AI assistant
WEST WITS MINING LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2021
Jul 4, 2021
66091_rns_2021-07-04_38cd225c-8af9-4a0b-a79d-4561a396d359.pdf
Capital/Financing Update
Open in viewerOpens in your device viewer
ASX Announcement and Media Release 5 July 2021
ASX Announcement and Media Release Monday, 5 July 2021
Infill Drilling Program Grows JORC Resource at WBP to 4.47Moz at 4.24g/t Au
West Wits Mining Limited (ASX: WWI, “ West Wits ” or “ the Company ”) is pleased to announce a Mineral Resource Estimate (“MRE”) Update for the Kimberley East Project at the Company’s Witwatersrand Basin Project (“WBP”), South Africa.
HIGHLIGHTS
-
➢ Measured JORC MRE grows by 149,000oz Au to 7.33Mt at an increased grade of 4.50g/t Au for 1.06Moz Au (2g/t cut-off)
-
➢ The updated global MRE is 32.78Mt @ 4.24g/t for 4.47Moz Au (2g/t cut-off), including 2.9Moz Au at 4.13 g/t or 65% in measured and indicated categories (Table 1)
-
➢ The resource update is a critical step towards declaring a maiden ore reserve upon completion of the independent Definitive Feasibility Study (“DFS”)
West Wits Managing Director Mr Jac van Heerden said, “ The successful completion of the infill exploration program has significantly advanced the Company’s mine plan on the Qala Shallows area of the project where the first mining is to be undertaken. A healthy 149,000oz was added to the measured mineral resource category and a pleasing uplift in grade was also seen. The updated MRE will underpin West Wits’ capacity to declare a maiden ore reserve for the Qala Shallows upon completion of the DFS which is scheduled for August 2021. The team have been busy advancing mine development planning in parallel to the mining right application process. ”
TABLE 1: UPDATED GLOBAL MRE FOR THE WITWATERSRAND BASIN PROJECT AT 2.0G/T CUT-OFF
| Category | Tonnes (M) | Grade (g/t Au) | Ounces |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measured | 7.3 | 4.50 | 1,061,000 |
| Indicated | 14.4 | 3.95 | 1,838,000 |
| Measured & Indicated | 21.8 | 4.13 | 2,899,000 |
| Inferred | 11.0 | 4.45 | 1,570,000 |
| Total | 32.8 | 4.24 | 4,469,000 |
Notes: Global MRE set at a 2.0g/t Au cut-off. Reported in accordance with the JORC Code of 2012. Number differences may occur due to rounding errors.
page i
ASX Announcement and Media Release 5 July 2021
Overview
The infill drill program successfully achieved its aim to upgrade a significant block of Indicated and Inferred MRE categories which are contained within the near to medium-term mine plan thereby enhancing confidence and our capacity to declare reserves (Table 2). Upgrading areas of the Inferred MRE is a critical step towards the Company being able to maximise the capacity for declaration of a maiden ore reserve for the Qala Shallows project upon completion of the DFS which is currently scheduled for August 2021.
The 149,000oz increase in the Measured MRE category is significant and provides a higher confidence level in the important early mining areas targeted for the Qala Shallows area. The updated 3D geological block model enables the mine engineering team to improve and optimise the mine plan which will enhance the development and financial model for project execution.
TABLE 2: NET MOVEMENT FROM THE PREVIOUSLY STATED GLOBAL MRE[1] FOR THE WBP AT 2.0G/T CUT-OFF
| Category | Tonnes | Grade (g/t Au) | Ounces |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measured | 605,000 | Up 0.29 | Increased 149,000 |
| Indicated | 143,000 | Up 0.05 | Increased 44,000 |
| Measured & Indicated | 749,000 | Up 0.13 | Increased 193,000 |
| Inferred | (3,065,000) | Up 0.75 | Reduced (99,000) |
| Total | (2,317,000) | Up 0.36 | Increased 94,000 |
Note: Number differences may occur due to rounding errors.
The K9B results from the drilling program are the key driver in the grade increase of the Global MRE to 4.24g/t Au which is highlighted by the infill-drilling campaigns best result, hole RLKDD-44 with 1.68m @ 5.81g/t Au [123m], including 0.98m @ 9.07g/t (Figure 2).
