AI assistant
Sheffield Resources Ltd. — Interim / Quarterly Report 2020
Jan 20, 2021
44780_rns_2021-01-20_5f540012-80ae-4864-8d71-adebe426976b.pdf
Interim / Quarterly Report
Open in viewerOpens in your device viewer
==> picture [113 x 76] intentionally omitted <==
QUARTERLY ACTIVITIES REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2020
21 January 2021
HIGHLIGHTS
ASX Code:
Thunderbird Mineral Sands Project
-
The FIRB advised no objections to the proposed Joint Venture, enabling $130m investment by Yansteel in Thunderbird Project
-
Binding 50:50 joint venture agreements were executed between Sheffield and Yansteel on 6 January 2021
-
Trial mining work program executed during the quarter. Full thickness of high grade T2 ore zone exposed confirming:
-
Dozer push mining assumptions;
-
Mining productivity assumptions;
-
A 25 tonne bulk ore sample was collected for ore feed preparation and metallurgical test work
-
Bankable Feasibility Study metallurgical test work conducted on proposed joint venture process flowsheet to produce a zircon rich non-magnetic concentrate and LTR ilmenite
Corporate Activities
- $12.9m in cash at quarter end (unaudited) with forecast expenditure of $2.4m in the forthcoming quarter.
==> picture [352 x 278] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 1: Location of Sheffield’s Dampier Mineral Sands Projects
THUNDERBIRD MINERAL SANDS PROJECT
Sheffield Resources Limited (“Sheffield” or “the Company”) continued to advance definitive Joint Venture documentation with YGH Investment Australia Pty Ltd (“Yansteel”) for the development of the world-class Thunderbird Mineral Sands Project (“Thunderbird” or “Project”) throughout the quarter.
Yansteel submitted its Foreign Investment Review Board (“FIRB”) application in August 2020, with the Company and Yansteel collaboratively responding to FIRB enquiries. This process concluded on 15 December 2020 (refer ASX announcement dated 15 December 2020) with FIRB advising that the Commonwealth did not object to Yansteel’s planned $130m investment to subscribe for a 50% of the Thunderbird Mineral Sands Project.
In parallel with the FIRB process, the Company and Yansteel progressed definitive binding documentation. This documentation was executed subsequent to the end of the December 2020 quarter on 6 January 2021 (refer ASX announcement dated 6 January 2021). Steps are underway to satisfy the remaining conditions precedent to finalise the formation of the joint venture and complete the BFS, targeting a Final Investment Decision (“FID”) in 2021.
A trial mining pit was excavated to a depth of 30 metres to observe full scale ore mining utilising the dozer push method through the full thickness of the high grade “T2” ore zone. The trial mining pit confirmed that dozer push ore mining method is viable and practical over a range of ground and weather conditions confirming mining and haulage productivity assumptions in waste and ore materials.
A 25 tonne bulk sample from dozer pushed ore material was collected to inform final design criteria for ore feed preparation plant and additional metallurgical test work.
The Company undertook field mapping and geotechnical test work from the trial mining pit to address final pit wall slope design angles. Ongoing monitoring of the exposed pit wall slopes is scheduled over the wet season. A gravel test program was undertaken on the Thunderbird Mining Lease (M04/459) to identify construction materials for road construction and project development infrastructure requirements.
Sheffield progressed work programs to advance the preferred Joint Venture flowsheet design and define project development opportunities for finalisation with Yansteel following Joint Venture formation.
Project Development
Project development work programs benefited from detailed engineering work completed during the 2017 Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS) and the 2019 Bankable Feasibility Study Update (BFSU) with additional BFS standard metallurgical test work has also been conducted on the preferred flowsheet to produce a zircon rich non-magnetic concentrate and LTR ilmenite. Several project development opportunities have been identified during this process. Upon formation of the Joint Venture, an agreed project development strategy will be determined by the joint venture partners, Sheffield and Yansteel. The quality of the work programs should enable the prompt completion of a Bankable Feasibility Study and the project financing process.
Engineering Studies
The current flowsheet reintroduces the Low Temperature Roast (“LTR”) and simplifies the ilmenite circuit from the 2017 BFS, as well as removing the zircon-related Mineral Separation Plant (“MSP”) components included in both the 2017 BFS and 2019 BFS Update. Metallurgical test work has been completed on the current flowsheet to a standard to support the 2021 BFS and the project financing process. The detailed engineering work has also advanced, with revised procurement and construction schedules to assist the Joint Venture ahead of finalising the BFS development strategy.
2
Trial Mining and Variability Sample Collection
A full-scale trial mining program was completed safely and on schedule by local contractor Kimberley Quarry Pty Ltd. The trial mining pit was designed to:
-
expose the full thickness of the high grade “T2” ore zone
-
enable full scale ore mining via dozer push method through the orebody
-
enable a bulk sample from dozer push ore material to be collected
-
confirm mine digging and traffic rates of waste and ore material in various conditions
-
enable the collection of geotechnical and pit slope information assisting final pit design parameters.
The trial mining program excavated a c. 220kt pit containing 120kt of ore and 100kt of waste material. Figures 2 and 3 below show a design plan and cross section of the trial mining pit.
==> picture [395 x 231] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 2: Plan view trial mining pit
==> picture [393 x 229] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 3: Cross section of trial mining pit
3
Waste material was removed by excavator and truck operations with some zones of harder and competent waste materials requiring ripping by dozer to enable excavation. Regular zones of ore material on each mining flitch were marked up and dozer pushed towards a mined slot where the excavator loaded the ore material into trucks, simulating the fixed location of a future mining unit plant (MUP). Collation of equipment hours, along with obtained waste and ore material conditions, shall be utilised within future studies and cost estimates.
==> picture [230 x 177] intentionally omitted <==
==> picture [245 x 176] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 4: Waste mining by excavator and truck
Figure 5: Ore mining by dozer push to fixed excavator location
The trial mining program confirmed that ore mining via a dozer push method is a viable and practical mining method over a range of ground and weather conditions. The mining operations experienced a range of ground and weather conditions, including rain events of up 50mm during a 24-hour period. Mining operations were able to continue throughout this period with good heavy vehicle trafficability in waste and ore materials.
A 25 tonne bulk sample collected from dozer pushed ore material shall enable final design criteria to be determined for the ore feed preparation plant and additional metallurgical test work. Excavated and dozer push bulk samples were collected from regular flitches through the orebody. The figures below indicate the setup of the regular excavated and dozer push bulk samples.
==> picture [235 x 181] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 6: Selection of dozer push bulk samples
==> picture [239 x 184] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 7: Aerial view of stockpiled ore & waste
The Company undertook field mapping and geotechnical test work from the trial mining pit to inform final pit wall slope design angles. Ongoing monitoring of the pit wall slopes is scheduled over the wet season.
4
Trial mining has been situated to intersect stratigraphy for all materials expected to be encountered during the life of mine (LOM). These materials include recent cover, Melligo sandstone, Broome sands lower grade (T1) domain and the Broome sands high grade domain (T2). The trial mining pit successfully terminated beneath the high-grade (T2) domain. This pit was designed in a location that favours commencement of full scale mining (Figure 8). The trail mining pit was designed from the 112.5mRL to the 87.5mRL and approximately 100m long and 80m wide at the crest, with 40° walls exhibiting good stability.
==> picture [425 x 333] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 8: Trial Mining pit location against thickness (m) times VHM grade (%) at Thunderbird
==> picture [474 x 209] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 9: Dozer push sample collection
5
During the trial mining exercise, Sheffield produced a bulk sample between the 105.0mRL and 88.0mRL, representative of the 2019 BFSU Proven Ore Reserve high grade domain (T2) material (refer to ASX announcement dated 31 July 2019). Each flitch was tine-ripped and pushed to a depth of up to half a metre by a D9 dozer for a total distance of 30m; allowing attrition prior to collecting at a trap-site. Ore material totalling between 40 to 50 tonnes was loaded into a truck utilising an excavator to mimic the mining unit plant (MUP). This material was transported to a high-grade sheeted area for screen analysis and homogenisation to create the bulk sample for metallurgical test work.
Screening of dozer pushed material from each flitch was carried out to determine oversize variability within the high-grade domain ore. Samples from each flitch were separately fed into a screening plant. Each fraction was weighed in a loader by load-rite and output material described. Results are to be analysed in conjunction with planned process outcomes.
==> picture [475 x 183] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 10: Screening to analyse variance in fraction size per flitch
Upon completion of screening each flitch sample was homogenised on a high grade ore pad. Sub-splits were produced and processed through a jaw-crusher to 90mm, producing a 25-tonne bulk sample. Analysis is expected to be complete during Q2 2021.
A gravel exploration test pit program was also undertaken to assist with future mine infrastructure requirements.
Flowsheet Confirmation and Non-Magnetic Concentrate Product Samples
Existing raw ore and partly processed samples were used to complete test work based on the current flowsheet to support a the 2021 BFS and project financing due diligence. Existing Heavy Mineral Concentrate (HMC) samples were used to complete zircon rich non-magnetic concentrate flowsheet design parameters and produce samples for existing and new offtake partners. Magnetic products were processed through the Yansteel ilmenite process circuit, which no longer includes the 2017 BFS ilmenite dry plant, and then processed to produce LTR ilmenite to support the 2021 BFS and project finance due diligence process. The results of the test work where in line with assumptions made for the Yansteel flowsheet and in line with expectations from previous BFS-standard test work.
