AI assistant
RAMELIUS RESOURCES LIMITED Management Reports 2020
65718_rns_2020-04-29_e5ea6994-ad93-44b6-8f47-492fc816719e.pdf
Management Reports
Open in viewerOpens in your device viewer
30 April 2020
ISSUED CAPITAL Ordinary Shares: 770M
DIRECTORS
NON-EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN: Kevin Lines MANAGING DIRECTOR: Mark Zeptner NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS: Michael Bohm David Southam Natalia Streltsova
COMPANY SECRETARY: Richard Jones
www.rameliusresources.com.au [email protected]
RAMELIUS RESOURCES LIMITED
Registered Office
Level 1, 130 Royal Street East Perth WA 6004 Tel +61 8 9202 1127 PO Box 6070 East Perth, WA 6892
30 April 2020
RAMELIUS LIFE OF MINE UPDATE
HIGHLIGHTS
- Tampia Feasibility Study (Edna May)
- o Significantly reduced Upfront Capital ($26.4M vs $50.0M)
- o Processing solution simplified flotation & fine-grind processing removed
- o 73% increase in project NPV compared to previous Strategic Review
- Eridanus Open Pit (Mt Magnet)
- o Significantly larger open pit (+115% increase on original pit)¹
- o Allows for single 5-year open pit at Mt Magnet, simplifying operations
- o Increases mine life at Mt Magnet to beyond 5 years
- Full Life-of-Mine (LoM) plan release deferred to include high grade Penny West Project acquired through Spectrum Metals takeover**2**
- FY2021 on track for estimated 250,000oz production level
Ramelius Resources Limited (ASX:RMS) ("Ramelius", "the Company") is pleased to provide the results of the Tampia Feasibility Study (Edna May) and an updated Ore Reserve for the Eridanus open pit (Mt Magnet), two important milestones in the development of its portfolio of assets located in Western Australia (refer Figure 5).
In reference to Tampia, the Feasibility Study has delivered a simplified processing solution for the project, resulting in a significant reduction in capital cost (~A$24M) and a commensurate reduction in operating costs associated with processing. In turn, this has improved the estimated financial returns for the project, as compared to the Strategic Review carried out in May 2019. Negotiations are continuing with both the landowner and with the 10% minority owner to resolve incomplete arrangements made with the previous tenement holders. In light of this, the projected start date for the Tampia project has been pushed back from mid-2020 to the start of 2021 calendar year. Importantly, it is not expected that this will result in lower production for FY2021 due to other favourable developments, such as the upgrade at Eridanus.
The Eridanus open pit (Stage 1), which has been mined to a depth of approximately 40 metres, will move to a Stage 2 cut-back whilst ore mining continues in Stage 1. At the point in time that the Stage 2 cutback "catches up" with the Stage 1 mining, the pit will be then progressed as a single pit to its design depth of approximately 235 metres. The potential for further open pit or underground mining beyond that point is currently the subject of a Scoping Study.
Finally, as a result of the rapid progress of the Spectrum (ASX: SPX) Takeover Offer, with current acceptances of 89.42%, the compilation of the Company Life-of-Mine plan will be deferred in order to incorporate the high grade Penny West gold project ("Penny"). It is now expected that the new plan will be published before 30 June 2020 and will include the changes to Tampia and Eridanus outlined above.
1 Based on calculation of original pit of 110,000oz versus final pit of 236,000oz, see page 8 for further details 2 See RMS ASX Release "Ramelius Makes Recommended Takeover Offer for Spectrum Metals", 10 February 2020
TAMPIA GOLD PROJECT (WA) – FEASIBILITY STUDY RESULTS
Summary
Ramelius is pleased to provide the results of its Tampia Feasibility Study for the development of the project located near Narembeen, WA.
The Feasibility Study focused on the option to haul ore to Ramelius' Edna May processing facility, as chosen based on the Strategic Review carried out in the first half of 2019. This option, called the Haulage Option, is included by way of comparison with the Feasibility Study results in Table 1 below.
| Parameter | Unit | Strategic Review – Haulage | Feasibility Study |
|---|---|---|---|
| (May 2019) | (April 2020) | ||
| Mining | |||
| Ore tonnes (high grade) | Mt | 2.2 | 2.5 |
| Grade | g/t | 2.77 | 2.65 |
| Contained Gold | koz | 197 | 210 |
| Processing | |||
| Ore processed | Mt | 2.2 | 2.5 |
| Grade | g/t | 2.77 | 2.65 |
| Recovery | % | 88.7 | 88.4 |
| Gold Production | koz | 174 | 186 |
| Financial | |||
| Upfront Capital Cost | A$M | 50 | 26.4 |
| AISC | A$/oz | 1,119 | 1,167 |
| Gold Price | A$/oz | 1,900 | 2,100 |
| Cashflow | A$M | 82 | 139 |
| NPV @ 5% | A$M | 67 | 116 |
| IRR | % | 66.1 | 155.7 |
Table 1 – Tampia Gold Project Study Summaries
The project financials are calculated on Ore Reserves only and are shown on a 100% basis. The Tampia project is 90% owned by Ramelius along with a 10% minority holder who is free-carried until a decision to mine is made.
Location & Project History
The Tampia deposit is located 12km south-east of Narembeen and 100km south of the Edna May gold mine, in the Wheatbelt region of Western Australia. The deposit was discovered in the 1980s by BHP. Ramelius acquired the project via the takeover of Explaurum Limited ("Explaurum") in early 2019.
Geology and Mineralisation
Tampia is hosted within Archaean mafic-felsic granulite facies units. Gold mineralisation is hosted within a mafic gneiss unit dominated by pyroxene-plagioclase-amphibole minerals. Late granitic sills intrude the mafic gneiss. Gold mineralisation occurs as shallow dipping (20°- 30°), 2-20m thick lode zones, sub-parallel to the granitic sills. Alteration includes silica, microcline, hornblende and clinopyroxene. Gold mineralisation is associated with disseminated pyrrhotite, arsenopyrite, chalcopyrite and rare pyrite. Total sulphide content of mineralised zones is typically 1-3%. Arsenic grade is a good indicator of gold mineralisation, which is frequently nuggety. The resource covers an area of 900m x 500m.
Mineral Resource
Table 2 - Mineral Resource Summary
| Measured | Indicated | Inferred | Total Resource | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deposit | Tonnes | Au | Au | Tonnes | Au | Au | Tonnes | Au | Au | Tonnes | Au | Au |
| t | g/t | oz | t | g/t | oz | t | g/t | oz | t | g/t | oz | |
| Tampia | 390,000 | 2.4 | 31,000 | 7,700,000 | 1.7 | 420,000 | 130,000 | 1.8 | 7,400 | 8,200,000 | 1.7 | 460,000 |
Figures rounded to 2 significant figures. Rounding errors may occur.
The project financials are calculated on Ore Reserves only and are shown on a 100% basis. The Tampia project is 90% owned by Ramelius along with a 10% minority holder who is free-carried until a decision to mine is made.
Mineral Resource Commentary
Drillhole data used for the resource comprises of 953 RC holes for 71,740m and 21 diamond holes for 3,716m, drilled between 2015 and 2019 (refer Figure 1). Drill spacing is predominantly 40m x 40m. 53 RC holes for 6,365m were completed at targeted positions on 20m infill lines by Ramelius in 2019. 133 RC holes for 8,332m were drilled in late 2018 as a close spaced 'Grade Control' 10m x 10m pattern in the central south area. 353 RC holes for 8,707m were drilled targeting the shallow Mace paleochannel zone in 2018. A small number of historic (pre-2015) holes (15 RC, 3 RAB and 1 DD) were included where they compared well with newer drilling.
Figure 1 – Tampia drillhole plan with RMS 2019 infill (blue holes)
RC drill sampling utilised a Metzke splitter to collect a primary and duplicate 3-4kg split sample from each 1m interval. Significant QAQC measures were used to check sample quality including real-time weighing of total sample and assay and comparison of duplicates from mineralised zones. Standards and blanks were submitted with all jobs. All samples were assayed by a commercial Perth laboratory via 50g Fire Assay. All samples were assayed for Au & As.
Interpretation was carried out on 20m sections striking 300°. 10m sections were used in the grade control infill drilling area. Geological interpretation was completed for the overall mafic gneiss/felsic gneiss contact and for the granite sills.
Mineralised lodes were interpreted using a nominal 0.3-0.5 g/t cut-off and/or above 200-400 ppm arsenic anomalism. Tampia gold mineralisation is nuggety and the mineralised population is characterised by a high coefficient of variance. Use of arsenic anomalism helps generate coherent lode shapes, however this also means a significant proportion of gold values are sub-economic (0.2-0.3 g/t) but need to be included. Given the shallow dip, a minimum thickness of approximately 3m was used to generate realistically mineable lode shapes.
Eight primary lode domains were interpreted, plus the Mace paleochannel ore zone. Two high-grade internal subdomains were interpreted to deal with very high-grade gold values. Samples were grouped by domain, composited to 1m intervals and gold and arsenic were estimated using anisotropic searches, Ordinary Kriging and Inverse Distance. Top-cuts in the 98-99.5 percentile range were applied after investigation of assay domain statistics. Densities were applied by rock type and weathering.
Figure 2 – Tampia drilling and lode domains
Parent block size is 5mE x 10mN x 5mRL, with variable sub-blocking to a 1m x 2m x 1m minimum. Resource classification was applied based on drillhole density and interpreted mineralisation continuity. Resources have been generated for evaluation by open-pit mining. Significant changes from previous resource models occur in lode interpretation, top-cutting and estimation method. They are all designed to deliver a realistic, economically viable model. Resources are reported above 0.6 g/t.
Metallurgical Flow Sheet and Processing Costs
The original processing method incorporated gravity recovery, flotation, ultra-fine grinding, and enhanced leaching to treat the more refractory elements of the ore, with carbon-in-leach (CIL) being used to treat the flotation and enhanced leach tailings product. Subsequent testwork on this flotation and ultrafine grind process demonstrated that cyanide consumption and hence recovery was adversely affected by the fine grind liberation of the pyrrhotite minerals. Additional test work was conducted on spatially representative ore samples, which included the more refractory elements of the ore. This additional test work demonstrated that at a range of reduced grind sizes (75µm, 106µm and 125µm), the standard gravity and CIL process is equally effective, if not superior, to the initial proposed flotation and ultra-fine grind processing at arsenic levels up to 5,000ppm. Resource modelling indicates less than 15% of the gold in the Tampia ore to be associated with arsenic levels greater than 5,000ppm.
The revised milling process for Tampia uses a simpler, more conventional gravity recovery and CIL process at a moderately finer grind size of 125um. Capital costs for the Edna May processing facility have reduced from $35M to $7.5M and operating costs are reduced from $25/t down to $22.47/t.
Ore Reserve
Table 3: Ore Reserve Summary
| Proven | Probable | Total Reserve | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deposit | Tonnes | Au | Au | Tonnes | Au | Au | Tonnes | Au | Au |
| t | g/t | oz | t | g/t | oz | t | g/t | oz | |
| Tampia | 190,000 | 3.4 | 20,000 | 2,300,000 | 2.6 | 190,000 | 2,500,000 | 2.7 | 210,000 |
Figures rounded to 2 significant figures. Rounding errors may occur.
