AI assistant
CASTILE RESOURCES LTD — Regulatory Filings 2021
Aug 29, 2021
64710_rns_2021-08-29_2cafb4c4-c653-4b56-b710-eb895611280c.pdf
Regulatory Filings
Open in viewerOpens in your device viewer
30[th] August 2021
ASX Announcement
r
==> picture [139 x 102] intentionally omitted <==
Spectacular Copper and Gold Hits at Rover 1
Castile Resources Limited ( ASX:CST ) ( “Castile” or “the Company” ) is pleased to announce that its latest hole drilled into the Jupiter Deeps zone of its IOCG (“iron oxide copper gold”) Rover 1 ore body has returned yet another spectacular intercept of high-grade copper and gold.
Hole 21CRD005 has returned:
42.2 metres at 3.5% Copper with 2.1g/t Gold and 0.2% Bismuth from 871.9 metres, including
-
13.5 metres at 7.5% Copper with 4.5g/t Gold and 0.2% Bismuth from 875 metres downhole
-
2.5 metres at 12.9% Copper with 16.5g/t Gold and 0.5% Bismuth from 881 metres downhole
In addition, as is typical in these large intercepts of the rich IOCG (“iron oxide copper gold”) mineralisation, internal zones of significantly higher gold and copper exist. These are:
3.1m @ 8g/t Au with 0.8% Cu, 0.1% Bi, 0.1% Co and 3.6g/t Ag from 935m downhole
-
inc 0.7 metres at 34.4g/t Gold with 0.9% Copper and 0.3% Bismuth from 937.4 metres downhole
-
28 metres @ 2.9g/t Gold with 4.7% Copper and 0.2% Bismuth from 875 metres downhole
Figure 1: Schematic Cross Section of Hole 21CRD005
==> picture [476 x 337] intentionally omitted <==
30[th] August 2021
ASX Announcement
==> picture [139 x 102] intentionally omitted <==
Castile Managing Director, Mark Hepburn said:
“These are particularly spectacular results as Jupiter Deeps is one of the high grade zones which so far has been sparsely tested. With the data from this hole this section is now shaping as another significant zone of rich copper and gold and will no doubt greatly enhance the economic potential as we drill deeper into the Rover 1 ore system. It is remarkable to see grade and width of this nature and we are particularly excited to the further potential for similar results with this zone being open in all directions.
Castile is also pleased to advise that the team from Gap Geophysics Australia has arrived on site and has begun the downhole electromagnetic (DHEM) survey at Explorer 108 which is approximately 40kms west of Rover 1. GAP will run surveys on Hole NR108DD026 (See Figure 3) and Hole NR108DD017 to hunt for readings of the primary copper source below the large zinc lead deposit at Explorer 108. The primary copper source is the source of the copper feeder zones that make up the current copper resource at Explorer 108 (See Figure 2).
==> picture [331 x 10] intentionally omitted <==
----- Start of picture text -----
Figure 2 Figure 3
----- End of picture text -----
==> picture [529 x 279] intentionally omitted <==
----- Start of picture text -----
Current Resource at Explorer 108
11.8Mt 3.2% Zn, 2.00% Pb, 11.1g/t Ag with 5.7Mt 0.36% Cu [1]
----- End of picture text -----
==> picture [259 x 152] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 4: GAP Technician sending the DHEM probe down hole NR108D026
==> picture [539 x 43] intentionally omitted <==
==> picture [139 x 102] intentionally omitted <==
ASX Announcement
30[th] August 2021
Mark Hepburn Managing Director Castile Resources Limited
For further information please contact: [email protected] Phone: +61 89488 4480 Castile Resources Limited 7/189 St Georges Terrace Perth, WA, 6000
This announcement was approved for release by the Castile Resources Board of Directors
Competent Person Statement
The exploration results contained in this report are based on, and fairly and accurately represent the information and supporting documentation prepared by Mark Savage. Mr Savage is a full-time employee of Castile, and a Member of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Savage has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration, and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Exploration Targets, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Savage consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on the exploration results in the form and context in which they appear.
The Mineral Resources contained in this announcement were first disclosed in the prospectus dated 3 December 2019 and released on the ASX market announcements platform on 12 February 2020 (“Prospectus”). Castile is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the Mineral Resources included in these announcements. All material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates in the Prospectus continue to apply and have not materially changed.
