Skip to main content

AI assistant

Sign in to chat with this filing

The assistant answers questions, extracts KPIs, and summarises risk factors directly from the filing text.

Sign up Log in

HEAVY MINERALS LIMITED Capital/Financing Update 2021

Dec 5, 2021

65080_rns_2021-12-05_58f646eb-802f-4c1e-84f7-96d0483a7b11.pdf

Capital/Financing Update

Open in viewer

Opens in your device viewer

==> picture [595 x 144] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

ASX Announcement Date: 6 Dec 2021
----- End of picture text -----

MINERAL RESOURCE INCREASED AT INHAMBANE TO 90 Mt @ 3.0% THM

  • Inhambane heavy mineral sands JORC Mineral Resource has increased by 59% to 90 Mt @ 3.0% THM with 2.7 Mt of contained THM

  • Mining Licence Application modified to include an additional 30.3368 km[2] of tenure (Figure 1 & Table 2) with HVY securing prospective ground directly bordering RIO Tinto’s and Savannah Resources Jangamo Project (4.4 Bt @ 3.9% THM[3] )

  • Additional ground includes Mineral Resource defined during HVY’s initial drilling program conducted in 2014

  • HVY has updated the Mineral Resource estimate to account for this additionally secured tenure and along with this, a significant increase in resource pricing has justified a reduction in the resource cut-off grade used for reporting the Mineral Resource estimate

  • Ilmenite dominated mineral assemblage along with credits of zircon, rutile and leucoxene are defined in the updated report. These key minerals have seen significant price increases in the previous 12-18 months (current benchmark pricing: Ilmenite US$350 per ton[1] , Zircon US$1,500 per ton[2] )

Heavy Minerals Limited (ACN 647 831 833) (“ HVY ”, “ Heavy Minerals ” or the “ Company” ) is pleased to announce that the updated Mineral Resource at the Inhambane heavy mineral sands project has increased by 59% to 90 Mt @ 3.0% THM with 2.7 Mt of contained THM (previously 1.7 Mt). The updated Inferred Mineral Resource is highlighted in Table 1 and is Ilmenite dominated with credits of zircon, rutile and leucoxene. Based on increased ilmenite and zircon benchmark pricing, the company has reduced the cut-off grade for reporting from an historical 2% THM to 1.7% THM.

Mineral sands have seen substantial pricing increases over the past 12-18 months with benchmark Ilmenite pricing increasing approximately 60% since October 2020 to US$350 per tonne. Zircon pricing has also seen significant appreciation with Zircon commanding US$1,500 a tonne.[3]

Table 1: Inhambane Mineral Resource Summary

==> picture [504 x 169] intentionally omitted <==

HEAVY MINERALS LIMITED | ABN: 26 647 831 883 | Business Address: Unit 2, 106 Robinson Avenue, Belmont, Western Australia 6104 | Registered Address: Level 11, London House, 216 St George's Terrace, Perth, Western Australia 6000 | Phone: +61 8 9481 0389 | Fax: +61 8 9463 6103 | E-mail: [email protected] | Website: www.heavyminerals.com | Non-Executive Chairman: Adam Schofield | Executive Director & CEO: Nic Matich | Non-Executive Director: Greg Jones | Non-Executive Director: Glenn Simpson | Company Secretary: Stephen Brockhurst

==> picture [595 x 144] intentionally omitted <==

Additional Tenure (Inhambane Mozambique):

The Company’s Mozambican mining application has been amended to include additional ground ceded previously when transitioning from an exploration licence to a mining licence application. The ceding of ground was conducted to comply with National Institute of Mines (INAMI) regulations whereby application boundaries must be rounded to the nearest 10 seconds. A subsequent application with INAMI resulted in the Mining Application being extended to the South and the West (Figure 1). This additional ground includes an area previously drilled by HVY and this, coupled with a revised THM cut-off grade from 2.0% THM to 1.7% THM has resulted in a 59% increase in contained heavy mineral to 2.7 Mt (increased from 1.7 Mt). The updated JORC Inferred Mineral Resource of 90 MT @ 3.0% THM is contained within a relatively small portion of the mining license application (Figure 2). The additional ground now under application includes highly prospective areas, bordering the Rio Tinto and Savannah Jangamo project which has a “world class” Mineral Sand Resource of 4.4 Bt @ 3.9% THM[3 ]

Table 2: Changes to mining licence application

Licence No Holder Area Status Grant date Expiry Date
10255C
At 14th September 2021		 +258
Limitada		 183.5 km2 Mining Concession
Licence Application
Pending		 N/A N/A
10255C
At 1st December 2021		 +258
Limitada		 213.8 km2 Mining Concession
Licence Application
Pending		 N/A N/A

Inhambane Metallurgical Testing:

HVY plans to conduct metallurgical testing of the samples brought back from the 2014 Mozambique drilling campaign. HVY is undertaking an audit of the stored samples and intends to supply sufficient material quantities to conduct Scoping Study level testwork to develop a process flowsheet and expected mineral products. The development of process flow sheets will provide the groundwork for an engineering Scoping Study to develop CAPEX and OPEX and deliver an understanding of the pathway forward to commercial development.

HVY will keep the market updated as to progress with the audit and submission of samples for metallurgical testing.

Executive Director & CEO, Mr. Nic Matich said:

“HVY has worked with-in the constraints of the COVID pandemic to produce tangible results for shareholders from our Mozambique asset. The significant Increase of the Mineral Resource highlights the prospectivity of our tenure and bodes well for the future of the project.”

2

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [457 x 554] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1: Mining Licence Application pre and post granting of additional ground

3

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [472 x 570] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2: Updated mining license application – highlighting updated Inferred Mineral Resource outline

4

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Heavy Mineral Sands Market:

Ilmenite and Zircon pricing has seen a significant uplift in the last 12 to 18 months with benchmark ilmenite pricing increasing 60% since October 2020, to US$350 per ton[1] . Zircon pricing has also seen benchmark pricing increases, with the Iluka Zircon price set at approximately US$1,500 per ton, effective 1[st] October 2021[2] .

Existing Heavy Minerals suppliers including Iluka and Image Resources have described the market thematic as being one of excess demand. Iluka Resources Zircon “customers” are on an allocation basis with multiple customers seeking volumes exceeding their allocation[4] .

==> picture [504 x 139] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3: Source: Image Resources ASX release 27/10/2021

==> picture [358 x 196] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4: Source: Iluka Presentation to 22nd Annual Mineral Sands Conference 16/11/2021

5

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Summary Mineral Resource Estimate:

LOCATION AND HISTORY

HVY currently has the rights to a mineral sand concession in southern Mozambique called Inhambane. The Inhambane project is located on a mining license application adjacent to and immediately to the north of two mineral leases held by Rio Tinto (Figure 2).

The Inhambane Project is located in the South of Inhambane Province. The tenement lies across the borders of the Inhambane and Jangamo districts.

In 2013 HVY partnered with a Mozambican Company +258 LDA to secure the Inhambane project and HVY currently owns 70% of +258 LDA which in turn owns 100% of the tenement.

The original tenure was an exploration license, 4658L (197.57 km[2] ). This licence was reduced to 193.81 km[2] by the Department of Mines in Mozambique to meet statutory requirements. A mining concession (10255C) was applied for in 2020 which covers an area of 183.55 km[2] . In 2021 an extension to this mining concession was applied for and granted, adding an additional 30.34 km[2] to the concession. The current mining concession applied for is 213.89 km[2] .

HVY conducted due diligence on the tenement in early 2014 and followed up with a successful Aircore drilling and assay program which delivered a resource in early 2015.

This resource estimation work represents the maiden resource for the Inhambane Project.

GEOLOGY

The Inhambane province is part of the coastal region of southern Mozambique which forms part of the Mozambique basin, which is up to 400 km wide, with an onshore area of about 270 000 km[2] and a long axis of about 1200 km (Förster 1975; Matthews et al., 2001).

The bulk of the titanium and zircon sand mineralisation are associated with at least 160 m of older marineintertidal-aeolian sediments that include three generations of stable older palaeodunes (D1, D2 and D3) which occur inland of the coastline and overlie a package of marine-intertidal sediments (Porter, 2016). These units are variously distributed throughout the project area in varying thickness and occurrence.

Unit D3 is the most important in terms of economic geology, with an average of 3.3% Total HM and low slime content (average of <5%), making it potentially amenable to low-cost mining methods such as dozer trap or dredging. These are overlain by the contemporary aeolian D4 unit and alluvial material (Porter, 2016).

The better heavy sand mineralisation at Mutamba occurs within the three main zones of Jangamo, Dongane and Ravene, all of which have relatively similar mineralisation characteristics. The combined ilmenite, rutile and zircon economic HM content is 60 to 80% THM, with the bulk of the mineralisation hosted by the D2, D3 and Fluvial units. The THM grain-size distribution for Mutamba has a range 90 to 210 µm, with 50% of HM grains >142 µm. The overall slime content for Mutamba is 7.1% and typically comprises kaolinite and illite, with lesser amounts of smectite, chlorite and mica.

