AI assistant
RIEDEL RESOURCES LIMITED Capital/Financing Update 2023
65702_rns_2023-12-05_ba07d776-309c-4d8b-9e96-c93653eee471.pdf
Capital/Financing Update
Open in viewerOpens in your device viewer
6 December 2023
INITIAL HIGH GRADE TINTIC MINERAL RESOURCE AT KINGMAN PROJECT,
ARIZONA PROVIDES NEAR TERM DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY
Key Highlights:
- Initial high grade JORC 2012 compliant Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) of 494,000 tonnes at 4 g/t Au for 64,000oz gold and 43.4 g/t Ag for 689,000oz silver within the top 40m.
- Mineralisation is open along strike with evident upside potential along the shallow, highgrade extensions; further drilling planned for Resource growth.
- The Tintic MRE outcrops at surface and can be mined via free dig, offering the opportunity for cost effective and rapid project development utilising shallow open pit mining methods and toll treatment scenarios.
- The large silver resource adds significant upside to the Project.
- Reported MRE only covers a small portion of Kingman Project with multiple regional targets already identified for further drilling.
- Metallurgical test work underway with results due in early Q1 2024.
- MRE and metallurgical test work results to form the foundation of a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) to be completed in Q1 2024.
- Permitting application submission for open pit mining operations to be lodged in Q2 2024.
Riedel CEO David Groombridge said: "We currently have identified approximately 64,000 ounces of gold and 689,000 ounces of silver situated in a very shallow oxide zone from outcrop down to 40 metres. Recognising this opportunity, we aim to swiftly create short term value for our shareholders by fast-tracking a potential start-up operation via a low-cost, free-dig open pit development scenario leveraging off local infrastructure.
"Our immediate plan involves initiating a PEA in Q1 of 2024. This study will serve as the cornerstone for our permit application, scheduled for submission in Q2 of 2024, with a goal to commence mining in 2025 – a goal not too distant. Subsequently, we will be in a position to explore further opportunities within the Tintic area and the broader Kingman Project, with the aim of transitioning from explorer to operator in a short timeframe.
"The Kingman Project occupies a central and expansive land position within a renowned mining region known for its rich deposits of epithermal gold-silver and copper-molybdenum porphyries. While our primary attention remains focussed on activities to support short-term mine development, our 2024 fieldwork program aims to discover additional high-grade prospects located close to surface from the multiple unexplored targets in the Project area. Further, we will begin initial investigations into the source of epithermal mineralisation, with the potential for a substantial copper porphyry system at greater depths.
"We are enthusiastic about continuing this exciting journey at Kingman, Arizona, with the aim of delivering on a high-grade low-cost production opportunity, situated in a stable and investment-friendly Tier 1 jurisdiction".
Riedel Chairman Michael Bohm commented: "The team at Riedel have done an amazing job delivering this Mineral Resource Estimate at Kingman. The shallow and high-grade nature of the resource, located in a mature mining jurisdiction, provides a great opportunity to quickly advance a mining project by leveraging off the regional infrastructure. Our vision remains to join the ranks of gold producers during calendar year 2025".
Riedel Resources Limited (ASX: RIE, Riedel or the Company) is pleased to report the initial JORC 2012 compliant Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE or Resource) of 494,000 tonnes at 4 g/t Au for 64,000oz gold and 43.4 g/t Ag for 689,000oz silver at its Tintic deposit within the Kingman Project in Arizona, USA. The independent Resource was prepared by Snowden-Optiro.
The Inferred Resource comes just 6 months after Riedel acquired a 51% interest in the Project, via Flagstaff Minerals (USA) Inc, and is based on high-grade, shallow mineralisation which outcrops at surface and is contained within the top 40 metres. In addition to the gold Resource, the large silver Resource provides significant upside to the Project.
There is clear potential for additional high-grade and shallow mineral resource growth along strike, and only a small portion of the Kingman Project is included in the MRE, highlighting further regional growth potential.
The Resource offers the Company the opportunity for cost effective and rapid project development utilising shallow open pit mining methods and toll treatment through a third-party mill. Ideally located in Arizona, USA, a tier-one mining jurisdiction, the Project is close to significant gold producers and major infrastructure and power, including existing permitted processing plants.
Metallurgical test work is currently underway with results anticipated early in Q1 2024. Together with the Resource, the metallurgical test work will form the foundation of a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) to be completed in Q1 2024. The purpose of undertaking the PEA is to investigate and assess the Tintic deposit against several toll treating process plant scenarios. The Company intends to lodge permitting application submissions in Q2 2024 for mining operations.
Figure 1: Location of the Kingman Project in northwest Arizona at the union between the Southwest US copper porphyry belt and the Walker Lane gold trend in Nevada.
Tintic Mineral Resource Estimate
In 2019, an 11-hole diamond drilling program was completed across the Kingman Project including 4 holes at Tintic (19-KNG-001 to 19-KNG-004). Subsequent diamond and Reverse Circulation (RC) programs were completed in 2021, 2022 and 2023. The MRE is based on 135 RC holes (8,918.8 metres) and 24 diamond holes (992.6m) for a total of 159 holes and 9,911m. Overall, drilling at the Kingman Project totals 240 holes for 17,738m.
Table 1: Tintic Mineral Resource Estimate (JORC 2012) by weathering, October 2023
| WeatheringDomain | Tonnes(t) | Au(g/t) | Au(oz) | Ag(g/t) | Ag(oz) | Pb(%) | Pb(t) | Zn(%) | Zn(t) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oxide | 37,000 | 8.2 | 10,000 | 29.3 | 35,000 | 0.6 | 224 | 0.4 | 165 |
| Transitional | 457,000 | 3.7 | 54,000 | 44.5 | 654,000 | 0.8 | 4,000 | 0.5 | 2,000 |
| Total | 494,000 | 4.0 | 64,000 | 43.4 | 689,000 | 0.8 | 4,000 | 0.5 | 2,000 |
Notes: 0.8 g/t Au Cut-off above Top of Fresh Rock (TOFR) at ~40m depth, assays to 23 October 2023. Differences may occur due to rounding.
Figure 2: Tintic mineralisation wireframes looking oblique to the northwest with all drill holes included in the MRE.
Figure 3: Plan view of Tintic mineralisation wireframes with all holes included in the MRE.
Table 2: Tintic Resource (Inferred) at various Cut-off grades
| Au Cutoff Grade(g/t) | Tonnes(t) | Au(g/t) | Au(oz) | Ag(g/t) | Ag(oz) | Pb(%) | Pb(t) | Zn(%) | Zn(t) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.3 | 531,000 | 3.8 | 65,000 | 42.7 | 729,000 | 0.8 | 4,000 | 0.4 | 2,000 |
| 0.4 | 524,000 | 3.8 | 65,000 | 42.8 | 721,000 | 0.8 | 4,000 | 0.4 | 2,000 |
| 0.5 | 516,000 | 3.9 | 64,000 | 43.1 | 716,000 | 0.8 | 4,000 | 0.4 | 2,000 |
| 0.6 | 514,000 | 3.9 | 64,000 | 43.1 | 712,000 | 0.8 | 4,000 | 0.4 | 2,000 |
| 0.7 | 508,000 | 3.9 | 64,000 | 43.1 | 703,000 | 0.8 | 4,000 | 0.4 | 2,000 |
| 0.8 | 494,000 | 4.0 | 64,000 | 43.4 | 689,000 | 0.8 | 4,000 | 0.4 | 2,000 |
| 0.9 | 477,000 | 4.1 | 63,000 | 43.7 | 670,000 | 0.8 | 4,000 | 0.4 | 2,000 |
| 1.0 | 464,000 | 4.2 | 63,000 | 44.1 | 657,000 | 0.8 | 4,000 | 0.4 | 2,000 |
Notes: Assays to 23 October 2023. Differences may occur due to rounding.
Figure 4: Oblique 3D view of the Tintic block model looking to the north. Block model only shows blocks inside mineralised domains, colour by Au ppm.
Figure 5: Cross section (slightly oblique view aligned to drill lines) through the Tintic block model. View is NNE +/-10m showing block model and drillhole composites coloured by Au ppm.
Immediate Resource Growth Potential and Regional Upside
Opportunities to increase the Resource are abundant with Tintic remaining open along strike and further mineralisation at depth that requires shallow, follow up drilling.
The Company's immediate growth strategy will continue to focus on expanding the Resource footprint at Tintic through step out drilling along strike and to identify additional high-grade, shallow new discoveries within the Kingman Project.
In addition to Resource growth at Tintic, multiple zones of mineralisation have been identified from exploration drilling with numerous, untested, walk-up targets across the Project that indicate a proximity to a significant, large scale hydrothermal system that is the source of fluids and metal at Kingman. Future regional exploration will concentrate on identifying additional shallow, high-grade mineralisation.