Forward Looking Statements
Certain statements in this report relate to the future, including forward looking statements relating to Castile’s financial position and strategy. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions, and other important factors that could cause the actual results, performance, or achievements of Castile to be materially different from future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such statements
Actual events or results may differ materially from the events or results expressed or implied in any forward-looking statement and deviations are both normal and to be expected. Other than required by law, neither Castile, their officers nor any other person gives any representation, assurance or guarantee that the occurrence of the events expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements will occur. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on those statements.
30[th] August 2021
ASX Announcement
==> picture [139 x 102] intentionally omitted <==
Table 1: Significant Gold and Copper intersections returned from Hole 21CRD005
Gold
| Hole_ID | mFrom | Commentary | mTo | DH | TW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21CRD005 | 875.0 | 28m @ 2.9g/t Au with 4.7% Cu, 0.2% Bi and 7.0g/t Ag from 875m downhole | 903.0 | 28 | 18.2 |
| 21CRD005 | 881.0 | incl: 2.5m @ 16.5g/t Au with 12.9% Cu, 0.5% Bi and 10g/t Ag from 881m downhole | 883.5 | 2.5 | 1.6 |
| 21CRD005 | 935.0 | 3.1m @ 8g/t Au with 0.8% Cu, 0.1% Bi, 0.1% Co and 3.6g/t Ag from 935m downhole | 938.1 | 3.1 | 2.0 |
| 21CRD005 | 937.4 | incl: 0.7m @ 34.4g/t Au with 0.9% Cu, 0.3% Bi, 0.3% Co and 8.9g/t Ag from 937.4m downhole | 938.1 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
Copper
| Hole_ID | mFrom | Commentary | mTo | DH | TW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21CRD005 | 871.9 | 42.2m @ 3.5% Cu with 2.1g/t Au, 0.2% Bi, 0% Co and 5.6g/t Ag from 871.9m downhole | 914.1 | 42.2 | 27.6 |
| 21CRD005 | 875.0 | incl: 13.5m @ 7.5% Cu with 4.5g/t Au, 0.2% Bi, 0% Co and 7.5g/t Ag from 875m downhole | 888.5 | 13.5 | 8.8 |
| 21CRD005 | 893.4 | incl: 3.8m @ 3.1% Cu with 2.4g/t Au, 0.2% Bi, 0.1% Co and 7.1g/t Ag from 893.35m downhole | 897.1 | 3.8 | 2.5 |
| 21CRD005 | 935.5 | 2.6m @ 0.9% Cu with 9.2g/t Au, 0.1% Bi, 0.1% Co and 3.9g/t Ag from 935.45m downhole | 938.1 | 2.6 | 1.7 |
23[rd] August 2021
ASX Announcement
==> picture [139 x 102] intentionally omitted <==
Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data
(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Sampling | • Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, | • All data used in the following sections at Rover 1 has |
| techniques | random chips, or specific specialised industry | been gathered from diamond core. Multiple sizes |
| standard measurement tools appropriate to the | have been used historically; HQ, NQ and BQ. | |
| minerals under investigation, such as down hole | ||
| gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc.). | • Samples are selected to lie on geological | |
| These examples should not be taken as limiting the | boundaries, with intervals selected of lengths | |
| broad meaning of sampling. | between 0.1 to 1.1m. Samples are halved using an | |
| • Include reference to measures taken to ensure | automatic core saw then individual samples | |
| sample representivity and the appropriate | collected in prenumbered calico sample bags. | |
| calibration of any measurement tools or systems | ||
| used. | • To ensure representivity of analysis, field blanks and | |
| • Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that | certified reference material is inserted in a nominal | |
| are Material to the Public Report. | ratio of 1:20 samples. | |
| • In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been | ||
| done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse | • Sample recovery is recorded on retrieval of the core | |
| circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples | tube, measuring recovered core against drill string | |
| from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g | advance. No apparent relationship has been | |
| Drilling | charge for fire assay’). In other cases, more | observed between sample recovery and grade. No |
| techniques | explanation may be required, such as where there is | has sample bias due to preferential loss or gain of |
| coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. | fine or coarse material been noted. | |
| Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g. | ||
| submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of | ||
| detailed information. | ||
| Drill sample | • Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole |
|
| recovery | hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc.) | |
| and details (e.g. core diameter, triple or standard | ||
| tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or | ||
| other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by | ||
| what method, etc.). | ||
| • Method of recording and assessing core and chip | ||
| sample recoveries and results assessed. | ||
| • Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and | ||
| ensure representative nature of the samples. | ||
| • Whether a relationship exists between sample | ||
| recovery and grade and whether sample bias may | ||
| have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of | ||
| fine/coarse material. | ||