6

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

The tenement is located over a seaward dune system trending towards a landward dune system. These Dune systems are separated by a drainage line with associated lakes and swamps. The Rio Tinto dune system lies within the seaward dune system. Both dune systems host concentrations of minerals such as ilmenite, altered ilmenite, zircon and rutile. HVY has a focus on topographical based structures and as such has identified six initial target areas. The Quaternary formations in these areas consist mostly of alluvium deposits and sand dunes (coastal and inland).

INITIAL MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

The initial resource estimate and methodology used to generate the estimate for the Inhambane project can be found on HVY’s website at the following link:

  • https://www.heavyminerals.com/technical reports/

This estimate was prepared by Mr Greg Jones of GNJ Consulting Pty Ltd, who accepted the role of Competent Person for the estimate. Mr Jones classified the initial estimate of 51 Mt @ 3.4% THM as an Inferred Mineral Resource and is reported in accordance to the JORC Code (2012). The most recent report on this estimate is titled “Heavy Minerals Limited, Inhambane Mineral Resource Estimate, May 2021” and summarises the exploration results on which the estimate is based, describes how the estimate was prepared, and includes Sections 1 to 3 of JORC Code Table 1.

EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES

Drilling targeted an area close to the main access road with a high likelihood of success based on the proximity to Rio Tinto’s project. Drill spacing and observed mineralisation support the Inferred Mineral Resource estimate.

A total of 41 holes were drilled for 1783 m. Aircore Drilling was carried out by Agua Terra (Mozambican based drilling company) using a truck mounted drill rig and NQ sized rods. Samples were obtained at 1.5 m intervals which generated about 8 kg of material that was split down to 1.5 - 2.5 kg using the cone splitter at the bottom of the sample cyclone.

The cyclone used for sampling was a Metzke Fixed Cone Splitter with Transition. Samples were subsequently split down to approximately 1 - 1.5 kg using cone and quartering. The smaller sub-samples were labelled and bagged for export to the primary laboratory for processing. Any wet or damp samples were allowed to dry prior to the splitting stage. A total of 1175 samples were taken of which 832 were submitted for assay representing approximately 71% of the total samples. Samples selected for assaying were then securely transported back to Australia for processing through Diamantina Laboratories in Perth.

Subsequent to heavy mineral float sink analysis, mineral assemblage composites were prepared based on geological interpretation and observations from logging and visual observation of heavy mineral sachets. A total of three mineral assemblage composites were prepared and submitted to ALS in Perth for QEMSCAN analysis.

7

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [422 x 510] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5: Drill Collars from 2014 drilling campaign and heat map showing THM as a weighted average above the 1.7% THM cut-off grade.

8

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

MINERAL ASSEMBLAGE COMPOSITES

Mineral assemblage composites are designed to test the mineralogical and chemical characteristics of the heavy mineral suite to enable meaningful economic evaluation to be undertaken for any given heavy mineral sand deposit. There are a wide range of techniques available ranging from grain point counting to QEMSCAN analysis and through to complex gravity, magnetic and electrostatic separation methods in order to mimic wet and dry separation plant performance.

Bulk sample composites were prepared by HVY with guidance from GNJ Consulting in order to create a preliminary mineralogical break down of the Inhambane deposit. These composites are generated by completing a geological and stratigraphic interpretation of the primary drill holes, down hole logging and assaying. Samples from domains with similar geological characteristics have been grouped together.

A total of 3 composite samples were created from HM sinks collected from the Inhambane project. To ensure that the composites were representative of each of the mineralised zones, each composite was made up of HM concentrates (sinks) weighted on the contributing HM grades, taken along and across strike within the deposit based on preliminary inspection and logging of HM sinks (sachet logging).

The composited samples were submitted to ALS Metallurgy (Perth) for QEMSCAN analysis. This procedure is discussed in the next section.

DESCRIPTION OF QUANTITATIVE MINERALOGICAL ANALYSIS (QEMSCAN)

QEMSCAN is the name for an integrated automated mineralogy and petrography solution providing quantitative analysis of minerals, rocks and man-made materials. QEMSCAN is an abbreviation standing for Quantitative Evaluation of Minerals by SCANning electron microscopy, and a registered trademark owned by FEI Company since 2009.

The samples that were submitted to ALS were riffle split to produce sub-samples of suitable size for making QEMSCAN polished sections. Each sub-sample was mixed with size-graded, high purity graphite to ensure particle separation and discourage density segregation. The sample-graphite mixtures were then set into moulds using a two-part epoxy resin, producing a representative sub-sample of randomly orientated particles. After curing, the resin blocks were cut back to expose a fresh surface and progressively ground and finepolished. Passing QA/QC checks, the sections were carbon coated for electron beam conductivity and presented to the QEMSCAN for analysis.

The samples were analysed using QEMSCAN technology in PMA (Particle Mineral Analysis) mode. The scan was performed with a pixel spacing set at 5 µm. A random selection of particles for each sample was analysed.

A wide range of mineral characteristics are reported from the QEMSCAN analysis including mineral abundance on both a pixel and particle assignment, particle images, elemental deportment (on both a pixel and particle assignment) and calculated average grain and particle sizes.

It should be noted that QEMSCAN is only a preliminary mineralogical assessment technique and one of its limitations is an inability to predict final product characterisation and performance of wet and dry mineral separation performance. Therefore, it should be used in conjunction with other physical separation techniques in order to provide more valuable characterisation information.

9

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

SUMMARY OF MINERALOGY

The detailed mineral analysis by QEMSCAN analysis allows for important valuable heavy minerals such as ilmenite, zircon and rutile to be estimated as stand-alone mineral groups and also allows for a detailed breakdown of trash minerals which can be grouped into larger ‘buckets’ such as magnetic and non-magnetic other. Critical trash minerals can be identified such as chrome, monazite, kyanite and sillimanite and garnet as these can have particularly important impacts on the recovery of valuable heavy mineral species.

From the detailed QEMSCAN analysis we have created a summary mineral breakdown (Table 3) and used this to apply to the defined mineral composites that will be interpolated into the block model.

Table 3 Inhambane mineralogy summarised from the ALS QEMSCAN analysis

==> picture [397 x 107] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

IN-Z3-001 22.6 33.1 1.3 3.9 3.1 4.8 5.1 0.2 0.8 0.0 14.9 10.2
IN-Z5-001 34.3 31.7 1.8 5.3 3.9 2.8 5.3 0.4 0.6 0.0 8.7 5.2
IN-Z5-002 31.7 28.7 1.8 4.4 3.9 3.9 4.6 0.3 1.1 0.0 14.1 5.6
Notes:
1
2
MACNUM ILMA ILM RUTI ZIRC LEUC KYASIL CHRM MONA STAU GARN NMOTH MOTH
----- End of picture text -----

  • 1 refer to Table 4.3 for the definition of minerals included in non-magnetic others

2 refer to Table 4.3 for the definition of minerals included in magnetic others

The bulk samples are referred to as MACNUM (mineral assemblage composite number) in the resource model and associated files. The MACNUM field values are referenced by a prefix IN (for Inhambane) and are numbered based on domain (Z3 and Z5) and then sequentially.

All fields were checked for out of range values and a check of the sum of the assemblage to 100 per cent was also conducted.

10

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [504 x 221] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6 Photo-micrographs of IN-Z3-001 (left) and IN-Z5-001 (right) - approximately 2.5 - 3.0 cm field of view

Figure 6 shows composite samples under reflected light. The grains are well rounded and well sorted, indicative of a mature winnowing environment. Some ilmenite exhibits mild oxidation and the levels of trash mineral commensurate with the analysis from the QEMSCAN.

DATA ANALYSIS

From all the supplied data an MS Access database was created to store all information in a relational database. This included the development of duplicate and standard sample queries. A number of minor issues were observed and corrected, and these were traced back to some of the original logging capture process (and subsequently corrected).

Drill hole RL's were assumed as correct based on the DGPS survey pickup. Checking against topography was not considered accurate given that the original topography was based on SRTM data and has a limited and occasionally unreliable absolute accuracy.

The representivity of samples was checked by comparing the split weights of samples at the beginning and ending of each drill rod (effectively the 1[st] half versus the 2[nd] half of the rod).

The rate of submission of duplicate analysis for the Inhambane deposit was 1 in 40 for both laboratory and rig duplicates for a combined repeat ratio of 1 in 20. The laboratory was blind to the field duplicates and as part of their normal procedure, the laboratory duplicates were taken regardless of whether they fell on client samples or internal laboratory standards.

Overall, the duplicate lab and field samples showed good precision and lab and company standards that were submitted as part of the drill hole program QA/QC also returned values within the expected mean and calculated mean (within 2 standard deviations).