Enabling Early Works
Access to site and accommodation was established to support trial mining and other activities. A fire management program and general village maintenance was conducted during the quarter. At the completion of the trial mining program, the accommodation village and site were locked down in preparation for the 2020/2021 Kimberley wet season.
6
Environmental Compliance Reporting
Thunderbird Operations submitted the State and Federal annual compliance reporting related to environmental project approvals. The operation remains in compliance with approved project conditions.
Aboriginal and Community Engagement
Prior to the commencement of trial mining, Traditional Owners’ heritage monitors and Company rangers conducted pre and post land clearing artefact checks and Greater Bilby surveys of the area. No artefacts or evidence of Greater Bilby presence or activity was found in the trial mining area.
Senior Traditional Owners were invited to site to share artefact knowledge with heritage monitors and rangers. Areas where final artefact checks had occurred since 2018 were revisited by heritage monitors, rangers and Senior Traditional Owners.
Heritage monitors and rangers continued final artefact checks and Greater Bilby surveys over land where Project infrastructure will be constructed. Evidence of Greater Bilby activity was found in some of the surveyed areas. The Greater Bilby Disturbance Protocols outlined in Thunderbird’s Terrestrial Fauna Environmental Management Plan, approved by the Federal Government, is followed prior to land clearing.
==> picture [260 x 199] intentionally omitted <==
==> picture [193 x 199] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 11: Site knowledge share between Heritage Monitors and Elders
Markets
As the world has adapted to dealing with the global pandemic the mineral sands and associated industries have continued to push ahead and perform relatively well. Markets in China have been buoyant, and the Americas has continued to perform reasonably well. Both Europe and India are indicating signs of recovery although not as buoyant as China and the Americas. Zircon and titanium industries have outperformed subdued 2020 forecasts, particularly the titanium industry which has performed exceptionally well.
As reported in the previous quarter, the titanium feedstock market remains tight. This trend has continued during the current quarter with further tightening in the market, particularly in China where pricing for material has increased, especially for sulfate ilmenite feedstocks. The US has also performed relatively well during this period with Europe showing signs of modest improvement from the previous quarter. The expectations for the first half of 2021 in the titanium feedstock market is for similar tight market conditions to be maintained with buoyant pricing.
During 2020, the zircon market saw prices starting to fall following a modest contraction in consumer demand for stock. The current quarter evidenced a slight tightening in the market, preventing further
7
price erosion. Prices have stabilised at US$1330 – US$1420 per tonne dependent on product quality and the supplier. For the first half of 2021, zircon supply is expected to tighten slightly which should see stable pricing. Within the titanium feedstock markets, similar conditions are expected for the early part of 2021 with stable pricing and tight supply, especially for sulfate ilmenite, expected to continue.
Mid to long-range forecasts for both zircon and ilmenite markets remain unchanged and it is still expected significant supply constraints shall continue in the coming years. Thunderbird is well placed to supply products into what is expected to be a tightening market.
Offtake Partners
Discussions have continued with existing and potential new offtake groups for the possible supply of a zircon-rich concentrate. Strong interest has been received from a wide range of offtake groups. Feedback from existing offtake groups has been positive following receipt and assessment of samples supplied by the Company.
Exploration
Eneabba & McCalls Projects
Sheffield’s 100% owned Eneabba Project is located approximately 230km north of Perth in Western Australia’s Midwest region. The Eneabba Project has a Mineral Resource inventory totalling 193.3 million tonnes @ 3.0% HM containing 4.8 million tonnes of Valuable Heavy Mineral above various HM cut-offs (Measured, Indicated and Inferred) (refer to ASX announcement 3 October 2018 and 24 September 2019). The mineralisation is across seven Mineral Resources including Yandanooka, Durack, Drummond Crossing, Robbs Cross, Thomson, West Mine North and Ellengail.
The McCalls Mineral Sands Project (McCalls) is located 110km to the north of Perth near the town of Gingin. Across two deposits (McCalls and Mindarra Springs) the Project has a Mineral Resource of 5,800 million tonnes @ 1.4% HM above a 1.1% HM cut-off (Indicated and Inferred). The McCalls Project contains 67 million tonnes of chloride ilmenite grading 59-66% TiO2 and is considered a longer-term strategic asset (refer to ASX announcement 03 October 2018 and 24 September 2019).
Technical reports were produced during the quarter.
Derby East Project
The Derby East Project comprises of a large occurrence of construction quality sand, located 24km east of the Port of Derby. A review of all project data and a technical report for the Derby East Project was completed during the quarter.
CORPORATE ACTIVITIES
During the quarter, a total sum of $210,097 was paid to related parties and their associates for Director fees and superannuation.
As at 31 December 2020, Sheffield held cash reserves of approximately A$12.9 million (unaudited).
This announcement is authorised by the Board of Sheffield Resources Limited.
==> picture [52 x 48] intentionally omitted <==
Mr Bruce McFadzean Managing Director 21 January 2021
8
THUNDERBIRD JOINT VENTURE
In August 2020 Sheffield and Yansteel executed a Non-Binding Term Sheet for the formation of a 50:50 Joint Venture to own and develop the Thunderbird Mineral Sands Project and adjacent tenements on the Dampier Peninsula. The parties have agreed that the development concept for Stage 1 of the Project will be a 10.4mt per annum mine and process plant producing a zircon-rich non-magnetic concentrate and LTR ilmenite.
Yansteel will subscribe for a 50% interest in the Joint Venture and provide A$130.1m in project equity funding. Sheffield will fund any project equity shortfall between A$130.1m and A$143m from the A$12.9m funding provided by the Yansteel Share Placement completed on 12 August 2020, less Project costs incurred prior to a Final Investment Decision (“FID”). The Joint Venture will secure project finance and, if required, project equity in excess of A$143m will be funded 50:50 by Yansteel and Sheffield.
The Yansteel A$130.1m project equity investment via the Joint Venture transaction, together with the A$12.9m placement funding and combined with project financing, is expected to deliver a fully funded project.
The Joint Venture will be governed by a four person Board of Directors with Sheffield and Yansteel each nominating two directors. Key Joint Venture decisions will require unanimous approval of both shareholders. The Joint Venture will be operated as a standalone entity with its own management and employees, with selected Sheffield personnel to be appointed as part of the key management persons upon the formation of the Joint Venture.
The Joint Venture agreements include customary dispute resolution, default, dilution and pre-emption terms.
The FIRB process was completed on 15 December 2020 and no other regulatory approvals are required. Subsequent to the end of the December 2020 quarter the formal Joint Venture agreements were signed on 6 January 2021.
The formation of the Joint Venture is subject to completion of various steps defined in the formal Joint Venture agreements including payment of the $130.1m in project equity by Yansteel.
YANSTEEL OFFTAKE AGREEMENT
Yansteel and Sheffield have entered into a binding life of mine take or pay offtake agreement for 100% of the LTR ilmenite from Stage 1 at market price. Yansteel has a first right of refusal to purchase ilmenite from later stages.
In the unlikely event that the Joint Venture cannot be formed for any reason, the offtake will convert automatically to a minimum 7 + 3 year take or pay offtake agreement for 100% of the ilmenite produced from Stage 1 of the Project.
ABOUT YANSTEEL
Yansteel is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tangshan Yanshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd, a privately owned steel manufacturer headquartered in Hebei, China producing approximately 10mt per annum of steel products and has annual revenues of ~A$6bn.
Construction of a 500ktpa integrated titanium dioxide processing facility including a titanium slag smelter has commenced by the company. This complex will consume the Low Temperature Roast (“LTR”) ilmenite offtake from Stage 1 of the Thunderbird Mineral Sands Project.
9
Schedule 1: Interests in Mining Tenements at the end of the quarter as required under ASX Listing Rule 5.3.3
| Project | Tenement | Holder | Interest | Location | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mineral Sands | E04/20812 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E04/20832 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E04/20842 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E04/21712 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E04/23492 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E04/23902 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E04/24562 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E04/24782 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E04/24942 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E04/25092 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E04/25402 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E04/25542 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E04/25712 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E04/25972 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | L04/822 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | L04/832 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | L04/842 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | L04/852 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | L04/862 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | L04/922 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | L04/932 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | M04/4592 | Thunderbird Operations PtyLtd | 100% | CanningBasin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E70/3762 | Sheffield Resources Ltd | 100% | Perth Basin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E70/3813 | Sheffield Resources Ltd | 100% | Perth Basin | Granted |
| MineralSands | E70/3814 | SheffieldResourcesLtd | 100% | Perth Basin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E70/3859 | Sheffield Resources Ltd | 100% | Perth Basin | Pending |
| Mineral Sands | E70/3929 | Sheffield Resources Ltd | 100% | Perth Basin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E70/3967 | Sheffield Resources Ltd | 100% | Perth Basin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E70/4190 | Sheffield Resources Ltd | 100% | Perth Basin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E70/4292 | Sheffield Resources Ltd | 100% | Perth Basin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E70/4584 | Sheffield Resources Ltd | 100% | Perth Basin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E70/4719 | Sheffield Resources Ltd | 100% | Perth Basin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E70/4747 | Sheffield Resources Ltd | 100% | Perth Basin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | E70/4922 | Sheffield Resources Ltd | 100% | Perth Basin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | M70/8721 | Sheffield Resources Ltd | 100% | Perth Basin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | M70/9651 | Sheffield Resources Ltd | 100% | Perth Basin | Granted |
| Mineral Sands | M70/11531 | Sheffield Resources Ltd | 100% | Perth Basin | Granted |
| MineralSands | R70/351 | SheffieldResourcesLtd | 100% | Perth Basin | Granted |
Notes:
1Iluka Resources Ltd (ASX: ILU) retains a gross sales royalty of 1.5% in respect to tenements R70/35, M70/872, M70/965 & M70/1153. 2Thunderbird Operations Pty Ltd and 3Moora Talc Pty Ltd are wholly owned subsidiaries of Sheffield Resources Ltd.