A regional grade trend was observed within the K9A band producing a lower grade expectation towards the eastern portion of the project area, however it also confirmed the consistency in grade and width of the K9B band as expected. Similar to historical mining of the Kimberley Reef package (Figure 3) in the region, the bulk of targeted production is focussed on the K9B band. Where the K9A band is sufficiently mineralised in pay shoots, it will be mined together with the K9B band.
==> picture [299 x 213] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 1 : Planer view of the eastern portion of the Kimberley East Project which was the focus of the infill-drilling campaign at the Qala Shallows with reference to cross-sections depicted in Figure 2’s intersection results.
page ii
ASX Announcement and Media Release 5 July 2021
==> picture [245 x 181] intentionally omitted <==
==> picture [204 x 181] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 2 : Cross Section highlighting selected intersection results (grade and width) of drillholes RLKPDRE 22, 23, 24, 39, 40, and 41 for the K9B, K9A and K8 Kimberley Reef conglomerates.
Witwatersrand Basin Project Geology
The WBP deposit forms part of the Central Rand Goldfield hosted by the Witwatersrand Supergroup strata. The Central Rand Goldfield is situated immediately to the south of Johannesburg and has been host to one of the most extensive gold reserves in the world. The reefs have been mined continuously on strike for approximately 55km in an east/west direction, bordered by DRD in the west, and down-dip, to the south, for about 6km from its outcrop position to depths of approximately 3km. The reef horizons are channelised conglomerates and the major orebodies mined in the Central Rand Goldfield are the Main Reef, Main Reef Leader, South Reef, Bird reefs and Kimberley reefs. The Kimberley East project area targets the K8, K9B and K9A Kimberley reefs (Figure 3).
==> picture [399 x 170] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 3 : Schematic Cross Section for Gold bearing Kimberley Reef conglomerates, all conglomerate horizons are gold mineralised to some extent but the K9A and K9B Bands were the main targets for mining. The K9A & K9B bands are the focus of this resource estimate (red circles), however additional data was captured in the process for the K8 & K7 Bands (blue & green circles).
Updated Mineral Resource Statement for Kimberley Reef East Project
The K9 resource modelling was carried out by Shango Solutions, a South African based geological consultancy with significant experience in this region. The previous MRE dataset covering the K9A and K9B gold bearing reefs in the eastern portion of the Kimberley Reef Project[1] was updated with the latest drilling results (Appendix 3) followed by a new Mineral Resource Estimation utilising advanced geostatistical estimation methods, which includes simple and Ordinary Kriging. To ensure a complete result, both previously mined and unmined areas of the K9A and K9B reef were estimated and then the mined areas were subtracted from the modelling result.
page iii
ASX Announcement and Media Release 5 July 2021
The activities performed during the resource modelling can be summarised as follows:
-
The previous geological model was updated with the latest drilling. Resource blocks were generated in Datamine Studio RM;
-
The previous wireframe (2020) was updated in Leapfrog Geo with the latest drilling; and
-
Analysis of grade continuity was undertaken for the total dataset, that was updated with the latest drilling, from which homoscedastic geo domains were derived exhibiting stationarity with respect to gold accumulation and channel width.
Qala Shallows Infill Drilling Campaign
On conclusion of the 2020 K9A and K9B Mineral Resource update[1] , West Wits conducted an infill drilling programme comprising of approximately 2,500m of diamond core and percussion drilling targeting the upper 300m that host the orebodies in the vicinity of the Qala Shaft area (Figure 4 and Appendix 1). The percussion drilling was used to drill through soft over burden material, and then the hole would continue with diamond core drilling. The aim of the drilling program was to increase the Mineral Resource confidence in areas targeted for early mining to allow WWI to increase the capacity for declaration of ore reserves on completion of the Definitive Feasibility Study. A total of fourteen (14) new holes (mother holes and deflections) intersecting the K10, K9A, K9B, K8 and K7 reef bands were completed by three rigs. In addition, West Wits geologists re-logged the mineralised zones of three previously drilled MSA drillholes.
==> picture [402 x 284] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 4 : Drilled collars including historical MSA drilling (red & orange) and the current infill-drilling campaign (green) Inset: Kimberley East Project Area within the Witwatersrand Basin Project’s Prospecting Right boundary.