The project financials are calculated on Ore Reserves only and are shown on a 100% basis. The Tampia project is 90% owned by Ramelius along with a 10% minority holder who is free-carried until a decision to mine is made.
Ore Reserve Commentary
The Resource model was regularised to an SMU size of 5mE x 10mN x 2.5mRL to generate an appropriate evaluation model. Pit optimisations and designs were carried out on the regularised models using appropriate mining and ore costs, mining recovery and dilution factors, wall angles, mill recoveries and a A$2,000/oz gold price (refer Figure 3).
Mill recovery was based on a test work derived recovery curve based on the gold/arsenic grade ratio. A recovery was calculated for each SMU block for a method utilising CIL.
Mining and ore haulage costs were based on contractor supplied budget estimates. Milling and additional ore costs were based on actual current rates for the Edna May processing plant and other comparable projects. Open pit design work included use of external geotechnical recommendations and groundwater studies. Ore Reserves utilise Measured and Indicated Resources and are reported above 0.9g/t Au recovered grade. Detailed information is provided in the JORC Table 1 in Attachment A.
Figure 3 – Tampia Resource model and open pit design
ERIDANUS OPEN PIT (MT MAGNET, WA) – UPDATED ORE RESERVE
Location & Project History
The Eridanus Pit is located 7.8 kilometres southwest, by haul road from the Mt Magnet Mill. The Mineral Resource is situated between the historical Lone Pine open pit and the backfilled Theakston open pit. The deposit was discovered by Ramelius in late 2017 and mining of the Stage 1 pit commenced in mid-2019.
Geology and Mineralisation
Eridanus is predominately hosted within a granodiorite intruded into felsic aphyric to porphyritic intrusive rocks. Mineralisation occurs as stockwork veins concentrated around inferred low angle structures within the east-west orientated Eridanus Granodiorite intrusion. The granodiorite has undergone pervasive sericite–carbonate alteration and silica healing manifesting in quartz plus quartz-tourmaline veins. A supergene zone is recognised in the transitional weathered zone between 25-50m depth, below up to 25m of depletion (refer Figure 4).
Figure 4: Selected Eridanus Deeps diamond drill hole traces below Stage 2 cutback pit design
Mineral Resource
| Measured | Indicated | Inferred | Total Resource | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deposit | Tonnes | Au | Au | Tonnes | Au | Au | Tonnes | Au | Au | Tonnes | Au | Au |
| t | g/t | oz | t | g/t | oz | t | g/t | oz | t | g/t | oz | |
| Eridanus | 1,500,000 | 1.2 | 56,000 | 5,900,000 | 1.3 | 240,000 | 4,500,000 | 1.3 | 190,000 | 12,000,000 | 1.3 | 490,000 |
Figures rounded to 2 significant figures. Rounding errors may occur.
Mineral Resource Commentary
All Eridanus drilling is circa Ramelius drilling undertaken since 2017. It includes a major 25m x 25m RC resource drilling pattern in the upper 150m, plus significant RC and diamond drilling targeting deeper resources on a more variable pattern. Deeper drilling to 400m vertical depth, has been completed in numerous orientations to test for any potential bias in drill directions within the stockwork mineralisation. No bias has been detected in the stockwork zones but a significant high grade NNW trending shear oriented quartz lode is recognised within the pit and its depth extent can be predicted in the deeper drilling completed to date. The upper area of the (yet to be mined) pit also used available RC grade control data which allows for Measured resource classification.
Interpretation was carried out using Micromine geological software. A geological interpretation was generated first and generally formed the basis of the grade domains used in the estimation. Interpretation was carried out on 25m sections. The Eridanus supergene zone is a grade bounded (~0.4 g/t Au) envelope while the granodiorite fresh rock stockwork is geologically constrained by the depth projections of the Eridanus Granodiorite.
Samples were grouped by domain, composited at 1m intervals and evaluated. Top-cuts were applied and search ellipses were generated using the interpreted mineralisation continuity. A +0.3 g/t indicator model was generated for the primary granodiorite mineralisation to generate mineralised and non-mineralised estimation domains. These domains were then used to flag assay composites and generate separate estimation domains. Estimation was by Ordinary Kriging for the larger domains and Inverse Distance squared for small domains.
Parent block sizes used were 10m E x 5m N x 5m RL for Eridanus with a minimum sub-cell of 25%. Estimation is restricted to parent cells. Resource classification was applied based on geological and grade continuity, drill hole spacing, estimation variance and likely economic viability. Contiguous Measured, Indicated and Inferred envelopes were generated and used to apply classifications. The resource model was then depleted to end of November 2019.
The Eridanus resource has been generated for evaluation by open pit as well as bulk underground mining techniques and is reported above a 0.6 g/t Au cut-off to a maximum depth of 430m below surface (refer Figure 5).
Figure 5 – Truncated view to West. Block model (>0.6g/t) with Stage 1 pit at March 2020 (blue) & Stage 2 cutback design (green)
Ore Reserve
| Table 5 - Ore Reserve Summary | |
|---|---|
| -- | ------------------------------- |
| Proven | Probable | Total Reserve | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deposit | Tonnes | Au | Au | Tonnes | Au | Au | Tonnes | Au | Au |
| t | g/t | oz | t | g/t | oz | t | g/t | oz | |
| Eridanus | 360,000 | 1.0 | 12,000 | 3,800,000 | 1.2 | 150,000 | 4,160,000 | 1.2 | 162,000 |
| Mined HG Stocks | 1,000,000 | 1.0 | 32,000 | 1,000,000 | 1.0 | 32,000 | |||
| Total Reserve | 1,400,000 | 1.0 | 44,000 | 3,800,000 | 1.2 | 150,000 | 5,200,000 | 1.2 | 194,000 |
Figures rounded to 2 significant figures. Rounding errors may occur. Figures current at 1 April 2020.
Ore Reserve Commentary
Pit optimisation and design was carried out on the Mineral Resource model using appropriate mining recovery and dilution factors, wall angles, mill recoveries and a A$2,000/oz gold price. Mining rates were based on contractor budget pricing. Ore haulage, milling and additional ore costs were based on actual current rates. Pit design work included the use of external geotechnical recommendations based on numerous purpose geotechnical diamond drill holes and on groundwater studies.
Ore Reserves have been reported from Measured and Indicated Resources and are reported above a 0.6 g/t Au cut-off. Detailed information is provided in the JORC Table 1 in Attachment B.
Proven Ore Reserves include 1.0Mt @ 1.0g/t for 32,000oz of high-grade ore already mined and stockpiled.
Reported mining production to date is 1,776,852t @ 1.29g/t for 73,587oz. Reconciliation against the original Ore Reserve model shows a positive reconciliation, in the order of +21% tonnes, +15% grade and +39% ounces.
Eridanus reconciled mill production to end of March 2020 was 728,404t @ 1.78g/t for 41,573oz milled (39,412oz recovered). Combining this figure with the new Ore Reserve and stockpiled high-grade ore gives a total of 236,000 ounces for Eridanus compared to the original Ore Reserve of 110,000 ounces, an increase of 115%¹.
FULL LIFE-OF-MINE (LoM) UPDATE
Release of the full LoM update will now be delayed in order to incorporate the high grade Penny West gold project. Changes to the previous LoM plan, released in June 2019 (see RMS ASX Release "Ramelius Unveils 1 Million Ounce Life of Mine Plan", 17th June 2019), are to include:
- Vivien Underground an additional year, through to end of FY2021, as announced in 2019 (see RMS ASX Release "Vivien Life if Mine Extension", 12 September 2019)
- Eridanus Stage 2 open pit as described above plus the outcomes of current Scoping Studies below this open pit
- Tampia as described above
- Symes' Find updated Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve
- Penny inclusion of new Mineral Resources for the Penny North, Penny West and Magenta deposits
It is expected that the new LoM plan will be ready for release prior to the end of the financial year. The previous LoM plan contemplated a gold production estimate in FY2021 of 235,000 ounces; however, by incorporating the developments above into the LoM plan, indications are that FY2021 is on track for an estimated 250,000 ounces in production.
This announcement has been authorised for release by the Board of Directors. For further information contact:
| Media enquiries: | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Tim Manners | Luke Forrestal | ||
| Chief Financial OfficerRamelius Resources LtdPh: + 61 8 9202 1127 | AssociateDirectorMedia & Capital PartnersPh: +61 411 479 144 | ||
ABOUT RAMELIUS
Ramelius Resources Limited (ASX:RMS) is a Western Australian gold producer that has been listed on the ASX since 2003 and in production since 2006. Ramelius owns and operates the Mt Magnet, Edna May, Vivien and Marda gold mines and owns a 90% interest in the Tampia Hill gold project, all in Western Australia (refer Figure 6).
Ore from the high-grade Vivien underground mine, located near Leinster, is trucked to the Mt Magnet processing plant where it is blended with ore from both underground and open pit sources. The Edna May operation currently processes ore from its underground operations and hauled ore from the Marda gold mine.
On 24 February 2020, Ramelius announced a 329% increase in its Net Profit after Tax for the 6 months to December 2019 of A$20.5M. The financial performance was achieved on the back of production for the 6 months of 92,084 ounces of gold at an AISC of A$1,240/oz for the half-year. In its March 2020 Quarter update (released to the ASX on 1 April 2020), Ramelius re-iterated its guidance for the 2020 Financial Year of 205,000-225,000 ounces of gold produced at an AISC of A$1,225-$1,325/oz.
Figure 6 – Ramelius' Production Centre and Development Project locations
FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS
This report contains forward looking statements. The forward looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates, assumptions, forecasts and projections and the industry in which it operates as well as other factors that management believes to be relevant and reasonable in the circumstances at the date such statements are made, but which may prove to be incorrect. The forward looking statements relate to future matters and are subject to various inherent risks and uncertainties. Many known and unknown factors could cause actual events or results to differ materially from the estimated or anticipated events or results expressed or implied by any forward looking statements. Such factors include, among others, changes in market conditions, future prices of gold and exchange rate movements, the actual results of production, development and/or exploration activities, variations in grade or recovery rates, plant and/or equipment failure and the possibility of cost overruns. Neither Ramelius, its related bodies corporate nor any of their directors, officers, employees, agents or contractors makes any representation or warranty (either express or implied) as to the accuracy, correctness, completeness, adequacy, reliability or likelihood of fulfilment of any forward looking statement, or any events or results expressed or implied in any forward looking statement, except to the extent required by law.
COMPETENT PERSONS
The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results, Exploration Targets, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves is based on information compiled by Rob Hutchison (Mineral Resources) and Duncan Coutts (Ore Reserves), who are Competent Persons and Members of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Rob Hutchison and Duncan Coutts are full-time employees of the company. Rob Hutchison and Duncan Coutts have sufficient experience that 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, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves". Rob Hutchison and Duncan Coutts consent to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on their information in the form and context in which it appears.
Attachment A: JORC Table 1 Report Tampia Project
The project financials are calculated on Ore Reserves only and are shown on a 100% basis. The Tampia project is 90% owned by Ramelius along with a 10% minority holder who is free-carried until a decision to mine is made.