Ongoing exploration efforts will also investigate the potential of additional copper-molybdenum porphyry mineralisation, analogous to the neighbouring Mineral Park mine, situated at depth beneath the Kingman Project that is interpreted to be the source of the mineralisation at Tintic.
Project Studies
The high-grade and shallow resources are situated above Top of Fresh Rock (TOFR) approximately within the upper 40m. This high-grade resource base provides a strong platform to evaluate a future open pit mining scenario, with mined ore toll treated through a third-party mill.
The Company intends to provide shareholders with an evaluation of production potential at the Tintic deposit during the June quarter 2024, following the completion of a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA). The purpose of undertaking the PEA is to investigate and assess the Tintic deposit against several toll treating process plant scenarios with an approximate 180,000-ton throughput. The nameplate capacity of a processing plant is not an indicator of annual production throughput.
Detailed test work, fieldwork and studies include:
| Activity | Indicative timing |
|---|---|
| Cultural Surveys | Survey completed and reports pending |
| Geotechnical logging, dedicated grade control drilling and evaluation | Q1 2024 |
| Metallurgical drilling and laboratory test work | Q1 2024 |
The above timetable is indicative only and subject to change.
Drilling results
Tintic
Final assays received at Tintic during the 2023 drilling program with significant shallow gold and silver results including:
- 1.52m @ 4.22 g/t Au, 16.6 g/t Ag, 0.14 % Pb from 3.05m in RC23TT054
- 1.52m @ 4.96 g/t Au, 17.15 g/t Ag, 0.14 % Pb and 0.90 % Zn from 7.62m in RC23TT054
- 0.76m @ 0.50 g/t Au, 734 g/t Ag, 0.18 % Pb and 0.17 % Zn from 28.96m in RC23TT055
- 0.76m @ 0.65 g/t Au, 57.3 g/t Ag from 41.91m in RC23TT051
- 1.52m @ 1.42 g/t Au, 7.65 g/t Ag, 0.18 % Pb and 1.62 % Zn from 71.63m in RC23TT052
All results are included in the Tintic MRE and highlighted in Figure 6. Mineralisation remains open to the northwest with holes RC23TT051 and RC23TT052 situated 90m along strike. Mineralisation was intersected at ~42m and 72m downhole respectively with potential high-grade supergene gold and silver situated up-dip currently un-drilled.
Regional Exploration
The first systematic testing of conceptual targets at the Kingman Project beneath transported cover was completed in October 2023 comprising a total of six (6) exploration RC drill holes for 588.8m. Drilling targeted interpreted structural breaks in magnetic geophysics, with all holes successfully identifying anomalous goldsilver mineralisation beneath transported cover.
Figure 6: Kingman Project highlighting 2023 exploration drill holes overlain on magnetic geophysics (Tilt derivative of reduced to pole magnetics upward continued 25m). All holes are situated on structural trends with multiple, untested targets within these structural corridors.
Two (2) drill holes were completed along northwest (RC23TT079) and southeast (RC23TT073) extensions to Tintic towards the historical Tuckahoe and Jim's workings respectively (Figures 6 and 7). Results include:
- 0.76m @ 0.3 g/t Au, 5.6 g/t Ag from 12.19m in RC23TT079
- 0.76m @ 0.44 g/t Au and 1.2 g/t Ag from 136.4m in RC23TT073
Two (2) drill holes were drilled at the Silver Fox prospect situated ~500m east. The prospect is completely blind with alluvium concealing a north-south structural break within the magnetic geophysics. Mineralisation intersected sulphides with strong silver including:
- 0.76m @ 36 g/t Ag, 0.04 g/t Au from 16.77m in RC23TT082
- 2.29m @ 87 g/t Ag, 0.17 g/t Au, from 24.38m in RC23TT083 including
- o 0.76m @ 126 g/t Ag, 0.17 g/t Au, from 24.38m
Two holes were drilled at the Bobcat prospect situated in the south-eastern section of the Kingman Project and ~5km from Tintic.
- 0.76m @ 0.59 g/t Au, 0.6 g/t Ag, 639 ppm Pb and 207 ppm Zn from 20.57m in RC23BC001
- 0.76m @ 0.33 g/t Au, 0.9 g/t Ag from 52.58m in RC23BC005
The multiple zones of mineralisation identified from the exploration drilling, including beneath transported cover, indicates a proximity to significant, large scale hydrothermal system that is the source of fluids and metal responsible for driving mineralisation across the district. Multiple structural features from magnetics, along with historical workings, remain untested within the Kingman Project and exploration will focus on locating and expanding shallow high-grade gold-silver mineralisation to be added to potential future resources.
Future exploration efforts will also investigate the interpreted source of the mineralisation at depth beneath the Kingman Project with Cu-Mo porphyry intrusions, analogous to the neighbouring Mineral Park mine, known to be emplaced in several successive magmatic intrusions.
Figure 7: Plan view of exploration drill holes within this announcement.
Background
The Tintic deposit occurs in the northwest of Riedel's Kingman Gold Project in Arizona, comprising 2,191 hectares of contiguous landholding ~110km southeast of Las Vegas, Nevada (Figure 8). Las Vegas is a major hub, hosting infrastructure network, including major highways, an international airport, and power from the Hoover Dam. The town of Kingman is 25km to the southeast of the Project with direct connection to Los Angeles by road on Interstate 40 and Class 1 BNSF railway.
Prospectors first arrived in northwest Arizona in the 1840s and identified silver, gold, copper, zinc, lead and turquoise mineralisation along the Cerbat Mountains of Mohave County. In 1863, the town of Chloride, was established with mining widespread from the 1870s up to the early 1940s. Mining within the Project area predominantly focused on high-grade gold and silver, with the largest workings, the Arizona-Magma, mined to a depth of 109m.
Figure 8: Kingman Gold Project highlighting the Tintic deposit and prospects.
At Tintic, no accurate production figures exist, with limited mining concentrated around 6 small shafts and pits. The main shaft was sunk to 120ft (36.5m) with underground strike driving north and south on the 120ft level for a combined ~246ft (75m). Two winzes on both north and south drives were sunk for ~35ft (10.6m). No stoping took place. Many of the mines ceased operations during World War 2, and there has been limited modern exploration across the Chloride area since.
Summary of JORC Table 1
A summary of JORC Table 1 is provided below for compliance with the Mineral Resource and in line with the requirements of ASX Listing Rule 5.8.1.
Geology and geological interpretation
Tintic is located along the western flank of the metamorphosed Paleoproterozoic Cerbat Mountains of the Mohave Province in northwest Arizona that form a block‐faulted range of the Basin and Range physiographic province of the southwest United States.
The Cerbat Mountains are a typical block‐faulted range of the Basin and Range physiographic province of the southwest United States and consists of Proterozoic supracrustal rocks subjected to two periods of metamorphism and deformed at granulite facies as evidenced by quartzo-feldspathic gneisses, amphibolites, and other metamorphic units.
Cretaceous to Eocene (80-40Ma) granites were intruded into the Cerbat Mountains during the Laramide Orogeny and are responsible for porphyry copper- molybdenum intrusions extending NW-SE from Mexico to NW Arizona, inclusive of the Mineral Park deposit ~8km to the SE of Tintic.
Intrusive dykes of different lithologies cut the Paleoproterozoic units and include gabbro, andesite, rhyolite, and pegmatites of various orientations, thickness, and orientation. The dykes are interpreted as genetically related to emplacement of the Laramide intrusions.
Figure 9: Geology map of the Chloride area. Historical workings are predominantly hosted in the Paleoproterozoic units with the Mineral Park copper-molybdenum porphyry mine abutting the SE claim boundary.
Gold, silver, and base metal mineralisation within the district have been interpreted as structurally controlled Low to Intermediate Sulphidation genetically related to the intrusion of the Ithaca Peak granite which hosts the Mineral Park Cu-Mo porphyry. Mineralisation is characterised by quartz-sulphide veins within all rock types that commonly border and cut through the dykes indicating late-stage mineralisation. Veins within the district are commonly sub-vertical, range from a few inches to 33 feet (~10m) with an average 4ft (~1.2m)
width (Dings, 1951)1 and a maximum width of 50ft (~15m) recorded at the Silver Hill mine. The largest mines, the Golconda and Tennessee Schuylkill - have a strike length exceeding 1 mile (1.6km) with Dings (1951) estimating an aggregate length of veins within the district to be ~85 miles (~137km).
Tintic was discovered by prospectors in the late 1800s and has not been extensively mined. A main shaft was sunk to 120ft (36.5m) with underground strike driving north and south on the 120ft level for a combined ~246ft (75m). Two winzes on the north and south drives were sunk for ~35ft (10.6m). No stoping took place and there are no accurate records of historical production with mining ceasing in the 1940s due to World War 2.