Previously, the K8 Reef was exploited mainly towards the west of Durban Roodepoort Deep (DRD). The K8 is commonly scoured by the K9B Reef but where the former is present a high gold tenor is associated with a small pebble conglomerate. Encouraging K8 intersections were reported and this orebody is therefore considered to represent a future upside potential in the Kimberley East Project area.
A minimum of 95% core recovery was required, otherwise holes were redrilled. A stringent internal audit by the Competent Person determined proper QA/QC procedures were applied, validating the databases that served as input for geological modelling and resource estimation.
page iv
ASX Announcement and Media Release 5 July 2021
Sampling and Sub-Sampling Techniques
The core was split lengthwise by a diamond saw with one half submitted for assays. Samples included 2cm waste from the footwall and hangingwall of the reef. Samples were on average 20 – 25cm in length with a minimum of 10cm. Samples of the footwall and hangingwall waste were also taken with a 20cm sample nearest to the reef followed by two more samples of 40 – 50cm in length.
Individual samples were placed in separate sample bags with two unique number labels of which one was placed inside the bag and the other one was stapled to the outside of the bag, after which the bags were sealed. Waste and reef samples were taken separately with reef samples further split based on lithology and mineralisation. Samples were accompanied by blanks and standards, a blank was inserted before and after each reef intersection. Each reef intersection was accompanied by certified reference material appropriate to the expected grade range i.e. low or high grade and selected returned pulps were resubmitted under a new number for each batch to serve as a duplicate field sample. Sampling was typical of standard practices in the Witwatersrand Goldfield and was deemed appropriate and representative for the grain size.
Sample Analysis Method
Samples were assayed by fire assay using 25g charges, applying discounts for silver-by-silver discount chart. The standard practice of fire assaying in the Witwatersrand Goldfield was deemed appropriate and representative for the samples. The laboratory inserted suitable certified reference samples for calibration purposes and also participated in round robin exercises with other laboratories to determine precision and reproducibility.
Stringent internal audits by the Competent Person were completed on all technical aspects of the work. Comprehensive QA/QC procedures were applied to the exploration data sets with some samples retested to quantify the labs reproducibility, subsequently all QA/QC issues were reported as having been addressed. The additional lab work however delayed resource modelling from the initial timeframe.
Full sampling methodology and assay results are detailed in Table 1 of the supporting JORC Table and Appendix 3.
Estimation Methodology
Sample grades were capped per estimation domain, the dataset consisted of underground chip samples and stretch composite samples with various lengths and boreholes. Samples and estimation domains were unfolded to a planar surface. A regional grade trend was observed within the K9A Reef producing a lower grade expectation towards the east of the project. The K9A dataset was spatially divided into east and west regions and these subsets were treated separately.
Simple and Ordinary Kriging was performed into 50m x 50m parent cells for all regions, with Ordinary Macro Kriging performed into 500m x 500m parent cells estimating channel probability in the K9B Reef and the western region of the K9A Reef. In the eastern region of the K9A Reef a sequential indicator simulation was performed for channel probability into 10m x 10m parent cells for the inferred resource beyond estimation range. Grade and tonnage above cut-off in the mineral resource was calculated from the block variance between 50m blocks considering the cm.g/t variogram. Global channel grade and fraction above cut-off was calculated from the estimated global mean of the channel and the calculated block variance.
Mineral Resource Classification
The estimation results were classified according to the observed relationship between Kriging Efficiency and sample spacing into Measured, Indicated, and Inferred categories, which were manually modified according to interpretation for expected geological continuity.
Drill data spacing varied with some well-informed areas closer than 25m and in other areas the drill spacing was in the order of 100 – 150m. Geostatistical modelling confirmed drillhole spacing to be suitable to upgrade previous areas of Inferred Mineral Resource to Indicated Mineral Resources with the number of samples present
page v
ASX Announcement and Media Release 5 July 2021
in the areas influencing the estimation parameters. Full geostatistical estimation methods were applied to the study. The Mineral Resource classification results for K9B and K9A reefs are indicated in Figure 5.