| Logging | • Whether core and chip samples have been | • All geological data has been visually logged and |
| geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of | validated by the relevant area geologists, recording | |
| detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource | lithology, alteration, mineralisation, structure, | |
| estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies. | veining, magnetic susceptibility and geotechnical |
|
| • Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in | data. | |
| nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc.) | • Logging is quantitative in nature. | |
| photography. | • All holes are logged completely. | |
| • The total length and percentage of the relevant | ||
| intersections logged. |
23[rd] August 2021
==> picture [139 x 102] intentionally omitted <==
ASX Announcement
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sub- | • If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, | • Diamond Drilling - Half-core niche samples, sub-set | |
| sampling | half or all core taken. | via geological | features as appropriate. |
| techniques | • If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary | • Core undergoes total preparation. | |
| and sample | split, etc. and whether sampled wet or dry. |
• For the 2021 field season, sample preparation | |
| preparation | • For all sample types, the nature, quality and | process consists of; | |
| appropriateness of the sample preparation | o |
Half ore samples of between 0.5 to | |
| technique. | 3kg are whole crushed using a Boyd | ||
| • Quality control procedures adopted for all sub- | Crusher to achieve a maximum | ||
| sampling stages to maximise representivity of | sample size of 2mm. | ||
| samples. | o |
A cone splitter is used to split 1kg of | |
| • Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is | material which is pulverised in a | ||
| representative of the in-situ material collected, | Keegor mill to a nominal 100µm | ||
| including for instance results for field | particle size., then roll mixed to | ||
| duplicate/second-half sampling. | homogenise the sample. | ||
| • Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain | o |
The mill inserts a barren coarse flush | |
| size of the material being sampled. | after every sample. | ||
o |
From the analysis sample, 40g is taken | ||
| for fire assay, while a 0.2g potion is | |||
| taken for acid digestion. These | |||
| samples are extracted from the | |||
| packet with a spatula and weighed | |||
| out. | |||
| • QA/QC is ensured during sampling via the use of | |||
| sample ledgers, blanks, standards and repeats. | |||
| • QA/QC is ensured during the assays process via the | |||
| use of blanks, standards and repeats at a NATA / ISO | |||
| accredited laboratory. | |||
| • Repeatability | is performed by selecting 1:20 coarse | ||
| reject material as field duplicates and re-assayed. | |||
| • The sample sizes are considered appropriate to the | |||
| grainsize of the material being sampled. | |||
| • The un-sampled half of diamond core is retained for | |||
| check samplingif required. | |||
| Quality of | • The nature, quality and appropriateness of the | • Analysis of drill core for Au, Ag, Bi, Co, Cu, Pb and Zn | |
| assay data | assaying and laboratory procedures used and | is as follows; | |
| and | whether the technique is considered partial or total. | o |
Gold (Au-AAS scheme – lower |
| laboratory | • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF | detection limit = 0.01ppm, upper | |
| tests | instruments, etc., the parameters used in | detection limit = 100ppm). A 30-40g | |
| determining the analysis including instrument make | charge of prepared sample is fused | ||
| and model, reading times, calibrations factors | with a mixture of lead oxide, sodium | ||
| applied and their derivation, etc. | carbonate, borax, silica and other | ||
| • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. | reagents and then cupelled to yield a | ||
| standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory | precious metal bead. | ||
| checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy | o |
The bead is then dissolved in acid and | |
| (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been | analysed by atomic absorption | ||
| established. | spectroscopy against matrix-matched | ||
| standards. | |||
o |
Samples returning assay values in | ||
| excess of 100g/t Au were repeated | |||
| usingthe screen-fire method. |
==> picture [139 x 102] intentionally omitted <==
ASX Announcement
23[rd] August 2021
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
oSilver, bismuth, cobalt, copper, lead |
||
| and zinc samples are digested using a | ||
| 4-acid digest. | ||
oThe subsequent solution is analysed |
||
| by inductively coupled plasma - | ||
| atomic emission spectroscopy or by | ||
| atomic absorption spectrometry. | ||
| • No significant QA/QC issues have arisen in recent | ||
| drilling results. | ||
| • These assay methodologies are appropriate for the | ||
| style of mineral deposit under consideration. | ||
| Verification | • The verification of significant intersections by either |
• Anomalous intervals as well as random intervals are |
| of sampling | independent or alternative company personnel. |
routinely checked assayed as part of the internal |
| and | • The use of twinned holes. | QA/QC process. |
| assaying | • Documentation of primary data, data entry | • Several twinned holes have been drilled with no |