Gold, silver zinc and lead mineralisation at Tintic is hosted in moderately weathered Paleoproterozoic gneiss, comprising several parallel, northwest striking, shallowly dipping, quartz-sulphide veins. Gabbro and andesite dykes intrude the gneiss units with mineralisation commonly found situated at contact. The Tintic style of mineralisation is common across the Kingman Project and greater Chloride district and is interpreted as low to intermediate sulphidation associated with porphyry copper-molybdenum intrusions, either from the Mineral Park mine, or as yet unidentified intrusions at depth.
Figure 10: Diamond drill core from hole 2022_KNG_13B with 0.76m @ 52.1 g/t Au, 257 g/t Ag, 9.32% Pb and 0.99 % Zn from 20.42m (for details of individual assays shown refer to RIE's ASX Announcement "Exceptional Grades continue at Tintic" on 1/02/2023). Mineralisation is situated in the strongly oxidised weathered domain and is characterised by a massive sulphide vein with galena, pyrite, and sphalerite.
Drilling
Drilling at the Tintic deposits extends to a vertical depth of approximately 102m and the mineralisation has been modelled from surface to the maximum depth of current drilling. All drilling has been completed by RIE and the mineral resource estimate is based on the data from 135 RC holes and 24 diamond holes. The drill hole spacing throughout much of the project is 40m x 40m, with some infill holes at 10m x 10m. Areas of recently defined mineralisation, depth and strike extensions of the deposits, and some shallow portions of strong mineralisation have been defined with hole spacings between 80m and 100m.
All drill holes have been surveyed by contract field staff using a Trimble DGPS. Recent 2023 RC and diamond holes at Tintic except for RC holes drilled in the Fall of 2021, were down hole surveyed using a Devico RG40
1 Dings, McClelland Griffith, The Wallapai Mining District, Cerbat Mountains, Mohave County, Arizona. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 978-E., 1951.
Gyro. The gyro utilises north-seeking gyro technology with final surveys generally at 7.6ft (~2.3m) down hole intervals. The 2019 drilling was surveyed using an Eastman single shot camera.
Sampling and Sub-Sampling Techniques
The RC drill holes have been sampled at 2.5ft (0.76m) intervals via a rig mounted cone splitter. Sample recovery in 2021 and 2022 were exclusively wet samples during the operations as per USA industry standards. Samples collected during drilling in 2023 were almost entirely kept dry during drilling operations in the upper oxide with drilling beneath the water table resulting in wet samples.
Diamond drill core was typically PQ2 and HQ3 diameter. Core recovery was generally considered good. Core was sampled by quarter core, generally at maximum intervals of 1.1m and a minimum of 0.15m with boundaries determined by logged geological features.
Sample Analysis Method
Sample preparation for the 2019 diamond core drilling was carried out at the ALS facility in Tucson, Arizona where samples were first crushed then the full sample pulverised before splitting to provide a sub-sample for analysis. Pulverised samples were assaying for gold and base metals at the Reno, Nevada and Vancouver, British Columba facilities respectively. All samples were assayed for gold using a 30g fire assay procedure and analysed by ICP-OES/ICP-AES to provide results for a 48-element suite.
Sample preparation and assaying for the 2021, 2022 and 2023 RC and diamond drilling was carried out at the All American Laboratories (AAL) facility in Reno, Nevada. Samples were first crushed then the full sample pulverised before splitting to provide a sub-sample for analysis. All samples were assayed for gold using a 30g fire assay procedure. 2021 and 2022 drilling were analysed by ICP-AES to provide results for a 36 element suite. 2023 samples were analysed by ICP-AES for Ag, As, Cu, Pb, S and Zn.
QAQC protocols have been incorporated into all drilling programs. This included the use of certified reference material, field duplicates and inter-laboratory umpire checks. The results have confirmed the reliability of the sampling and assay data.
Resource estimation methodology
Geological and mineralisation constraints were generated on the above basis by Riedel geological staff in Leapfrog and imported into Datamine for estimation. The constraints developed were subsequently used in geostatistics, variography, block model domain coding and grade interpolation. The Mineral Resource was estimated using ordinary kriging ("OK") grade interpolation of 0.75m composited data. Top-cut values were determined by statistical analysis. A threshold distance of influence was applied to some of the domains for Au, Ag, Pb, Zn and As where a top-cut was considered appropriate. The threshold was set to 10m to reflect the drill spacing. Not all domains required top-cutting and there were no sulphur top-cuts.
A single, un-rotated, block model was created with parent block dimensions of 10m(E) by 10m(N) by 2.5m(RL) with sub-cells of 1m(E) by 1m(N) by 0.625m(RL). Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis was undertaken to optimise the search neighbourhood and test the parent block size. The estimate was completed using Ordinary Kriging (OK) of 0.75m length composites into the mineralised domains. The mineralised interpretations defined consistent zone of Au, Ag, Pb, Zn, As and S as defined by logging and assay data. The search ellipse was aligned to subtle changes in the mineralisation trend using dynamic anisotropy. Three search passes were utilised, with decreasing minimum number of samples and increase search distances to ensure the maximum number of cells would be estimated. Any blocks that were not estimated after the third search pass were estimated using Nearest Neighbour techniques.
Bulk Density
Bulk densities applied to the model were based on density determinations carried out on drill core using he water immersion method. Density has been assigned based on mineralisation and material types. A default
bulk density of 2.45 t/m3 was assigned to all mineralised material; a default bulk density of 1.8 t/m3 was assigned to waste oxidised material; a default bulk density of 2.0 t/m3 was assigned to waste partially oxidised material; a default bulk density of 2.4 t/m3 was assigned to waste transitional material and a default bulk density of 2.7 t/m3 was assigned to waste fresh material.
Mineral Resource Classification
The Tintic deposit has been classified as an Inferred Mineral Resource and reflects the competent person's view of the deposit. There are no Indicated or Measured Mineral Resources.
The principal criteria for classification of the resource were geological and grade continuity of the mineralised domains, taking into consideration the quality of the sampling and assay data and confidence in the estimation of Au, Ag, Pb, Zn, As and S content.
All fresh material has been set to unclassified to reflect the wider space drilling present at depth and resultant lack of confidence in grade estimation for these domains. All waste material was set to unclassified to reflect the lack of confidence in grade distribution.
The mineral resource classification reflects the relative confidence in the estimate. No formal quantification of the relative accuracy and confidence levels has been undertaken.
Cut-off Grades
The Mineral Resource estimate for Tintic deposit has been reported above a cut-off grade of 0.8 g/t Au to represent the portion of the Mineral Resource that may be considered for eventual economic extraction by open pit method. The cut-off grade was selected by Reidel in consultation with Snowden-Optiro based on current experience. Given the stage of the deposit and classification applied to the Mineral Resource, the cut-off grades are considered reasonable.
Metallurgy
Preliminary metallurgical test work by RIE is currently underway and is due for completion before the end of 2023.
Modifying factors
At this early stage, no mining and metallurgical, environmental, or other parameters have been considered in the block model. Parameters reflecting mining dilution, ore loss, metallurgical recoveries, and environmental aspects for permitting will be considered during the planned mining evaluation (PEA) of the project.
This announcement has been authorised for release by the Riedel Board.
For further information please contact: David Groombridge – CEO Riedel Resources Limited 4/6 Richardson St, West Perth, WA, 6005, Australia Tel: +61 (08) 9226 0866 [email protected]
About Riedel Resources Limited
Riedel Resources Limited (ASX: RIE) is an Australian-based exploration company focused on the exploration of gold, silver and base metals at its Kingman Project in Arizona, USA. Further information can be found at the Company's website at www.riedelresources.com.au
Competent Persons' Statements
Exploration Results
The information in this announcement that relates to Exploration Results is based on information compiled by Mr David Groombridge, who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Groombridge is a full-time employee of the Company and has sufficient experience in the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and qualifies as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves' (JORC Code). Mr Groombridge holds securities in Riedel Resources Limited and consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.
Mineral Resources
The information in this announcement which relates to Mineral Resources for the Tintic deposit was prepared by Ms Priscilla Staltari and reviewed by Ms Susan Havlin, both employees of Snowden Optiro. Ms Staltari is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Ms Havlin is a Member and Chartered Professional of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, they have sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation, the type of deposit under consideration and to the activity undertaken to qualify as Competent Persons as defined in the 2012 edition of the JORC Code. Ms Havlin and Ms Staltari consent to the inclusion of the information in the release in the form and context in which it appears.
Forward Looking Statements
These materials prepared by Riedel include forward looking statements. Often, but not always, forward looking statements can generally be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as "may", "will", "expect", "intend", "plan", "estimate", "anticipate", continue", and "guidance", or other similar words and may include, without limitation, statements regarding plans, strategies and objectives of management, anticipated production or construction commencement dates and expected costs or production outputs.