==> picture [225 x 136] intentionally omitted <==
==> picture [224 x 136] intentionally omitted <==
Figure 5 : A planar view of the K9B (left) & K9A (right) block models showing resource categories, new data points from the infill drilling campaign (blue) are in the eastern portion of the resource model.
Cut-Off Grade
The cut-off grade applied was 2g/t over a minimum stoping width of 100cm, based on similar practises to those applied at other Witwatersrand Gold mines.
Mining and Metallurgical Methods and Parameters / Other Material Modifying Factors
Mining methods were based on traditional Witwatersrand conventional hand-held drilling and scraper cleaning operations, except for the steep Kimberley reefs where overhand shrinkage methods were employed. Mining dilution was based on reef width with a minimum thickness of 100cm. Plans that featured steeply dipping reef were projected vertically instead of horizontally, thus the position of the steeply dipping unmined areas was determined in 3D space in Leapfrog Geo. Gold extraction was based on traditional Carbon-In-Leach methods (CIL).
Exploration – Next Steps
Shango’s report identified significant potential to increase the current MRE with additional drill-defined MRE generation which could be achieved by decreasing the drillhole spacing, implementing infill drilling, through strike extension drilling and by extending the drillhole depths. Shango further notes that most of the recently performed infill-drilling on the Kimberley East project area did not extend below a depth of 300m, though highgrade mineralisation is historically known to extend to depths in excess of 1,500m.
Underground sampling and infill drilling will form part of the West Wits Exploration Team’s on-going activities upon commencement of underground mine development and production. Such activities will inform ongoing mine planning and improve the confidence level of resources beyond the near to mid-term production plan.
Mining Right Tenement Area
Per previous communication[1] , to expedite the mining right process at the time of the application, the Company constrained the mining right footprint relative to the prospecting right to minimise the impact on interested and affected parties. The areas subject to the prospecting right, but not included in the mining right area, were deemed to be non-core and do not impact the proposed mine plan of the independent scoping study and current DFS. Upon granting of the mining right application the Company will restate the global MRE, allowing for any impact from the constrained tenement area, and is considering options to re-introduce areas that are of longterm interest.
page vi
ASX Announcement and Media Release 5 July 2021
Approved for release by the Company’s Managing Director,
==> picture [63 x 44] intentionally omitted <==
Jac van Heerden Managing Director West Wits Mining Limited
For further information contact: Ryan Batros Investor Relations [email protected]
ABOUT WEST WITS MINING LIMITED
West Wits Mining Limited (ASX: WWI) is focused on the exploration, development and production of high value precious and base metals for the benefit of shareholders, communities and environments in which it operates. Witwatersrand Basin Project, located in the proven gold region of Central Rand Goldfield of South Africa boasts a 4.37Moz gold project at 3.88g/t and the Company’s development strategy is to produce 60,000oz per annum over a 15+ year mine life. The Witwatersrand Basin is a largely underground geological formation which surfaces in the Witwatersrand. It holds the world's largest known gold reserves and has produced over 1.5 billion ounces (over 40,000 metric tons), which represents about 22% of all the gold accounted for above the surface[3] . In Western Australia, WWI is exploring for gold and copper at the Mt Cecilia Project in a district that supports several world-class projects such as Woodie Woodie manganese mine, Nifty copper and Telfer gold/copper/silver mines.
1 ASX Release: 21st October 2020 “WWI JORC Resource grows by 700koz to 4.37Moz at 3.88g/t Au” 2 Norman, N.; Whitfield, G. (2006) Geological Journeys. pp. 38–49, 60–61. Cape Town: Struik Publishers
Competent Person
The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources and Exploration Results for the Witwatersrand Basin Project is based on and fairly represents information compiled by Mr Hermanus Berhardus Swart. Mr Swart is a Competent Person who is a Professional Natural Scientist registered with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (No. 400101/00) and a Fellow of the Geological Society of South Africa, each of which is a “Recognised Professional Organisation” (RPO). Mr Hermanus Berhardus Swart 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 Hermanus Berhardus Swart consents to the release of the report and the information contained here within.