| procedures, data verification, data storage (physical | significant issues highlighted. | |
| and electronic) protocols. | • Primary data is collected on a ruggedised computer, | |
| • Discuss any adjustment to assay data. | on predefined and self-validating worksheets. This | |
| data is imported into a relational database | ||
| (DataShed) and is backed up regularly. | ||
| • All data used in the calculation of resources is | ||
| compiled in databases which are overseen and | ||
| validated by senior geologists. | ||
| • Noprimaryassays data is modified in anyway. | ||
| Location of | • Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill | • All data is spatially oriented by survey controls via |
| data points | holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine | direct pickups by the survey department. Drillholes |
| workings and other locations used in Mineral | are all surveyed downhole. Modern holes are | |
| Resource estimation. | surveyed by Gyro tools. | |
| • Specification of the grid system used. | • All drilling and resource estimation is undertaken in | |
| • Quality and adequacy of topographic control. | MGA grid. | |
| • Topographic control is generated from a | ||
| combination of aerial photogrammetry and ground- | ||
| based surveys. This methodology is considered | ||
| adequate for the resource inquestion. | ||
| Data | • Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. | • Drilling has been undertaken on a nominal 40x40m |
| spacing | • Whether the data spacing and distribution is | spacing, infilled to a nominal 20x20m spacing where |
| and | sufficient to establish the degree of geological and | significant mineralisation has been identified. |
| distribution | grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral |
• No compositing of primary samples is undertaken |
| Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) | prior to analysis. | |
| and classifications applied. | ||
| • Whether sample compositing has been applied. | ||
| Orientation | • Whether the orientation of sampling achieves |
• Drilling intersections are nominally designed to be |
| of data in | unbiased sampling of possible structures and the | normal to the orebody under consideration as far |
| relation to | extent to which this is known, considering the | topography and economics allows. |
| geological | deposit type. | • It is not considered that drilling orientation has |
| structure | • If the relationship between the drilling orientation | introduced an appreciable sampling bias. |
| and the orientation of key mineralised structures is | ||
| considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this | ||
| should be assessed and reported if material. |
==> picture [139 x 102] intentionally omitted <==
ASX Announcement 23[rd] August 2021
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Sample | • The measures taken to ensure sample security. | • Individual samples in calico samples are collected in |
| security | groups of 5 and placed into poly weave bags and | |
| secured with a zip-tie. All poly weave bags of a | ||
| submission are then placed within a bulka bag, | ||
| which is then sealed before delivery to a third-party | ||
| transport service who provides a tracking number. | ||
| The transport contractor then relays the samples to | ||
| the independent laboratorycontractor. | ||
| Audits or | • The results of any audits or reviews of sampling | • Site generated data is routinely reviewed by the |
| reviews | techniques and data. | Castile corporate technical team. |
23[rd] August 2021
ASX Announcement
==> picture [139 x 102] intentionally omitted <==
Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
(Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Mineral | • Type, reference name/number, location and | • The Tennant Creek Project comprises 5 granted |
| tenement and | ownership including agreements or material issues |
exploration leases. |
| land tenure | with third parties such as joint ventures, | • Native title interests are recorded against the |
| status | partnerships, overriding royalties, native title | Tennant Creek tenements. |
| interests, historical sites, wilderness or national | • The Tennant Creek tenements are held by Castile | |
| park and environmental settings. | Resources exclusively. | |
| • The security of the tenure held at the time of | • Third party royalties exist across various | |
| reporting along with any known impediments to | tenements at Tennant Creek, over and above the | |
| obtaining a licence to operate in the area. | Northern Territory government royalty. | |
| • Castile operates in accordance with all | ||
| environmental conditions set down as conditions | ||
| for grant of the leases. | ||
| • There are no known issues regarding security of | ||
| tenure. | ||
| • There are no known impediments to continued | ||
| operation. | ||
| Exploration | • Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by | • The Tennant Creek area has an exploration and |
| done by other | other parties. | production history in excess of 100 years. |
| parties | • The Rover area in particular has an intensive | |
| exploration history stretching from the 1970’s. | ||
| Geology | • Deposit type, geological setting and style of | • The Rover Project is presently considered to be |
| mineralisation. | associated with a southern repeat of the 1860- | |
| 1850Ma Warramunga Province, in particular, the | ||
| Paleoproterozoic Ooradidgee Formation, after | ||