11

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

INTERPRETATION AND WIREFRAMING

It was identified early in the literature study and then confirmed during the drilling program that distinct lithological horizons could be identified in the project area. Dunal units dominate the bulk of the geology of the Inhambane area and are characterised by high elevation dunes and ferric oxide staining of the sand grains.

The dunal units are subdivided into three progressively younger and more mineralised units, two of which are marked distinct from the first, with higher SLIMES and generally as poorly mineralised. This unit overlies a hard clay dominated, intertidal unit and forms the shield onto which successive dunal units have been deposited. There also exist some fluvial deposited sand units forming distinct geographical outlines that mirror present-day drainage patterns.

==> picture [472 x 203] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

ZONE 3
ZONE 5
Basement
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 7 Section 7336344 mN showing the interpretation of the contact between ZONE 3 and ZONE 5 and basement (10 x Z-axis) (note that easting coordinates on this cross section are shown in a local grid. The definitions for this grid are described in the Mineral R

GEOLOGICAL AND GRADE MODELLING

Preparation of the geological grade model was based on a combination of coding model cells in drill holes inside closed wireframes solids, and below wireframe surfaces including geology and basement. Modelling convention has the largest parent cell size possible used which is generally based on half the distance between holes of the dominant drill hole spacing in the X and Y dimensions. Cell dimensions are generally used such to avoid the use of overly small cells that imply a level of refinement in the model that is not justified by the drill hole spacing.

The dominant drill grid spacing for the Inhambane deposit is 250 x 500 x 1.5 m. This would indicate parent cell dimensions in XYZ of 125 x 250 x 1.5 m and following testing with different cell sizes this was the parent cell size that was chosen for the final model. Given the early stage of exploration for the Inhambane project and the uncertainty in the accuracy of topography away from and in between drill holes, it was decided that a smaller sub cell breakdown was not warranted. Subsequent exploration and modelling exercises may be able to make better use of detailed topography surveys such as LiDAR.

12

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [483 x 265] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8 Generalised east and west strandline locations (looking north-west and presented in local grid)

Inverse distance cubed was used along with nearest neighbour to interpolate grades, logged indices and mineral assemblage composite id numbers into the block model. Experimental variograms were developed from the drilling, however were not used to define the search ellipses. Search ellipses were developed through a number of trial runs, testing the grade interpolation vs drill hole grades each time until a satisfactory distribution comparison was achieved. All drill holes (41 original holes) and assays (832 assays) were used for the geological interpretation and grade interpolation given that they were part of the original tenure under 4658L. To reduce the size of the resource to accommodate the change in tenure, the model has been trimmed and re-reported to honour the new boundary.

A dynamic ellipsoid modelling technique using dip, trend and plunge (from the digitised trends) strings to control the search ellipse orientation for sub zones within the model to account for variations in the dip, trend and plunge of mineralisation. This is a completely flexible routine and is very useful for wide, thin and extremely elongate strandlines particularly in mineral sands even when changes in dip, trend and plunge are very subtle.

The average bulk density was selected as 1.7 gcm[-3] . This is an average bulk density applied across the entire resource estimate. It was selected based on the experience of the Competent Person, the average HM and SLIMES grades and given that the average bulk density of quartz sand is 1.6 gcm[-3] .

MODEL VALIDATION

The volume model and drill hole file was validated on-screen against the geology and basement wireframes to ensure zone allocation had been correctly assigned. The volume model was validated to ensure that adequate resolution was obtained with the use of sub-cells.

13

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

On reviewing the grade interpolation there was no smearing of grades observed between zones, but minor smoothing of higher grades (from high drill hole grades to lower model grades) and lower grades (from low drill hole grades to higher model grades).

The model was interrogated to see if any cells were not estimated and whether cells were estimated in the first, second or third estimation pass as expected given the surrounding sampling density. To this end the search volume field flag, EST, was used to cross check the interpolation parameters. None of the domains remained unestimated for drill assay primary grades.

Population distributions were calculated for the two critical assay fields; HM and SLIMES as both normal and log normal distributions. These populations were further isolated to hard coded ZONE unique values. Bend histograms were prepared for drill hole and model results for each domain and the key assay fields HM and SLIMES and were compared with acceptable representation of drill hole grades in the model. Swathe plots were prepared for comparison of key assay grades along the long axis of the interpreted strike of mineralisation. These showed an acceptable representation of drill hole grades into the block model.

The assignment of mineralogy was made by nearest neighbour to the block model constrained by domains as per the individual drill hole assays.

RESULTS

Consideration has been given to the reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction for the Inhambane prospect. Factors such as current mineral sands prices, likely mining methodology, thickness of mineralised intervals, mineral recoveries and high-level costs for mining and processing have all been applied to the Mineral Resource at the nominated HM cut-off grade.

The classification of the Inhambane Mineral Resource estimate has been assigned an Inferred Mineral Resource category and is supported by criteria as follows:

  • drill hole spacing;

  • thickness and continuity of mineralisation;

  • the quality of QA/QC sampling; and

  • the distribution of mineral assemblage composites.

This is the maiden Mineral Resource estimate for the Inhambane project and is entirely in the Inferred category.

The drill spacing is currently wide spaced and geology and mineralisation continuity is only inferred at this stage. There are demonstrated and continuous layers of mineralisation within ZONE 5 which may be indicative of strandline development and preservation, however the wide spaced drilling does not allow for the confirmation of this. The potential uncertainty of this classification can be demonstrated by the one attempt at infill drilling which resulted in identifying a washout of mineralisation (which are rare, however can be encountered in marine strandline deposits).

The quality of QA/QC sampling was completed to a recommended industry standard and supports the selected Mineral Resource category. The inclusion of company blind standard samples and twin drilling would further

14

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

enhance the QA/QC aspect and therefore confidence in the Mineral Resource estimate, however this has not been undertaken at this stage.

The sample support and distribution of mineral assemblage composites is to an adequate level of density to infer an overall global average of mineral assemblage. The current tonnage assignment to each mineral assemblage composite is well below what would be considered to be an adequate degree of resolution to infer a high level of confidence for monthly production rates. Despite the small number of composite samples those results do broadly infer a HM to trash mineral ratio that may be economically favourable across the area drilled.

In addition to all of the criteria discussed in this section there is also the consideration of the cut-off-grade used to report the Mineral Resource estimate. Cut-off grades and grade tonnage figures and discussion are presented Table 4.

The selection of the HM cut-off grade used for reporting was selected based on the following criteria:

  • deposits within Mozambique and within comparable depositional settings and with similar to lower value mineralogy are utilising cut-off grades of approximately 1.3 to 2.9% THM;

  • the grade tonnage curves show inflexion points at 1.5 and 2.5% THM, indicating a natural grade and tonnage break point.

A cut-off grade of 1.7% THM to account for the value of the VHM (valuable heavy mineral) content and to align with an average of inflexion points on the grade tonnage curves.

The Mineral Resource statement for the Inhambane deposit is presented in Table 4 below and the Mineral Resource outline is presented in Figure 2. This table conforms to guidelines set out in the JORC Code (2012) and is formatted for external reporting.

The Inhambane project comprises an Inferred Mineral Resource of 90 Mt @ 3.0% THM and 5% SLIMES containing 2.7 Mt of THM. The breakdown of the Mineral Resource category is as follows:

  • an Inferred Resource of 90 Mt @ 3.0% THM and 5% SLIMES containing 2.7 Mt of THM with an assemblage of 60% ilmenite, 2% rutile, 5% zircon and 4% leucoxene.

Table 4 Mineral Resource Estimate at December 2021

==> picture [504 x 170] intentionally omitted <==

15

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

The supporting criteria for the Mineral Resource classification is presented in Appendix 1 in alignment with the reporting requirements for Table 1 from the JORC Code (2012). The Mineral Resource figures presented in Table 1 are consistent with guidelines from the JORC Code (2012) with respect to reporting significant figures in addition to the experience of the Competent Person, Mr Greg Jones.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for further work to improve or refine the Mineral Resource estimate for the Inhambane deposit have been identified for a number of areas.

The following points are recommended to be considered by HVY for follow-up action or attention:

  • further develop QA/QC procedures to include twin drilling and internal company blind field standards for submission to laboratories for analysis;

  • opportunities to test the presence of strandline style mineralisation within the interpreted marine/alluvial sequence which was not previously identified as an Exploration Target;

  • consideration of the refining the mineralogical and quality characterisation test work for the deposit to determine the true potential saleability of ilmenite; and

  • further extension of the resource which is still open in all directions, infill drilling for the Inhambane project and target testing at other identified sites in the project region.

This announcement has been authorised by the Board of Directors of the Company.