Forward-looking statements inherently involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the Company's actual results, performance, and achievements to differ materially from any future results, performance or achievements. Relevant factors may include, but are not limited to, changes in commodity prices, foreign exchange fluctuations and general economic conditions, increased costs and demand for production inputs, the speculative nature of exploration and project development, including the risks of obtaining necessary licenses and permits and diminishing quantities or grades of reserves, political and social risks, changes to the regulatory framework within which the Company operates or may in the future operate, environmental conditions including extreme weather conditions, recruitment and retention of personnel, industrial relations issues and litigation.
Forward-looking statements are based on the Company and its management's good faith assumptions relating to the financial, market, regulatory and other relevant environments that will exist and affect the Company's business and operations in the future. The Company does not give any assurance that the assumptions on which forward looking statements are based will prove to be correct, or that the Company's business or operations will not be affected in any material manner by these or other factors not foreseen or foreseeable by the Company or management or beyond the Company's control.
Although the Company attempts and has attempted to identify factors that would cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those disclosed in forward looking statements, there may be other factors that could cause actual results, performance, achievements, or events not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended, and many events are beyond the reasonable control of the Company. Accordingly, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Forward looking statements in these materials speak only at the date of issue. Subject to any continuing obligations under applicable law or any relevant securities exchange listing rules, in providing this information the Company does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any of the forward-looking statements or to advise of any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.
APPENDIX 1: EXPLORATION DRILL RESULTS
Table 1: Drill Hole Collar Table
All coordinates are in grid WGS84/UTM Zone 11N.
| Hole ID | Hole | Max Depth | Easting | Northing | Collar RL | Dip (°) | Azimut | Prospect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type | (m) | h | ||||||
| RC23TT026 | RC | 108.97 | 751658 | 3921563 | 1148 | -60 | 260 | Tintic |
| RC23TT027 | RC | 86.87 | 751718 | 3921601 | 1151 | -60 | 260 | Tintic |
| RC23TT028 | RC | 109.73 | 751785 | 3921616 | 1153 | -60 | 260 | Tintic |
| RC23TT048 | RC | 88.4 | 751768 | 3921787 | 1156 | -60 | 260 | Tintic |
| RC23TT051 | RC | 60.9 | 751421 | 3922125 | 1161 | -70 | 260 | Tintic |
| RC23TT052 | RC | 91.4 | 751519 | 3922140 | 1163 | -70 | 260 | Tintic |
| RC23TT054 | RC | 60.9 | 751391 | 3922037 | 1158 | -70 | 260 | Tintic |
| RC23TT055 | RC | 45.7 | 751415 | 3921961 | 1157 | 70 | 260 | Tintic |
| RC23TT056 | RC | 60.9 | 751422 | 3921921 | 1157 | 70 | 260 | Tintic |
| RC23TT057 | RC | 91.4 | 751430 | 3921864 | 1155 | 70 | 260 | Tintic |
| RC23TT058 | RC | 60.9 | 751536 | 3921902 | 1155 | -50 | 240 | Tintic |
| RC23TT059 | RC | 51.8 | 751469 | 3921952 | 1156 | -60 | 260 | Tintic |
| RC23TT060 | RC | 45.7 | 751475 | 3921881 | 1153 | -60 | 260 | Tintic |
| RC23TT061 | RC | 121.9 | 751638 | 3922015 | 1160 | 70 | 260 | Tintic |
| RC23TT062 | RC | 67.0 | 751463 | 3921781 | 1151 | -60 | 260 | Tintic |
| RC23TT063 | RC | 60.9 | 751506 | 3921916 | 1158 | -50 | 250 | Tintic |
| RC23TT073 | RC | 144.0 | 752453 | 3921073 | 1152 | -60 | 240 | Jim's Trend |
| RC23TT079 | RC | 79.2 | 751322 | 3922383 | 1173 | -60 | 260 | Tuckahoe South |
| RC23TT082 | RC | 103.6 | 752248 | 3921713 | 1163 | -60 | 270 | Silver Fox |
| RC23TT083 | RC | 73.1 | 752248 | 3921713 | 1163 | -75 | 270 | Silver Fox |
| RC23BC001 | RC | 67.0 | 755814 | 3918462 | 1189 | -45 | 260 | Bobcat |
| RC23BC005 | RC | 121.9 | 756169 | 3918499 | 1200 | -50 | 190 | Bobcat |
Table 2: Significant new drilling results
Cut-offs of >0.3 g/t Au or 20 g/t Ag, and 0.76m internal dilution.
| Hole ID | Depth | Depth To | Downhole | Au (g/t) | Ag (g/t) | Pb (ppm) | Zn | Prospect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| From (m) | (m) | Width (m) | (ppm) | |||||
| RC23TT026 | 79.25 | 80.01 | 0.76 | 0.306 | 0.3 | 158 | 152 | Tintic |
| RC23TT027 | 76.2 | 78.49 | 2.29 | 0.95 | 1.57 | 467.33 | 803 | Tintic |
| RC23TT028 | 96.01 | 97.54 | 1.53 | 1.78 | 1.65 | 678.5 | 768 | Tintic |
| RC23TT048 | 71.63 | 72.39 | 0.76 | 1.83 | 3.2 | 454 | 1060 | Tintic |
| RC23TT051 | 41.91 | 42.67 | 0.76 | 0.65 | 57.3 | 502 | 911 | Tintic |
| RC23TT052 | 71.63 | 73.15 | 1.52 | 1.42 | 7.65 | 1824 | 16211 | Tintic |
| RC23TT054 | 3.05 | 4.57 | 1.52 | 4.22 | 16.6 | 1413 | 319 | Tintic |
| RC23TT054 | 7.62 | 9.14 | 1.52 | 4.96 | 17.15 | 1361.5 | 9029 | Tintic |
| RC23TT055 | 28.96 | 29.72 | 0.76 | 0.50 | 734 | 1841 | 1692 | Tintic |
| RC23TT056 | No Sample Assayed | Tintic | ||||||
| RC23TT057 | 26.67 | 27.43 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 36 | 261 | 307 | Tintic |
| RC23TT058 | 38.86 | 39.62 | 0.76 | 0.90 | 4.5 | 1803 | 470 | Tintic |
| RC23TT059 | 41.91 | 42.67 | 0.76 | 0.61 | 116 | 834 | 1579 | Tintic |
| RC23TT059 | 24.39 | 25.91 | 1.52 | 2.07 | 12.45 | 2139.5 | 2352 | Tintic |
| RC23TT060 | No Sample Assayed | Tintic | ||||||
| RC23TT061 | 98.3 | 99.06 | 0.76 | 0.74 | 49.4 | 882 | 2249 | Tintic |
| RC23TT062 | No Sample Assayed | Tintic | ||||||
| RC23TT063 | 50.29 | 51.82 | 1.53 | 0.53 | 4.7 | 313 | 627.5 | Tintic |
| RC23TT073 | 136.4 | 137.16 | 0.76 | 0.44 | 1.2 | 51 | 168 | Jim's Trend |
| RC23TT079 | 12.19 | 12.95 | 0.76 | 0.3 | 5.6 | 316 | 435 | Tuckahoe South |
| RC23TT082 | 16.77 | 17.53 | 0.76 | 0.04 | 36 | 26 | 43 | Silver Fox |
| RC23TT083 | 24.38 | 26.67 | 2.29 | 0.17 | 87 | 26 | 138 | Silver Fox |
| RC23BC001 | 20.57 | 21.34 | 0.76 | 0.59 | 0.6 | 639 | 207 | Bobcat |
| RC23BC005 | 52.58 | 53.34 | 0.76 | 0.33 | 0.9 | 30 | 405 | Bobcat |
| RC23BC005 | 84.58 | 85.34 | 0.76 | 0.33 | 1.1 | 55 | 90 | Bobcat |
Appendix 2: Table 1 JORC Code 2012
Section 1 - Sampling Techniques and Data
(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Samplingtechniques | •Nature and quality of sampling (e.g., cut channels,randomchips,orspecificspecialisedindustrystandard measurement toolsappropriate to theminerals under investigation, such as down holegamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc.).These examples should not be taken as limiting thebroad meaning of sampling.•Include reference tomeasures taken to ensuresample representivity and the appropriate calibrationof any measurement tools or systems used.•Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that areMaterial to the Public Report.•In cases where 'industry standard' work has beendone this would be relatively simple (e.g., 'reversecirculation drilling was used to obtain 1m samplesfrom which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 gcharge for fireassay').In other cases, moreexplanation may be required, such as where there iscoarse gold that has inherent sampling problems.Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g.,submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure ofdetailed information. | •All drilling and sampling were undertaken in anindustry standard manner.•All Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling andsampling was undertaken in accordance withindustry standards.•Samples were collected in both dry and wetconditions depending on ground conditions.•RC samples were collected through a rigmounted cyclone with mineralised intervalsdetermined by a geologist and sampled on 2.5ft(0.76m) intervals.•Samples collected outside of mineralisedzones werecollectedby spearfrom 2.5ftsample intervals and composited over 5-10ft(1.52m-3.04m) intervals.•When samples were dry, samples werecollected through a rig mounted cyclone anddeposited into a bucket which was then tippedthrough a standalone riffle splitter.•When samples were wet, samples werecollected through a rig mounted cyclone andtipped into a rig mounted cone splitter.•Core samples were collected with a diamondrig drilling PQ and HQ diameter core.•Core samples were collected on geologicalboundaries (rock type, mineralization) andgenerally ranged from 0.1m to 1.2m in length.•Sample weights range from around 1-3kg.•Theindependentlaboratorycrushesandpulverises the entire sample to produce a 30gcharge for fire assay and a 250g charge forICP-AES analysis.•Industry prepared CRM independent standardsare inserted approximately 1 in 33 samples.•Sample sizes are considered appropriate forthe material sampled.•Field duplicate RC samples are collected fromthe drill rig cyclone, primarily within mineralisedzones equating to a 1:40 ratio.•No diamond duplicates have been collected.•The samples are considered representativeand appropriate for this type of drilling.•All samples are appropriate for use in aresource estimate. |
| Drillingtechniques | •Drill type (e.g., core, reverse circulation, open-holehammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc)and details (e.g.,core diameter, triple or standardtube, depth of diamond tails, face- sampling bit or othertype, whether core is oriented and if so, by whatmethod, etc). | •All diamond holes were drilled by TimberlineDrilling Inc. using an Atlas Copco CS-14 anddrilling both PQ and HQ core.•2021 and 2022 RC holes were completed byBoart Longyear using a Foremost MPD 1500Reverse Circulation drill rig and a 5-inch bit andface sampling hammer.•2022 diamond holes and 2023 RC holes weredrilled by Earth Drillingusing a Foremost |