Mr Swart is not employed by or related to any employees, representatives or directors of West Wits Mining. In addition, neither Shango nor its employees have or have had any personal interest in this project resulting in a conflict of interest. Mr Hermanus Berhardus Swart is a full-time employee of Shango Solutions. Shango Solutions (hereafter referred to as Shango), registered as Dunrose Trading 186 (Pty) Ltd and established in April 2004, provides a diverse range of services to the mineral and mining sectors.
page vii
ASX Announcement and Media Release 5 July 2021
APPENDIX 1: KIMBERLEY EAST INFILL DRILLING PROGRAM – DRILLHOLE INFORMATION
==> picture [448 x 263] intentionally omitted <==
----- Start of picture text -----
Drillhole ID X Collar Y Collar Z Collar Dip Azimuth Max Depth (m)
West Wits Drilling
RLKPDRE-22 90320.197 -2900104.497 1681.04 -61.44 90.48 334.45
RLKPDRE-22D 90320.297 -2900104.597 1681.04 -61.44 90.48 287.2
RLKPDRE-23 90165.686 -2899905.457 1685.96 -61.36 33.19 209.35
RLKPDRE-23D 90165.786 -2899905.557 1685.96 -61.36 292.92 195.72
RLKPDRE-24 90494.251 -2900093.224 1670.62 -61.15 359.97 242.1
RLKPDRE-31 89678.724 -2899808.809 1725.86 -61.78 2.05 320.2
RLKDRE-39 90342.004 -2899956.51 1672.38 -60.21 30.69 178.85
RLKDRE-39D 90342.104 -2899956.61 1672.38 -60.21 30.69 169.14
RLKDD-40 90173.558 -2899719.227 1688.40 -69.84 357.98 116.2
RLKDD-41 90442.916 -2899878.549 1669.37 -59.67 199.52 89.2
RLKDRE-42 90585.653 -2899977.471 1656.93 -59.84 44.48 110.2
RLKDRE-42D 90585.753 -2899977.571 1656.93 -59.84 44.48 113.2
RLKDD-43 90227.271 -2899795.539 1682.98 -59.02 134.82 131.2
RLKDD-44 90318.875 -2899883.109 1677.39 -59.98 26.12 129.75
MSA Re-logging
RLKD006 90793.46 -2900068.81 1647.92 -60.00 25.00 222.73
RLKD007 90968.63 -2900225.3 1649.84 -60.00 28.00 272.55
RLKD008 90984.88 -2900091.57 1646.03 -60.00 29.00 154.43
----- End of picture text -----
page viii
ASX Announcement and Media Release 5 July 2021
APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF THE INFILL DRILLHOLES AND THE RE-LOGGED (2009) MSA DRILLHOLES
==> picture [511 x 361] intentionally omitted <==
page ix
ASX Announcement and Media Release
5 July 2021
APPENDIX 3: KIMBERLEY EAST INFILL DRILLING PROGRAM - DRILLHOLE GRADE & INTERCEPT INFORMATION
==> picture [675 x 283] intentionally omitted <==
----- Start of picture text -----
K9A K9B K8 K7
Actual Bh ID From To Width (m) Grade (g/t) From To Width (m) Grade (g/t) From To Width (m) Grade (g/t) From To Width (m) Grade (g/t)
RLKPDRE-22 266.12 268.57 2.45 1.56 275.33 277.36 2.03 2.05 277.82 281.10 281.27 291.99
267.23 268.35 1.12 2.80 275.95 276.83 0.88 2.95 278.87 279.32 0.45 2.04
279.07 279.32 0.25 3.18
RLKPDRE-23 177.39 181.29 3.90 0.20 189.79 191.55 1.76 1.58 192.49 194.40 1.91 0.67 195.39 205.21
179.26 179.47 0.21 0.89 189.79 190.45 0.66 2.40 192.96 193.89 0.93 0.93 195.11 195.53 0.42 0.44
RLKPDRE-24 199.94 202.57 2.63 0.75 210.78 211.84 1.06 2.40 212.88 214.76 215.16 226.19