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Samplingtechniques | •Nature and quality of sampling (eg cutchannels, random chips, or specific specialisedindustry standard measurement toolsappropriate to the minerals under investigation,such as down hole gamma sondes, orhandheld XRF instruments, etc). Theseexamples should not be taken as limiting thebroad meaning of sampling.•Include reference to measures taken to ensuresample representivity and the appropriatecalibration of any measurement tools orsystems used.•Aspects of the determination of mineralisationthat are Material to the Public Report.•In cases where 'industry standard' work hasbeen done this would be relatively simple (eg'reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised toproduce a 30 g charge for fire assay'). In othercases more explanation may be required, suchas where there is coarse gold that has inherentsampling problems. Unusual commodities ormineralisation types (eg submarine nodules)may warrant disclosure of detailed information. | •Over 95% of sampling gold was conducted using 1mintervals collected from reverse circulation (RC) drill holes.Surface Diamond holes may be sampled along sub 1mgeological contacts, otherwise 1m intervals are the default.•RAB drilling occurs and is generally excluded fromresource modelling with a few minor exceptions.•Drill hole locations were designed to allow for spatialspread across the interpreted mineralised zone. All RCsamples were collected and split to 3-4kg samples on 1mmetre intervals. Diamond core is half cut along downholeorientation lines. Half core is sent to the laboratory foranalysis and the other half is retained for future reference.•Standard fire assaying was employed using a 50gmcharge with an AAS finish for all diamond, RC and RABsamples. |
| Drillingtechniques | •Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, openhole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka,sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, tripleor standard tube, depth of diamond tails, facesampling bit or other type, whether core isoriented and if so, by what method, etc). | •Drilling was completed using 5 ¾" face sampling RCdrilling hammers for all RC drill holes. Diamond drillingused HQ and NQ diamond core. RAB holes werecompleted using 4" blade bits or hammers. |
| Drill samplerecovery | •Method of recording and assessing core andchip sample recoveries and results assessed.•Measures taken to maximise sample recoveryand ensure representative nature of thesamples.•Whether a relationship exists between samplerecovery and grade and whether sample biasmay have occurred due to preferentialloss/gain of fine/coarse material. | •RC primary, duplicate and total sample was weighed andgraphed at the rig to check sample recovery and intervalaccuracy. All diamond core is jigsawed to ensure any coreloss, if present is fully accounted for. Any wet,contaminated or poor sample returns are flagged andrecorded in the database to flag potential sampling bias.•Zones of poor sample return both in RC are recorded inthe database and cross checked once assay results arereceived from the laboratory to ensure nomisrepresentation of sampling intervals has occurred. |
| Logging | •Whether core and chip samples have beengeologically and geotechnically logged to alevel of detail to support appropriate MineralResource estimation, mining studies andmetallurgical studies.•Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative innature. Core (or costean, channel, etc)photography.•The total length and percentage of the relevantintersections logged. | •Samples are geologically logged on site by geologists.Details on the rock type, mineralogy, fabrics and texturesare recorded.•Drill hole logging is qualitative on visual recordings of rockforming minerals and on estimates of mineral abundance.Additionally a downhole Televiewer collected structuralinformation including contacts, folications, banding andveining and a geophysical tool collected gamma densityand magnetic susceptibility measurements.•All core photographed wet & dry prior to cutting |
Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data
| Sub-samplingtechniques andsamplepreparationQuality ofassay data andlaboratory tests | •If core, whether cut or sawn and whetherquarter, half or all core taken.•If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled,rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet ordry.•For all sample types, the nature, quality andappropriateness of the sample preparationtechnique.•Quality control procedures adopted for all subsampling stages to maximise representivity ofsamples.•Measures taken to ensure that the sampling isrepresentative of the in situ material collected,including for instance results for fieldduplicate/second-half sampling.•Whether sample sizes are appropriate to thegrain size of the material being sampled.•The nature, quality and appropriateness of theassaying and laboratory procedures used andwhether the technique is considered partial ortotal.•For geophysical tools, spectrometers,handheld XRF instruments, etc, theparameters used in determining the analysisincluding instrument make and model, readingtimes, calibrations factors applied and theirderivation, etc.•Nature of quality control procedures adopted(eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external | •Core samples were sawn and half core sampled.•Over 95% of RC 1m samples were split to 3kg via aMetzke splitter – a powered rotary device designed toreduce sampling variance. A primary and duplicate samplewas collected for each interval. The Metzke splitter alsodeals with wet samples more effectively.A small proportion of sampling was conducted using a rigmounted cone splitter.•All samples are pulverized prior to splitting in thelaboratory to ensure homogenous samples with 85%passing 75um. 200gm is extracted by spatula that is usedfor the 50gm charge on standard fire assays.•Significant numbers of mineralised duplicate samples wereselected based on Arsenic grade (by handheld pXRFanalysis) and submitted. Analysis of duplicates showsgood quality.•The sample size is considered appropriate for the type,style, thickness and consistency of mineralization.•The fire assay method is designed to measure the totalgold. The technique involves standard fire assays using a50gm sample charge with a lead flux (decomposed in thefurnace). The prill is totally digested by HCl and HNO3acids before measurement of the gold determination byAAS.•No field analyses of gold grades are completed.Quantitative analysis of the gold content is undertaken in acontrolled laboratory environment.Handheld pXRF analysis of Arsenic and alteration mineralswas conducted in the field as a 1st pass indication ofmineralised zones. Arsenic final grade generated by |
|---|---|---|
| laboratory checks) and whether acceptablelevels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) andprecision have been established. | laboratory analysis.•Industry best practice was employed with the inclusion ofduplicates and standards. Standards and blanks areinterrogated to ensure they lie within acceptabletolerances. Additionally, sample size, grind size and fieldduplicates were examined to ensure no bias to gold gradesexists. | |
| Verification ofsampling andassaying | •The verification of significant intersections byeither independent or alternative companypersonnel.•The use of twinned holes.•Documentation of primary data, data entryprocedures, data verification, data storage(physical and electronic) protocols.•Discuss any adjustment to assay data. | •Ramelius personnel have inspected the diamond core andRC chips in the field to verify the correlation of mineralisedzones between assay results and lithology, alteration andmineralization.•A number of holes effectively replicate existing holes andprovide good correlation. 133 close spaced RC holes (10mx 10m) were completed and give a good indication of shortrange grade continuity.•Holes are digitally logged in the field and data is collectedin auto validating spreadsheets. These sheets were loadedinto an Access database using scripting and furthervalidation steps. Data was then exported to Micromine forvisual validation by the Project Geologist.•The responsible geologist makes the DBA aware of anyerrors and/or omissions to the database and thecorrections (if required) are corrected in the databaseimmediately.•No adjustments or calibrations are made to any of theassay data recorded in the database. |
| Location ofdata points | •Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locatedrill holes (collar and down-hole surveys),trenches, mine workings and other locationsused in Mineral Resource estimation. | •All drill hole collars are picked up using accurate DGPSsurvey control by a commercial survey contractor. Alldown hole surveys are collected using downhole gyrosurveying techniques provided by the drilling contractors. |
| •Specification of the grid system used.•Quality and adequacy of topographic control. | •All holes were picked up in MGA94 – Zone 50 gridcoordinates. A Local grid was used for final modelling andutilises a two-point transformation.•An accurate topographic surface has been establishedfrom a recent aerial survey and is used to check DGPSsurveys. | |
|---|---|---|
| Data spacingand distribution | •Data spacing for reporting of ExplorationResults.•Whether the data spacing and distribution issufficient to establish the degree of geologicaland grade continuity appropriate for theMineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimationprocedure(s) and classifications applied.•Whether sample compositing has beenapplied. | •The dominant RC pattern is a 40m x 40m grid. Rameliushas added selected infill drilling on 20m infill sections onvariable 20-50m spacings. 6 lines of 10m x 10m infill RCwere included in the central south area of the deposit.Diamond holes all included and a minor number of historicRC holes were included where supported by surroundingholes.•Drill spacing is sufficient to establish appropriate continuityand classifications.•No physical compositing has been applied withinmineralised intervals. |
| Orientation ofdata in relationto geologicalstructure | •Whether the orientation of sampling achievesunbiased sampling of possible structures andthe extent to which this is known, consideringthe deposit type.•If the relationship between the drillingorientation and the orientation of keymineralised structures is considered to haveintroduced a sampling bias, this should beassessed and reported if material. | •The RC drilling is completed orthogonal to the interpretedstrike and dip of the mineralisation.•No orientation bias is evident |
| Samplesecurity | •The measures taken to ensure samplesecurity. | •All bagged samples are delivered via a certified freightcompany to the assay laboratory in Perth, whereupon thelaboratory checks the physically received samples againstsample submission/dispatch notes. |
| Audits orreviews | •The results of any audits or reviews ofsampling techniques and data. | •No external audits have been completed to date. |
Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Mineraltenement andland tenurestatus | • Type, reference name/number, location andownership including agreements or materialissues with third parties such as joint ventures,partnerships, overriding royalties, native titleinterests, historical sites, wilderness or nationalpark and environmental settings.• The security of the tenure held at the time ofreporting along with any known impediments toobtaining a licence to operate in the area. | • The results reported in this report are located on grantedMining Leases (ML) owned by Explaurum Limited, which isunder Compulsory Acquistion by Ramelius Resources Ltd.• Currently all the tenements are in good standing. There areno known impediments to obtaining a licences to operate ineither area.• The project sits on freehold farmland for which an miningaccess agreement or purchase is still required. |
| Exploration doneby other parties | • Acknowledgment and appraisal of explorationby other parties. | • Exploration and dilling by other parties has been reviewedand used. Previous parties have completed shallow RAB,Diamond and RC drilling. Companies include BHP 1980's,Nexus Minerals 1990's, Auzex Exploration and ExplaurumLtd (EXU) from 2014. |
| Geology | • Deposit type, geological setting and style ofmineralisation. | • Tampia is hosted within an Archaean mafic-felsic granulitefacies units. Gold mineralisation is hosted within a maficgniess unit dominated by pyroxene-plagioclse -amphiboleminerals. Late granitic sills intrude the mafic gniess. Goldmineralisation occurs as shallow dipping (20°-30°), 2-20mthick lode zones sub-parallel to the granitic sills. Goldmineralisation of associated with disseminated pyrrhotite, |
| arsenopyrite, chalcopyrite and rare pyrite. | ||
|---|---|---|
| • The mafic gniess, granite sills and mineralised lodes have ashallow SE dipping, gently folded orientation forming a'bowl' shaped geometry. | ||
| Drill holeInformation | • A summary of all information material to theunderstanding of the exploration resultsincluding a tabulation of the followinginformation for all Material drill holes:o easting and northing of the drill hole collaro elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevationabove sea level in metres) of the drill hole collaro dip and azimuth of the holeo down hole length and interception deptho hole length.• If the exclusion of this information is justified onthe basis that the information is not Material andthis exclusion does not detract from theunderstanding of the report, the CompetentPerson should clearly explain why this is thecase. | • All drill holes completed, including holes with no significantresults (as defined in the Attachments) are reported inprevious announcements by Explaurum Ltd and RameliusResources.• Easting and northing are given in MGA94 Z50 coordinatesas defined in the Attachments• RL is AHD• Dip is the inclination of the hole from the horizontal.Azimuth is reported in MGA94 degrees. MGA94 andmagnetic degrees vary by <2 in the project area.• Down hole length is the distance measured along the drillhole trace. Intersection length is the thickness of ananomalous gold intersection measured along the drill holetrace.• Hole length is the distance from the surface to the end ofthe hole measured along the drill hole trace.• No results currently available from the exploration drillingare excluded from reports. |