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Explorer1500ReverseCirculation(RC)utilising a 5-inch bit and face sampling hammer. | ||
| Drill samplerecovery | •Method of recording and assessing core and chipsample recoveries and results assessed.•Measures taken to maximise sample recovery andensure representative nature of the samples.•Whetherarelationshipexistsbetweensamplerecovery and grade and whether sample bias mayhave occurred due to preferential loss/gain offine/coarse material. | •Diamond core recovery was measured for eachrun and calculated as a percentage of thedrilled interval, in weathered material, corerecoveries were generally 80-90%, in freshrock, the core recovery was excellent at 100%.•RC samples from 2021 and 2022 were all wetsamples and they were checked visually forrecovery, and contamination.•2023 samples were routinely checked visuallyfor recovery, moisture, and contaminationwhich was recorded in a database. Samplesare considered representative with generallygood recovery. Deeper RC holes encounteredwater, with intervals that have less than optimalrecovery and possible contamination.•There has been no assessment of core or RCsample recovery and grade.•No sample bias is observed. |
| Logging | •Whethercoreandchipsampleshavebeengeologically and geotechnically logged to a level ofdetail to support appropriate Mineral Resourceestimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies.•Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature.Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography.•The total length and percentage of the relevantintersections logged. | •2019-2022 geology logging was undertaken forthe entire hole recording lithology, veining,mineralisation, and alteration into Excel loggingsheets. Diamond core logging is quantitativeand qualitative in nature and RC logging waspredominantly qualitative in nature. All logshave been validated by the Competent Personand have been uploaded into the cloud hostedMX Deposit database.•2019 diamond sample quality data recordedincludes recovery and sampling methodologywith diamond core visually inspected by theCompetent Person for validity.•2021-2022 RC sample quality data did notrecord recovery or sample methodology.•2022 diamond sample quality data did notrecord recovery or sample methodology.•2023 geology logging was undertaken for theentire hole recording lithology, oxidation state,metadata, alteration, and veiningand isrecorded straight into the cloud hosted MXDeposit database.•2023 RC sample quality data recorded includesrecovery, sample moisture (i.e., whether dry,moist, wet or water injected) and samplingmethodology.•The logging process is appropriate to be usedfor Mineral Resource Estimates and miningstudies with additional metallurgical test work tobe completed.•All drillholes were logged in full. |
| Subsamplingtechniquesand samplepreparation | •If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, halfor all cores taken.•If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split,etc and whether sampled wet or dry.•For allsample types, the nature, qualityandappropriateness of the sample preparation technique.•Quality controlprocedures adopted for all subsamplingstagestomaximiserepresentivityofsamples. | •2019 diamond core was marked up for cuttingby Riedel staff and shipped to ALS in Tucson,Arizona for cutting. Core was half cut with ¼submitted for assay analysis and the remainingcore retained at Riedel's Kingman explorationoffice for reference.•2022 diamond core was marked up for cuttingby Riedel staff with intervals of significant claycontent frozen prior to cutting. The core cutting |
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| •Measures takento ensure that the sampling isrepresentativeofthein-situmaterialcollected,includingforinstanceresultsforfieldduplicate/second-half sampling.•Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain sizeof the material being sampled. | wascarriedoutatRiedel'sKingmanexploration office using a brick saw.•RC sampling was carried out every 2.5ft(0.76m) and separated by a cone splitter (wetsamples) or riffle splitter (dry samples) on a rigcyclone.•The splitter was routinely cleaned at the end ofeach drill rod (15ft or 4.5m) or as needed.•Within mineralised zones, 2.5ft (0.76m) calicosamples collected from the riffle/cone splitterwere submitted for analysis.•In barren zones spear samples were collectedat 5ft-10ft (1.52m-3.04m) composites from thesplit portion of the sample using a 50mm PVCspear.•Holes were sampled over mineralised intervalsto geological boundaries on a nominal 2.5ft(0.76m).•Field QAQC procedures involve the use ofcertified reference material (CRM) insertedapproximately 1 in 20 samples.•Each sample was dried, split, crushed, andpulverised.•Sample sizes are considered appropriate forthe style of mineralisation - narrow quartzsulphide veins.•Diamond and RC samples are appropriate foruse in a Mineral Resource Estimate. | |
| Quality ofassay0 dataandlaboratorytests | •The nature, quality andappropriateness of theassaying and laboratory procedures used and whetherthe technique is considered partial or total.•For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRFinstruments, etc, the parameters used in determiningthe analysis including instrument make andmodel,reading times, calibrations factors applied and theirderivation, etc.•Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g.,standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratorychecks) andwhether acceptable levels of accuracy(i.e., lack of bias) and precision have been established. | •2019 diamond samples were submitted to ALSwith all remaining samples submitted toAmerican Assay Laboratory (AAL) in Reno,Nevada.•ALS analysed Au by Fire Assay fusion (30g)followed by AAS.•Samples at ALS underwent a 33-element suite(ME-ICP61a code) 4-Acid digestion (nitric,perchloric, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acid)followed by an ICP-AES finish. Ag > 100 ppmunderwent gravimetric analysis and Pb and Zngreater the 10,000pm underwent an ore gradeover range analysis.•AAL analysed Au by Fire Assay fusion (30g)followed by ICP-AES finish. Over range resultsgreater than 100 ppm Au and Ag were furtheranalysed using gravimetric finish.•Samples submitted to AAL underwent a 5-Aciddigestion(hydrochloric,hydrofluoric,perchloric, nitric and sulphuric) followed byICP-AES. In 2021 and 2022 a 35-element suitewas completed and in 2023 a 6-element suitewas analysed including Ag, As, Cu, Pb, S andZn.•The techniques are considered quantitative innature.•As discussed previously, CRMs were insertedby the Company and the laboratory also carriesout internal standards in individual batches.•Sample preparation for fineness were carriedby AAL and AAL as part of their internalprocedures to ensure a grind size of 90%passing 75 micron was being attained. |
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| •The limited duplicate analysis for samplesreveals that precision of samples is withinacceptable limits. | ||
| Verificationof samplingandassaying | •The verification of significant intersections by eitherindependent or alternative company personnel.•The use of twinned drillholes.•Documentationofprimarydata,dataentryprocedures, data verification, data storage (physicaland electronic) protocols.•Discuss any adjustment to assay data. | •Significantintersectionshavenotbeenindependently verified.•No twinned holes have been completed.•Assay results have been received electronicallyand have been checked, verified, and mergedinto the Company's cloud hosted MX Depositdatabase.•Original laboratory data files in CSV and PDFformats are stored together with the mergeddata and on Riedel's server.•No adjustments have been made to assaydata. |
| Location ofdata points | •Accuracy and quality of surveysused to locatedrillholes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches,mine workings and other locations used in MineralResource estimation.•Specification of the grid system used.•Quality and adequacy of topographic control. | •Drill collars have been picked up using aTrimble RTX® R3 to an accuracy of +/- 50mm.•2019 DD holes were surveyed using a Reflexsingle-shot camera approximately every 50ft(15m).•Down hole surveys for 2021, 2022 and 2023DD and RC (except Fall 2021 drill program)were down hole surveyed using a DeviGyroRG40 north seeking gyro tool. Surveys werecompleted by Stockholm Precision Tools in2021 and 2022, and by Earth Drilling in 2023.•Azimuths are determined using a handheldBrunton compass.•Downhole surveys are uploaded to the MXDeposit, acloud-based data managementprogram where surveysare validated andapproved by the geologist.•The grid projection is WGS 84 UTM zone 11N.•Diagrams and location table are provided in the |
| Data spacinganddistribution | •Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.•Whether the data spacing, and distribution is sufficientto establish the degree of geological and gradecontinuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource andOreReserveestimationprocedure(s)andclassifications applied.•Whether sample compositing has been applied. | report.•Within the limits of the Mineral Resource, thedrill hole spacing varies from 40m x 40m, withsome infill holes at 10m x 10m. Areas ofrecently defined mineralisation, depth andstrike extensions of the deposits, and someshallow portions of strong mineralisation havebeen defined with hole spacings between 80mand 100m.•Based on the drilling programs carried out, themineralised domains are deemed to provide astrongbasisforgeologicalcontrolandcontinuity of mineralisation and are consideredappropriate for the Mineral Resource and OreReserveestimationproceduresandclassification applied under the 2012 JORCCode.•No Ore Reserve estimations are presented.•No sample compositing has been appliedexcept in the reporting of drill intercepts, asdescribed in this table. |