10
Appendix 1
ORE RESERVES AND MINERAL RESOURCES
SHEFFIELD ORE RESERVE AS OF 31 DECEMBER 2020
DAMPIER PROJECT ORE RESERVES
SHEFFIELD ORE RESERVE FOR DAMPIER PROJECT AT 31 DECEMBER 2020 (in-situ assemblage)
| Summary of Ore Reserve1,2,3,4 Deposit Ore Reserve Material Category (Million Tonnes) |
Summary of Ore Reserve1,2,3,4 Deposit Ore Reserve Material Category (Million Tonnes) |
In-situ Total |
Valuable HM Assemblage | Valuable HM Assemblage | (in-situ)5 Ilmenite Oversize Slimes (%) (%) (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Material | Total HM7 HM |
Zircon HiTi L |
Leuco |
||
| (Million Tonnes) |
Grade (Million Tonnes) (%) |
euc (%) (%) |
-xene (%) |
||
| Thunderbird Proved Probable |
219 529 |
30.0 13.7 53.4 10.1 |
1.02 0.30 0.79 0.26 |
0.28 0.27 |
3.68 14.0 16.1 2.87 10.5 14.5 |
| Total | 748 | 83.8 11.2 |
0.86 0.27 |
0.27 | 3.11 11.6 15.0 |
SHEFFIELD ORE RESERVE FOR DAMPIER PROJECT AT 31 DECEMBER 2020 (HM assemblage)
| Summary of Ore Reserve1,2,3,4 Deposit Ore Reserve Material Category (Million Tonnes) |
Summary of Ore Reserve1,2,3,4 Deposit Ore Reserve Material Category (Million Tonnes) |
In-situ Total HM7 Total HM Grade (Million Tonnes) (%) |
Valuable HM Assemblage6 Zircon HiTi Leuc Leuco -xene Ilmenite Oversize Slimes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) |
Valuable HM Assemblage6 Zircon HiTi Leuc Leuco -xene Ilmenite Oversize Slimes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) |
Valuable HM Assemblage6 Zircon HiTi Leuc Leuco -xene Ilmenite Oversize Slimes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zircon HiTi Leuc (%) (%) |
Leuco -xene (%) |
||||
| Thunderbird Proved Probable |
219 529 |
30.0 13.7 53.4 10.1 |
7.4 2.2 7.8 2.6 |
2.0 2.7 |
26.9 14.0 16.1 28.4 10.5 14.5 |
| Total | 748 | 83.8 11.2 |
7.7 2.4 |
2.4 | 27.8 11.6 15.0 |
1The Ore Reserves are presented with in-situ HM grade, and mineral assemblage. Tonnes and grades have been rounded to reflect the relative accuracy and confidence level of the estimate, thus the sum of columns may not equal. This Ore Reserve reported for the Dampier Project was prepared and first disclosed under the JORC Code (2012) in the announcement 31 July 2019 Titled “Thunderbird 10% Ore Reserve Increase”. The Ore Reserve is reported to a design overburden surface with appropriate consideration for modifying factors, costs, mineral assemblage, process recoveries and product pricing
2.Ore Reserve is a sub-set of Mineral Resource
3Total HM is within the 38µm to 1mm size fraction and reported as a percentage of the total material, slimes is the -38µm fraction and oversize is the +1mm fraction.
4Tonnes and grades have been rounded to reflect the relative accuracy and confidence level of the estimate, thus the sum of columns may not equal.
5The in-situ assemblage grade is determined by multiplying the percentage of HM by the percentage of each valuable heavy mineral within the heavy mineral assemblage at the resource block model scale.
6Mineral Assemblage is reported as a percentage of HM Grade, it is derived by dividing the in-situ grade by the HM grade.
7 The contained in-situ tonnes derived from HM and material tonnes from information in the Mineral Resource tables
The Ore Reserve estimate was prepared by Entech Pty Ltd, an experienced and prominent mining engineering consultancy with appropriate mineral sands experience in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition). The Ore Reserve was estimated using all available geological and relevant drill hole and assay data, including mineralogical sampling and test work on mineral recoveries and final product qualities. The Company is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the Ore Reserve estimate and confirms that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimate continue to apply and have not materially changed. The Ore Reserve estimate is based on the current, July 2016 Thunderbird Mineral Resource estimate, announced to the ASX on 5 July 2016. Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources were converted too Proved and Probable Ore Reserves respectively, subject to mine design, modifying factors and economic evaluation.
11
SHEFFIELD MINERAL RESOURCE
1) DAMPIER PROJECT MINERAL RESOURCES
SHEFFIELD MINERAL RESOURCE FOR DAMPIER PROJECT AT 31 DECEMBER 2020 (in-situ assemblage)
| Summary of Mineral Resource1,2,3 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Summary of Mineral Resource1,2,3 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Summary of Mineral Resource1,2,3 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Material In-situ Total HM6 Total HM Grade (Million Tonnes) (Million Tonnes) (%) |
In-situAssemblage4, 5 Zircon HiTi Leuc Leuco- xene Ilmenite Over size Slimes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) |
In-situAssemblage4, 5 Zircon HiTi Leuc Leuco- xene Ilmenite Over size Slimes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) |
In-situAssemblage4, 5 Zircon HiTi Leuc Leuco- xene Ilmenite Over size Slimes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zircon (%) |
HiTi Leuc (%) |
|||||
| Thunderbird (low-grade) |
Measured Indicated Inferred |
3.0 3.0 3.0 |
510 45 8.9 2,120 140 6.6 600 38 6.3 |
0.71 0.55 0.53 |
0.20 0.18 0.17 |
0.19 2.4 12 18 0.20 1.8 9 16 0.20 1.7 8 15 |
| Total | 3.0 | 3,230 223 6.9 |
0.57 | 0.18 | 0.20 1.9 9 16 |
|
| Night Train (low-grade) |
Inferred | 1.2 | 130 4.2 3.3 |
0.45 | 0.18 | 1.5 0.71 2.2 8.7 |
| Total | 1.2 | 130 4.2 3.3 |
0.45 | 0.18 | 1.5 0.71 2.2 8.7 |
|
| All Dampier Project (low grade cut-off) |
Measured Indicated Inferred |
3.0 3.0 Various |
510 45 8.9 2,120 140 6.6 730 42 5.8 |
0.71 0.55 0.51 |
0.20 0.18 0.17 |
0.19 2.4 12 18 0.20 1.8 9 16 0.43 1.6 7.2 13 |
| Total | Various | 3,360 227 6.8 |
0.57 | 0.18 | 0.25 1.9 8.7 15 |
|
| Thunderbird (high-grade) |
Measured Indicated Inferred |
7.5 7.5 7.5 |
220 32 14.5 640 76 11.8 180 20 10.8 |
1.07 0.90 0.87 |
0.31 0.28 0.27 |
0.27 3.9 15 16 0.25 3.3 11 14 0.26 3.0 9 13 |
| Total | 7.5 | 1,050 127 12.2 |
0.93 | 0.28 | 0.26 3.3 11 15 |
|
| Night Train (high-grade) |
Inferred | 2.0 | 50 3.0 5.9 |
0.82 | 0.33 | 2.9 1.06 2.2 10.2 |
| Total | 2.0 | 50 3.0 5.9 |
0.82 | 0.33 | 2.9 1.06 2.2 10.2 |
|
| All Dampier Project (high grade cut-off) |
Measured Indicated Inferred |
7.5 7.5 Various |
220 32 14.5 640 76 11.8 230 23 9.7 |
1.07 0.90 0.85 |
0.31 0.28 0.28 |
0.27 3.9 15 16 0.25 3.3 11 14 0.83 2.6 7.2 12 |
| Total | Various | 1,090 130 11.9 |
0.92 | 0.29 | 0.38 3.2 11 14 |
1 Night Train: The Mineral Resource estimate was prepared by Optiro Pty Ltd and first disclosed under the JORC Code (2012) refer to ASX announcement 31 January 2019 for further details including Table 1. The Mineral Resource reported above 1.2% heavy mineral (HM) cut-off is inclusive of (not additional to) the Mineral Resource reported above 2.0% HM cut-off. Thunderbird: The Mineral Resource estimate was prepared by Optiro Pty Ltd and first disclosed under the JORC Code (2012) refer to ASX announcement 5 July 2016 for further details including Table 1. The Dampier Project Mineral Resources are reported inclusive of (not additional to) Ore Reserves. The Mineral Resource reported above 3.0% HM cut-off is inclusive of (not additional to) the Mineral Resource reported above 7.5% HM cut-off.