| Data aggregationmethods | • In reporting Exploration Results, weightingaveraging techniques, maximum and/orminimum grade truncations (eg cutting of highgrades) and cut-off grades are usually Materialand should be stated.• Where aggregate intercepts incorporate shortlengths of high grade results and longer lengthsof low grade results, the procedure used forsuch aggregation should be stated and sometypical examples of such aggregations shouldbe shown in detail.• The assumptions used for any reporting ofmetal equivalent values should be clearlystated. | • The first gold assay result received from each samplereported by the laboratory is tabled in the list of significantassays. Subsequent repeat analyses when performed bythe laboratory are checked against the original to ensurerepeatability of the assay results.• Weighted average techniques are applied to determine thegrade of the anomalous interval when geological intervalsless than 1m have been sampled.• Exploration drilling results are generally reported using anominal 0.3 g/t Au lower cut-off (as reported in the previousAttachments) and may include up to 4m of sub-gradeinternal dilution. No metal equivalent reporting is used orapplied. |
| Relationshipbetweenmineralisationwidths andintercept lengths | • These relationships are particularly important inthe reporting of Exploration Results.• If the geometry of the mineralisation withrespect to the drill hole angle is known, itsnature should be reported.• If it is not known and only the down hole lengthsare reported, there should be a clear statementto this effect (eg 'down hole length, true widthnot known'). | • The intersection length is measured down the length of thehole and essentially true width.• The known geometry of the mineralisation with respect tothe drill holes reported in this report is well understood. |
| Diagrams | • Appropriate maps and sections (with scales)and tabulations of intercepts should be includedfor any significant discovery being reportedThese should include, but not be limited to aplan view of drill hole collar locations andappropriate sectional views. | • Example maps and sections are included. |
| Balancedreporting | • Where comprehensive reporting of allExploration Results is not practicable,representative reporting of both low and highgrades and/or widths should be practiced toavoid misleading reporting of ExplorationResults. | • All drill holes completed to date are reported in previousreleases and all material intersections are reported. |
| Othersubstantiveexploration data | • Other exploration data, if meaningful andmaterial, should be reported including (but notlimited to): geological observations; geophysicalsurvey results; geochemical survey results; bulksamples – size and method of treatment;metallurgical test results; bulk density,groundwater, geotechnical and rockcharacteristics; potential deleterious orcontaminating substances. | • No other exploration data that has been collected isconsidered meaningful and material to this report. |
|---|---|---|
| Further work | • The nature and scale of planned further work(eg tests for lateral extensions or depthextensions or large-scale step-out drilling).• Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas ofpossible extensions, including the maingeological interpretations and future drillingareas, provided this information is notcommercially sensitive. | • Exploration of the wider Tampia project area is in progress.Additional resource infill drilling may take place prior tocommencement of mining. |
Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Databaseintegrity | •Measures taken to ensure that data has notbeen corrupted by, for example, transcriptionor keying errors, between its initial collectionand its use for Mineral Resource estimationpurposes.•Data validation procedures used. | •Data was imported from digital logging sheets andvalidated via a number of steps when entered into theAccess database. Validation includes scripting checks andfinal visual validation by the Resource geologist.•Data was exported from the Access database asMicromine data files for use in the estimate |
| Site visits | •Comment on any site visits undertaken by theCompetent Person and the outcome of thosevisits.•If no site visits have been undertaken indicatewhy this is the case. | •The Competent Person is a full-time employee of RameliusResources and has made two site visits•Visits verified understanding of deposit and availableinformation |
| Geologicalinterpretation | •Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertaintyof) the geological interpretation of the mineraldeposit.•Nature of the data used and of anyassumptions made.•The effect, if any, of alternative interpretationson Mineral Resource estimation.•The use of geology in guiding and controllingMineral Resource estimation.•The factors affecting continuity both of gradeand geology. | •Confidence in the geological interpretation is reasonablyhigh.•Data used includes drilling assays & logging, density andmulti-element data from a number of generations of drilling.•No alternate interpretation required•Geology forms a base component in the mineralisationinterpretation. Mineralisation is sub-parallel to the bandingand granitic sills. |
| Dimensions | •The extent and variability of the MineralResource expressed as length (along strike orotherwise), plan width, and depth belowsurface to the upper and lower limits of theMineral Resource. | •The deposit has a strike of 1000m, down-dip width ofaround 400m and depth extent of around 150m. |
| Estimation andmodellingtechniques | •The nature and appropriateness of theestimation technique(s) applied and keyassumptions, including treatment of extremegrade values, domaining, interpolationparameters and maximum distance ofextrapolation from data points. If a computerassisted estimation method was choseninclude a description of computer software andparameters used.•The availability of check estimates, previous | •The interpretation of the mineralised lodes forms the gradedomains. A minimum thickness of 2-3m is used and lodesfrequently incorporate sub-grade material to generateviable ore shapes. Mulitiple lode domains were generatedreflecting the different lodes and grades. Two internal highgrade sub domains where interpreted to control zones ofnotably higher grade.•The resource model was constructed using Microminesoftware.•Grade within the domain is estimated by geological |
| estimates and/or mine production records andwhether the Mineral Resource estimate takesappropriate account of such data.•The assumptions made regarding recovery ofby-products.•Estimation of deleterious elements or othernon-grade variables of economic significance(e.g. sulphur for acid mine drainagecharacterisation).•In the case of block model interpolation, theblock size in relation to the average samplespacing and the search employed.•Any assumptions behind modelling of selectivemining units.•Any assumptions about correlation betweenvariables.•Description of how the geological interpretationwas used to control the resource estimates.•Discussion of basis for using or not usinggrade cutting or capping.•The process of validation, the checkingprocess used, the comparison of model data todrill hole data, and use of reconciliation data ifavailable. | software using Inverse Distance¹ within hard boundeddomains. Ordinary Kriging grades were generated andcompared.•Gold and Arsenic grade is estimated•Arsenic grade has a impact on recovery and is used tocalculate mill recoveries using a formula.•Parent cell of 5mE x 10mN x 5mRL with sub-cells tominimum of 1mE x 2mN x 1mRL. Parent cell estimationonly. The sub-cell size is small to allow for narrow sectionsof the lode to be defined. Parent cells are SMU size orlarger.•Domains are statistically analysed and assignedappropriate search directions, top-cuts and estimationparameters. The search is aligned with the observedgeological strike and dip of the lodes. Lodes domainsestimated separately.•Samples were composited within ore domains to 1mlengths.•Top cuts were applied to domains after review of gradepopulation characteristics. Topcuts used ranged from 20 to70 g/t for the primary lode domains and 120 & 150 g/t forthe two high-grade sub-domains.•Validation includes visual comparison against drillholegrades and comparison against previous models. | |
|---|---|---|
| Moisture | •Whether the tonnages are estimated on a drybasis or with natural moisture, and the methodof determination of the moisture content. | •Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis |
| Cut-offparameters | •The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) orquality parameters applied. | •Cutoffs reflect the grade continuity of mineralised zones.Interpretation cutoffs range around 0.2-0.5 g/t Au and 200-400ppm As. Arsenic is an important indicator of themineralised zone where gold grades are frequentlynuggety.•Reporting cutoff is 0.6g/t reflecting economicconsiderations at a $2000/oz gold price |
| Mining factors orassumptions | •Assumptions made regarding possible miningmethods, minimum mining dimensions andinternal (or, if applicable, external) miningdilution. It is always necessary as part of theprocess of determining reasonable prospectsfor eventual economic extraction to considerpotential mining methods, but the assumptionsmade regarding mining methods andparameters when estimating MineralResources may not always be rigorous. Wherethis is the case, this should be reported with anexplanation of the basis of the miningassumptions made. | •Resources are reported on the assumption of mining byconventional open pit mining methods.•A regularised model was generated for mining evaluation.Blocks were regularised to 5mE x 10mN x 2.5mRL togenerate SMU size blocks with appropriate dilution formining shallow dipping hard-rock lodes. |
| Metallurgicalfactors orassumptions | •The basis for assumptions or predictionsregarding metallurgical amenability. It isalways necessary as part of the process ofdetermining reasonable prospects for eventualeconomic extraction to consider potentialmetallurgical methods, but the assumptionsregarding metallurgical treatment processesand parameters made when reporting MineralResources may not always be rigorous. Wherethis is the case, this should be reported with an | •A number of historic and recent metallurgical tests havebeen carried out. Recovery is variable and appears torelate to presence of arsenopyrite and loellingite (FeAs²).A calculated recovery factor was generated per blockbased on arsenic grade for use in evaluations•Overall recovery of ore grade material using standard CILmethod is estimated to be in the 80-90% range. |
| explanation of the basis of the metallurgical | ||
|---|---|---|
| assumptions made. | ||
| Environmentalfactors orassumptions | •Assumptions made regarding possible wasteand process residue disposal options. It isalways necessary as part of the process ofdetermining reasonable prospects for eventualeconomic extraction to consider the potentialenvironmental impacts of the mining andprocessing operation. While at this stage thedetermination of potential environmentalimpacts, particularly for a greenfields project,may not always be well advanced, the statusof early consideration of these potentialenvironmental impacts should be reported.Where these aspects have not beenconsidered this should be reported with anexplanation of the environmental assumptionsmade. | •Mining Approvals are yet to commence. A Clearing Permitshould not be required for freehold farm land.•Processing will take place at the Edna May gold mine. |
| Bulk density | •Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, | •EXU collected a number of weight in air/weight in water |
| the basis for the assumptions. If determined,the method used, whether wet or dry, thefrequency of the measurements, the nature,size and representativeness of the samples.•The bulk density for bulk material must havebeen measured by methods that adequatelyaccount for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.),moisture and differences between rock andalteration zones within the deposit.•Discuss assumptions for bulk densityestimates used in the evaluation process ofthe different materials. | core sg measurements.•Downhole gamma density measurements were collectedon a large proportion of the 40m x 40m resource drilling.These values were compared against core measurmentsand found reliable.•Downhole gamma densities should account for bulk sg's inless competent zones of weathered rocks.•The bulk of the deposit and mineralisation is in fresh maficgneiss and uses a density of 3.1. A range of lessordensities were applied to weathered rocks and otherrocktypes. | |
| Classification | •The basis for the classification of the MineralResources into varying confidence categories.•Whether appropriate account has been takenof all relevant factors (ie relative confidence intonnage/grade estimations, reliability of inputdata, confidence in continuity of geology andmetal values, quality, quantity and distributionof the data).•Whether the result appropriately reflects theCompetent Person's view of the deposit. | •The resource has been classified as Measured, Indicatedor Inferred category's based on geological and gradecontinuity and drillhole spacing and generation.•The resource classification accounts for all relevant factors•The classification reflects the Competent Person's view |