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Orientationof data inrelation togeologicalstructure | •Whethertheorientationofsamplingachievesunbiased sampling of possible structures and theextent to which this is known, considering the deposittype.•If the relationship between the drilling orientation andthe orientation of key mineralised structures isconsidered to have introduced a sampling bias, thisshould be assessed and reported if material. | •TheorientationofdrillingatTinticisapproximately perpendicular to the strike anddip of the mineralisation where known.•The holes are generally angled at -53° whichprovides good intersection angles into themineralisation.•Samplingisthereforeconsideredrepresentative of the mineralised zones.•The chance of bias introduced by sampleorientation is considered minimal. |
| Samplesecurity | •The measures taken to ensure sample security. | •Samples are collected by Company personnelin calico bags, which are in turn placed inplastic bags.•Plastic bags are transferred into bulka bags fortransport which are secured on wooden palletsand transported directly via road freight (FedExExpress) to the laboratory with a correspondingsubmission form and consignment note.•The laboratory checks the samples receivedagainst the submission form and notifies theCompany of any missing or additional samples.•Oncethelaboratoryhascompletedtheassaying, the pulp packets, pulp residues andcoarse rejects are held in the Laboratory'ssecure warehouse. On request, the pulppackets are returned to the site warehouse onsecurepalletswheretheyarestored. |
| Audits orreviews | •The results of any audits or reviews of samplingtechniques and data. | •No external audits or reviews have beenundertaken at this stage of the programme. |
Section 2 - Reporting of Exploration Results
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Mineraltenement andland tenurestatus | •Type, reference name/number, locationand ownership including agreements ormaterial issues with third parties suchasjointventures,partnerships,overriding royalties, native title interests,historical sites, wilderness or nationalpark and environmental settings.•The security of the tenure held at thetime of reporting along with any knownimpediments to obtaining a licence tooperate in the area. | •The entire Mineral Resource lies within a claim packageheld by Flagstaff Minerals (USA) Inc which forms part ofKingman Project.•Riedel Resources achieved $5m spend milestone and hasacquired 51% of Flagstaff Minerals (USA) Inc ("Flagstaff").Refer to Riedel's ASX announcement dated 28/03/2023.•Riedel is earning a 90% interest in Flagstaff via a further$5m spend now underway. Refer to Riedel's ASXannouncement dated 2/05/2023.•The claims are administered by the Bureau of LandManagement and are in good standing. Riedel is unawareof any impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in thearea. |
| Explorationdone by otherparties | •Acknowledgmentandappraisalofexploration by other parties. | •Prospectors first arrived in northwest Arizona in the 1840sand identified silver, gold, copper, zinc, lead and turquoisemineralisation along the Cerbat Mountains of MohaveCounty.•No accurate production figures exist for Tintic with limitedmining occurring which concentrated around 6 small shaftsand pits. The main shaft was sunk to 120ft (36.5m) withunderground strike driving north and south on the 120ft levelfor a combined ~246ft (75m). Two winzes on both north andsouth drives were sunk for ~35ft (10.6m). No stoping tookplace. World War 2 resulted in many of the mines ceasingoperations.•In 1997 Chandeleur Bay Resources completed a drillingprogram at the Tintic deposit that consisted of 15 DD for2,826 ft (~861m) and 22 RC for 3710 ft (~1130.8m).•None of the previous historical mining or exploration workcan be verified and is not considered to be of JORCstandard. |
| Geology | •Deposit type, geological setting, andstyle of mineralisation. | •The Kingman Project is located along the western flank ofthe Paleoproterozoic (Cerbat Mountains of the MohaveProvince in northwest Arizona.•The Cerbat Mountains are a typical block‐faulted range ofthe Basin and Range physiographic province of thesouthwestUnited States and consists of Supracrustalmetasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks including pillowbasalts, which have been intruded by granitoids includingthe Diana and Chloride Granitoids.•Supracrustal rocks within theCerbat Mountains weresubjected to two periods of metamorphism and deformed atgranulite faciesand arerepresented byamphibolite's,migmatitic garnet-biotite schists, gneiss quartz-feldspathicgneisses, impure quartzite, and rate metachert and BIF.Granitoids have been deformed into biotite- and hornblendebearing quartzofeldspathic gneiss, with contacts andinternal fabrics parallel to foliation within the enclosing wallrocks.•Cretaceous to Eocene (80-40Ma) granites were intrudedinto the Cerbat Mountains during the Laramide Orogeny.These porphyry Cu-Mo intrusions extend NW-SE fromSonora in Mexico to the Mineral Park deposit situated 8kmto the SE of Tintic and abuts the Projects Claims.•Mineralisation within the Project consists of multiple NWNNW striking, structurally controlled vein-systemsofIntermediate to Low-Sulphidation Epithermal character.Mineralisation consists of quartz, sphalerite, galena andpyrite with associated gold and silver. |
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| DrillholeInformation | •A summary of all information material tothe understanding of the explorationresults including a tabulation of thefollowing information for all Materialdrillholes:easting and northing of the drillholeocollarelevation or RL (Reduced Level –oelevation above sea level in metres)of the drillhole collardip and azimuth of the holeodown hole length and interceptionodepthhole length.o•If the exclusion of this information isjustified on the basis that the informationis not Material and this exclusion doesnot detract from the understanding ofthereport,theCompetentPersonshould clearly explain why this is thecase. | •Drill hole location and directional information provided withinthe body of the report and within Tables 1 and 2.•All drilling is included in the plan view maps. |
| Dataaggregationmethods | •InreportingExplorationResults,weightingaveragingtechniques,maximumand/orminimumgradetruncations (e.g., cutting of high grades)and cut-off grades are usually Materialand should be stated.•Where aggregate intercepts incorporateshort lengths of high-grade results andlonger lengths of low-grade results, theprocedure used for such aggregationshould be stated and some typicalexamples of such aggregations shouldbe shown in detail.•The assumptions used for any reportingof metal equivalent values should beclearly stated | •Grades are reported as down-hole length weightedaverages.•Headline composite grades reported to a minimum cut-offgrade of 0.3 g/t Au or 20 g/t Ag with maximum internaldilution of 2.5ft (0.76m).•Results in Appendix 1 are reported to a minimum cut-offgrade of 0.3g/t Au or 20 g/t Ag with maximum internaldilution of 2.5ft (0.76m).•No top-cuts have been applied to reporting of assay results. |
| Relationshipbetweenmineralisationwidths andinterceptlengths | •Theserelationshipsareparticularlyimportant in the reporting of ExplorationResults.•If the geometry of the mineralisationwith respect to the drillhole angle isknown, its nature should be reported.•If it is not known and only the down holelengths are reported, there should be aclear statement to this effect (e.g.,'down hole length, true width notknown'). | •The drill holes are interpreted to be approximatelyperpendicular to the strike of mineralisation.•All mineralised intervals reported are approximate, but arenot true width, as drilling is not always perpendicular to thestrike/dip of mineralisation.•Reported mineralised intersections are estimates.•Confirmation of true widths will only be possible when allresults are received, and final geological interpretationshave been completed. |
| Diagrams | •Appropriate maps and sections (withscales) and tabulations of interceptsshould be included for any significantdiscovery being reported. These shouldinclude, but not be limited to a plan viewof thedrillhole collar locations andappropriate sectional views. | •Plans and sections are provided in numerous ASX releasesand within the main body of the report. |
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Balancedreporting | •Where comprehensive reporting of allExploration Results is not practicable,representative reporting of both low andhigh grades and/or widths should bepracticed avoiding misleading reportingof Exploration Results. | •All drill collar locations are shown in figures and all results.•New exploration results, including those with no significantassays,areprovidedinthemainbodyoftheAnnouncement.•The report is considered balanced and in context. |
| Othersubstantiveexplorationdata | •Other exploration data, if meaningfulandmaterial,shouldbereportedincluding (but not limited to): geologicalobservations;geophysicalsurveyresults; geochemical survey results;bulk samples – size and method oftreatment; metallurgical test results;bulk density, groundwater, geotechnicalandrockcharacteristics;potentialdeleteriousorcontaminatingsubstances. | •Extensive metallurgical test work has commenced as part ofthe economic assessment of the project.•All other meaningful and material data is reported. |
