden surface was used to truncate grade estimates.

Bulk density: Density values were available from metallurgical test work for rhyodacite, siltstone and two breccia samples. No measurements were taken for the dyke and hornfels lithotypes. A total of 1501 bulk density measurements were collected from pulps for the oxide zone, 355 measurements for the transition zone and 5244 pulp measurements for fresh rock, so a large dataset of pulp density exists. Densities were calculated by factoring the differences between the pulp density measurement into the metallurgical sample values for rhyodacite and siltstone. The resulting values were assigned to dyke and hornfels lithotypes respectively. An average density value was assigned to each of the six modeled lithotypes. Density values for the oxide and transitional portions of each lithotype was factored down by an additional 4% and applied to the oxide blocks.

PIT CONSTRAINT PARAMETERS:

The mineral resource is constrained by a pit optimization that was based on the following parameters:

PARAMETER UNITS Ag Au Pb Zn

COMMODITY PRICES $/oz or $/lb $24.00 $1,800 $1.10 $1.20

ROYALTY % 0.5% 0.5% – –

PIT SLOPE ASSUMPTIONS Five sectors were modeled based on core logging and two geotechnical holes with inter-ramp angles ranging from 40^o to 59^o

PROCESS RECOVERIES

Heap Leach (Oxide/Transition) % 60% 70% – –

Flotation (Sulphide)

Breccia – Volcanic

Recovery to Pb concentrate % 79% 13% 91% –

Recovery to Zn concentrate % 11% 7% – 88%

Breccia – Sedimentary

Recovery to Pb concentrate % 75% 12% 89% –

Recovery to Zn concentrate % 9% 4% – 86%

Volcanic

Recovery to Pb concentrate % 70% 13% 85% –

Recovery to Zn concentrate % 13% 6% – 81%

Sedimentary

Recovery to Pb concentrate % 70% 13% 83% –

Recovery to Zn concentrate % 10% 5% – 89%

METAL PAYABLE

Dore (Heap Leach) 98% 99.9% – –

Concentrate (Flotation)

Pb concentrate 95% 95% 95% –

Zn concentrate 70% 70% – 85%

OPERATING COSTS Base Per 10m below 1550 elev.

Mining cost – Ore $/t mined $1.54 +$0.024
1550

Mining cost – Waste $/t mined $1.64 +$0.024
1550

Processing cost – Heap leach (14,000 tpd) $/t stacked $3.92

Processing cost – Flotation (40,000 tpd) $/t milled $6.39

G&A (40,000 tpd) $/t milled $0.86

TREATMENT/REFINING CHARGES

Treatment charge – Pb con $/dmt $100

Treatment charge – Zn con $/dmt $200

Ag refining charge – Pb con $/oz $1.00

RESOURCE NSR CUT-OFF SENSITIVITIES:

Sulphide Resource

NSR $/t cut-off Class Tonnes Grade Contained Metal

Ag Au Pb Zn AgEq Ag Au Pb Zn AgEq

(Mt) (g/t) (g/t) (%) (%) (g/t) (Moz) (koz) (Mlb) (Mlb) (Moz)

$7.25/t Measured 128 22 0.08 0.31 0.52 52 89 328 881 1,470 212

Indicated 413 19 0.05 0.28 0.51 47 255 707 2,543 4,663 625

M&I 541 20 0.06 0.29 0.51 48 344 1,035 3,424 6,132 837

Inferred 108 14 0.03 0.19 0.38 34 49 99 451 909 119

$15.00/t Measured 62 36 0.12 0.53 0.81 83 70 242 715 1,097 164

Indicated 184 32 0.08 0.48 0.84 78 188 474 1,943 3,409 463

M&I 245 33 0.09 0.49 0.83 80 259 716 2,658 4,506 627

Inferred 35 24 0.04 0.34 0.66 59 27 47 267 510 66

$25.00/t Measured 40 45 0.15 0.69 1.00 105 59 197 608 888 136

Indicated 117 41 0.10 0.62 1.06 99 152 374 1,592 2,726 373

M&I 157 42 0.11 0.64 1.04 101 211 571 2,200 3,613 509

Inferred 16 34 0.06 0.47 0.88 81 17 29 169 314 42

Please refer to the Supporting Technical Disclosure section for cautionary statements and underlying assumptions for the Resource

Oxide/Transition Resource

NSR $/t cut-off Class Tonnes Grade Contained Metal % Oxide / % Trans

Ag Au AgEq Ag Au AgEq

(Mt) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (Moz) (koz) (Moz)