| Audits orreviews | •The results of any audits or reviews of MineralResource estimates. | •No audits or reviews conducted. A resource geologicalconsultant was used to generate alternative slightly earlierversions of the resource and several methodologies wereadopted from this work. This also gave a model forcomparison. |
| Discussion ofrelativeaccuracy/confidence | •Where appropriate a statement of the relativeaccuracy and confidence level in the MineralResource estimate using an approach orprocedure deemed appropriate by theCompetent Person. For example, theapplication of statistical or geostatisticalprocedures to quantify the relative accuracy ofthe resource within stated confidence limits, or,if such an approach is not deemedappropriate, a qualitative discussion of thefactors that could affect the relative accuracyand confidence of the estimate.•The statement should specify whether itrelates to global or local estimates, and, if | •The accuracy and confidence in the Resource isreasonably high given the deposit style, quality and densityof drilling and sampling.•Resources are global estimates•No production data is available |
| local, state the relevant tonnages, whichshould be relevant to technical and economicevaluation. Documentation should includeassumptions made and the procedures used.•These statements of relative accuracy andconfidence of the estimate should becompared with production data, whereavailable. | |
|---|---|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -- |
Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| MineralResourceestimate forconversion toOre Reserves | •Description of the Mineral Resource estimateused as a basis for the conversion to an OreReserve.•Clear statement as to whether the MineralResources are reported additional to, orinclusive of, the Ore Reserves. | •Mineral Resource models described above wereregularised to form a diluted Ore Reserve model usingselective mining units for evaluation and reporting•Mineral Resources are reported inclusive of Ore Reserves |
| Site visits | •Comment on any site visits undertaken by theCompetent Person and the outcome of thosevisits.•If no site visits have been undertaken indicatewhy this is the case. | •The Competent Person has made two site visits•Visits verified understanding of deposit and availableinformation |
| Study Status | •The type and level of study undertaken toenable Mineral Resources to be converted toOre Reserves•The Code requires that a study to at least PreFeasibility Study level has been undertaken toconvert Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves.Such studies will have been carried out andwill have determined a mine plan that istechnically achievable and economicallyviable, and that material Modifying Factorshave been considered. The effect, if any, ofalternative interpretations on Mineral Resourceestimation. | •A feasibility study has been carried out appropriate to thedeposit type, mining method and scale. The study wascarried out internally and externally using consultantswhere appropriate. The feasibility study was a refinementof the previously completed pre-feasibility study. |
| Cut-off | •The basis of the cut-off grade(s) or quality | •Cutoff is calculated at 0.9 recovered g/t based on milling, |
| parameters | parameters applied. | hauling and administration cost estimates |
| Mining factors orassumptions | •The method and assumptions used asreported in the Pre-Feasibility or FeasibilityStudy to convert the Mineral Resource to anOre Reserve (i.e. either by application ofappropriate factors by optimisation or bypreliminary or detailed design).•The choice, nature and appropriateness of theselected mining method(s) and other miningparameters including associated design issuessuch as pre-strip, access, etc.•The assumptions made regarding geotechnicalparameters (eg pit slopes, stope sizes, etc),grade control and pre-production drilling.•The major assumptions made and Mineral | •Mining method is conventional open-pit with drill and blast,excavate, load and haul. SMU block reflects expectedgrade control density and mining equipment size•An external geotechnical report was commissioned basedon previous geotechnical logging and information and givesrecommended pit design details•Additional mining dilution of 2% was applied (regularizedmodel has already diluted resource model)•Mining recovery of 96% was applied•Minimum width reflected by SMU block (5m)•Inferred Resources were tested, but are not used orincluded in optimisation or final designs•Infrastructure required is moderate and of a temporarynature, i.e. administration offices, mining and haulage |
| Resource model used for pit and stopeoptimisation (if appropriate).•The mining dilution factors used.•The mining recovery factors used.•Any minimum mining widths used.•The manner in which Inferred MineralResources are utilised in mining studies andthe sensitivity of the outcome to their inclusion.•The infrastructure requirements of the selectedmining methods. | workshops, fuel tanks, generators, magazine and watertransfer dams. Road haulage and workforceaccommodation requirements are also considered. | |
|---|---|---|
| Metallurgicalfactors orassumptions | •The metallurgical process proposed and theappropriateness of that process to the style ofmineralisation•Whether the metallurgical process is welltested technology or novel in nature.•The nature, amount and representativeness ofmetallurgical test work undertaken, the natureof the metallurgical domaining applied and thecorresponding metallurgical recovery factorsapplied.•Any assumptions or allowances made fordeleterious elements.•The existence of any bulk sample or pilot scaletest work and the degree to which suchsamples are considered representative of theorebody as a whole.•For minerals that are defined by aspecification, has the ore reserve estimationbeen based on the appropriate mineralogy tomeet the specifications? | •Proposed to process ore through the existing Edna Maymill, a conventional gravity recovery and CIL processingcircuit. Target grind size from the milling circuit reduced toimprove overall ore recovery.•Several metallurgy testwork programs have beencompleted showing the ore recovery is variable and thepresence of arsenopyrite/loellingite is a key variable in theoverall recovery. An extensive dataset of over 2,400'Metbleg' bottle roll leach tests has been used to verify therelationship. The testwork supports the proposedflowsheet.•A variable recovery calculation based on the testwork hasbeen applied to Resource Model ore blocks based on anArsenic feed grade versus Gold residue grade relationship.•Metallurgy testwork programs have includedcomprehensive head grade analysis, 'Metbleg' tests, grindestablishment, gravity concentration, cyanide leach,reagent consumption, flotation, fine grind, mineralogy andphysical (comminution) testing•No bulk sample piloting testwork has been carried outhowever a significant number of sample composites havebeen generated and tested•Additional testwork has been undertaken to further validatethe recovery relationship using the proposed flowsheet withresults reflecting previous work with a strong recoverycorrelation coefficient being achieved•Further testwork to provide additional data on reagentconsumption rates is underway. This testwork is focusedon lead nitrate and oxygen addition. |
| Environmental | •The status of studies of potentialenvironmental impacts of the mining andprocessing operation. Details of waste rockcharacterisation and the consideration ofpotential sites, status of design optionsconsidered and, where applicable, the statusof approvals for process residue storage andwaste dumps should be reported. | •Some studies have been completed.•Mining Approvals processes yet to commence. |
| Infrastructure | •The existence of appropriate infrastructure:availability of land for plant development,power, water, transportation (particularly forbulk commodities), labour, accommodation; orthe ease with which the infrastructure can be | •Infrastructure required is moderate and of a temporarynature, i.e. administration offices, mining and haulageworkshops, fuel tanks, generators, magazine and watertransfer dams. Road haulage and workforceaccommodation requirements are also considered with |
| provided, or accessed. | accommodation planned to be established at Narembeen | |
|---|---|---|
| 13km from the mine site. | ||
| •The project has low infrastructure requirements of atemporary nature | ||
| Costs | •The derivation of, or assumptions made,regarding projected capital costs in the study.•The methodology used to estimate operatingcosts.•Allowances made for the content of deleteriouselements.•The derivation of assumptions made of metalor commodity price(s), for the principalminerals and co- products.•The source of exchange rates used in thestudy.•Derivation of transportation charges.•The basis for forecasting or source of | •Capital costs for the flotation, fine grind and intensivecyanidation addition to the Edna May Plant have beencompleted by an external engineering consultancy. Othercapital costs are estimated from quotations or recentlycompleted work at other Ramelius sites.•Operating costs based on budgeted Edna May millingcosts plus expected additional processing requirements,mining contractor budget pricing and recent mining andadministration costs incurred at current Ramelius sites.•No deleterious elements present.•Pit optimisation was run at $2,000/oz and the FinancialModel was run using A2,100/oz.•Cost models use Australian dollars. |
| treatment and refining charges, penalties forfailure to meet specification, etc.•The allowances made for royalties payable, | •Ore haulage rates based on estimated contractor ratesfrom existing Ramelius contracts.•No penalties or specifications are applicable. | |
| both Government and private. | •State royalty of 2.5% used. | |
| Revenue Factors | •The derivation of, or assumptions maderegarding revenue factors including headgrade, metal or commodity price(s) exchangerates, transportation and treatment charges,penalties, net smelter returns, etc.•The derivation of assumptions made of metalor commodity price(s), for the principal metals,minerals and co-products. | •Gold price of A$2,000/oz for optimisation and A$2,100/ozused for financial model |
| MarketAssessment | •The demand, supply and stock situation for theparticular commodity, consumption trends andfactors likely to affect supply and demand intothe future.•A customer and competitor analysis along withthe identification of likely market windows forthe product.•Price and volume forecasts and the basis forthese forecasts.•For industrial minerals the customerspecification, testing and acceptancerequirements prior to a supply contract. | •Doré is sold direct to the Perth Mint at spot price•Market window unlikely to change•Price is likely to go up, down or remain same•Not industrial mineral |
| Classification | •The basis for the classification of the MineralResources into varying confidence categories.•Whether appropriate account has been takenof all relevant factors (ie relative confidence intonnage/grade estimations, reliability of inputdata, confidence in continuity of geology andmetal values, quality, quantity and distributionof the data).•Whether the result appropriately reflects theCompetent Person's view of the deposit. | •The resource has been classified as Measured, Indicatedor Inferred categories based on geological and gradecontinuity and drillhole spacing and generation.•The resource classification accounts for all relevant factors•The classification reflects the Competent Person's view |
| Economic | •The inputs to the economic analysis toproduce the net present value (NPV) in the | •NPV of 5% used•Sensitivities were run on gold price, ore cost, mining cost |
| and mill recovery. |
| study, the source and confidence of theseeconomic inputs including estimated inflation,discount rate, etc. | ||
|---|---|---|
| •NPV ranges and sensitivity to variations in thesignificant assumptions and inputs. | ||
| Social | •The status of agreements with keystakeholders and matters leading to sociallicence to operate. | •Stakeholders have been engaged with by Explaurum andnow by Ramelius. A number of agreements with keystakeholders are in progress. |
| Other | •To the extent relevant, the impact of thefollowing on the project and/or on theestimation and classification of the OreReserves:•Any identified material naturally occurringrisks.•The status of material legal agreements andmarketing arrangements.•The status of governmental agreements andapprovals critical to the viability of the project,such as mineral tenement status, andgovernment and statutory approvals. Theremust be reasonable grounds to expect that allnecessary Government approvals will bereceived within the timeframes anticipated inthe Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility study.Highlight and discuss the materiality of anyunresolved matter that is dependent on a thirdparty on which extraction of the reserve iscontingent. | •Risks identified include-Final processing method and recovery-Agreement with freehold landholderBoth areas are currently being addressed•No significant issues around the mining approvals processis identified. |
| Classification | •The basis for the classification of the OreReserves into varying confidence categories.•Whether the result appropriately reflects theCompetent Person's view of the deposit.•The proportion of Probable Ore Reserves thathave been derived from Measured MineralResources (if any) | •Reserves are classified according to Resourceclassification•They reflect the Competent Person's view•Measured Resources (from 10m x 10m close spaced drillprogram) are converted to Proven Ore Reserves. The bulkof Ore Reserves are Probable. |
| Audits orreviews | •The results of any audits or reviews of OreReserve estimates. | •No external audits carried out. |