201.51 201.97 0.46 2.45 211.62 211.84 0.22 4.16
RLKPDRE-31 284.34 286.68 2.34 0.12 293.98 295.53 1.55 0.17 296.13 296.84 297.41 320.20
RLKDRE-39 153.72 155.47 1.75 1.15 162.22 163.34 1.12 1.12 165.5 166.15 0.65 1.84 165.39 174.75
155.19 155.47 0.28 4.92 162.46 163.34 0.88 1.37 166.31 167.20 0.89 0.26
RLKDD-40 88.51 94.91 6.40 0.50 98.29 101.23 2.94 0.50 102.60 104.83 2.23 0.93 105.07 112.25
89.22 91.42 2.20 1.11 98.29 99.85 1.56 0.65 102.77 103.70 0.93 1.69 105 105.97 0.97 0.18
90.42 91.42 1.00 1.54
RLKDD-41 73.28 78.66 5.38 1.47 83.16 84.00 0.84 1.25 86.37 88.11 1.74 1.07 88.76 89.14 0.38 0.43
73.75 74.43 0.68 1.10 86.37 87.28 0.91 1.94
75.09 75.92 0.83 1.45
RLKDD-42 96.38 99.05 2.67 0.11 104.58 106.49 1.91 1.04 108.84 110.57 1.73 0.27 110.57 111.66 1.09 0.78
104.58 105.31 0.73 1.74
RLKD-43
RLKD-44 113.87 118.36 4.49 0.85 123.71 125.39 1.68 5.81 126.53 127.74 1.21 1.38 127.74 129.63
113.87 114.98 1.11 2.68 124.41 125.39 0.98 9.07 126.53 127.14 0.61 1.82 127.74 128.86 1.12 0.58
----- End of picture text -----*
- Drillhole RLKDD-43 intersected a dyke and was abandoned
page x
ASX Announcement and Media Release 5 July 2021
APPENDIX 4: COMPARISON BETWEEN PREVIOUS AND UPDATED KIMBERLEY EAST K9A (TABLE 3 & 4) AND K9B (TABLE 5 & 6) SECTIONS OF THE MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE
TABLE 3: PREVIOUS (2020) KIMBERLEY EAST - K9A MRE AT 2.0G/T CUT-OFF[2]
| Category | Tonnes (M) | Grade (g/t Au) | Ounces |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measured | 2.13 | 4.92 | 338,000 |
| Indicated | 2.4 | 5.08 | 395,000 |
| Measured & Indicated | 4.55 | 5.01 | 733,000 |
| Inferred | 4.3 | 5.51 | 764,000 |
| Total | 8.87 | 5.3 | 1,497,000 |
ASX Release: 21[st] October 2020 “WWI JORC Resource grows by 700koz to 4.37Moz at 3.88g/t Au” Note: Number differences may occur due to rounding errors.
TABLE 4: UPDATED KIMBERLEY EAST - K9A MRE AT 2.0G/T CUT-OFF
| Category | Tonnes (M) | Grade (g/t Au) | Ounces |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measured | 2.88 | 4.66 | 431,000 |
| Indicated | 2.3 | 4.37 | 322,000 |
| Measured & Indicated | 5.2 | 4.53 | 753,000 |
| Inferred | 4.9 | 4.92 | 774,000 |
| Total | 10.07 | 4.7 | 1,527,000 |
Global MRE set at a 2.0 g/t Au cut-off. Reported in accordance with the JORC Code of 2012. Note: Number differences may occur due to rounding errors.
TABLE 5: PREVIOUS (2020) KIMBERLEY EAST - K9B MRE AT 2.0G/T CUT-OFF
| Category | Tonnes (M) | Grade (g/t Au) | Ounces |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measured | 2.50 | 3.56 | 286,000 |
| Indicated | 6.6 | 3.95 | 844,000 |
| Measured & Indicated | 9.14 | 3.84 | 1,129,000 |
| Inferred | 6.0 | 2.73 | 528,000 |
| Total | 15.16 | 3.40 | 1,657,000 |
Note: Previous Global MRE set at a 2.0 g/t Au cut-off. Reported in accordance with the JORC Code of 2012. Note: Number differences may occur due to rounding errors.