For further information, please contact:

Heavy Minerals Limited

Nic Matich, Executive Director & CEO Ph: +61 (08) 9481 0389 E: [email protected]

Media & Investor Enquiries

Peter Taylor, NWR Communications Ph: +61 (0) 412 036 231 E: [email protected]

About Heavy Minerals Limited

Heavy Minerals Limited (ASX: HVY) is an Australian listed industrial mineral exploration company. The Company’s projects are prospective for industrial minerals including but not limited to Garnet, Zircon, Rutile, and Ilmenite. The Company’s primary focus is the Port Gregory Garnet Project in Australia which has an Exploration Target of between 3.5Mt and 4.5Mt contained Garnet.

To learn more please visit: www.heavyminerals.com

16

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Competent Person Statement

The information in this announcement that relates to Exploration Targets is based on and fairly represents information and supporting documentation prepared by Mr. Greg Jones (FAusIMM) who is a Non-Executive Director of Heavy Minerals Limited. Mr. Jones is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity that is being reported on to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”. Mr. Jones has reviewed this report and consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters in the form and context with which it appears.

The Mineral Resource estimates referred to in this announcement were first reported in accordance with ASX Listing Rule 5.7 in the Company's prospectus dated 27 July 2021 and released on the ASX market announcements platform on 10 September 2021. The JORC Mineral Resource report that supports this original Mineral Resource estimate is hosted on the company website at the following link:

- https://www.heavyminerals.com/technical reports/

The Company is releasing updated information that confirms an increase in the Mineral Resource estimate that was reported in the prospectus by way of changing the reporting THM cut-off grade and the expansion of tenure that increases the extent of the Mineral Resource to the south.

References

1Image Resources ASX release 18/10/2021

2Iluka Presentation to 22nd Annual Mineral Sands Conference 16/11/2021

3 - - https://www.savannahresources.com/assets/mutamba jangamo project/

4Iluka Presentation to Macquarie Western Australia Forum 2021

17

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix 1: JORC Table 1

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

  • Criteria Explanation Comment Sampling • Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut • The deposit was sampled using Reverse Circulation Air-Core techniques channels, random chips, or specific (RCAC), top drive rotary open hole. specialised industry standard • An estimate was made of the approximate size of the

  • measurement tools appropriate to the samples expected based on the drilling interval, the size of

  • minerals under investigation, such as the drill rod and the split taken from the drill rig sampling

  • down hole gamma sondes, or cyclone. The size of the split was in line with expectations.

  • handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken • RCAC drilling was used to obtain a 1.5 to 2 m samples from as limiting the broad meaning of which approximately 1.2-2.5 kg was collected using a sampling. Metzke Fixed Cone Splitter with Transition. The sample was

    • RCAC drilling was used to obtain a 1.5 to 2 m samples from which approximately 1.2-2.5 kg was collected using a Metzke Fixed Cone Splitter with Transition. The sample was then split down to approximately 1 kg for transport back to Diamantina Laboratories in Perth, Australia for assaying. The sample was then dried, de-slimed (material less than 45 µm removed) and then oversize (material +2mm) was removed

  • Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.

to ensure sample representivity and
the appropriate calibration of any
measurement tools or systems used.		 , .
The sample was then dried, de-slimed (material less than 45
µm removed) and then oversize (material +2mm) was
removed
• Aspects of the determination of
mineralisation that are Material to
the Public Report. In cases where
‘industry standard’ work has been		 • Approximately 100 g of the resultant sample was then
subjected to a heavy mineral (THM) float/sink technique
using tetra-bromo-ethane (TBE: SG=2.92-2.96 gcm-3).
done this would be relatively simple • The resulting THM concentrate was then dried and
(eg ‘reverse circulation drilling was weighed. Some of the THM concentrate samples were
used to obtain 1 m samples from grouped together to form mineral assemblage composite
which 3 kg was pulverised to produce samples.
a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other
cases more explanation may be
required, such as where there is		 • These mineral assemblage composite samples then were
subjected to QEMSCAN analysis.
coarse
gold
that
has
inherent
sampling
problems.
Unusual
commodities or mineralisation types
(eg submarine nodules) may warrant
disclosure of detailed information.
Drilling • Drill
type
(e.g.
core,
reverse		 • RCAC drilling accounts for 100 per cent of the total drilling.
techniques circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary All holes were drilled vertical with no downhole surveying to
air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) confirm hole direction. The size of the drill rods used for the
and details (eg core diameter, triple or drilling program was NQ.
standard tube, depth of diamond tails,
face-sampling bit or other type,
whether core is oriented and if so, by
what method, etc).

18

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria Explanation Comment
Drill sample
recovery		 • 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.		 • Drill sample recovery was considered to be quite good with
sample weights as expected (based on the size of the drill
rods, sampling interval and split size). Ground conditions
were dry to damp and considered ideal for air core drilling
in sand. Heavy groundwater flow can adversely affect sand
recovery and influence the preferential segregation of
heavy mineral from quartz sand and clay.
• Sampling on the drill rig was observed to ensure that the
cyclone remained clean. The cyclone was washed at the
end of each hole and cleaned with hammering or scraping
as required.
• The representivity of samples was checked by comparing
the split weights of samples at the beginning and ending of
each drill rod (effectively the 1st half versus the 2nd half of
the rod). The original sample weights were not recorded,
however cone and quartering was carried out on samples
recovered from the cyclone, which were then weighed. The
split samples therefore are representative of the original
sample (considering the final split as an equal subset ratio
of the original sample).
• The sample weights were analysed for each of the positions
within the drill rod
• There is a very minor amount of bias between sample
position 1 and sample position 2 however it does tend to
switch backwards and forwards and the overall weight
differential between the 2 sample positions is considered
not significant enough to impact on sample representivity.
Logging • Whether core and chip samples have
been geologically and geotechnically
logged to a level of detail to support
appropriate
Mineral
Resource
estimation,
mining
studies
and
metallurgical studies.
• Whether logging is qualitative or
quantitative in nature. Core (or
costean, channel, etc) photography.
• The total length and percentage of
the relevant intersections logged.		 • HVY collected detailed qualitative logging of geological
characteristics to allow a robust geological interpretation to
be carried out.
• Logging of RCAC samples recorded estimated slimes,
washing, colour, lithology, dominant grainsize, coarsest
grainsize, sorting, induration type, hardness, estimated rock
and estimated THM.
• All drill holes were logged in full and approximately 68 per
cent of samples were assayed and used in the resource
estimation exercise.

19

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

  • Criteria Explanation Sub-sampling • If core, whether cut or sawn and techniques whether quarter, half or all core and sample taken. preparation • If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry.

  • For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.

  • Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples.

  • Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling.

  • Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.

Comment

  • No core samples were taken due to the unconsolidated nature of the material being drilled and sampled as well as the disaggregation process during air core drilling.

  • Samples were recovered from the cone splitter beneath the cyclone. Samples were then transported to a core yard where they were subsequently dried, cone and quartered to a smaller subsample more appropriate for transport back to Australia.

  • The final sample size was approximately 1 kg and considered to be appropriate compared with the grain size of the material being sampled.

  • Sample preparation is consistent with contemporary industry practices.

  • QA/QC in the form of laboratory and rig duplicates were used to monitor laboratory performance. Laboratory and rig duplicates were submitted at the rate of approximately 1 in 40 each for a combined submission rate of one in 20. The rig duplicates were collected from the sampling apparatus at the rate of approximately 1 every 40th interval sampled, given the next sample number in sequence, then submitted for assay. Separate duplicate samples were not collected during the cone and quartering after drying in Mozambique.

  • Analysis of sample duplicates was undertaken by standard geostatistical methodologies to test for bias and to ensure that sample splitting was representative. Assay results of samples and their field duplicates were compared and no systemic differences observed, implying that bias had not been introduced by the cone splitter.

  • Given that the grain size of the material being sampled is sand and approximately 70 to 300 µm, an approximate sample size of 1 kg is more than adequate.

• Given that the grain size of the material being sampled is
sand and approximately 70 to 300 µm, an approximate
sample size of 1 kg is more than adequate.
Quality of • The
nature,
quality
and		 • Assaying was carried out at Diamantina laboratory in Perth,
assay data appropriateness of the assaying and a laboratory that specialises in assay analysis for the
and laboratory
procedures
used
and		 mineral sand industry. Every 25th sample was duplicated in
laboratory whether the technique is considered the laboratory and a laboratory standard was inserted at a
tests partial or total. rate of 1 in 40. THM was separated from light minerals by a
• For geophysical tools, spectrometers, sink/float process using TBE.
handheld XRF instruments, etc, the • The sample analysis process produced the following assays:
parameters used in determining the
analysis including instrument make		 • - heavy mineral (‘THM’) > 45 μm, <2 mm, > 2.96 SG
and model, reading times, calibrations • - slime (‘SL’) < 45 μm
factors applied and their derivation,
etc.		 • - oversize (‘OS’) > 2 mm
• Nature of quality control procedures
adopted
(eg
standards,
blanks,		 • To maintain QA/QC, two duplicate assaying procedures
were implemented.