| Discussion ofrelative accuracy/ confidence | •Where appropriate a statement of the relativeaccuracy and confidence level in the OreReserve estimate using an approach orprocedure deemed appropriate by theCompetent Person. For example, theapplication of statistical or geostatisticalprocedures to quantify the relative accuracy ofthe reserve within stated confidence limits, or,if such an approach is not deemedappropriate, a qualitative discussion of thefactors which could affect the relative accuracyand confidence of the estimate.•The statement should specify whether itrelates to global or local estimates, and, iflocal, state the relevant tonnages, which | •Confidence is in line with gold industry standards and thecompanies aim and track record on providing effectiveprediction of mining projects. No statistical quantification ofconfidence limits has been applied.•Estimates are global.•The Reserve is most sensitive to; a) mill recovery, b)resource grade accuracy, c) gold price.•Reserve confidence is reflected by the fact a Probablecategory is applied to the majority, which in turn reflects theconfidence of the Mineral Resource•No production data is available for comparison |
| should be relevant to technical and economic | |
|---|---|
| evaluation. Documentation should include | |
| assumptions made and the procedures used. | |
| •Accuracy and confidence discussions should | |
| extend to specific discussions of any applied | |
| Modifying Factors that may have a material | |
| impact on Ore Reserve viability, or for which | |
| there are remaining areas of uncertainty at the | |
| current study stage. | |
| •It is recognised that this may not be possible | |
| or appropriate in all circumstances. These | |
| statements of relative accuracy and | |
| confidence of the estimate should be | |
| compared with production data, where | |
| available. | |
Attachment B. JORC Table 1 Report Eridanus Project
Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Samplingtechniques | •Nature and quality of sampling (eg cutchannels, random chips, or specific specialisedindustry standard measurement toolsappropriate to the minerals under investigation,such as down hole gamma sondes, orhandheld XRF instruments, etc). Theseexamples should not be taken as limiting thebroad meaning of sampling.•Include reference to measures taken to ensuresample representivity and the appropriatecalibration of any measurement tools orsystems used.•Aspects of the determination of mineralisationthat are Material to the Public Report.•In cases where 'industry standard' work hasbeen done this would be relatively simple (eg'reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised toproduce a 30 g charge for fire assay'). In othercases more explanation may be required, suchas where there is coarse gold that has inherentsampling problems. Unusual commodities ormineralisation types (eg submarine nodules)may warrant disclosure of detailed information. | •At all projects potential gold mineralised RC intervals aresystematically sampled using industry standard 1mintervals collected from reverse circulation (RC) drill holes.Surface Diamond holes may be sampled along sub 1mgeological contacts, otherwise 1m intervals are the default.•Drill hole locations were designed to allow for spatialspread across the interpreted mineralised zone. All RCsamples were collected and riffle or cone split to 3-4kgsamples on 1m metre intervals. Aircore samples arespeared from piles on the ground and are composited into4m intervals before despatching to the laboratory. Singlemetre bottom of hole Aircore samples are also collected fortrace element determinations. Diamond core is half cutalong downhole orientation lines. Half core is sent to thelaboratory for analysis and the other half is retained forfuture reference.•Standard fire assaying was employed using a 50gmcharge with an AAS finish for all diamond, RC and Aircorechip samples. |
| Drillingtechniques | •Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, openhole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka,sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, tripleor standard tube, depth of diamond tails, facesampling bit or other type, whether core isoriented and if so, by what method, etc). | •Drilling was completed using 5 ¾" face sampling RCdrilling hammers for all RC drill holes best practice NQdiamond core. |
| Drill samplerecovery | •Method of recording and assessing core andchip sample recoveries and results assessed.•Measures taken to maximise sample recovery | •All diamond core is jigsawed to ensure any core loss, andif present is fully accounted for. RC drill holes sampleswere visually inspected by the supervising geologist to |
| and ensure representative nature of thesamples.•Whether a relationship exists between samplerecovery and grade and whether sample biasmay have occurred due to preferentialloss/gain of fine/coarse material. | ensure adequate clean sample recoveries were achieved.All diamond core is jigsawed to ensure any core loss, ifpresent is fully accounted for. Any wet, contaminated orpoor sample returns are flagged and recorded in thedatabase to ensure no sampling bias is introduced.•Zones of poor sample return both in RC and Aircore arerecorded in the database and cross checked once assayresults are received from the laboratory to ensure nomisrepresentation of sampling intervals has occurred. Ofnote, excellent RC drill recovery is reported from all RCholes. | |
|---|---|---|
| Logging | •Whether core and chip samples have beengeologically and geotechnically logged to alevel of detail to support appropriate MineralResource estimation, mining studies andmetallurgical studies.•Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative innature. Core (or costean, channel, etc)photography.•The total length and percentage of the relevant | •All drill samples are geologically logged on site byprofessional geologists. Details on the host lithologies,deformation, dominant minerals including sulphide speciesand alteration minerals plus veining are recordedrelationally (separately) so the logging is interactive andnot biased to lithology.•Drill hole logging is qualitative on visual recordings of rockforming minerals and quantitative on estimates of mineralabundance. |
| Sub-samplingtechniques andsamplepreparation | intersections logged.•If core, whether cut or sawn and whetherquarter, half or all core taken.•If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled,rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet ordry.•For all sample types, the nature, quality andappropriateness of the sample preparationtechnique.•Quality control procedures adopted for all subsampling stages to maximise representivity ofsamples.•Measures taken to ensure that the sampling isrepresentative of the in situ material collected,including for instance results for fieldduplicate/second-half sampling.•Whether sample sizes are appropriate to thegrain size of the material being sampled. | •The entire length of each drill hole is geologically logged.•Duplicate samples are collected every 25th sample fromthe RC and Aircore chips as well as quarter core from thediamond holes.•Dry RC 1m samples are riffle split to 3-4kg as drilled anddispatched to the laboratory. Any wet samples arerecorded in the database as such and allowed to drybefore splitting and dispatching to the laboratory.•All core, RC and Aircore chips are pulverized prior tosplitting in the laboratory to ensure homogenous sampleswith 85% passing 75um. 200gm is extracted by spatulathat is used for the 50gm or 30 gm charge on standard fireassays.•All samples submitted to the laboratory are sorted andreconciled against the submission documents. In additionto duplicates a high grade or low grade standard isincluded every 25th sample, a controlled blank is insertedevery 100th sample.•The sample size is considered appropriate for the type,style, thickness and consistency of mineralization. |
| Quality ofassay data andlaboratory tests | •The nature, quality and appropriateness of theassaying and laboratory procedures used andwhether the technique is considered partial ortotal.•For geophysical tools, spectrometers,handheld XRF instruments, etc, theparameters used in determining the analysisincluding instrument make and model, readingtimes, calibrations factors applied and theirderivation, etc.•Nature of quality control procedures adopted(eg standards, blanks, duplicates, externallaboratory checks) and whether acceptablelevels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) andprecision have been established. | •The fire assay method is designed to measure the totalgold in the core, RC and Aircore samples. The techniqueinvolves standard fire assays using a 50gm sample chargewith a lead flux (decomposed in the furnace). The prill istotally digested by HCl and HNO3 acids beforemeasurement of the gold determination by AAS.•No field analyses of gold grades are completed.Quantitative analysis of the gold content is undertaken in acontrolled laboratory environment.•Industry best practice is employed with the inclusion ofduplicates and standards as discussed above and used byRamelius as well as the laboratory. All Rameliusstandards and blanks are interrogated to ensure they liewithin acceptable tolerances. Additionally, sample size,grind size and field duplicates are examined to ensure nobias to gold grades exists. |
| Verification ofsampling andassaying | •The verification of significant intersections byeither independent or alternative companypersonnel. | •Alternative Ramelius personnel have inspected thediamond core, RC and Aircore chips in the field to verifythe correlation of mineralised zones between assay results |
| •The use of twinned holes.•Documentation of primary data, data entryprocedures, data verification, data storage(physical and electronic) protocols.•Discuss any adjustment to assay data. | and lithology, alteration and mineralization.•Holes are digitally logged in the field and all primary data isforwarded to Ramelius' Database Administrator (DBA) inPerth where it is imported into Datashed, a commerciallyavailable and industry accepted database softwarepackage. Assay data is electronically merged whenreceived from the laboratory. The responsible projectgeologist reviews the data in the database to ensure that itis correct and has merged properly and that all the drilldata collected in the field has been captured and enteredinto the database correctly.•The responsible geologist makes the DBA aware of anyerrors and/or omissions to the database and thecorrections (if required) are corrected in the databaseimmediately.•No adjustments or calibrations are made to any of theassay data recorded in the database. | |
|---|---|---|
| Location ofdata points | •Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locatedrill holes (collar and down-hole surveys),trenches, mine workings and other locationsused in Mineral Resource estimation.•Specification of the grid system used.•Quality and adequacy of topographic control. | •All drill hole collars are picked up using accurate DGPSsurvey control. All down hole surveys are collected usingdownhole gyro surveying techniques provided by thedrilling contractors.•All holes were picked up in MGA94 – Zone 50 gridcoordinates. |
| Data spacingand distribution | •Data spacing for reporting of ExplorationResults.•Whether the data spacing and distribution issufficient to establish the degree of geologicaland grade continuity appropriate for theMineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimationprocedure(s) and classifications applied.•Whether sample compositing has beenapplied. | •Drill spacing ranges from 7 x 7m grade control to anominal 25 x 25m spacing in the upper 200m of thedeposit and broadens below this to a nominal 50 x 50m.•The spacing confirms grade continuity and resourceclassifications reflect the general drill spacing andconfidence.•No sampling compositing has been applied within keymineralised intervals. |
| Orientation ofdata in relationto geologicalstructure | •Whether the orientation of sampling achievesunbiased sampling of possible structures andthe extent to which this is known, consideringthe deposit type.•If the relationship between the drillingorientation and the orientation of keymineralised structures is considered to haveintroduced a sampling bias, this should beassessed and reported if material. | •Drilling at Eridanus has been conducted on multipleorientations to test potential bias in drilling stockwork stylemineralisation•Core logging shows the vein orientations are highlyvariable•Some sampling bias may occur in individual holes but isnot considered an issue at the resource scale |
| Samplesecurity | •The measures taken to ensure samplesecurity. | •Sample security is integral to Ramelius' samplingprocedures. All bagged samples are delivered directly fromthe field to the assay laboratory in Perth, whereupon thelaboratory checks the physically received samples againstRamelius' sample submission/dispatch notes. |
| Audits orreviews | •The results of any audits or reviews ofsampling techniques and data. | •Sampling techniques and procedures are reviewed prior tothe commencement of new work programmes to ensureadequate procedures are in place to maximize the samplecollection and sample quality on new projects. No externalaudits have been completed to date. |
Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Mineraltenement and | • Type, reference name/number, location andownership including agreements or materialissues with third parties such as joint ventures, | • The results reported in this report are on established,granted Mining Leases owned by Mt Magnet Gold Pty Ltd, a100% subsidiary of Ramelius Resources Ltd. |
| land tenurestatusExploration done | partnerships, overriding royalties, native titleinterests, historical sites, wilderness or nationalpark and environmental settings.• The security of the tenure held at the time ofreporting along with any known impediments toobtaining a licence to operate in the area.• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration | • Currently all the tenements are in good standing. There areno known impediments to obtaining a licences to operate ineither area.• Previous work consists of significant drilling and mining |