TABLE 6: UPDATED KIMBERLEY EAST - K9B MRE AT 2.0G/T CUT-OFF
| Category | Tonnes (M) | Grade (g/t Au) | Ounces |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measured | 2.36 | 4.51 | 342,000 |
| Indicated | 6.9 | 4.31 | 959,000 |
| Measured & Indicated | 9.3 | 4.36 | 1,300,000 |
| Inferred | 2.4 | 5.51 | 420,000 |
| Total | 11.64 | 4.60 | 1,720,000 |
Global MRE set at a 2.0 g/t Au cut-off. Reported in accordance with the JORC Code of 2012. Note: Number differences may occur due to rounding errors.
page xi
==> picture [86 x 32] intentionally omitted <==
JORC TABLE 1 Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data
(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections)
| Criteria | JORC Code Explanation | Practices During 2020/21 Drilling Campaign | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sampling Techniques | • | Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, | • | The core was split and the one half submitted for assays. The samples included |
| random chips, or specific specialised industry | 2 cm waste on the footwall and hangingwall of the reef. Samples were on | |||
| standard measurement tools appropriate to the | average 20 to 25 cm in length with a minimum of 10 cm. Samples of the footwall | |||
| minerals under investigation, such as down hole | and hangingwall waste were also taken with a 20 cm sample nearest to the reef | |||
| gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, | followed by two more samples of 40 to 50 cm in length. | |||
| etc.). These examples should not be taken as | ||||
| limiting the broad meaning of sampling. | ||||
| • | Include reference to measures taken to ensure | |||
| sample representivity and the appropriate |
||||
| calibration of any measurement tools or systems | ||||
| used. | ||||
| • | Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that | |||
| are Material to the Public Report. | ||||
| • | In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been | |||
| done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse | ||||
| circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples | ||||
| from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g | ||||
| charge for fire assay’). In other cases more | ||||
| explanation may be required, such as where there | ||||
| is coarse gold that has inherent sampling | ||||
| problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation | ||||
| types (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant | ||||
| disclosure of detailed information. | ||||
| Drilling Techniques | • | Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole | • | Diamond drilling was conducted. |
| hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, | ||||
| etc.) and details (e.g. core diameter, triple or | ||||
| standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face- | ||||
| sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented | ||||
| _and if so, by what method, etc.). _ | ||||
| Drill | • | Method of recording and assessing core and chip | • | A minimum of 95% core recovery was required, otherwise holes were redrilled. |
| Sample Recovery | sample recoveries and results assessed. | Core was fitted and measured against drill meters provided by driller. | ||
| • | Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and | |||
| ensure representative nature of the samples. |
vi
==> picture [86 x 32] intentionally omitted <==
| • | Whether a relationship exists between sample | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| recovery and grade and whether sample bias may | ||||
| have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of | ||||
| fine/coarse material. | ||||
| Logging | • | Whether core and chip samples have been | • | Diamond core was sampled and logged geologically and geotechnically to a |
| geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of | detail that supported appropriate Mineral Resource estimations, mining studies | |||
| detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource | and metallurgical studies. | |||
| estimation, mining studies and metallurgical | • | Core logging was qualitative in nature. Core trays were separately | ||
| studies. | photographed after the core was fitted and orientated both, dry and wet. Once | |||
| • | Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in | reef sections were cut, sampled and marked, photos were once again taken of | ||
| nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc.) |
the final product. | |||
| photography. | • | The total length of the relevant core intersections was 100% logged. | ||
| • | The total length and percentage of the relevant | |||
| _intersections logged. _ | ||||
| Sub-sampling | • | If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, | • | Core was cut and half samples were taken. |
| Techniques and | half or all core taken. | • | Individual samples were placed in separate sample bags with two unique | |
| Sample Preparation | • | If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc. and whether sampled wet or dry. |
number labels of which one was placed inside the bag and the other one stapled to the outside of the bag, after which the bags were sealed. Each batch of |
|
| • | For all sample types, the nature, quality and | samples was placed in a large sample bag and the borehole number and | ||
| appropriateness of the sample preparation |
sample numbers marked on the outside of the bag. | |||
| technique. | • | Waste and reef samples were taken separately. Reef samples were further split | ||
| • | Quality control procedures adopted for all sub- | based on lithology and mineralisation. | ||
| sampling stages to maximise representivity of | • | Samples were accompanied by blanks and standards. A blank was inserted | ||