20

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria Explanation Comment
duplicates,
external
laboratory
checks) and whether acceptable levels
of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and
precision have been established.		 • Every 20th sample in the laboratory was split and both sub-
samples processed through the entire assaying procedure.
• Two samples were collected at the rig at every 40th sample
and subjected to the complete assaying process. The
laboratory was blind to these duplicates.
• The THM mineralogy was determined by compositing THM
concentrates (sinks) from the same geological domain or
ore zones in order to obtain sufficient THM on which to
conduct a mineralogical examination.
• The mineralogy composites were selected based on the
geological zones along and between lines of drilling. This
resulted in 3 samples being taken across entire deposit.
One from ZONE 3 and 2 from ZONE 5.
• The heavy mineral from each sample was subjected to
QEMSCAN analysis through the ALS laboratory in Perth.
• All assaying for the Inhambane deposit was carried out by
Diamantina Laboratories.
• Duplicate samples were submitted however blind field
standards were not submitted by HVY as part of the drilling
program at the Inhambane deposit.
Verification
of sampling
and assaying		 • The
verification
of
significant
intersections by either independent or
alternative company personnel.
• The use of twinned holes.
• Documentation of primary data, data
entry procedures, data verification,
data storage (physical and electronic)
protocols.
• Discuss any adjustment to assay data.		 • All results were checked by the Competent Person
• The Competent Person made periodic visits to the
laboratory to observe sample processing
• Verification of intersections was limited to checking for
variance between logged estimates of grade and the
assayed grades. No significant variances were identified
that warranted any re-assay.
• No holes were twinned during the drilling program.
• Data collected by HVY was entered digitally in the field and
uploaded to Microsoft Access and managed as a database.
• Minor adjustments to assay data was made prior to model
interpolation, including setting of absent data to half the
value of assay threshold values. No obvious outliers were
identified during data analysis.
Location of
data points		 • Accuracy and quality of surveys used
to locate drill holes (collar and down-
hole surveys), trenches, mine workings
and other locations used in Mineral
Resource estimation.
• Specification of the grid system used.
• Quality and adequacy of topographic
control.		 • HVY surveyed drill holes by differential global positioning
system (‘DGPS’).
• The grid system used is the Moznet spheroid and the grid is
UTM Zone 36 South). Modelling was conducted in a rotated
local mine grid.
• Topographic control was inadequate from available
satellite tomography and so drill hole collars which had
been surveyed in via DGPS were used instead.

21

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria Explanation Comment
Data spacing
and
distribution		 • Data
spacing
for
reporting
of
Exploration Results.
• Whether
the
data
spacing
and
distribution is sufficient to establish
the degree of geological and grade
continuity appropriate for the Mineral
Resource and Ore Reserve estimation
procedure(s)
and
classifications
applied.
• Whether sample compositing has
been applied.		 • Based on the experience of the Competent Person the data
spacing and distribution through the drill hole programs Is
considered adequate for the assigned Mineral Resource
classification. Holes were drilled at approximately 250 m
across inferred strike of mineralisation and 500 m along
strike.
• No sample compositing or de-compositing has been
applied. The majority of sampling was taken on 1.5 m
intervals with a single 2 m interval from surface to aid the
sample quarantine process for transport back to Australia.
Orientation
of data in
relation to
geological
structure		 • Whether the orientation of sampling
achieves
unbiased
sampling
of
possible structures and the extent to
which this is known, considering the
deposit type.
• If the relationship between the drilling
orientation and the orientation of key
mineralised structures is considered to
have introduced a sampling bias, this
should be assessed and reported if
material.		 • Sample
orientation
is
vertical
and
approximately
perpendicular to the dip and strike of the mineralisation
resulting in true thickness estimates. Drilling and sampling
is carried out on a regular rectangular grid that is broadly
aligned to the strike of the orebody mineralisation.
• No bias caused by orientation of drill holes anticipated from
drilling vertical holes into a mineral sands deposit.
Sample
security		 • The measures are taken to ensure
sample security.		 • All samples are numbered, with samples split and residues
stored along with THM sinks. Samples were collected from
the cyclone on the drill rig and collected into numbered
bags for transport back to the core yard for drying and sub
splitting. Residual sample was retained on-site and the sub
split sample for assay was re-bagged, sealed in packaging
materials for transport back to Australia. The uppermost 2
m of each drill hole was bagged and transported in a
separate batch to be processed through quarantine as per
Australian International Quarantine Regulations for soil
samples. This was done to minimise the cost of having
approximately 1.6 tonnes of sample go through quarantine
and a treatment process.
• The samples that bypassed the quarantine process were
transported directly to Diamantina Laboratories for
checking in and subsequent assay. Quarantine samples
were transported directly to Intertek for quarantine
treatment and from there couriered to Diamantina for
assaying.
Audits or
reviews		 • The results of any audits or reviews of
sampling techniques and data.		 • There are no existing audits or reviews. This represents the
maiden resource estimate for the Inhambane project.

22

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

Criteria Explanation Comment
Mineral
tenement and
land
tenure
status		 • Type,
reference
name/number,
location and ownership including
agreements or material issues with
third parties such as joint ventures,
partnerships, overriding royalties,
native title interests, historical sites,
wilderness or national park and
environmental settings.
• The security of the tenure held at the
time of reporting along with any
known impediments to obtaining a
licence to operate in the area.		 • The resource lies within the granted exploration licence
4658L. Tenure is 100% owned by Mozambique Company
+258 of which HVY owns 70%. Subsequent to drilling a
mining concession was applied for, 10255C which covers an
area of 183.55 km2. As a consequence of the change in
tenure size and movement in tenure boundary the
southernmost portion of the resource and one line of
drilling was outside the current tenement. A subsequent re-
application of tenure to has been made to amalgamate
new vacant ground into the mining concession application
and now that ground has been granted (still in application)
there is an imperative to re-report the Mineral Resource
estimate to its original area.
• At the time of reporting all tenure was secure and any
administrative costs or fees were fully paid up.
Exploration
done by other
parties		 • Acknowledgment and appraisal of
exploration by other parties.		 • Previous tenement holders in the area, Rio Tinto, conducted
hand auger drilling over the southern half of the 4658L
tenement.
Geology • Deposit type, geological setting and
style of mineralisation.		 • The deposit style is a combination of dunal and
fluvial/marine sediments. Heavy mineral accumulations are
preserved throughout the stratigraphic sequence.
Drill
hole
Information		 • A
summary
of
all
information
material to the understanding of the
exploration
results
including
a
tabulation
of
the
following
information for all Material drill
holes:
-easting and northing of the drill hole
collar
-elevation or RL (Reduced Level –
elevation above sea level in metres)
of the drill hole collar
-dip and azimuth of the hole
-down hole length and interception
depth
-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
Independent Geologist should clearly
explain why this is the case.		 • There are a number of drill holes that have a modest
contribution to the overall THM tonnage of the deposit
mineralisation (the top 25% of holes with contributions of
length times THM grade are listed as follows:
• IN0003R, IN0007, IN0022, IN0023, IN0026, IN0030,
IN0031, IN0036, IN0038.
• Other drill hole results contribute to the identification of the
wide and thick zone of mineralisation via multiple
intersections of drill holes. The composited drill hole listing
is presented in Appendix 2.

23

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria Explanation Comment
Data
aggregation
methods		 • In reporting Exploration Results,
weighting
averaging
techniques,
maximum and/or minimum grade
truncations (eg cutting of high
grades) and cut-off grades are
usually Material and should be
stated.
• Where
aggregate
intercepts
incorporate short lengths of high
grade results and longer lengths of
low grade results, the procedure
used for such aggregation should be
stated and some typical examples of
such aggregations should be shown
in detail.
• The assumptions used for any
reporting of metal equivalent values
should be clearly stated.		 • No grade cutting was undertaken, nor compositing or
aggregation of grades made prior or post the grade
interpolation into the block model. Selection of the bottom
basal contacts of the mineralised domains were made
based on discrete logging and grade information collected
and assayed by HVY.
• Not applicable - all samples are 1.5 m long, except the first
sample below ground surface which was 2 m long.
• No metal equivalents were used for reporting of Mineral
Resources.
Relationship
between
mineralisation
widths
and
intercept
lengths		 • These relationships are particularly
important
in
the
reporting
of
Exploration Results.
• If the geometry of the mineralisation
with respect to the drill hole angle is
known,
its
nature
should
be
reported.
• If it is not known and only the down
hole lengths are reported, there
should be a clear statement to this
effect (eg ‘down hole length, true
width not known’).		 • All drill holes are vertical and perpendicular to the dip and
strike of mineralisation and therefore all interceptions are
approximately true thickness.
• Drill holes are inferred to intersect the mineralisation
approximately perpendicularly.
• The deposit style is flat-lying and so the vertical holes are
assumed to intersect the true width of any mineralisation.
Diagrams • Appropriate maps and sections (with
scales) and tabulations of intercepts
should be included for any significant
discovery
being
reported
These
should include, but not be limited to
a plan view of drill hole collar
locations and appropriate sectional
views.		 • Refer to this release and the main body of report hosted at
https://www.heavyminerals.com/technical-reports/
Balanced
reporting		 • Where comprehensive reporting of
all
Exploration
Results
is
not
practicable, representative reporting
of both low and high grades and/or
widths should be practiced to avoid
misleading reporting of Exploration
Results.		 • Reporting of results is restricted to Mineral Resource
estimates generated from geological and grade block
modelling.
• Composited drill hole intervals which were used to prepare
the Mineral Resource estimate are presented in Appendix 2