| recent geochronology work undertaken by NTGS . | ||
| This is a weakly metamorphosed succession of | ||
| partly tuffaceous sandstones and siltstones and | ||
| turbidite shales. Locally the turbidite | ||
| metasediments are variably altered by hematite | ||
| and silica flooding. | ||
| • Mineralisation is mainly of the Iron Ore Copper- | ||
| Gold (IOCG) type, particularly the Tennant Creek | ||
| sub-type. Massive ironstone comprised of | ||
| magnetite or hematite +/-quartz is interpreted to | ||
| be alteration of metasediments within a structural | ||
| trap. | ||
| • Copper manifests as of chalcopyrite, associated | ||
| with breccia fill within magnetite-quartz ironstones | ||
| and Jasper/BIF that often form an alteration | ||
| transition to a chlorite alteration envelope. | ||
| Pervasive sub-economic copper levels can persist | ||
| throughout the zone. Economic levels of copper | ||
| are dominantly contained in the lower massive | ||
| magnetite zone of the ironstone bodies, | ||
| particularly where intense chlorite alteration | ||
| replaces magnetite laterally and at depth, grading | ||
| into magnetite chlorite stringer zones. Gold |
==> picture [139 x 102] intentionally omitted <==
ASX Announcement
23[rd] August 2021
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| content is related to an increase in haematite | ||
| dusted quartz veins, with bonanza grades | ||
| associated with massive pyrite with subordinate | ||
| bismuthite. Cobalt appears to have a direct | ||
| relationship with pyrite. | ||
| • Lead and zinc mineralisation at Explorer 108 is | ||
| associated with a brecciated, dolomitised | ||
| metasedimentary unit, consisting of irregular, | ||
| generally narrow bands or veins of semi-massive | ||
| sphalerite and galena. A basal “high-grade” zone is | ||
| present at the contact of the altered | ||
| metasediments and lower felsic volcaniclastic unit. | ||
| • It is postulated that Explorer 108 mineralisation is | ||
| an analogue of Mt Isa style base metal | ||
| mineralisation. | ||
| Drill hole | • A summary of all information material to the | • Exploration results are presented in Tables 1 and 2 |
| Information | understanding of the exploration results including | of the ASX release dated 24/05/2021 related to |
| a tabulation of the following information for all | this edition of JORC Table 1. | |
| Material drill holes: | ||
o easting and northing of the drill hole collar |
||
o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation |
||
| above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar | ||
o dip and azimuth of the hole |
||
o down hole length and interception depth |
||
o hole length. |
||
| • If the exclusion of this information is justified on | ||
| the basis that the information is not Material and | ||
| this exclusion does not detract from the | ||
| understanding of the report, the Competent Person | ||
| should clearly explain why this is the case. | ||
| Data | • In reporting Exploration Results, weighting | • Results are reported on a length weighted average |
| aggregation | averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum | basis. |
| methods | grade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and | • Results are reported above a 1gm Au / Au Eq. cut- |
| cut-off grades are usually Material and should be | off / 1%m Pb + Zn and 1%m Cu. | |
| stated. | • Results reported may include up to three metres of | |
| • Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short | internal dilution below a 0.5g/t Au / Au Eq. cut-off | |
| lengths of high-grade results and longer lengths of | / 0.5% Pb + Zn / 0.5%m Cu. | |
| low-grade results, the procedure used for such | • Metal equivalent values are reported based on the | |
| aggregation should be stated and some typical | ratio of prevailing commodity prices which are | |
| examples of such aggregations should be shown in | given above. | |
| detail. | ||
| • The assumptions used for any reporting of metal | ||
| equivalent values should be clearly stated. | ||
| Relationship | • These relationships are particularly important in | • Interval widths are reported as downhole width |
| between | the reporting of Exploration Results. | unless otherwise stated. |
| mineralisation | • If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect |
|
| widths and | to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should | |
| intercept | be reported. | |
| lengths | • If it is not known and only the down hole lengths | |
| are reported, there should be a clear statement to |
==> picture [139 x 102] intentionally omitted <==
ASX Announcement 23[rd] August 2021
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| this effect (e.g. ‘down hole length, true width not | ||
| _known’). _ | ||
| Diagrams | • Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and | • Diagrams are presented in the ASX release dated |
| tabulations of intercepts should be included for any | 24/05/2021 related to this edition of JORC Table 1. |
|
| significant discovery being reported These should | ||
| include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill | ||
| hole collar locations and appropriate sectional | ||
| views. | ||
| Balanced | • Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration | • Completed drilling where analysis is available is |
| reporting | Results is not practicable, representative reporting | reported. |
| of both low and high grades and/or widths should | ||