| Furtherwork | •The nature and scale of planned furtherwork (e.g., tests for lateral extensions ordepth extensions or large-scale stepout drilling).•Diagrams clearly highlighting the areasof possible extensions, including themaingeological interpretations andfuturedrillingareas,providedthisinformationisnotcommerciallysensitive. | •All flora and fauna surveys have been completed with noidentified impediments.•A cultural survey across the Tintic area has been completedand final report is due in December 2023.•The Company is currently performing metallurgical test workon mineralisation from Tintic to determine gold, silver, leadand zinc recoveries.•The Company will commence a PEA in Q12024 toinvestigate whether the Tintic Deposit has the potential ofsatisfying several toll treating scenarios.•The PEA will serve as the cornerstone for our permitapplication, scheduled for submission in Q2 of 2024 |
Section 3: Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Database integrity | •Measures taken to ensure that datahasnotbeencorruptedby,forexample, transcription or keying errors,between its initial collection and its useforMineralResourceestimationpurposes.•Data validation procedures used. | •All drilling data in the Mineral Resource estimate hasbeen generate by Riedel since 2019. It has beensystematically recorded and is stored in a cloud hostedMX Deposit database.•Field validation of over 30 holes was carried out by theCompetent Person. This included verification of thehole locations, as well as a review of RC chips anddiamond core from 2019 and 2022. |
| Site visits | •Comment on any site visits undertakenby the Competent Person and theoutcome of those visits.•If no site visits have been undertakenindicate why this is the case. | •Several site visits have been carried out to theKingman Project by David Groombridge (Reidel,Competent Person for the data and geologicalinterpretation) in 2023.•NeitherSusanHavlin(SnowdenOptiro,CoCompetentPersonfortheMineralResourceEstimation) and Priscilla Staltari (Snowden Optiro, CoCompetentPersonfortheMineralResourceEstimation) have visited site. |
| Geologicalinterpretation | •Confidence in (or conversely, theuncertaintyof)thegeologicalinterpretation of the mineral deposit.•Nature of the data used and of anyassumptions made.•Theeffect,ifany,ofalternateinterpretationsontheMineralResource estimation.•The use of geology in guiding andcontrollingMineralResourceestimation.•The factors affecting continuity both ofgrade and geology. | •Interpretations at Tintic have been completed using3D Leapfrog software. All available data has beenused to help build the geological interpretation, withthe integration of geological logging, drill hole assaydataandgeologicalmaps.Geologicallogging(lithology, alteration and mineralogy) and all assaysfrom reverse circulation (RC) and diamond drillingdata were used to inform the interpretations. Gold andsilvergradewereprincipaldriversintheinterpretations;however they were not the solecontrol, and were used in combination with the otheranalytical and logging data.•The most recent drilling programs only (2022/2023)were utilised to build the weathering profile modelsince prior logging was considered inconsistent andincomplete.•RC and diamond drilling assays only were used in theestimates Tintic.•The data is considered to be robust due to recentvalidation checks to verify the quality.•Diamonddrillholeshaveprovideddetailedinformation to assist in the development of thegeological and mineralisation interpretation. Theconfidence in type, thickness and location of hostlithologies and mineralised structures in the depositarea is reasonable for an Inferred resource with theexpectation that interpretations will continue to berefined following the collection of additional data.•Theconfidenceintheunderlyinggeologicalinterpretation is considered to be good and is basedon RC and core drilling. |
| Dimensions | •The extent and variability of the MineralResource expressed as length (alongstrike or otherwise), plan width, anddepth below surface to the upper andlower limits of the Mineral Resource. | •The continuity of both grade and geology are mostlikely to be affected by structural controls and localcomplexity including post mineralisation faulting andfolding.•The Tintic Mineral Resource area extends over anorth-west strike length of 900m (as modelled), and aneast-west extent of 350m.•Horizontal width: mineralised domains are 0.5 m to 5min width (more often 0.5-1 m)•Depth from surface to the limit of classified material:~65 m. |
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| •Tintic is a potential open pit mining proposition whichhasbeenminedhistoricallywithundergroundhandheld methods. | ||
| Estimation andmodellingtechniques | •The nature and appropriateness of theestimation technique(s) applied andkey assumptions, including treatmentof extreme grade values, domaining,interpolation parameters and maximumdistance of extrapolation from datapoints.Ifacomputerassistedestimation method was chosen includea description of computer software andparameters used.•The availability of check estimates,previousestimatesand/ormineproduction records and whether theMineralResourceestimatetakesappropriate account of such data.•Theassumptionsmaderegardingrecovery of by-products.•Estimation of deleterious elements orother non-grade variables of economicsignificance (e.g. sulphur for acid minedrainage characterisation).•Inthecaseofblockmodelinterpolation, the block size in relationto the average sample spacing and thesearch employed.•Any assumptions behind modelling ofselective mining units.•Any assumptions about correlationbetween variables•Description of how the geologicalinterpretation was used to control theresource estimates.•Discussion of basis for using or notusing grade cutting or capping.•The process of validation, the checkingprocess used, the comparison of modeldata to drillhole data, and use ofreconciliation data if available. | Software used:•MX Deposit– database storage software.•Leapfrog Geo –Material type (weathering) andmineralisation wireframes.•Snowden Supervisor ‐geostatistics, variography,declustering, top-cut analysis, kriging neighbourhoodanalysis (KNA), validation•Datamine Studio RM – Drill hole validation, cross‐section,planandlong‐sectionplotting,blockmodelling,geostatistics,OrdinaryKriging(OK)estimation, block model validation, classification, andreporting.Estimation techniques:The estimate was completed employing OK gradeestimation of 0.75m length composites. The mineralisedinterpretations defined consistent zones of gold, silver,lead, zinc, arsenic and sulphur mineralised material asdefined by logged geology and/or assay data.The drill density is at a sufficient spacing that OK isconsidered appropriate to inform a local estimate.•Thegradedistributionsforallvariableswereassessed for the need for top-cutting to restrict thelocal impact of a limited number of outlier grades.•Gold, silver, lead, zinc, arsenic and sulphur wereestimated into the mineralised and waste domains.Block model and estimation parameters:•0.75 metre downhole composite data was interpolatedinto parent blocks using OK grade estimation.•Treatment of extreme grade values – the distance thatoutlier grades could influence was restricted using athreshold distance set for a defined top cut valuewithin estimation domains.•The top‐cut value was determined through theanalysis of histograms, log histograms, log probabilityplots and spatial analysis. In the mineralised domains:- Gold (Au) top-cut values ranged from 10g/t to 50g/tAu.- Silver (Ag) top-cut values ranged from 180 g/t to270g/t Ag. - Lead (pb) top-cut values ranged from10,000g/t to 127,000g/t Pb.- Zinc (Zn) top-cut values ranged from 15,000 g/t to35,000g/t Zn.- Arsenic (As) top-cut values were set to 15,000 g/t A- No top-cuts were set for Sulphur (S)Threshold distances for all domains were set to 10mto reflect the drill spacing. Not all lodes or domainsrequired top-cutting.•Estimation technique for all mineralised domains – OKwas utilised and considered the most appropriatemethod with respect to the observed continuity ofmineralisation, spatial analysis (variography) anddimensions of the domains defined by drilling. For themineralised domains, Nearest Neighbour techniqueswere applied to blocks that were not informed after thethird search pass. |
| •Continuity was determined by variogram analysis. Themaximum continuity range for Au, As and S was 59m |
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary | |
|---|---|---|---|
| along strike, 23m across strike and 5m down dip. Themaximum continuity range for Ag was 151m alongstrike, 50m across strike and 15m down dop. Themaximum continuity range for Pb was 87m alongstrike, 40m across strike and 5m down dip. Themaximum continuity range for Zn was 63m alongstrike, 43m across strike and 4m down dip. Themaximum continuity range for As was 56m alongstrike, 73m across strike and 6m down dip. Themaximum continuity range for S was 53m along strike,45m across strike and 19m down dip. | |||
| • | KrigingNeighbourhoodAnalysis(KNA)wasundertaken to optimise the search neighbourhoodused for the estimation and to test the parent blocksize.The search ellipse and selected samples byblock were viewed in three dimensions to verify theparameters. | ||
| • | Model rotation – No rotation has been applied to themodel. | ||
| • | Block Sizes | ||
| Parent block size for both mineralised and wastedomains is ‐ 10 m(E) by 10 m(N) by 2.5 m(RL) (parentcell estimation with full subset of points). | |||
| Smallest sub‐cell for both mineralised and wastedomains– 1 m(E) by 1 m(N) by 0.625m(RL). | |||
| Parent cell discretisation for the mineralisation andwaste model is 5 X by 5 Y by 5 Z (using the numberof points method). | |||