2Total HM is within the 38µm to 1mm size fraction and reported as a percentage of the total material, slimes is the -38µm fraction and oversize is the +1mm fraction.
3Tonnes and grades have been rounded to reflect the relative accuracy and confidence level of the estimate, thus the sum of columns may not equal.
4 Night Train: Estimates of Mineral Assemblage are presented as percentages of the Heavy Mineral (HM) component of the deposit, as determined by magnetic separation, QEMSCAN[TM] and XRF for one of 12 composite samples. Magnetic fractions were analysed by QEMSCAN[TM] for mineral determination as follows: Ilmenite: 40-70% TiO2 >90% Liberation; leucoxene: 70-90% TiO2 >90% Liberation; High titanium leucoxene (HiTi leucoxene) and rutile 90% TiO2 >90% Liberation, and zircon: 66.7% ZrO2+HfO2 >90% Liberation. The non-magnetic fraction was submitted for XRF analysis and minerals determined as follows: zircon: ZrO2+HfO2/0.667 and HiTi leucoxene: TiO2/0.94. HM assemblage determination was by the QEMSCAN[TM] process for 11 of 12 composite samples which uses observed mass and chemistry to classify particles according to their average chemistry, and then report mineral abundance by dominant % mass in particle. For the TiO2 minerals the following breakpoints were used to distinguish between Ilmenite 40% to 70% TiO2, leucoxene 70% to 90% TiO2, HiTi leucoxene and rutile > 90%, Screening of the heavy mineral was not required. Thunderbird: estimates of Mineral Assemblage are presented as percentages of the HM component of the deposit, as determined by magnetic separation, QEMSCAN[TM] and XRF. Magnetic fractions were analysed by QEMSCAN[TM] for mineral determination as follows: Ilmenite: 40-70% TiO2 >90% Liberation; leucoxene: 70-94% TiO2 >90% Liberation; HiTi leucoxene: >94% TiO2 >90% Liberation; and zircon: 66.7% ZrO2+HfO2 >90% Liberation. The non-magnetic fraction was submitted for XRF analysis and minerals determined as follows: zircon: ZrO2+HfO2/0.667 and HiTi leucoxene: TiO2/0.94.
5In-situ assemblage grade is determined by multiplying the percentage of HM by the percentage of each valuable heavy mineral within the heavy mineral assemblage at the resource block model scale.
6 The contained in-situ tonnes derived from HM and material tonnes from information in the Mineral Resource tables.
12
SHEFFIELD MINERAL RESOURCES FOR DAMPIER PROJECT AT 31 DECEMBER 2020 (HM assemblage)
| Summary of Mineral Resource1,2,3 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Summary of Mineral Resource1,2,3 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Summary of Mineral Resource1,2,3 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Material In-situ Total HM6 Total HM Grade (Million Tonnes) (Million Tonnes) (%) |
HM Assemblage4 HiTi Leuc5 Leuco- xene Ilmenite Over size Slimes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) |
HM Assemblage4 HiTi Leuc5 Leuco- xene Ilmenite Over size Slimes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zircon (%) |
HiTi Leuc5 (%) |
|||||
| Thunderbird (low-grade) |
Measured Indicated Inferred |
3.0 3.0 3.0 |
510 45 8.9 2,120 140 6.6 600 38 6.3 |
8.0 8.4 8.4 |
2.3 2.7 2.6 |
2.2 27 12 18 3.1 28 9 16 3.2 28 8 15 |
| Total | 3.0 | 3,230 223 6.9 |
8.3 | 2.6 | 2.9 28 9 16 |
|
| Night Train (low-grade) |
Inferred | 1.2 | 130 4.2 3.3 |
14 | 5.4 | 46 22 2.2 8.7 |
| Total | 1.2 | 130 4.2 3.3 |
14 | 5.4 | 46 22 2.2 8.7 |
|
| All Dampier Project (low grade cut-off) |
Measured Indicated Inferred |
3.0 3.0 Various |
510 45 8.9 2,120 140 6.6 730 42 5.8 |
8.0 8.4 8.9 |
2.3 2.7 2.9 |
2.2 27 12 18 3.1 28 9 16 7.5 27 7.2 13 |
| Total | Various | 3,360 227 6.8 |
8.4 | 2.7 | 3.7 28 8.7 15 |
|
| Thunderbird (high-grade) |
Measured Indicated Inferred |
7.5 7.5 7.5 |
220 32 14.5 640 76 11.8 180 20 10.8 |
7.4 7.6 8.0 |
2.1 2.4 2.5 |
1.9 27 15 16 2.1 28 11 14 2.4 28 9 13 |
| Total | 7.5 | 1,050 127 12.2 |
7.6 | 2.3 | 2.1 27 11 15 |
|
| Night Train (high-grade) |
Inferred | 2.0 | 50 3.0 5.9 |
14 | 5.6 | 49 18 2.2 10.2 |
| Total | 2.0 | 50 3.0 5.9 |
14 | 5.6 | 49 18 2.2 10.2 |
|
| All Dampier Project (high grade cut-off) |
Measured Indicated Inferred |
7.5 7.5 Various |
220 32 14.5 640 76 11.8 230 23 9.7 |
7.4 7.6 8.8 |
2.1 2.4 2.9 |
1.9 27 15 16 2.1 28 11 14 8.6 27 7.2 12 |
| Total | Various | 1,090 130 11.9 |
7.8 | 2.4 | 3.2 27 11 14 |
1 Night Train: The Mineral Resource estimate was prepared by Optiro Pty Ltd and first disclosed under the JORC Code (2012) refer to ASX announcement 31 January 2019 for further details including Table 1. The Night Train Mineral Resource reported above 1.2% heavy mineral (HM) cut-off is inclusive of (not additional to) the Mineral Resource reported above 2.0% HM cut-off. Thunderbird: The Mineral Resource estimate was prepared by Optiro Pty Ltd and first disclosed under the JORC Code (2012) refer to ASX announcement 5 July 2016 for further details including Table 1. The Dampier Project Mineral Resources are reported inclusive of (not additional to) Ore Reserves. Thunderbird: The Mineral Resource reported above 3.0% HM cut-off is inclusive of (not additional to) the Mineral Resource reported above 7.5% HM cut-off.
2 Total HM is within the 38µm to 1mm size fraction and reported as a percentage of the total material, slimes is the -38µm fraction and oversize is the +1mm fraction.
3 Tonnes and grades have been rounded to reflect the relative accuracy and confidence level of the estimate, thus the sum of columns may not equal.
4 Night Train: Estimates of Mineral Assemblage are presented as percentages of the HM component of the deposit, as determined by magnetic separation, QEMSCANTM and XRF for one of 12 composite samples. Magnetic fractions were analysed by QEMSCAN[TM] for mineral determination as follows: Ilmenite: 40-70% TiO2 >90% Liberation; leucoxene: 7090% TiO2 >90% Liberation; High titanium leucoxene (HiTi leucoxene) and rutile 90% TiO2 >90% Liberation, and zircon: 66.7% ZrO2+HfO2 >90% Liberation. The non-magnetic fraction was submitted for XRF analysis and minerals determined as follows: zircon: ZrO2+HfO2/0.667 and HiTi leucoxene: TiO2/0.94. HM assemblage determination- was by the QEMSCAN[TM] process for 11 of 12 composite samples which uses observed mass and chemistry to classify particles according to their average chemistry, and then report mineral abundance by dominant % mass in particle. For the TiO2 minerals the following breakpoints were used to distinguish between Ilmenite 40% to 70% TiO2, Leucoxene 70% to 90% TiO2, HiTi leucoxene and rutile > 90%, Screening of the heavy mineral was not required. Thunderbird: estimates of Mineral Assemblage are presented as percentages of the HM component of the deposit, as determined by magnetic separation, QEMSCAN[TM] and XRF. Magnetic fractions were analysed by QEMSCAN[TM] for mineral determination as follows: Ilmenite: 40-70% TiO2 >90% Liberation; leucoxene: 70-94% TiO2 >90% Liberation; HiTi leucoxene: >94% TiO2 >90% Liberation; and zircon: 66.7% ZrO2+HfO2 >90% Liberation. The non-magnetic fraction was submitted for XRF analysis and minerals determined as follows: zircon: ZrO2+HfO2/0.667 and HiTi leucoxene: TiO2/0.94.