24

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria Explanation Comment
Other
substantive
exploration
data		 • Other exploration data, if meaningful
and material, should be reported
including
(but
not
limited
to):
geological observations; geophysical
survey results; geochemical survey
results; bulk samples – size and
method of treatment; metallurgical
test
results;
bulk
density,
groundwater, geotechnical and rock
characteristics; potential deleterious
or contaminating substances.		 • Samples of THM to be determined for mineral assemblage
were created by compositing THM sink fractions from drill
hole samples interpreted to have intersected the same
geological horizon and mineralisation, and for which
viewing of the THM sinks suggested similar assemblage
grades.
• Samples have not yet been tested for in situ density.
Further work • The nature and scale of planned
further work (eg tests for lateral
extensions or depth extensions or
large-scale step-out drilling).
• Diagrams clearly highlighting the
areas
of
possible
extensions,
including
the
main
geological
interpretations and future drilling
areas, provided this information is
not commercially sensitive.		 • Further work via infill mineral assemblage composite
sampling is recommended in order to further the confidence
in the current Inferred Mineral Resource.
• Exploration by geophysical and drilling is planned on other
parts of the tenement.
• Refer to this release and the main body of report hosted at
https://www.heavyminerals.com/technical-reports/

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources
Criteria Explanation Comment
Database
integrity		 • Measures taken to ensure that data
has not been corrupted by, for
example, transcription or keying
errors, between its initial collection
and its use for Mineral Resource
estimation purposes.
• Data validation procedures used.		 • The surveying, logging and assay data is stored in a
Microsoft Access database.
• The drill logs were recorded electronically at the rig for the
HVY drilling program, and the hole locations recorded by
hand-held GPS at the time of drilling.
• Each field of the drill log database was verified against
allowable entries and any keying errors corrected at the
time by the logger.
• At the completion of each hole, an entry was made to a
hand-written drilling diary. The diary recorded the hole
name, date, depth, number of samples, time of start and
finish, a description of the location of the hole in relation to
the last hole and other things. Such a diary provides
valuable evidence if there is an error in hole naming or
surveying.
• Visual and statistical comparison was undertaken to check
the validity of results.

25

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria Explanation Comment
Site visits • Comment
on
any
site
visits
undertaken by the Competent Person
and the outcome of those visits.
• If no site visits have been undertaken
indicate why this is the case.		 • No site visit was undertaken by the Competent Person
during the modelling exercise as they are familiar with the
deposit and style of mineralisation. Mr Paul Leandri
supervised the drilling and sampling activities for the
duration of the program and is a Member of the AIG and a
Member of the AusIMM.
Geological
interpretation		 • Confidence in (or conversely, the
uncertainty
of)
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.		 • The geological interpretation was undertaken by GNJ
Consulting using all logging and sampling data and
observations. The geological interpretation is inferred due
to the wide spaced drilling, however the geological
characteristics of the host units is consistent and traceable
between holes both across and along the inferred strike of
the mineralisation.
• Interpretation of geological surfaces or domains to be used
in block modelling were determined utilising THM sinks and
geology logging.
• Any
alternative
geological
interpretations
would
necessitate a reassignment of mineral composite ID (for
mineral assemblage testwork). These are carefully selected
to align with discrete geological domains and a re-
assignment of those domain boundaries would require new
mineral composites to be assayed or for those composite
ID’s to be removed from the interpolation.
• An alternative interpretation would entail preparing tighter
mineralised envelopes in order to constrain grade above a
certain cut-off. At this stage of the resource estimation
confidence this is not considered a valid approach.
• The Mineral Resource estimate was controlled by the
geological / mineralised surfaces and beneath the
topographic surface.
• The Inhambane deposit sits within a number of dune and
fluvial/marine depositional settings. A washout has been
interpreted to have removed mineralisation in the area of
drill hole IN0009 (which did not intersect mineralisation
recorded from holes immediately to the east and west.
Dimensions • The extent and variability of the
Mineral
Resource
expressed
as
length (along strike or otherwise),
plan width, and depth below surface
to the upper and lower limits of the
Mineral Resource.		 • The Mineral Resource reported is within the portion of the
Inhambane tenement drilled by HVY to date (10255C
Mining
Concession
application),
and
extends
for
approximately 2.3 km long, 2 km wide and approximately
25 to 35 m thick on average. Mineralisation is present from
surface over a large portion of the deposit, although should
be qualified by saying that mineralisation above the 1.7%
THM cut-off grade was only intersected in 9 holes. A total
of 36 of the 41 holes drilled contained drill hole intercepts
above cut-off grade. The average composite length per drill
hole above the THM cut-off grade was 4.5 m with a

26

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria Explanation Comment
minimum of 1.5 m and a maximum of 21.5 m.
Estimation
and modelling
techniques		 • The nature and appropriateness of
the estimation technique(s) applied
and
key
assumptions,
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 (eg 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.		 • The Mineral Resource estimate was prepared using CAE
Mining software (Datamine). Inverse distance weighting
techniques were used to interpolate assay grades from drill
hole samples into the block model and nearest neighbour
techniques were used to interpolate index values and
nonnumeric sample identification into the block model.
• The regular dimensions of the drill grid and the anisotropy
of the drilling and sampling grid allowed for the use of
inverse distance methodologies as no de-clustering of
samples was required.
• Appropriate and industry standard search ellipses were
used to search for data for the interpolation and suitable
limitations on the number of samples and the impact of
those samples was maintained. An inverse distance
weighting to the power of 3 was used so as not to over
smooth the grade interpolations.
• Hard domain boundaries were used and these were defined
by the geological surfaces that were interpreted, however a
moving or dynamic search ellipse was used to account for
variations in the dip, trend and plunge of mineralisation.
• This was the maiden mineral resource estimate carried out
for the Inhambane project.
• No assumptions were made during the resource estimation
as to the recovery of by-products.
• All potentially deleterious elements were included as part of
the mineral composite analysis and were included in the
modelling report.
• For the Inhambane deposit the average parent cell size used
was approximately half that for the average drill hole
spacing in the north-south and east-west directions (which
was 500 x 250 x 1.5 m) and the same as the dominant
sample spacing down hole. This resulted in a parent cell size
of 250 x 125 x 1.5 m.
• No assumptions were made regarding the modelling of
selective mining units however it is assumed that a form of
dry mining will be undertaken and the cell size and the sub
cell splitting will allow for an appropriate dry mining ore
reserve to be prepared. Any other mining methodology will
be more than adequately catered for with the parent cell
size that was selected for the modelling exercise for the
deposit.

27

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria Explanation Comment
• Any assumptions about correlation
between 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.		 • No assumptions were made about correlation between
variables.
• The Mineral Resource estimate was controlled to an extent
by the geological / mineralisation and basement surfaces.
• Grade cutting or capping was not used during the
interpolation because of the regular nature of sample
spacing and the fact that samples were not clustered nor
wide spaced to an extent where elevated samples could
have a deleterious impact on the resource estimation.
• Sample distributions were reviewed and no extreme outliers
were identified either high or low that necessitated any
grade cutting or capping.
• Validation of grade interpolations were done visually In CAE
Studio (Datamine) software by loading model and drill hole
files and annotating and colouring and using filtering to
check for the appropriateness of interpolations.
• Statistical distributions were prepared for model zones from
both drill holes and the model to compare the effectiveness
of the interpolation. Along strike distributions of section line
averages (swath plots) for drill holes and models were also
prepared for comparison purposes.
Moisture • Whether the tonnages are estimated
on a dry basis or with natural
moisture,
and
the
method
of
determination
of
the
moisture
content.		 • Tonnages were estimated an assumed dry basis. This is
based on estimates for in situ bulk density for quartz sand
(1.6 gcm-3) and the contributions of weight from THM and
SLIMES to a typical bulk density algorithm. A bulk density
of 1.7 gcm-3 was selected and is consistent with other
estimates used throughout the mineral sands industry.
Cut-off
parameters		 • The basis of the adopted cut-off
grade(s)
or
quality
parameters
applied.		 • Cut-off grades for THM were used to prepare the reported
resource estimate. These cut-off grades were defined by
GNJ
Consulting
as
being
conservative
for
typical
comparative example deposits and mineralogy suites.
Mining factors
or
assumptions		 • Assumptions
made
regarding
possible mining methods, minimum
mining dimensions and 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		 • No specific mining method is assumed other than
potentially the use of dry mining via dozer trap. This allows
for a moderately selective mining process while still
maintaining bulk economies of scale. A minimum thickness
was assumed for the reporting of the mineral resource as
being 2 m for continuity of pits (less than 0.5% of the
contained THM tonnes) and 90% of the THM tonnage is
hosted by 8 m thickness or greater.
• Given the thickness of the Inhambane prospect (average of
14 m) this is not considered to be an issue for dozer trap or
any other contemporary dry mining technique. A lower cut-
off grade would allow for more material to be mined,
leading to thicker mining sequences and a lower stripping
ratio.