$4.78/t Measured 23 20 0.06 25 15 43 19 92% / 8%

Indicated 75 19 0.05 23 45 125 56 87% / 13%

M&I 98 19 0.05 23 60 168 74 88% / 12%

Inferred 35 16 0.04 20 18 44 22 63% / 37%

$10.00/t Measured 8 36 0.08 43 9 19 10 91% / 9%

Indicated 20 37 0.08 44 24 49 28 89% / 11%

M&I 28 37 0.08 43 33 68 39 90% / 10%

Inferred 8 30 0.07 36 8 18 9 41% / 59%

$15.00/t Measured 4 51 0.09 59 6 11 7 89% / 11%

Indicated 10 53 0.09 61 17 29 19 90% / 10%

M&I 14 52 0.09 60 23 39 26 90% / 10%

Inferred 4 37 0.09 45 5 11 6 45% / 55%

Please refer to the Supporting Technical Disclosure section for cautionary statements and underlying assumptions for the Resource

Source link

October 20, 2021

Classification	Tonnes (k)	Cu (%)	Zn (%)	Au (g/t)	Ag (g/t)	CuEq (%)	Cu (Mlbs)	Zn (Mlbs)	Au (koz)	Ag (koz)	CuEq (Mlbs)
Measured	338	1.54	3.58	0.05	12.94	2.87	11.48	26.68	0.54	140.62	21.39
Indicated	2,679	1.70	6.45	0.02	3.41	3.97	100.41	380.95	1.72	293.71	234.48
Measured/Indicated	3,017	1.69	6.13	0.02	4.48	3.84	112.37	407.59	1.94	434.41	255.33
Inferred	2.342	1.03	8.65	0.00	0.91	4.04	53.18	446.62	0.00	68.52	208.59

NSR $/t cut-off	Class	Tonnes	Grade			Contained Metal			% Oxide / % Trans
		Tonnes	Ag	Au	AgEq	Ag	Au	AgEq
		(Mt)	(g/t)	(g/t)	(g/t)	(Moz)	(koz)	(Moz)
$4.78/t	Measured	23	20	0.06	25	15	43	19	92% / 8%
	Indicated	75	19	0.05	23	45	125	56	87% / 13%
	M&I	98	19	0.05	23	60	168	74	88% / 12%
	Inferred	35	16	0.04	20	18	44	22	63% / 37%

PARAMETER	UNITS	Ag	Au	Pb	Zn
COMMODITY PRICES	$/oz or $/lb	$24.00	$1,800	$1.10	$1.20
ROYALTY	%	0.5%	0.5%	–	–
PIT SLOPE ASSUMPTIONS	Five sectors were modeled based on core logging and two geotechnical holes with inter-ramp angles ranging from 40^o to 59^o
PROCESS RECOVERIES
Heap Leach (Oxide/Transition)	%	60%	70%	–	–
Flotation (Sulphide)
Breccia – Volcanic
Recovery to Pb concentrate	%	79%	13%	91%	–
Recovery to Zn concentrate	%	11%	7%	–	88%
Breccia – Sedimentary
Recovery to Pb concentrate	%	75%	12%	89%	–
Recovery to Zn concentrate	%	9%	4%	–	86%
Volcanic
Recovery to Pb concentrate	%	70%	13%	85%	–
Recovery to Zn concentrate	%	13%	6%	–	81%
Sedimentary
Recovery to Pb concentrate	%	70%	13%	83%	–
Recovery to Zn concentrate	%	10%	5%	–	89%
METAL PAYABLE
Dore (Heap Leach)		98%	99.9%	–	–
Concentrate (Flotation)
Pb concentrate		95%	95%	95%	–
Zn concentrate		70%	70%	–	85%

OPERATING COSTS		Base	Per 10m below 1550 elev.
Mining cost – Ore	$/t mined	$1.54	+$0.024 1550
Mining cost – Waste	$/t mined	$1.64	+$0.024 1550
Processing cost – Heap leach (14,000 tpd)	$/t stacked	$3.92
Processing cost – Flotation (40,000 tpd)	$/t milled	$6.39
G&A (40,000 tpd)	$/t milled	$0.86

TREATMENT/REFINING CHARGES
Treatment charge – Pb con	$/dmt	$100
Treatment charge – Zn con	$/dmt	$200
Ag refining charge – Pb con	$/oz	$1.00