5 HiTi leucoxene and rutile (%) combined for Night Train at a >90% TiO2 (as one assemblage sample utilised=> 90% rutile and HiTi leucoxene), HiTi leucoxene for Thunderbird > 94% TiO2
6 The contained in-situ tonnes derived from HM and material tonnes from information in the Mineral Resource tables.
13
SHEFFIELD MINERAL RESOURCE FOR DAMPIER PROJECT AT 31 DECEMBER 2020 (in-situ tonnes)
| Summary of Mineral Resource1,2,3 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Summary of Mineral Resource1,2,3 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Summary of Mineral Resource1,2,3 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Material (Million Tonnes) |
In-situ | Tonnes4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-situ Total HM6 Zircon HiTi Leuc5 (Million Tonnes) (Thousand Tonnes) (Thousand Tonnes) |
Leucoxene (Thousand Tonnes) |
Ilmenite Total VHM (Thousand Tonnes) (Thousand Tonnes) |
||||
| Thunderbird (low-grade) |
Measured Indicated Inferred |
3.0 3.0 3.0 |
510 2,120 600 |
45 3,600 1,000 140 11,800 3,800 38 3,200 1,000 |
1,000 4,300 1,200 |
12,000 17,700 39,100 59,000 10,500 15,900 |
| Total | 3.0 | 3,230 | 223 18,600 5,900 |
6,500 | 61,700 92,600 |
|
| Night Train (low-grade) |
Inferred | 1.2 | 130 | 4.2 560 220 |
1,900 | 900 3,590 |
| Total | 1.2 | 130 | 4.2 560 220 |
1,900 | 900 3,590 |
|
| All Dampier Project (low grade cut-off) |
Measured Indicated Inferred |
3.0 3.0 Various |
510 2,120 730 |
45 3,600 1,000 140 11,800 3,800 42 3,760 1,220 |
1000 4,300 3,100 |
12,000 17,700 39,100 59,000 11,400 19,490 |
| Total | Various | 3,360 | 227 19,160 6,020 |
8,400 | 62,600 96,190 |
|
| Thunderbird (high-grade) |
Measured Indicated Inferred |
7.5 7.5 7.5 |
220 640 180 |
32 2,300 700 76 5,800 1,800 20 1,600 500 |
600 1,600 500 |
8,400 12,000 21,000 30,200 5,600 8,200 |
| Total | 7.5 | 1,050 | 127 9,700 3,000 |
2,700 | 35,000 50,400 |
|
| Night Train (high-grade) |
Inferred | 2.0 | 50 | 3.0 420 170 |
1,500 | 540 2,600 |
| Total | 2.0 | 50 | 3.0 420 170 |
1,500 | 540 2,600 |
|
| All Dampier Project (high grade cut-off) |
Measured Indicated Inferred |
7.5 7.5 Various |
220 640 230 |
32 2,300 700 76 5,800 1,800 23 2,020 670 |
600 1,600 2,000 |
8,400 12,000 21,000 30,200 6,140 10,800 |
| Total | Various | 1,090 | 130 10,120 3,170 |
4,200 | 35,540 53,000 |
1 Night Train: The Mineral Resource estimate was prepared by Optiro Pty Ltd and first disclosed under the JORC Code (2012) refer to ASX announcement 31 January 2019 for further details including Table 1. The Night Train Mineral Resource reported above 1.2% heavy mineral (HM) cut-off is inclusive of (not additional to) the Mineral Resource reported above 2.0% HM cut-off. Thunderbird: The Mineral Resource estimate was prepared by Optiro Pty Ltd and first disclosed under the JORC Code (2012) refer to ASX announcement 5 July 2016 for further details including Table 1. The Dampier Project Mineral Resources are reported inclusive of (not additional to) Ore Reserves. Thunderbird: The Mineral Resource reported above 3.0% HM cut-off is inclusive of (not additional to) the Mineral Resource reported above 7.5% HM cut-off.
2 Total HM is within the 38µm to 1mm size fraction and reported as a percentage of the total material, slimes is the -38µm fraction and oversize is the +1mm fraction.
3 Tonnes and grades have been rounded to reflect the relative accuracy and confidence level of the estimate, thus the sum of columns may not equal. 4 The contained in-situ tonnes for the valuable heavy minerals were derived from information from the Mineral Resource tables. The in-situ assemblage grade is determined by multiplying the percentage of HM by the percentage of each valuable heavy mineral within the heavy mineral assemblage at the resource block model scale.
5 HiTi leucoxene and rutile (%) combined for Night Train at a >90% TiO2 (as one assemblage sample utilised=> 90% Rutile and HiTi leucoxene), HiTi leucoxene for Thunderbird > 94% TiO2
6 The contained in-situ tonnes derived from HM and material tonnes from information in the Mineral Resource tables
14
2) ENEABBA PROJECT MINERAL RESOURCES
SHEFFIELD MINERAL RESOURCES FOR THE ENEABBA PROJECT AT 31 DECEMBER 2020 (in-situ assemblage)
| Summary of Mineral Resource1,2 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Summary of Mineral Resource1,2 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Summary of Mineral Resource1,2 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Material (Million Tonnes) |
In-situ Total HM12 Total HM Grade (Thousand Tonnes) (%) |
In-situ Assemblage11 Rutile Leuco- xene Ilmenite Over size Slimes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) |
In-situ Assemblage11 Rutile Leuco- xene Ilmenite Over size Slimes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zircon (%) |
Rutile (%) |
||||||
| Yandanooka4, 6,8 Measured Indicated Inferred Total |
1.4 1.4 1.4 |
2.6 57.7 0.4 |
112 4.3 1,726 3.0 7 1.5 |
0.44 0.37 0.16 |
0.09 0.11 0.05 |
0.10 3.08 11.3 15 0.11 2.08 11.4 15 0.07 1.01 21.9 20 |
|
| Total | 1.4 | 60.8 | 1,845 3.0 |
0.37 | 0.11 | 0.11 2.11 11.5 15 |
|
| Durack4,6,7,8 | Indicated Inferred |
1.4 1.4 |
20.7 5.6 |
600 2.9 148 2.6 |
0.40 0.37 |
0.09 0.07 |
0.11 2.07 14.7 14 0.19 1.68 18.3 16 |
| Total | 1.4 | 26.3 | 748 2.8 |
0.39 | 0.08 | 0.13 1.99 15.5 14 |
|
| Drummond Crossing3,4, 6,8 |
Indicated Inferred |
1.4 1.4 |
35.5 3.3 |
838 2.4 77 2.3 |
0.33 0.26 |
0.24 0.21 |
0.08 1.26 7.7 14 0.06 1.31 7.2 12 |
| Total | 1.4 | 38.8 | 915 2.4 |
0.33 | 0.24 | 0.08 1.26 7.7 14 |
|
| Robbs Cross5,6,8 |
Indicated Inferred |
1.4 1.4 |
14.0 3.8 |
261 1.9 77 2.0 |
0.27 0.29 |
0.24 0.22 |
0.09 0.88 6.2 6 0.08 1.02 8.1 6 |
| Total | 1.4 | 17.8 | 338 1.9 |
0.28 | 0.23 | 0.09 0.91 6.6 6 |
|
| Thomson5,8, | Inferred | 1.4 | 26 | 516 2.0 |
0.38 | 0.28 | 0.11 0.85 6.9 18 |
| Total | 1.4 | 26 | 516 2.0 |
0.38 | 0.28 | 0.11 0.85 6.9 18 |
|
| West Mine North3,4,6,9 |
Indicated Inferred |
2.0 2.0 |
10.2 1.8 |
748 7.3 48 2.7 |
0.43 0.25 |
0.48 0.23 |
0.13 3.51 2.3 11 0.06 1.31 3.0 17 |
| Total | 2.0 | 12.0 | 796 6.6 |
0.40 | 0.44 | 0.12 3.18 2.4 12 |
|
| Ellengail3,4,9, 10 |
Indicated Inferred |
2.0 2.0 |
6.5 5.3 |
346 5.3 218 4.1 |
0.53 0.41 |
0.43 0.34 |
0.55 3.49 3.2 15 0.35 2.55 2.5 15 |
| Total | 2.0 | 11.8 | 565 4.8 |
0.47 | 0.39 | 0.46 3.07 2.9 15 |
|
| Total | Measured Indicated Inferred |
1.4 Various Various |
2.6 144.6 46.0 |
112 4.3 4,519 3.1 1,091 2.4 |
0.44 0.37 0.36 |
0.09 0.19 0.24 |
0.10 3.08 11 15 0.12 1.92 9 14 0.14 1.21 8 16 |
| Total | Various | 193.3 | 5,723 3.0 |
0.36 | 0.20 | 0.13 1.77 9 14 |
1The Mineral Resource estimates were prepared by Optiro Pty Ltd and first disclosed under the JORC Code (2012) refer 03 October 2018 ASX announcement for Yandanooka, Durack, Drummond Crossing, West Mine North and Ellengail. Refer to December 2017 Quarterly Activities Report for Robbs Cross and Thomson deposits for further details
2All tonnages and grades have been rounded to reflect the relative uncertainty of the estimate, thus the sums of columns may not equal.
3Total heavy mineral (HM) %: Samples from 1989 and 1996 (Drummond Crossing, Ellengail and West Mine North) were analysed using a -75 µm slimes / +2 mm oversize screen. Separation of HM% was by heavy liquid TBE (density 2.84 g/ml) from the -710µm+75µm fraction.
4Total HM %: RGC samples from 1998 and Iluka samples (Drummond Crossing, Durack, Ellengail, West Mine North and Yandanooka) were analysed using a -53 µm slimes / +2 mm oversize screen. Separation of total HM% was by heavy liquid TBE (density 2.90 g/ml) from the -710µm+53µm fraction.
5Total HM %: Samples from Robbs Cross and Thomson analysed by Diamantina Laboratories in Perth using a -45 µm slimes / +1 mm oversize screen (method DIA_HLS_45µm_1mm). Separation of total HM% was by heavy liquid TBE (density 2.96g/ml) from the -45 µm+1mm fraction.
6Total HM %: Samples from Drummond Crossing, Durack, West Mine North and Yandanooka were analysed by Western Geolabs in Perth using a -53 µm slimes / +1 mm oversize screen. Separation of total HM% was by heavy liquid TBE (density 2.96 g/ml) from the +53µm-1mm fraction.
7Reported below an upper cut-off grade of 35% slimes.