28

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria Explanation Comment
mining assumptions made. • Reasonable mining and processing costs, mineral prices and
mineral recoveries were considered for reasonable
prospects of eventual economic extraction. These are
detailed in the Mineral Resource report located at the
following link:
https://www.heavyminerals.com/technical-reports/
Metallurgical
factors or
assumptions		 • The
basis
for
assumptions
or
predictions regarding metallurgical
amenability. It is always necessary as
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.		 • No metallurgical assumptions were used in the preparation
of the Mineral Resource. All of the grade values of the
mineral assemblage are considered to be within acceptable
limits for economic exploitation.
• For consideration of reasonable prospects of eventual
economic extraction, a range of recoveries for mineral
species was considered and these are detailed in the
Mineral Resource report located at the following link:
https://www.heavyminerals.com/technical-reports/
Environmental
factors or
assumptions		 • Assumptions
made
regarding
possible waste and process residue
disposal
options.
It
is
always
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 made.		 • No assumptions have been made regarding possible waste
and process residue however disposal of by-products such
as SL, sand and oversize are normally part of capture and
disposal back into the mining void for eventual
rehabilitation. This also applies to mineral products
recovered and waste products recovered from metallurgical
processing of heavy mineral.

29

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria Explanation Comment
Bulk density • Whether assumed or determined. If
assumed,
the
basis
for
the
assumptions. If determined, the
method used, whether wet or dry,
the frequency of the measurements,
the
nature,
size
and
representativeness of the samples.
• The bulk density for bulk material
must
have
been
measured
by
methods that adequately account for
void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc),
moisture and differences between
rock and alteration zones within the
deposit.
• Discuss assumptions for bulk density
estimates used in the evaluation
process of the different materials.		 • A bulk density of 1.7 gcm-3 was selected and is consistent
with other estimates used throughout the mineral sands
industry. This was considered by the Competent Person to
be a conservative approach.
• No measurements of density of in situ materials have yet
been acquired.
• A bulk density of 1.7 gcm-3 was selected and is consistent
with other estimates used throughout the mineral sands
industry.
Classification • The basis for the classification of the
Mineral
Resources
into
varying
confidence categories.
• Whether appropriate account has
been taken of all relevant factors (ie
relative confidence in tonnage/grade
estimations, reliability of input data,
confidence in continuity of geology
and metal values, quality, quantity
and distribution of the data).
• Whether the result appropriately
reflects the Competent Person’s view
of the deposit.		 • The resource classification for the Inhambane deposit was
based on the following criteria: drill hole spacing; the
quality of QA/QC processes; and the distribution of mineral
assemblage composites. All the estimated mineralisation
above the cut-off criterion has been classified as Inferred
Resources because there is information to infer there is
mineralisation of the tenor estimated, but that information
is insufficient to ascribe a higher level of confidence to the
estimates.
• The classification of the Inferred Mineral Resources for the
Inhambane deposit were supported by all of the criteria as
noted above.
• The
Competent
Person
considers
that
the
result
appropriately reflects a reasonable view of the deposit
categorisation.
Audits or
reviews.		 • The results of any audits or reviews
of Mineral Resource estimates.		 • No audits or reviews of the new Mineral Resource estimate
for the Inhambane deposit has been undertaken at this
point in time.
Discussion of
relative
accuracy/
confidence		 • Where appropriate a statement of
the relative accuracy and confidence
level
in
the
Mineral
Resource
estimate using an approach or
procedure deemed appropriate by
the Competent Person. For example,
the application of statistical or
geostatistical procedures to quantify
the relative accuracy of the resource
within stated confidence limits, or, if		 • There was no geostatistical process undertaken for the
interpolation
(such
as
variography
or
conditional
simulation) during the resource estimation of the
Inhambane deposit.

30

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria Explanation Comment
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.		 • The broad spacing of drill holes and method of creating the
resource model imply the estimates of Mineral Resources
are global rather than local.
• These
statements
of
relative
accuracy and confidence of the
estimate should be compared with
production data, where available.		 • There is no previous history of mining mineral sands with
the tenement.

31

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix 2: Inhambane Project - Drilling

Drill Hole Collars

EASTING NORTHING RL EOH DRILL
DRILL SIZE
HOLE_ID (UTM zone 36S) (UTM zone 36S) (m) (m) DIP AZIMUTH LEASE DATE TYPE
IN0001R 738759 7335849 42.0 41 -90 360 10255C 3/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0002R2 739000 7335853 43.6 41 -90 360 10255C 3/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0003R 739250 7335845 54.5 50 -90 360 10255C 1/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0004 739511 7335830 61.6 48.5 -90 360 10255C 3/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0005 739772 7335825 47.3 36.5 -90 360 10255C 3/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0006 740009 7335827 53.2 47 -90 360 10255C 4/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0007 740268 7335822 44.2 44 -90 360 10255C 4/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0008 740502 7335818 43.9 44 -90 360 10255C 4/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0009 740380 7335830 42.6 41 -90 360 10255C 4/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0010 740521 7336318 42.7 41 -90 360 10255C 4/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0011 740267 7336326 43.6 41 -90 360 10255C 5/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0012 740022 7336324 41.5 44 -90 360 10255C 5/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0013 739774 7336340 39.7 41 -90 360 10255C 5/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0014 740523 7336825 46.7 41 -90 360 10255C 5/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0015 740281 7336820 43.1 41 -90 360 10255C 5/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0016 740014 7336822 46.2 41 -90 360 10255C 6/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0017 739798 7337300 41.1 41 -90 360 10255C 6/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0018 739539 7337344 40.8 38 -90 360 10255C 6/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0019 740040 7337340 42.4 41 -90 360 10255C 7/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0020 740269 7337327 41.9 44 -90 360 10255C 7/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0021 740474 7337323 40.9 38 -90 360 10255C 7/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0022 740503 7335321 61.1 56 -90 360 10255C 7/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0023 740243 7335326 60.4 60.5 -90 360 10255C 7/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0024 740009 7335324 60.7 41 -90 360 10255C 8/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0025 739747 7335334 53.6 50 -90 360 10255C 8/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0026 739505 7335345 44.1 44 -90 360 10255C 8/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0027 739245 7335353 50.8 50 -90 360 10255C 8/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0028 739002 7335354 46.5 41 -90 360 10255C 8/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0029 738743 7335357 47.5 41 -90 360 10255C 9/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0030 738769 7336361 52.6 47 -90 360 10255C 9/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0031 739030 7336364 50.2 48.5 -90 360 10255C 9/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0032 739291 7336356 49.6 50 -90 360 10255C 10/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0033 739513 7336341 43.1 41 -90 360 10255C 10/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0034 739528 7336845 36.5 38 -90 360 10255C 10/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0035 739323 7337365 48.3 47 -90 360 10255C 10/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0036 739041 7337353 54.0 47 -90 360 10255C 11/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0037 739284 7336845 43.2 41 -90 360 10255C 11/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0038 739023 7336853 57.4 47 -90 360 10255C 11/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0039 738789 7337360 44.2 38 -90 360 10255C 11/05/2014 AC NQ
IN0040 738781 7336862 34.1 32 -90 360 10255C 12/05/2014 AC NQ

32

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

EASTING NORTHING RL EOH DRILL DRILL SIZE
HOLE_ID (UTM zone 36S) (UTM zone 36S) (m) (m) DIP AZIMUTH LEASE DATE TYPE
IN0041 739756 7336838 38.0 38 -90 360 10255C 12/05/2014 AC NQ

33

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Significant Drill hole intersections >1.7% THM