| • | Search ellipse was aligned to subtle changes in themineralisation trend using dynamic anisotropy formineralised domains. | ||
| • | Number of samples: Determined by KNASearch 1 (all elements): Minimum samples per drillhole is 6, maximum samples is 22 and a maximumsearch equal to the variogram range. Search 2 (allelements): Minimum samples per drill hole is 4,maximum samples is 22 and a maximum search equalto 2 timesthe variogram range. Search 3 (allelements): minimum samples per drill hole is 4,maximum samples is 22 and the maximum search is5 times the variogram range. | ||
| • | Maximum composites per drillhole is 4 samples toreduce any grade smearing from non-optimised drillorientations. | ||
| • | Maximum distance of extrapolation from data points is~100 m from sample data to Inferred boundary. | ||
| Domain boundary conditions:Mineralisation Domains: 6 mineralised domains were | |||
| supplied. Gold was estimated within each domain withhard boundaries applied between the domains. Thevarious material types - oxidised, partially oxidised,transition and fresh material, were coded into themodel and composites. Contact analysis between thematerial types with each domain was performed andidentified hard boundaries for gold between thevarious material types within a domain. No boundarywas identified between the material types within adomain for the other elements Ag, Pb, Zn, As, S.These elements were subsequently estimated withintheir domain boundary only, with hard boundariesbetween each of the domains. | |||
Waste: Au, Ag, Pb, Zn, As and S were estimated into the waste domain with a hard boundary between the
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| material types and a hard boundary to the mineraliseddomains.Mineralised domains which had very low samplepopulations and could not be estimated wereassigned the naïve mean grade of the composites.The following validation checks were performed:•Comparison of the volume of wireframe vs the volumeof block model.•Checks on the sum of gram metres prior tocompositing vs the sum of gram metres postcompositing. | ||
| •Checks to confirm no negative grades are present.•Comparison of the model average grade and the | ||
| declustered sample grade by domain and analyte.•Generation of swath plots by Domain, for northing, | ||
| easting and elevation.•Visual check of drill data vs model data in plan, sectionand three dimensions. | ||
| •All validation checks gave appropriate results andconfirmed the estimation parameters. There has beenno reconciliation check with historic mining. | ||
| Moisture | •Whether the tonnages are estimatedon a dry basis or with natural moisture,and the method of determination of themoisture content. | •Moisture was not considered in the density assignment(dry densities used). Bulk density values used werederived from local data and guided by experience.Waste densities for the various material types wereguided by experience. |
| Cut-offparameters | •The basis of the adopted cut-offgrade(s) or quality parameters applied | •Resources available for open pit mining are reportedabove a cut-off grade of 0.8 g/t Au which was selectedto represent the portion of the resource that may beconsidered for eventual economic extraction by openpit methods. |
| •The cut-off gradewas selectedbyReidelinconsultation with Snowden Optiro and based oncurrent experience. | ||
| •Grade tonnage curves were generated in order toreview various cut -off grades | ||
| Mining factorsOr assumptions | •Assumptions made regarding possibleminingmethods,minimumminingdimensionsandinternal(or,ifapplicable, external) mining dilution. Itis always necessary as part of theprocess of determining reasonableprospectsforeventualeconomicextraction to consider potential miningmethods, but the assumptions maderegardingminingmethodsandparameters when estimating MineralResources may not always be rigorous.Where this is the case, this should bereported with an explanation of thebasis of the mining assumptions made. | •The MRE is reported under conditions where theCompany believes there are reasonable prospects ofeventual economic extraction through standard openpit operations. |
| •It is considered that there are no mining factors whichare likely to affect the assumption that the deposit hasreasonableprospectsforeventualeconomicextraction. | ||
| Metallurgicalfactors orassumptions | •Thebasisforassumptionsorpredictionsregardingmetallurgicalamenability. It is always necessary aspart of the process of determiningreasonableprospectsforeventualeconomicextractiontoconsiderpotential metallurgical methods, but theassumptions regarding metallurgicaltreatment processes and parametersmadewhenreportingMineralResources may not always be rigorous. | •No metallurgical assumptions have been made duringthe MRE |
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Where this is the case, this should bereported with an explanation of thebasis of the metallurgical assumptionsmade. | ||
| Environmentalfactors orassumptions | •Assumptions made regarding possiblewaste and process residue disposaloptions. It is always necessary as partoftheprocessofdeterminingreasonableprospectsforeventualeconomic extraction to consider thepotential environmental impacts of theminingandprocessingoperation.While at this stage the determination ofpotentialenvironmentalimpacts,particularly for a greenfields project,may not always be well advanced, thestatus of early consideration of thesepotential environmental impacts shouldbe reported. Where these aspects havenot been considered this should bereported with an explanation of theenvironmental assumptions made | •No environmental assumptions have been madeduring the MRE. |
| Bulk density | •Whether assumed or determined. Ifassumed,thebasisfortheassumptions.Ifdetermined,themethod used, whether wet or dry, thefrequency of the measurements, thenature, size and representativeness ofthe samples.•The bulk density for bulk material musthave been measured by methods thatadequately account for void spaces(vugs, porosity, etc), moisture anddifferences between rock and alterationzones within the deposit,•Discuss assumptions for bulk densityestimatesusedintheevaluationprocess of the different materials. | •Dry bulk density measurements have been takenusing the Archimedean Principle using the waterimmersion method for individual core samples. A totalof 87 density measurements were taken. Dry bulkdensity has been assigned based on mineralisationand material type.•A default bulk density of 2.45 t/m3 was assigned to allmineralised material.•A default bulk density of 1.8 t/m3 was assigned towaste oxidised material.A default bulk density of 2.0 t/m3 was assigned to•waste partially oxidised material.•A default bulk density of 2.4 t/m3 was assigned towaste transitional material.A default bulk density of 2.7 t/m3 was assigned to•waste fresh material. |
| Classification | •The basis for the classification of theMineralResourcesintovaryingconfidence categories•Whether appropriate account has beentaken of all relevant factors (i.e. relativeconfidenceintonnage/gradeestimations, reliability of input data,confidence in continuity of geology andmetal values, quality, quantity anddistribution of the data).•Whethertheresultappropriatelyreflects the Competent Person's viewof the deposit. | •The Tintic deposit has been classified as an InferredMineral Resource.•TherearenoIndicatedorMeasuredMineralResources.•The principal criteria for classification were geologicaland grade continuity of the mineralised lodes andtaking into account the quality of the sampling andassay data and confidence in estimation of Au, Ag, Pb,Zn, As and S content.•The applied Mineral Resource classification reflectsthe Competent Persons' view of the deposit.•All material below the top of fresh rock boundary wasset to unclassified to reflect the wider space drillingpresent at depth and resultant lack of confidence ingrade continuity for these domains.•All waste domains were set to unclassified to reflectthe lack of confidence in grade distribution for thesedomains. |
| Audits or reviews | •The results of any audits or reviews ofMineral Resource estimates. | •Internal peer review has been undertaken during theMineral Resource estimation process. No externalreview has yet been undertaken. |
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Discussion ofrelativeaccuracy/confidence | •Where appropriate a statement of therelative accuracy and confidence levelin the Mineral Resource estimate usingan approach or procedure deemedappropriate by the Competent Person.Forexample,theapplicationofstatistical or geostatistical proceduresto quantify the relative accuracy of theresourcewithinstatedconfidencelimits, or, if such an approach is notdeemedappropriate,aqualitativediscussion of the factors that couldaffecttherelativeaccuracyandconfidence of the estimate.•The statement should specify whetherit relates to global or local estimates,and,iflocal,statetherelevanttonnages, which should be relevant totechnical and economic evaluation.Documentationshouldincludeassumptions made and the proceduresused.•These statements of relative accuracyand confidence of the estimate shouldbe compared with production data,where available | |
- The Mineral Resource classification reflects the relative confidence in the estimate. No formal quantification of the relative accuracy and confidence levels has yet been undertaken.
- The confidence levels have been assigned to the parent block size. In all projects, there are areas that approach a local (annual production scale) estimate, and this has been reflected in the applied Mineral Resource classification.
- No other estimation approach was undertaken during this MRE update.
No production records are available or this deposit.