|---|---|---|
| by other parties | by other parties. | conducted by previous owners including WMC, Hill 50 GoldNL and Harmony Gold, however Eridanus is a newRamelius discovery. |
| Geology | • Deposit type, geological setting and style ofmineralisation. | • All drill targets are orogenic structurally controlled Archeangold deposits• Eridanus is hosted in intermediate composition intrusives(granodiorite, feldspar-porphyritic intrusive, diorite) of theBoogardie Formation. Primary mineralisation is mostlyconfined to an ~075° trending, sub vertical granodioriteintrusive ~60m in thickness. The main granodiorite bodyhas intruded earlier porphyritic units. Both intrusives havesubsequently been intruded by narrow (typically severalmetres to <10m) dolerite and diorite dyke. Goldmineralisation is related stockwork style quartz veins,disseminated sulphides and sericite alteration. Veins in coreappear to have a dominant easterly trend but display a widerange of orientations. |
| Drill holeInformation | • A summary of all information material to theunderstanding of the exploration resultsincluding a tabulation of the followinginformation for all Material drill holes:o easting and northing of the drill hole collaro elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevationabove sea level in metres) of the drill hole collaro dip and azimuth of the holeo down hole length and interception deptho hole length.• If the exclusion of this information is justified onthe basis that the information is not Material andthis exclusion does not detract from theunderstanding of the report, the CompetentPerson should clearly explain why this is thecase. | • Drilling results have been reported in a number of previousannouncements for Eridanus. No new drilling is reported inthis announcement.• Easting and northing are given in MGA94 coordinates• RL is AHD• Dip is the inclination of the hole from the horizontal.Azimuth is reported in magnetic degrees as the directionthe hole is drilled. MGA94 and magnetic degrees vary by<1° in the project area.• Down hole length is the distance measured along the drillhole trace. Intersection length is the thickness of ananomalous gold intersection measured along the drill holetrace.• Hole length is the distance from the surface to the end ofthe hole measured along the drill hole trace.No results currently available from the exploration drillingare excluded from this report. |
| Data aggregationmethods | • In reporting Exploration Results, weightingaveraging techniques, maximum and/orminimum grade truncations (eg cutting of highgrades) and cut-off grades are usually Materialand should be stated.• Where aggregate intercepts incorporate shortlengths of high grade results and longer lengthsof low grade results, the procedure used forsuch aggregation should be stated and sometypical examples of such aggregations shouldbe shown in detail.• The assumptions used for any reporting ofmetal equivalent values should be clearlystated. | • Grades are weighted by sample interval.• Drilling results are generally reported using a 0.5 g/t Aulower cut-off and may include up to 10m of anomalousinternal dilution within the host granodiorite.• No metal equivalent reporting is used or applied. |
| Relationshipbetweenmineralisationwidths andintercept lengths | • These relationships are particularly important inthe reporting of Exploration Results.• If the geometry of the mineralisation withrespect to the drill hole angle is known, itsnature should be reported. | • The intersection length is measured down the length of thehole and is not usually the true width.• True widths are variable due to the varied orientations andstockwork style, however bulked ore zones of up to 50mwidth are present within the Eridanus Granodiorite. |
| • If it is not known and only the down hole lengthsare reported, there should be a clear statementto this effect (eg 'down hole length, true widthnot known'). | • The known geometry of the mineralisation with respect tothe drill holes reported in this report is now well constrained. | |
|---|---|---|
| Diagrams | • Appropriate maps and sections (with scales)and tabulations of intercepts should be includedfor any significant discovery being reportedThese should include, but not be limited to aplan view of drill hole collar locations andappropriate sectional views. | • Example maps and sections are included. |
| Balancedreporting | • Where comprehensive reporting of allExploration Results is not practicable,representative reporting of both low and highgrades and/or widths should be practiced toavoid misleading reporting of ExplorationResults. | • No new drillhole reporting |
| Othersubstantiveexploration data | • Other exploration data, if meaningful andmaterial, should be reported including (but notlimited to): geological observations; geophysicalsurvey results; geochemical survey results; bulksamples – size and method of treatment;metallurgical test results; bulk density,groundwater, geotechnical and rockcharacteristics; potential deleterious orcontaminating substances. | • No other exploration data that has been collected isconsidered meaningful and material to this report. |
| Further work | • The nature and scale of planned further work(eg tests for lateral extensions or depthextensions or large-scale step-out drilling).• Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas ofpossible extensions, including the maingeological interpretations and future drillingareas, provided this information is notcommercially sensitive. | • Current work in progress includes deep geotech diamondholes and further deep infill drilling to test potential for majorpit cutbacks and/or bulk underground mining |
Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Databaseintegrity | •Measures taken to ensure that data has notbeen corrupted by, for example, transcriptionor keying errors, between its initial collectionand its use for Mineral Resource estimationpurposes.•Data validation procedures used. | •Recent Ramelius drilling employs an SQL central databaseusing Datashed information management software. Datacollection uses Field Marshall software with fixed templatesand lookup tables for collecting field data electronically.Several validation checks occur upon data upload to themain database. Datasets were merged and show goodagreement. |
| Site visits | •Comment on any site visits undertaken by theCompetent Person and the outcome of thosevisits.•If no site visits have been undertaken indicatewhy this is the case. | •The Competent Person is a full-time employee of RameliusResources and has made multiple site visits |
| Geologicalinterpretation | •Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertaintyof) the geological interpretation of the mineraldeposit.•Nature of the data used and of anyassumptions made.•The effect, if any, of alternative interpretationson Mineral Resource estimation.•The use of geology in guiding and controllingMineral Resource estimation. | •Confidence in the geological interpretation is high.•Data used includes drilling assays & logging from post2017 drilling and initial grade control and mining•No alternate interpretation required•Geology forms a base component in the mineralisationinterpretation. |
| •The factors affecting continuity both of gradeand geology. | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dimensions | •The extent and variability of the MineralResource expressed as length (along strike orotherwise), plan width, and depth belowsurface to the upper and lower limits of theMineral Resource. | •The main granodiorite host unit is 500m long with ~075°strike. It is currently drilled to around 500m down dip and issub-vertical, 40-60m wide and contains dominant NNW andsubordinate NNE striking quartz vein sets with a wide dipvariation. |
| Estimation andmodellingtechniques | •The nature and appropriateness of theestimation technique(s) applied and keyassumptions, including treatment of extremegrade values, domaining, interpolationparameters and maximum distance ofextrapolation from data points. If a computerassisted estimation method was choseninclude a description of computer software andparameters used.•The availability of check estimates, previousestimates and/or mine production records andwhether the Mineral Resource estimate takesappropriate account of such data.•The assumptions made regarding recovery ofby-products.•Estimation of deleterious elements or othernon-grade variables of economic significance(e.g. sulphur for acid mine drainagecharacterisation).•In the case of block model interpolation, theblock size in relation to the average samplespacing and the search employed.•Any assumptions behind modelling of selectivemining units.•Any assumptions about correlation betweenvariables.•Description of how the geological interpretationwas used to control the resource estimates.•Discussion of basis for using or not usinggrade cutting or capping.•The process of validation, the checkingprocess used, the comparison of model data todrill hole data, and use of reconciliation data ifavailable. | •Deposits were estimated using geological software usingOK and ID2 methods inside mineralisation domains. Theestimation method is appropriate for the deposit type.Grade within the domain is estimated by geologicalsoftware within hard bounded domains.•Only gold is estimated•No deleterious elements present•Parent cell of 10mE x 5mN x 2.5mRL. Parent cellestimation only. Parent cells are SMU size.•Domains are geostatistically analysed and assignedappropriate search directions, top-cuts and estimationparameters. The search is aligned with the observedgeological strike and dip of the lode.•Samples were composited within ore domains to 1mlengths.•Top cuts were applied to domains after review of gradepopulation characteristics. Top-cuts used ranged from 12to 50 g/t.•Validation includes visual comparison against drillholegrades and comparison against previous models. |
| Moisture | •Whether the tonnages are estimated on a drybasis or with natural moisture, and the methodof determination of the moisture content. | •Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis |
| Cut-offparameters | •The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) orquality parameters applied. | •The cut-offs used are appropriate for the bulked low-grademining method used for Eridanus and reported above0.6g/t. |
| Mining factors orassumptions | •Assumptions made regarding possible miningmethods, minimum mining dimensions andinternal (or, if applicable, external) miningdilution. It is always necessary as part of theprocess of determining reasonable prospectsfor eventual economic extraction to considerpotential mining methods, but the assumptionsmade regarding mining methods andparameters when estimating MineralResources may not always be rigorous. Wherethis is the case, this should be reported with an | •Resources are reported on the assumption of mining byconventional open pit or bulked UG mining methods.Parent block size and estimation methodology wereselected to generate a model appropriate for open pitmining on 2.5m flitches. |
| explanation of the basis of the miningassumptions made. | ||
|---|---|---|
| Metallurgicalfactors orassumptions | •The basis for assumptions or predictionsregarding metallurgical amenability. It isalways necessary as part of the process ofdetermining reasonable prospects for eventualeconomic extraction to consider potentialmetallurgical methods, but the assumptionsregarding metallurgical treatment processesand parameters made when reporting MineralResources may not always be rigorous. Wherethis is the case, this should be reported with anexplanation of the basis of the metallurgicalassumptions made. | •Eridanus testwork shows the deposit is free-milling as perneighbouring previously mined Cosmos stockworkdeposits. A recovery of 93% is used for evaluations. |
| Environmentalfactors orassumptions | •Assumptions made regarding possible wasteand process residue disposal options. It isalways necessary as part of the process ofdetermining reasonable prospects for eventualeconomic extraction to consider the potentialenvironmental impacts of the mining andprocessing operation. While at this stage thedetermination of potential environmentalimpacts, particularly for a greenfields project,may not always be well advanced, the statusof early consideration of these potentialenvironmental impacts should be reported.Where these aspects have not beenconsidered this should be reported with anexplanation of the environmental assumptionsmade. | •Testwork shows no significant issues with waste rock ortailings•Ore treatment and tailings generation is occurring at thecurrent Mt Magnet Checkers mill |
| Bulk density | •Whether assumed or determined. If assumed,the basis for the assumptions. If determined,the method used, whether wet or dry, thefrequency of the measurements, the nature,size and representativeness of the samples.•The bulk density for bulk material must havebeen measured by methods that adequatelyaccount for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.),moisture and differences between rock andalteration zones within the deposit.•Discuss assumptions for bulk densityestimates used in the evaluation process ofthe different materials. | •Density values are adopted from recent testwork ondiamond drill holes completed at Eridanus. Densitymeasurements were completed on the geotechnicaldiamond core holes using the weight in air/weight in watermethod. They have been assigned by geological andweathering domains. |