EASTING NORTHING RL EOH FROM TO LENGTH THM SLIMES ZONE
HOLE_ID (UTM zone 36S) (UTM zone 36S) (m) (m) DIP AZIMUTH (m) (m) (m) (%) (%) (%)
IN0001R 738759 7335849 43 41 -90 360 24.5 32.0 7.5 6.0 8 5
IN0002R2 739000 7335853 44.6 41 -90 360 21.5 24.5 3 3.1 8 5
IN0002R2 739000 7335853 44.6 41 -90 360 26.0 27.5 1.5 2.2 7 5
IN0003R 739250 7335845 55.5 50 -90 360 2.0 11.0 9 2.9 5 3
IN0003R 739250 7335845 55.5 50 -90 360 12.5 18.5 6 3.5 7 3
IN0003R 739250 7335845 55.5 50 -90 360 18.5 21.5 3 3.1 8 5
IN0003R 739250 7335845 55.5 50 -90 360 23.0 24.5 1.5 1.7 5 5
IN0003R 739250 7335845 55.5 50 -90 360 36.5 42.5 6 2.0 6 5
IN0004 739511 7335830 62.6 48.5 -90 360 6.5 11.0 4.5 2.2 4 3
IN0005 739772 7335825 48.3 36.5 -90 360 32.0 36.5 4.5 3.4 3 5
IN0006 740009 7335827 54.2 47 -90 360 0.0 3.5 3.5 1.9 5 3
IN0006 740009 7335827 54.2 47 -90 360 30.5 35.0 4.5 2.3 7 5
IN0006 740009 7335827 54.2 47 -90 360 38.0 39.5 1.5 3.4 4 5
IN0007 740268 7335822 45.2 44 -90 360 23.0 36.5 13.5 7.8 4 5
IN0008 740502 7335818 44.9 44 -90 360 3.5 6.5 3 2.7 6 5
IN0008 740502 7335818 44.9 44 -90 360 29.0 36.5 7.5 4.3 6 5
IN0010 740521 7336318 43.7 41 -90 360 3.5 5.0 1.5 2.0 7 5
IN0010 740521 7336318 43.7 41 -90 360 26.0 33.5 7.5 3.5 5 5
IN0011 740267 7336326 44.6 41 -90 360 29.0 35.0 6 4.2 5 5
IN0012 740022 7336324 42.5 44 -90 360 23.0 29.0 6 2.9 6 5
IN0013 739774 7336340 40.7 41 -90 360 24.5 27.5 3 2.1 5 5
IN0014 740523 7336825 47.7 41 -90 360 21.5 27.5 6 2.7 5 5
IN0018 739539 7337344 41.8 38 -90 360 29.0 30.5 1.5 2.0 6 5
IN0019 740040 7337340 43.4 41 -90 360 36.5 38.0 1.5 2.5 13 200
IN0020 740269 7337327 42.9 44 -90 360 5.0 6.5 1.5 1.7 5 5
IN0020 740269 7337327 42.9 44 -90 360 18.5 23.0 4.5 2.3 6 5
IN0021 740474 7337323 41.9 38 -90 360 3.5 6.5 3 3.4 7 5
IN0021 740474 7337323 41.9 38 -90 360 15.5 17.0 1.5 1.7 6 5
IN0022 740503 7335321 62.1 56 -90 360 0.0 8.0 8 2.9 3 3
IN0022 740503 7335321 62.1 56 -90 360 9.5 17.0 7.5 2.1 4 3
IN0022 740503 7335321 62.1 56 -90 360 33.5 35.0 1.5 1.8 5 5
IN0022 740503 7335321 62.1 56 -90 360 47.0 51.5 4.5 2.9 4 5
IN0023 740243 7335326 61.4 60.5 -90 360 44.0 48.5 4.5 3.7 4 5
IN0023 740243 7335326 61.4 60.5 -90 360 51.5 56.0 4.5 2.7 2 5
IN0023 740243 7335326 61.4 60.5 -90 360 59.0 60.5 1.5 3.6 7 5
IN0024 740009 7335324 61.7 41 -90 360 0.0 6.5 6.5 2.4 5 3
IN0024 740009 7335324 61.7 41 -90 360 14.0 23.0 9 4.6 3 3
IN0025 739747 7335334 54.6 50 -90 360 0.0 2.0 2 2.7 3 3
IN0025 739747 7335334 54.6 50 -90 360 8.0 15.5 7.5 2.7 4 3
IN0025 739747 7335334 54.6 50 -90 360 45.5 47.0 1.5 2.6 5 5
IN0026 739505 7335345 45.1 44 -90 360 2.0 5.0 3 2.8 4 3
IN0026 739505 7335345 45.1 44 -90 360 26.0 27.5 1.5 2.5 5 5
IN0026 739505 7335345 45.1 44 -90 360 30.5 36.5 6 4.2 4 5
IN0026 739505 7335345 45.1 44 -90 360 42.5 44.0 1.5 1.8 19 200

34

==> picture [504 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

EASTING NORTHING RL EOH FROM TO LENGTH THM SLIMES ZONE
HOLE_ID (UTM zone 36S) (UTM zone 36S) (m) (m) DIP AZIMUTH (m) (m) (m) (%) (%) (%)
IN0027 739245 7335353 51.8 50 -90 360 0.0 2.0 2 1.8 5 3
IN0027 739245 7335353 51.8 50 -90 360 3.5 6.5 3 1.9 7 3
IN0027 739245 7335353 51.8 50 -90 360 8.0 11.0 3 2.7 7 3
IN0027 739245 7335353 51.8 50 -90 360 36.5 41.0 4.5 5.2 4 5
IN0028 739002 7335354 47.5 41 -90 360 5.0 8.0 3 2.2 8 3
IN0028 739002 7335354 47.5 41 -90 360 27.5 38.0 10.5 4.9 6 5
IN0029 738743 7335357 48.5 41 -90 360 2.0 3.5 1.5 1.9 7 3
IN0029 738743 7335357 48.5 41 -90 360 30.5 32.0 1.5 2.4 5 5
IN0029 738743 7335357 48.5 41 -90 360 36.5 38.0 1.5 1.8 6 5
IN0030 738769 7336361 53.6 47 -90 360 11.0 12.5 1.5 2.3 6 3
IN0030 738769 7336361 53.6 47 -90 360 14.0 15.5 1.5 3.9 6 3
IN0030 738769 7336361 53.6 47 -90 360 21.5 23.0 1.5 2.3 3 5
IN0030 738769 7336361 53.6 47 -90 360 24.5 26.0 1.5 1.9 5 5
IN0030 738769 7336361 53.6 47 -90 360 27.5 42.5 15 8.7 5 5
IN0031 739030 7336364 51.2 48.5 -90 360 2.0 18.5 16.5 2.8 6 3
IN0031 739030 7336364 51.2 48.5 -90 360 33.5 36.5 3 2.5 6 5
IN0031 739030 7336364 51.2 48.5 -90 360 39.5 41.0 1.5 3.5 2 5
IN0032 739291 7336356 50.6 50 -90 360 2.0 6.5 4.5 2.5 6 3
IN0032 739291 7336356 50.6 50 -90 360 18.5 20.0 1.5 1.8 2 3
IN0032 739291 7336356 50.6 50 -90 360 30.5 36.5 6 4.0 6 5
IN0033 739513 7336341 44.1 41 -90 360 2.0 5.0 3 2.0 6 3
IN0033 739513 7336341 44.1 41 -90 360 24.5 27.5 3 3.4 5 5
IN0033 739513 7336341 44.1 41 -90 360 39.5 41.0 1.5 2.1 14 200
IN0034 739528 7336845 37.5 38 -90 360 23.0 24.5 1.5 2.7 4 5
IN0035 739323 7337365 49.3 47 -90 360 0.0 2.0 2 2.0 5 3
IN0035 739323 7337365 49.3 47 -90 360 5.0 8.0 3 1.9 4 3
IN0035 739323 7337365 49.3 47 -90 360 20.0 21.5 1.5 2.3 5 5
IN0036 739041 7337353 55 47 -90 360 0.0 21.5 21.5 2.8 5 3
IN0036 739041 7337353 55 47 -90 360 41.0 42.5 1.5 2.4 6 5
IN0037 739284 7336845 44.2 41 -90 360 2.0 3.5 1.5 2.2 4 3
IN0037 739284 7336845 44.2 41 -90 360 27.5 29.0 1.5 2.0 5 5
IN0038 739023 7336853 58.4 47 -90 360 0.0 14.0 14 2.7 5 3
IN0038 739023 7336853 58.4 47 -90 360 18.5 33.5 15 4.7 3 3
IN0039 738789 7337360 45.2 38 -90 360 0.0 6.5 6.5 2.4 5 3
IN0039 738789 7337360 45.2 38 -90 360 11.0 14.0 3 2.1 3 3
IN0039 738789 7337360 45.2 38 -90 360 26.0 27.5 1.5 2.0 4 5
IN0041 739756 7336838 39 38 -90 360 23.0 24.5 1.5 3.7 2 5

35

More from HEAVY MINERALS LIMITED

Interim / Quarterly Report 2026
Apr 29
Share Issue/Capital Change 2026
Apr 16
Share Issue/Capital Change 2026
Apr 16
Share Issue/Capital Change 2026
Apr 16
Share Issue/Capital Change 2026
Apr 16
Share Issue/Capital Change 2026
Apr 6
Share Issue/Capital Change 2026
Mar 19
Share Issue/Capital Change 2026
Mar 19
Interim / Quarterly Report 2026
Mar 15
Regulatory Filings 2026
Mar 8
View all filings →