8Estimates of mineral assemblage are presented as percentages of the total HM component of the deposit, as determined by QEMSCANTM analysis. For the TiO2 minerals specific breakpoints are used to distinguish between rutile (>95% TiO2), leucoxene (85-95% TiO2) and ilmenite (<55-85% TiO2).
9At West Mine North and Ellengail mineral assemblage data determined by Iluka using Method 4 (HM concentrate is separated into magnetics and non-magnetics) was used with the Sheffield QEMSCAN[TM] data
10At Ellengail mineral assemblage data determined by Iluka using Method 3 (magnetic separation and XRF) was used with the Sheffield QEMSCANTM data and Iluka Method 4 11The in-situ assemblage grade is determined by multiplying the percentage of HM by the percentage of each valuable heavy mineral within the heavy mineral assemblage at the resource block model scale.
12 The contained in-situ tonnes derived from HM and material tonnes from information in the Mineral Resource tables
15
SHEFFIELD MINERAL RESOURCE FOR ENEABBA PROJECT AT 31 DECEMBER 2020 (HM assemblage)
| Summary of Mineral Resource1,2 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Material In-situ Total HM11 Total HM Grade Category (Total HM%) (Million Tonnes) (Thousand Tonnes) (%) |
Summary of Mineral Resource1,2 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Material In-situ Total HM11 Total HM Grade Category (Total HM%) (Million Tonnes) (Thousand Tonnes) (%) |
Summary of Mineral Resource1,2 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Material In-situ Total HM11 Total HM Grade Category (Total HM%) (Million Tonnes) (Thousand Tonnes) (%) |
HM Assemblage8,9,10 Rutile Leuco- xene Ilmenite Over size Slimes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) |
HM Assemblage8,9,10 Rutile Leuco- xene Ilmenite Over size Slimes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zircon (%) |
Rutile (%) |
||||
| Yandanooka4, 6,8 Measured Indicated Inferred Total |
1.4 2.6 112 4.3 1.4 57.7 1,726 3.0 1.4 0.4 7 1.5 |
10 12 11 |
2.1 3.6 3.0 |
2.3 72 11.3 15 3.7 69 11.4 15 4.4 68 21.9 20 |
|
| Total | 1.4 60.8 1,845 3.0 |
12 | 3.5 | 3.6 70 11.5 15 |
|
| Durack4,6,7,8 | Indicated Inferred |
1.4 20.7 600 2.9 1.4 5.6 148 2.6 |
14 14 |
2.9 2.6 |
3.7 71 14.7 14 7.4 64 18.3 16 |
| Total | 1.4 26.3 748 2.8 |
14 | 2.9 | 4.4 70 15.5 14 |
|
| Drummond Crossing3,4, 6,8 |
Indicated Inferred |
1.4 35.5 838 2.4 1.4 3.3 77 2.3 |
14 11 |
10.3 9.0 |
3.4 53 7.7 14 2.7 56 7.2 12 |
| Total | 1.4 38.8 915 2.4 |
14 | 10.2 | 3.4 54 7.7 14 |
|
| Robbs Cross5,6,8 |
Indicated Inferred |
1.4 14.0 261 1.9 1.4 3.8 77 2.0 |
15 14 |
12.7 10.9 |
5.0 47 6.2 6 4.1 50 8.1 6 |
| Total | 1.4 17.8 338 1.9 |
15 | 12.3 | 4.8 48 6.6 6 |
|
| Thomson5,8, | Inferred | 1.4 26 516 2.0 |
19 | 13.8 | 5.4 42 6.9 18 |
| Total | 1.4 26 516 2.0 |
19 | 13.8 | 5.4 42 6.9 18 |
|
| West Mine North3,4,6,9, |
Indicated Inferred |
2.0 10.2 748 7.3 2.0 1.8 48 2.7 |
6 9 |
6.5 8.6 |
1.8 48 2.3 11 2.1 50 3.0 17 |
| Total | 2.0 12.0 796 6.6 |
6 | 6.6 | 1.8 48 2.4 12 |
|
| Ellengail3,4,9, 10 |
Indicated Inferred |
2.0 6.5 346 5.3 2.0 5.3 218 4.1 |
10 10 |
8.0 8.2 |
10.4 66 3.2 15 8.4 62 2.5 15 |
| Total | 2.0 11.8 565 4.8 |
10 | 8.1 | 9.6 64 2.9 15 |
|
| Total | Measured Indicated Inferred |
1.4 Various Various 2.6 112 4.3 144.6 4,519 3.1 46.0 1,091 2.4 |
10 12 15 |
2.1 6.1 10.3 |
2.3 72 11 15 3.9 62 9 14 5.8 51 8 16 |
| Total | Various 193.3 5,723 3.0 |
12 | 6.8 | 4.2 60 9 14 |
1 The Mineral Resource estimates were prepared by Optiro Pty Ltd and first disclosed under the JORC Code (2012) refer 03 October 2018 ASX announcement for Yandanooka, Durack, Drummond Crossing, West Mine North and Ellengail. Refer to December 2017 Quarterly Activities Report for Robbs Cross and Thomson deposits for further details
2All tonnages and grades have been rounded to reflect the relative uncertainty of the estimate, thus the sums of columns may not equal.
3Total heavy mineral (HM) %: Samples from 1989 and 1996 (Drummond Crossing, Ellengail and West Mine North) were analysed using a -75µm slimes / +2 mm oversize screen. Separation of HM% was by heavy liquid TBE (density 2.84 g/ml) from the -710µm+75µm fraction.
4Total HM %: RGC samples from 1998 and Iluka samples (Drummond Crossing, Durack, Ellengail, West Mine North and Yandanooka) were analysed using a -53 µm slimes / +2 mm oversize screen. Separation of total HM% was by heavy liquid TBE (density 2.90 g/ml) from the -710µm+53µm fraction.
5Total HM %: Samples from Robbs Cross and Thomson analysed by Diamantina Laboratories in Perth using a -45µm slimes / +1mm oversize screen (method DIA_HLS_45µm_1mm). Separation of total HM% was by heavy liquid TBE (density 2.96g/ml) from the -45 µm+1mm fraction.
6Total HM %: Samples from Drummond Crossing, Durack, West Mine North and Yandanooka were analysed by Western Geolabs in Perth using a -53 µm slimes / +1 mm oversize screen. Separation of total HM% was by heavy liquid TBE (density 2.96g/ml) from the +53µm-1mm fraction.
7Reported below an upper cut-off grade of 35% slimes.
8Estimates of mineral assemblage are presented as percentages of the total HM component of the deposit, as determined by QEMSCANTM analysis. For the TiO2 minerals specific breakpoints are used to distinguish between rutile (>95% TiO2), leucoxene (85-95% TiO2) and ilmenite (<55-85% TiO2).
9At West Mine North and Ellengail mineral assemblage data determined by Iluka using Method 4 (HM concentrate is separated into magnetics and non-magnetics) was used with the Sheffield QEMSCAN[TM] data
10At Ellengail mineral assemblage data determined by Iluka using Method 3 (magnetic separation and XRF analysis) was used with the Sheffield QEMSCANTM data and Iluka Method 4 data
11 The contained in-situ tonnes derived from HM and material tonnes from information in the Mineral Resource tables
16
SHEFFIELD MINERAL RESOURCE FOR ENEABBA PROJECT AT 31 DECEMBER 2020 (in-situ tonnes)
| Summary of Mineral Resource1,2,3 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Summary of Mineral Resource1,2,3 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Summary of Mineral Resource1,2,3 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Material (Million Tonnes) |
In-situ Tonnes | In-situ Tonnes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-situ Total HM11 Zircon (Thousand Tonnes) (Thousand Tonnes) |
Rutile (Thousand Tonnes) |
Leuco- xene Ilmenite Total VHM (Thousand Tonnes) (Thousand Tonnes) (Thousand Tonnes) |
||||
| Yandanooka,4, 6,8 |
Measured Indicated Inferred |
1.4 1.4 1.4 |
2.6 57.7 0.4 |
112 12 1,726 212 7 1 |
2 63 0.2 |
3 81 98 63 1,197 1,535 0.3 4 6 |
| Total | 1.4 | 60.8 | 1,845 224 |
65 | 66 1,283 1,639 |
|
| Durack4,6,7,8 | Indicated Inferred |
1.4 1.4 |
20.7 5.6 |
600 82 148 21 |
18 4 |
22 429 551 11 95 130 |
| Total | 1.4 | 26.3 | 748 104 |
21 | 33 523 681 |
|
| Drummond Crossing3,4, 6,8 |
Indicated Inferred |
1.4 1.4 |
35.5 3.3 |
838 118 77 9 |
86 7 |
29 447 680 2 43 61 |
| Total | 1.4 | 38.8 | 915 127 |
93 | 31 490 741 |
|
| Robbs Cross5,6,8 |
Indicated Inferred |
1.4 1.4 |
14.0 3.8 |
261 38 77 11 |
33 8 |
13 123 208 3 39 61 |
| Total | 1.4 | 17.8 | 338 50 |
41 | 16 162 269 |
|
| Thomson5,8, | Inferred | 1.4 | 26 | 516 97 |
71 | 28 219 415 |
| Total | 1.4 | 26 | 516 97 |
71 | 28 219 415 |
|
| West Mine North3,4,6,9, |
Indicated Inferred |
2.0 2.0 |
10.2 1.8 |
748 44 48 5 |
49 4 |
13 359 465 1 24 34 |
| Total | 2.0 | 12.0 | 796 48 |
53 | 14 383 498 |
|
| Ellengail3,4,9,10 | Indicated Inferred |
2.0 2.0 |
6.5 5.3 |
346 34 218 22 |
28 18 |
36 227 325 18 136 193 |
| Total | 2.0 | 11.8 | 565 56 |
46 | 54 363 519 |
|
| Total | Measured Indicated Inferred |
1.4 Various Various |
2.6 144.6 46.0 |
112 12 4,519 529 1,091 165 |
2 276 113 |
3 81 98 176 2,782 3,764 64 559 900 |
| Total | Various | 193.3 | 5,723 705 |
392 | 242 3,423 4,762 |
1 The Mineral Resource estimates were prepared by Optiro Pty Ltd and first disclosed under the JORC Code (2012) refer 03 October 2018 ASX announcement for Yandanooka, Durack, Drummond Crossing, West Mine North and Ellengail. Refer to December 2017 Quarterly Activities Report for Robbs Cross and Thomson deposits for further details
2All tonnages and grades have been rounded to reflect the relative uncertainty of the estimate, thus the sums of columns may not equal.