| be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of | ||
| Exploration Results. | ||
| Other | • Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, | • Geological information related to the reported |
| substantive | should be reported including (but not limited to): | results is presented in the ASX release dated |
| exploration | geological observations; geophysical survey results; | 24/05/2021 related to this edition of JORC Table |
| data | geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and | 1. |
| method of treatment; metallurgical test results; | ||
| bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock | ||
| characteristics; potential deleterious or | ||
| contaminating substances. | ||
| Further work | • The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. | • Ongoing exploration and mine planning |
| tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or | assessment continues to take place at the Rover | |
| large-scale step-out drilling). | Project. | |
| • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible | ||
| extensions, including the main geological | ||
| interpretations and future drilling areas, provided | ||
| this information is not commercially sensitive. |
23[rd] August 2021
ASX Announcement
==> picture [139 x 102] intentionally omitted <==
Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources (Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section.)
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Database | • Measures taken to ensure that data has not been | • No new Resource information is being presented. |
| integrity | corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying | |
| errors, between its initial collection and its use for | ||
| Mineral Resource estimation purposes. | ||
| • Data validationprocedures used. | ||
| Site visits | • Comment on any site visits undertaken by the | • Mr Savage has been on-site supervising the drilling |
| Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. | program relating to the results under | |
| • If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why | consideration. | |
| this is the case. | ||
| Geological | • Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) | • No new Resource information is being presented. |
| interpretation | the geological interpretation of the mineral | |
| deposit. | ||
| • Nature of the data used and of any assumptions | ||
| made. | ||
| • The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on | ||
| Mineral Resource estimation. | ||
| • The use of geology in guiding and controlling | ||
| Mineral Resource estimation. | ||
| • The factors affecting continuity both of grade and | ||
| _geology. _ | ||
| Dimensions | • The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource | • No new Resource information is being presented. |
| expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), | ||
| plan width, and depth below surface to the upper | ||
| and lower limits of the Mineral Resource. | ||
| Estimation | • The nature and appropriateness of the estimation | • No new Resource information is being presented. |
| and modelling | technique(s) applied and key assumptions, |
|
| techniques | including treatment of extreme grade values, | |
| domaining, interpolation parameters and | ||
| maximum distance of extrapolation from data | ||
| points. If a computer assisted estimation method | ||
| was chosen include a description of computer | ||
| software and parameters used. | ||
| • The availability of check estimates, previous | ||
| estimates and/or mine production records and | ||
| whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes | ||
| appropriate account of such data. | ||
| • The assumptions made regarding recovery of by- | ||
| products. | ||
| • Estimation of deleterious elements or other non- | ||
| grade variables of economic significance (e.g. | ||
| sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). | ||
| • In the case of block model interpolation, the block | ||
| size in relation to the average sample spacing and | ||
| the search employed. | ||
| • Any assumptions behind modelling of selective | ||
| mining units. | ||
| • Any assumptions about correlation between |
==> picture [139 x 102] intentionally omitted <==
ASX Announcement
23[rd] August 2021
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| variables. | ||
| • Description of how the geological interpretation | ||
| was used to control the resource estimates. | ||
| • Discussion of basis for using or not using grade | ||
| cutting or capping. | ||
| • The process of validation, the checking process | ||
| used, the comparison of model data to drill hole | ||
| data, and use of reconciliation data if available. | ||
| Moisture | • Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis | • No new Resource information is being presented. |
| or with natural moisture, and the method of | ||
| determination of the moisture content. | ||
| Cut-off | • The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality | • No new Resource information is being presented. |
| parameters | parameters applied. | |
| Mining factors | • Assumptions made regarding possible mining |
• No new Resource information is being presented. |
| or | methods, minimum mining dimensions and | |
| assumptions | internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. | |
| It is always necessary as part of the process of | ||