| Classification | •The basis for the classification of the MineralResources into varying confidence categories.•Whether appropriate account has been takenof all relevant factors (ie relative confidence intonnage/grade estimations, reliability of inputdata, confidence in continuity of geology andmetal values, quality, quantity and distributionof the data).•Whether the result appropriately reflects theCompetent Person's view of the deposit. | •The resource has been classified as Measured, Indicatedor Inferred categories based on geological and gradecontinuity and drillhole spacing and generation.•The resource classification accounts for all relevant factors•The classification reflects the Competent Person's view |
| Audits orreviews | •The results of any audits or reviews of MineralResource estimates. | •No audits or reviews conducted |
| Discussion ofrelative | •Where appropriate a statement of the relativeaccuracy and confidence level in the Mineral | •The accuracy and confidence in the Resource is high giventhe deposit style, quality and density of drilling and |
| accuracy/ | Resource estimate using an approach or | sampling, both historic and new. |
|---|---|---|
| confidence | procedure deemed appropriate by the | •Resources are global estimates |
| Competent Person. For example, the | •Production data is available for around 6 months of mining | |
| application of statistical or 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 with production data, where | ||
| available. | ||
Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| MineralResourceestimate forconversion toOre Reserves | •Description of the Mineral Resource estimateused as a basis for the conversion to an OreReserve.•Clear statement as to whether the MineralResources are reported additional to, orinclusive of, the Ore Reserves. | •Mineral Resource models described above were useddirectly for evaluation and reporting of Ore Reserves•Mineral Resources are reported inclusive of Ore Reserves |
| Site visits | •Comment on any site visits undertaken by theCompetent Person and the outcome of thosevisits.•If no site visits have been undertaken indicatewhy this is the case. | •The Competent Person has made multiple site visits.•Visits verified understanding of deposit and availableinformation. |
| Study Status | •The type and level of study undertaken toenable Mineral Resources to be converted toOre Reserves•The Code requires that a study to at least PreFeasibility Study level has been undertaken toconvert Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves.Such studies will have been carried out andwill have determined a mine plan that istechnically achievable and economicallyviable, and that material Modifying Factorshave been considered. The effect, if any, ofalternative interpretations on Mineral Resourceestimation. | •A pre-feasibility study has been carried out appropriate tothe deposit type, mining method and scale. The study wascarried out internally and externally using consultantswhere appropriate. |
| Cut-offparameters | •The basis of the cut-off grade(s) or qualityparameters applied. | •Cutoff is calculated as part of the mine optimisationevaluation and is 0.6 g/t |
| Mining factors orassumptions | •The method and assumptions used asreported in the Pre-Feasibility or FeasibilityStudy to convert the Mineral Resource to anOre Reserve (i.e. either by application of | •Mining method is conventional open pit with drill and blast,excavate, load and haul. SMU block reflects expectedgrade control density and mining equipment size.•An external geotechnical report was commissioned based |
| appropriate factors by optimisation or bypreliminary or detailed design).•The choice, nature and appropriateness of theselected mining method(s) and other miningparameters including associated design issuessuch as pre-strip, access, etc.•The assumptions made regarding geotechnicalparameters (eg pit slopes, stope sizes, etc),grade control and pre-production drilling.•The major assumptions made and MineralResource model used for pit and stopeoptimisation (if appropriate).•The mining dilution factors used.•The mining recovery factors used.•Any minimum mining widths used.•The manner in which Inferred MineralResources are utilised in mining studies andthe sensitivity of the outcome to their inclusion.•The infrastructure requirements of the selectedmining methods. | on previous geotechnical logging and information andlogging and laboratory test work on new purposed drilledgeotechnical drill core and gives recommended pit designdetails.•Additional mining dilution of 5.0% was applied.•Mining recovery of 95% was applied.•Minimum width reflected by SMU block (5m)•Inferred Resources were tested, but are not used orincluded in optimisation or final designs•Infrastructure required is small and of a temporary nature,i.e. workshop, offices, fuel tank, generator, magazine andwater transfer dams, bores and turkey nests, and arealready in place. All infrastructure is existing and in place.Current facilities for camp accommodation and Shireairstrip will be used. | |
|---|---|---|
| Metallurgicalfactors orassumptions | •The metallurgical process proposed and theappropriateness of that process to the style ofmineralisation•Whether the metallurgical process is welltested technology or novel in nature.•The nature, amount and representativeness ofmetallurgical test work undertaken, the natureof the metallurgical domaining applied and thecorresponding metallurgical recovery factorsapplied.•Any assumptions or allowances made fordeleterious elements.•The existence of any bulk sample or pilot scaletest work and the degree to which suchsamples are considered representative of theorebody as a whole.•For minerals that are defined by aspecification, has the ore reserve estimationbeen based on the appropriate mineralogy tomeet the specifications? | •Processing by conventional CIL/CIP gold milling throughthe Mt Magnet plant.•Well-tested existing technology.•Metallurgy testwork programs have included gravityconcentration, cyanide leach, grind establishment, reagentconsumption, flotation, mineralogy and SAG MillComminution.•728kt ore from deposit has already been processed.•No deleterious elements are present. |
| Environmental | •The status of studies of potentialenvironmental impacts of the mining andprocessing operation. Details of waste rockcharacterisation and the consideration ofpotential sites, status of design optionsconsidered and, where applicable, the statusof approvals for process residue storage andwaste dumps should be reported. | •Environmental studies are complete.•Environmental approvals include the previously approvedMining Proposal and Clearing Permit. A new MiningProposal has been submitted and is under assessment byDMIRS. |
| Infrastructure | •The existence of appropriate infrastructure:availability of land for plant development,power, water, transportation (particularly forbulk commodities), labour, accommodation; or | •Infrastructure at site is minimal and consists of accessroads and some shallow water bores. Accommodation andflights will use established facilities at an adjacent mine tothe north. |
| the ease with which the infrastructure can be | •The project has low infrastructure requirements of a | |
|---|---|---|
| provide or accessed. | temporary nature, with all infrastructure in place. | |
| Costs | •The derivation of, or assumptions made,regarding projected capital costs in the study.•The methodology used to estimate operatingcosts.•Allowances made for the content of deleteriouselements.•The derivation of assumptions made of metalor commodity price(s), for the principalminerals and co- products.•The source of exchange rates used in thestudy.•Derivation of transportation charges.•The basis for forecasting or source of | •Capital costs based on quotations obtained from suppliersand mining contractors.•Operating costs based on current Mt Magnet GoldOperations milling costs, quoted ore haulage rates andrecent mining and administration costs incurred.•No deleterious elements present•Using $2,000 gold price.•Cost models use Australian dollars•Ore haulage rates based on quoted contractor rates•Treatment costs based on known current milling costs. Nopenalties or specifications•State royalty of 2.5% used |
| treatment and refining charges, penalties forfailure to meet specification, etc.•The allowances made for royalties payable,both Government and private. | ||
| Revenue Factors | •The derivation of, or assumptions maderegarding revenue factors including headgrade, metal or commodity price(s) exchangerates, transportation and treatment charges,penalties, net smelter returns, etc.•The derivation of assumptions made of metalor commodity price(s), for the principal metals,minerals and co-products. | •Gold price of A$2,100/oz used. |
| MarketAssessment | •The demand, supply and stock situation for theparticular commodity, consumption trends andfactors likely to affect supply and demand intothe future.•A customer and competitor analysis along withthe identification of likely market windows forthe product.•Price and volume forecasts and the basis forthese forecasts.•For industrial minerals the customerspecification, testing and acceptancerequirements prior to a supply contract. | •Doré is sold direct to the Perth Mint at spot price•Market window unlikely to change•Price is likely to go up, down or remain same•Not industrial mineral |
| Classification | •The basis for the classification of the MineralResources into varying confidence categories.•Whether appropriate account has been takenof all relevant factors (ie relative confidence intonnage/grade estimations, reliability of inputdata, confidence in continuity of geology andmetal values, quality, quantity and distributionof the data).•Whether the result appropriately reflects theCompetent Person's view of the deposit. | •The resource has been classified as Indicated or Inferredcategories based on geological and grade continuity anddrillhole spacing and generation.•The resource classification accounts for all relevant factors.•The classification reflects the Competent Person's view. |
| Economic | •The inputs to the economic analysis toproduce the net present value (NPV) in thestudy, the source and confidence of theseeconomic inputs including estimated inflation, | •No audits or reviews conducted••All inputs used are derived from actual costs at Mt MagnetGold Project or contractor quoted budget estimates |
| discount rate, etc. | ||
|---|---|---|
| •NPV ranges and sensitivity to variations in the | ||
| significant assumptions and inputs. | ||
| Social | •The status of agreements with keystakeholders and matters leading to sociallicence to operate. | •Final approval (pending) of the statutory submissions toDMIRS (Mining Proposal and Mine Closure Plan). |
| Other | •To the extent relevant, the impact of thefollowing on the project and/or on theestimation and classification of the OreReserves:•Any identified material naturally occurringrisks.•The status of material legal agreements andmarketing arrangements.•The status of governmental agreements andapprovals critical to the viability of the project,such as mineral tenement status, andgovernment and statutory approvals. Theremust be reasonable grounds to expect that allnecessary Government approvals will bereceived within the timeframes anticipated inthe Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility study.Highlight and discuss the materiality of anyunresolved matter that is dependent on a thirdparty on which extraction of the reserve iscontingent. | •Final approval (pending) of the statutory submissions toDMIRS (Mining Proposal and Mine Closure Plan). |
| Classification | •The basis for the classification of the OreReserves into varying confidence categories.•Whether the result appropriately reflects theCompetent Person's view of the deposit.•The proportion of Probable Ore Reserves thathave been derived from Measured MineralResources (if any) | •Reserves are classified according to Resourceclassification.•They reflect the Competent Person's view.•Probable Reserves were derived from MeasuredResources and are inclusive of mined and stockpiled oreas at 1 April 2020. |
| Audits or | •The results of any audits or reviews of Ore | •No external audits carried out. |
| reviews | Reserve estimates. | |
| Discussion ofrelative accuracy/ confidence | •Where appropriate a statement of the relativeaccuracy and confidence level in the OreReserve estimate using an approach orprocedure deemed appropriate by theCompetent Person. For example, theapplication of statistical or geostatisticalprocedures to quantify the relative accuracy ofthe reserve within stated confidence limits, or,if such an approach is not deemedappropriate, a qualitative discussion of thefactors which could affect the relative accuracyand confidence of the estimate.•The statement should specify whether itrelates to global or local estimates, and, iflocal, state the relevant tonnages, whichshould be relevant to technical and economicevaluation. Documentation should include | •Confidence is in line with gold industry standards and thecompany's aim to provide effective prediction for currentand future mining projects. No statistical quantification ofconfidence limits has been applied.•Estimates are global.•The Reserve is most sensitive to; a) resource gradeaccuracy, b) gold price, c) geotechnical wall angles.•Reserve confidence is reflected by the categories applied,which in turn reflect the confidence of the MineralResource.•Production data is available for around 9 months of oremining at Eridanus |
| assumptions made and the procedures used.•Accuracy and confidence discussions shouldextend to specific discussions of any appliedModifying Factors that may have a materialimpact on Ore Reserve viability, or for whichthere are remaining areas of uncertainty at thecurrent study stage.•It is recognised that this may not be possibleor appropriate in all circumstances. Thesestatements of relative accuracy andconfidence of the estimate should becompared with production data, whereavailable. | |
|---|---|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- |