3Total heavy mineral (HM) %: Samples from 1989 and 1996 (Drummond Crossing, Ellengail and West Mine North) were analysed using a -75µm slimes / +2mm oversize screen. Separation of HM% was by heavy liquid TBE (density 2.84 g/ml) from the -710µm+75µm fraction.
4Total HM %: RGC samples from 1998 and Iluka samples (Drummond Crossing, Durack, Ellengail, West Mine North and Yandanooka) were analysed using a -53 µm slimes / +2 mm oversize screen. Separation of total HM% was by heavy liquid TBE (density 2.90 g/ml) from the -710µm+53µm fraction.
5Total HM %: Samples from Robbs Cross and Thomson analysed by Diamantina Laboratories in Perth using a -45 µm slimes / +1 mm oversize screen (method DIA_HLS_45µm_1mm). Separation of total HM% was by heavy liquid TBE (density 2.96g/ml) from the -45 µm+1mm fraction.
6Total HM %: Samples from Drummond Crossing, Durack, West Mine North and Yandanooka were analysed by Western Geolabs in Perth using a -53µm slimes / +1mm oversize screen. Separation of total HM% was by heavy liquid TBE (density 2.96 g/ml) from the +53µm-1mm fraction.
7Reported below an upper cut-off grade of 35% slimes.
8Estimates of mineral assemblage are presented as percentages of the total HM) component of the deposit, as determined by QEMSCANTM analysis. For the TiO2 minerals specific breakpoints are used to distinguish between rutile (>95% TiO2), leucoxene (85-95% TiO2) and ilmenite (<55-85% TiO2).
9At West Mine North and Ellengail mineral assemblage data determined by Iluka using Method 4 (HM concentrate is separated into magnetics and non-magnetics) was used with the Sheffield QEMSCAN[TM] data
10At Ellengail mineral assemblage data determined by Iluka using Method 3 (magnetic separation and XRF analysis) was used with the Sheffield QEMSCANTM data and Iluka Method 4 data
11 The contained in-situ tonnes derived from HM and material tonnes from information in the Mineral Resource tables
17
3) McCALLS PROJECT MINERAL RESOURCES
SHEFFIELD MINERAL RESOURCES FOR McCALLS PROJECT AT 31 DECEMBER 2020 (in-situ assemblage)
| Summary of Mineral Resources1,2,3,4 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) McCalls Indicated 1.1 Inferred 1.1 Total 1.1 |
Summary of Mineral Resources1,2,3,4 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) McCalls Indicated 1.1 Inferred 1.1 Total 1.1 |
Summary of Mineral Resources1,2,3,4 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) McCalls Indicated 1.1 Inferred 1.1 Total 1.1 |
Material In-situ Total HM6 Total HM Grade (Million Tonnes) (Million Tonnes) (%) 1,630 23.3 1.4 1,980 24.4 1.2 |
In-situ Assemblage5, 6 Rutile Leuco- xene Ilmenite Over size Slimes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 0.05 0.04 1.10 1.1 21 0.05 0.04 1.00 1.1 26 |
In-situ Assemblage5, 6 Rutile Leuco- xene Ilmenite Over size Slimes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 0.05 0.04 1.10 1.1 21 0.05 0.04 1.00 1.1 26 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zircon | Rutile | |||||
| (%) 0.07 0.06 |
(%) 0.05 0.05 |
|||||
| Total | 1.1 | 3,600 47.7 1.3 |
0.07 | 0.05 | 0.04 1.05 1.1 24 |
|
| Mindarra Springs7 |
Inferred | 1.1 | 2,200 36.3 1.6 |
0.07 | 0.01 | 0.05 1.32 5.1 20 |
| Total | 1.1 | 2,200 36.3 1.6 |
0.07 | 0.01 | 0.05 1.32 5.1 20 |
|
| Total | Indicated Inferred |
1.1 1.1 |
1,630 23.3 1.4 4,180 60.7 1.5 |
0.07 0.07 |
0.05 0.03 |
0.04 1.10 1.1 21 0.05 1.17 3.2 23 |
| Total | 1.1 | 5,800 84.0 1.4 |
0.07 | 0.03 | 0.04 1.15 2.6 22 |
SHEFFIELD MINERAL RESOURCES FOR McCALLS PROJECT AT 31 DECEMBER 2020 (HM assemblage)
| Summary of Mineral Resources1,2,3,4,7 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) McCalls Indicated 1.1 Inferred 1.1 Total 1.1 |
Summary of Mineral Resources1,2,3,4,7 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) McCalls Indicated 1.1 Inferred 1.1 Total 1.1 |
Summary of Mineral Resources1,2,3,4,7 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) McCalls Indicated 1.1 Inferred 1.1 Total 1.1 |
Material In-situ Total HM6 Total HM Grade (Million Tonnes) (Million Tonnes) (%) 1,630 23.3 1.4 1,980 24.4 1.2 |
HM Assemblage5, 6 Rutile Leuco- xene Ilmenite Over size Slimes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 3.3 2.8 77 1.1 21 3.8 3.2 81 1.1 26 |
HM Assemblage5, 6 Rutile Leuco- xene Ilmenite Over size Slimes (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 3.3 2.8 77 1.1 21 3.8 3.2 81 1.1 26 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zircon | Rutile | |||||
| (%) 5.2 5.0 |
(%) 3.3 3.8 |
|||||
| Total | 1.1 | 3,600 47.7 1.3 |
5.1 | 3.6 | 3.0 79 1.1 24 |
|
| Mindarra Springs7 |
Inferred | 1.1 | 2,200 36.3 1.6 |
4.2 | 0.9 | 3.1 80 5.1 20 |
| Total | 1.1 | 2,200 36.3 1.6 |
4.2 | 0.9 | 3.1 80 5.1 20 |
|
| Total | Indicated Inferred |
1.1 1.1 |
1,630 23.3 1.4 4,180 60.7 1.5 |
5.2 4.5 |
3.3 2.1 |
2.8 77 1.1 21 3.2 81 3.2 23 |
| Total | 1.1 | 5,800 84.0 1.4 |
4.7 | 2.4 | 3.1 79 2.6 22 |
1The Mineral Resource estimates for McCalls and Mindarra Springs were prepared by Optiro Pty Ltd and first disclosed under the JORC Code (2012) refer to ASX announcement
03 October 2018
2All tonnages and grades have been rounded to reflect the relative uncertainty of the estimate, thus the sums of columns may not equal
3Total heavy mineral (HM) is within the 45µm to 1mm size fraction and reported as a percentage of the total material, slimes is the -45µm fraction and oversize is the +1mm fraction
4Reported below an upper cut-off grade of 35% slimes
5Estimates of mineral assemblage (Sheffield) are presented as percentages of the total HM) component of the deposit, as determined by QEMSCANTM analysis. For the TiO2 minerals specific breakpoints are used to distinguish between rutile (>95% TiO2), leucoxene (85-95% TiO2) and ilmenite (<55-85% TiO2). Estimates of mineral assemblage (BHP) HM assemblage determination was by magnetic separation and observation (grain-counting)
6 The contained in-situ tonnes derived from HM and material tonnes from information in the Mineral Resource tables
7Excludes Mineral Resources within the Mogumber Nature Reserve
18
SHEFFIELD MINERAL RESOURCES FOR McCALLS PROJECT AT 31 DECEMBER 2020 (in-situ tonnes)
| Summary of Mineral Resources1,2,3,4 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Summary of Mineral Resources1,2,3,4 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Summary of Mineral Resources1,2,3,4 Deposit Mineral Resource Cut off Category (Total HM%) |
Material (Million Tonnes) |
In-situ Tonnes | In-situ Tonnes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-situ Total HM7 Zircon (Million Tonnes) (Thousand Tonnes) |
Rutile (Thousand Tonnes) |
Leuco- xene Ilmenite Total VHM (Thousand Tonnes) (Thousand Tonnes) (Thousand Tonnes) |
||||
| McCalls | Indicated Inferred |
1.1 1.1 |
1,630 1,980 |
23.3 1,210 24.4 1,210 |
770 930 |
650 17,940 20,570 790 19,790 22,720 |
| Total | 1.1 | 3,600 | 47.7 2,430 |
1,700 | 1,430 37,730 43,290 |
|
| Mindarra Springs8 |
Inferred | 1.1 | 2,200 | 36.3 1,520 |
320 | 1,130 29,080 32,050 |
| Total | 1.1 | 2,200 | 36.3 1,520 |
320 | 1,130 29,080 32,050 |
|
| Total | Indicated Inferred |
1.1 1.1 |
1,630 4,180 |
23.3 1,210 60.7 2,740 |
770 1,250 |
650 17,940 20,570 1,920 48,860 54,770 |
| Total | 1.1 | 5,800 | 84.0 3,950 |
2,020 | 2,570 66,810 75,340 |
-
1The Mineral Resource estimates for McCalls and Mindarra Springs were prepared by Optiro Pty Ltd and first disclosed under the JORC Code (2012) refer to ASX announcement 03 October 2018
-
2All tonnages and grades have been rounded to reflect the relative uncertainty of the estimate, thus the sums of columns may not equal
-
3Total heavy mineral (HM) is within the 45µm to 1mm size fraction and reported as a percentage of the total material, slimes is the -45µm fraction and oversize is the +1mm fraction
-
4Reported below an upper cut-off grade of 35% slimes
5Estimates of mineral assemblage (Sheffield) are presented as percentages of the total HM component of the deposit, as determined by QEMSCANTM analysis. For the TiO2 minerals specific breakpoints are used to distinguish between rutile (>95% TiO2), leucoxene (85-95% TiO2) and ilmenite (<55-85% TiO2). Estimates of mineral assemblage (BHP) HM assemblage determination was by magnetic separation and observation (grain-counting)
- 6The in-situ assemblage grade is determined by multiplying the percentage of HM by the percentage of each valuable heavy mineral within the heavy mineral assemblage at the resource block model scale
7The contained in-situ tonnes derived from HM and material tonnes from information in the Mineral Resource tables
8Excludes mineralisation within the Mogumber Nature Reserve
==> picture [399 x 316] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 12: Location of Sheffield’s Mineral Sands Projects
19
FORWARD LOOKING AND CAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
The contents of this report reflect various technical and economic conditions at the time of writing. Given the nature of the resources industry, these conditions can change significantly over relatively short periods of time. Consequently, actual results may vary from those contained in this report.