| determining reasonable prospects for eventual | ||
| economic extraction to consider potential mining | ||
| methods, but the assumptions made regarding | ||
| mining methods and parameters when estimating | ||
| Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. | ||
| Where this is the case, this should be reported with | ||
| an explanation of the basis of the mining | ||
| assumptions made. | ||
| Metallurgical | • The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding | • No new Resource information is being presented. |
| factors or | metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as | |
| assumptions | part of the process of determining reasonable | |
| prospects for eventual economic extraction to | ||
| consider potential metallurgical methods, but the | ||
| assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment | ||
| processes and parameters made when reporting | ||
| Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. | ||
| Where this is the case, this should be reported with | ||
| an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical | ||
| assumptions made. | ||
| Environmental | • Assumptions made regarding possible waste and |
• No new Resource information is being presented. |
| factors or | process residue disposal options. It is always | |
| assumptions | necessary as part of the process of determining | |
| reasonable prospects for eventual economic | ||
| extraction to consider the potential environmental | ||
| impacts of the mining and processing operation. | ||
| While at this stage the determination of potential | ||
| environmental impacts, particularly for a | ||
| greenfields project, may not always be well | ||
| advanced, the status of early consideration of | ||
| these potential environmental impacts should be | ||
| reported. Where these aspects have not been | ||
| considered this should be reported with an | ||
| explanation of the environmental assumptions |
==> picture [139 x 102] intentionally omitted <==
ASX Announcement
23[rd] August 2021
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| made. | ||
| Bulk density | • Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the | • Bulk density of mineralisation at the Rover Project |
| basis for the assumptions. If determined, the | is variable, dependant on lithology, alteration and | |
| method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of | mineralisation. | |
| the measurements, the nature, size and | • Geological technicians perform routine density | |
| representativeness of the samples. | test-work on core samples of both host rock and | |
| • The bulk density for bulk material must have been | mineralisation. | |
| measured by methods that adequately account for | • Density measurements have been determined | |
| void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture and | using the water immersion technique. | |
| differences between rock and alteration zones | • Bulk density is assigned by lithology. | |
| within the deposit. | ||
| • Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates | ||
| used in the evaluation process of the different | ||
| materials. | ||
| Classification | • The basis for the classification of the Mineral | • Resources are classified in line with JORC |
| Resources into varying confidence categories. | guidelines utilising a combination of estimation | |
| • Whether appropriate account has been taken of all | quality parameters, and geological knowledge. |
|
| relevant factors (i.e. relative confidence in | • This approach considers all relevant factors and | |
| tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input | reflects the Competent Person’s view of the | |
| data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal | deposit. |
|
| values, quality, quantity and distribution of the | ||
| data). | ||
| • Whether the result appropriately reflects the | ||
| Competent Person’s view of the deposit. | ||
| Audits or | • The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral | • Resource estimates are peer reviewed by the site |
| reviews | Resource estimates. | technical team as well as Westgold’s Corporate |
| technical team. | ||
| Discussion of | • Where appropriate a statement of the relative | • All currently reported resources estimates are |
| relative | accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral | considered robust, and representative of deposits |
| accuracy/ | Resource estimate using an approach or procedure | on a global scale. |
| confidence | deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For | • No production data exists to compare the resource |
| example, the application of statistical or | estimate against. | |
| geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative | ||
| accuracy of the resource within stated confidence | ||
| limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed | ||
| appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors | ||
| that could affect the relative accuracy and | ||
| confidence of the estimate. | ||
| • The statement should specify whether it relates to | ||
| global or local estimates, and, if local, state the | ||
| relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to | ||
| technical and economic evaluation. Documentation | ||
| should include assumptions made and the | ||
| procedures used. | ||
| • These statements of relative accuracy and | ||
| confidence of the estimate should be compared | ||
| withproduction data, where available. |