Some statements in this report regarding estimates or future events are forward-looking statements. They include indications of, and guidance on, future earnings, cash flow, costs and financial performance. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements preceded by words such as “planned”, “expected”, “projected”, “estimated”, “may”, “scheduled”, “intends”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “potential”, "predict", "foresee", "proposed", "aim", "target", "opportunity", “could”, “nominal”, “conceptual” and similar expressions. Forward-looking statements, opinions and estimates included in this report are based on assumptions and contingencies which are subject to change without notice, as are statements about market and industry trends, which are based on interpretations of current market conditions. Forward-looking statements are provided as a general guide only and should not be relied on as a guarantee of future performance. Forward-looking statements may be affected by a range of variables that could cause actual results to differ from estimated results and may cause the Company’s actual performance and financial results in future periods to materially differ from any projections of future performance or results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. So there can be no assurance that actual outcomes will not materially differ from these forward-looking statements.
GOVERNANCE AND INTERNAL CONTROLS
Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve are compiled by qualified Sheffield personnel and/or independent consultants following industry standard methodology and techniques. The underlying data, methodology, techniques and assumptions on which estimates are prepared are subject to internal peer review by senior Company personnel, as is JORC compliance. Where deemed necessary or appropriate, estimates are reviewed by independent consultants. Competent Persons named by the Company are members of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and/or the Australian Institute of Geoscientists and qualify as Competent Persons as defined in the JORC Code 2012.
COMPETENT PERSONS AND COMPLIANCE STATEMENTS
The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results is based on information compiled by Mr Seb Gray, a Competent Person who is a Member of Australian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG). Mr Gray is a full-time employee of Sheffield Resources Ltd and has 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’. Mr Gray consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.
The Company’s Ore Reserves and Mineral Resources Statement is based on information first reported in previous ASX announcements by the Company. These announcements are listed below and are available to view on Sheffield’s website www.sheffieldresources.com.au. Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves reported for the Dampier Project and Mineral Resources reported for the Eneabba and McCalls Projects, are prepared and disclosed under the JORC Code 2012. The Company confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the relevant original market announcements and that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates in the relevant original market announcement continue to apply and have not materially changed.
The information in this report that relates to the estimation of the Ore Reserve is based on information compiled by Mr Per Scrimshaw, a Competent Person who is a Member of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Scrimshaw is employed by Entech Pty Ltd and has 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’. Mr Scrimshaw consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.
The information in this report that relates to the estimation of the Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Mrs Christine Standing, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG) and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM). Mrs Standing is a full-time employee of Optiro Pty Ltd and has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which she is undertaking 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’. Mrs Standing consents to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on her information in the form and context in which it appears.
The information in this report that relates to the Thunderbird Mineral Resource is based on information compiled under the guidance of Mr Mark Teakle, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG) and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM). Mr Teakle is an employee of Sheffield Resources Ltd and has 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’. Mr Teakle consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.
The Competent Persons for reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves in the relevant original market announcements are listed below. The Company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Persons’ findings are presented have not been materially modified from the relevant original market announcement.
20
Ore Reserves and Mineral Resources prepared and first disclosed under the JORC Code (2012):
| Item | Report title | Report Date | Competent Person(s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thunderbird Ore Reserve | Thunderbird 10% Ore Reserve Increase | 31 July 2019 | P. Scrimshaw |
| Thunderbird Mineral Resource | Sheffield Doubles Measured Mineral Resource at Thunderbird |
05 July 2016 | M. Teakle, C. Standing |
| Night Train Mineral Resource | High Grade Maiden Mineral Resource at Night Train |
31 January 2019 | C. Standing |
| Robbs Cross Mineral Resource | Quarterly Activities Report for The Period Ended 31 December 2017 |
30 January 2018 | C. Standing |
| Thomson Mineral Resource | Quarterly Activities Report for The Period Ended 31 December 2017 |
30 January 2018 | C. Standing |
| Yandanooka Mineral Resource | Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Statement | 03 October 2018 | C. Standing |
| Durack Mineral Resource | Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Statement | 03 October 2018 | C. Standing |
| Drummond Crossing Mineral Resource | Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Statement | 03 October 2018 | C. Standing |
| West Mine North Mineral Resource | Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Statement | 03 October 2018 | C. Standing |
| Ellengail Mineral Resource | Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Statement | 03 October 2018 | C. Standing |
| McCalls Mineral Resource | Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Statement | 03 October 2018 | C. Standing |
| Mindarra Springs Mineral Resource | Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Statement | 03 October 2018 | C. Standing |
| Item | Name | Company | Professional Affiliation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exploration Results | Mr Seb Gray | Sheffield Resources | MAIG |
| Mineral Resource Reporting | Mr Mark Teakle | Sheffield Resources | MAIG, MAusIMM |
| Mineral Resource Estimation | Mrs Christine Standing | Optiro | MAIG, MAusIMM |
| Ore Reserve | Mr Per Scrimshaw | Entech | MAusIMM |
SUPPORTING INFORMATION REQUIRED UNDER ASX LISTING RULES, CHAPTER 5
The supporting information below is required, under Chapter 5 of the ASX Listing Rules, to be included in market announcements reporting estimates of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves.
PREVIOUSLY REPORTED INFORMATION
This report includes information that relates to Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves prepared and first disclosed under the JORC Code 2012 and a Bankable Feasibility Study. The information was extracted from the Company’s previous ASX announcements as follows:
-
Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Statement: “MINERAL RESOURCE AND ORE RESERVE STATEMENT” 24 September 2019
-
Thunderbird Ore Reserve Update: “THUNDERBIRD ORE RESERVE UPDATE” 31 July 2019
-
Thunderbird BFS Update: “BFS UPDATE MATERIALLY REDUCES CAPITAL”, 31 July 2019
-
Night Train Inferred Resource and Mineral Assemblage results “HIGH GRADE MAIDEN MINERAL RESOURCE AT NIGHT TRAIN” 31 January 2019
-
Yandanooka, Durack, Drummond Crossing, West Mine North, Ellengail, McCalls and Mindarra Springs Resource Estimates and including Mineral Resource and Ore Statement “ MINERAL RESOURCE AND RESERVE STATEMENT ” 03 October, 2018
-
Thomson and Robbs Cross Mineral Resources: “QUARTERLY ACTIVITIES REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2017” 30 January, 2018
-
Thunderbird Mineral Resource: “SHEFFIELD DOUBLES MEASURED MINERAL RESOURCE AT THUNDERBIRD” 5 July, 2016
-
Thunderbird drilling: “EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH GRADES FROM INFILL DRILLING AT THUNDERBIRD MINERAL SANDS PROJECT” 09 February 2015
These announcements are available to view on Sheffield’s website www.sheffieldresources.com.au.
The Company confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the relevant market announcements and, in the case of estimates of Mineral Resources, Ore Reserves and the Bankable Feasibility Study Update, that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates in the relevant market announcement continue to apply and have not materially changed. The Company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Persons’ findings are presented have not been materially modified from the relevant original market announcements.
21