| samples. | every time before and after reef intersections. Each reef intersection was | |||
| • | Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is | accompanied by certified reference material appropriate to the expected grade | ||
| representative of the in situ material collected, | range i.e. low or high grade. Selected returned pulps were resubmitted under a | |||
| including for instance results for field |
new number for each batch to serve as a duplicate field sample. | |||
| duplicate/second-half sampling. | • | Sampling was typical of standard practices in the Witwatersrand Goldfield and | ||
| • | Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain | was deemed appropriate and representative for the grain size. | ||
| _size of the material being sampled. _ | ||||
| Quality of Assay Data | • | The nature, quality and appropriateness of the | • | Samples were assayed by fire assay using 25 g charges, applying discounts |
| and Laboratory Tests | assaying and laboratory procedures used and | for silver by silver discount chart. The standard practice of fire assaying in the | ||
| whether the technique is considered partial or total. | Witwatersrand Goldfield was deemed appropriate and representative for the | |||
| • | For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld | samples. | ||
| XRF instruments, etc., the parameters used in | • | Industry standard fire assays were applied. | ||
| determining the analysis including instrument | • | The laboratory inserted suitable certified reference samples for calibration | ||
| make and model, reading times, calibrations | purposes and also participated in round robin exercises with other laboratories | |||
| factors applied and their derivation, etc. | to determine precision and reproducibility. The laboratory is SANAS accredited | |||
| • | Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. | and is audited on a regular basis in order to comply with accreditation | ||
| standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory | regulations. | |||
| checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy |
vii
==> picture [86 x 32] intentionally omitted <==
| (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| established. | ||||
| Verification of Sampling | • | The verification of significant intersections by | • | 10% of pulp samples are analysed at an independent umpire laboratory. |
| and Assaying | either independent or alternative company |
• | Twinned holes were not utilised. | |
| personnel. | • | Data was captured into Microsoft Excel and then imported into a Datamine | ||
| • | The use of twinned holes. | Fusion Database. | ||
| • | Documentation of primary data, data entry | • | No assays were adjusted except for capping and cutting during the Mineral | |
| procedures, data verification, data storage |
Resource estimation stage. | |||
| (physical and electronic) protocols. | ||||
| • | Discuss any adjustment to assay data. | |||
| Location of Data Points | • | Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill | • | Collars were surveyed by a qualified surveyor utilising differential GPS. |
| holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, | • | The WG27 coordinate system (World Geographic Datum) was applied. | ||
| mine workings and other locations used in Mineral | • | Topographic control was achieved utilising differential GPS in the WG27 | ||
| Resource estimation. | coordinate system. | |||
| • | Specification of the grid system used. | |||
| • | Quality and adequacy of topographic control. | |||
| Data | • | Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. | • | Drillhole spacing was suitable to upgrade the previous Inferred Mineral |
| Spacing and Distribution | Whether the data spacing and distribution is | Resource to Indicated Mineral Resources. Amount of samples present in the | ||
| sufficient to establish the degree of geological and | areas influenced the estimation parameters. Kriging efficiency was calculated | |||
| grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral | during the estimation process which is an indication of the estimates ability to | |||
| Resource and Ore Reserve estimation |
represent the data which was considered for resource categories. | |||
| procedure(s) and classifications applied. | • | Each sample section was composited to represent the total reef intersection. | ||
| • | _Whether sample compositing has been applied. _ | |||
| Orientation of | • | Whether the orientation of sampling achieves | • | Structures have no known influence on the mineralisation of the Witwatersrand |
| Data in Relation to | unbiased sampling of possible structures and the | placer type reefs, other than displacements. No known sampling bias is | ||
| Geological Structure | extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. |
• | present. A 3D model of the reef was established in Leapfrog Geo which also |
|
| • | If the relationship between the drilling orientation | incorporates structures, predominantly faults and dykes. These structures are | ||
| and the orientation of key mineralised structures is | defined at high confidence levels due to their locations being precisely defined | |||
| considered to have introduced a sampling bias, | by historical mining and being detailed on mining plans. Structures have no | |||
| this should be assessed and reported if material. | known influence on the mineralisation of the Witwatersrand placer type reefs, | |||
| otherthandisplacements. | ||||
| Sample Security | • | The measures taken to ensure sample security. | • | Line of custody procedures was applied. |
| Audits or Reviews | • | The results of any audits or reviews of sampling | • | Stringent internal audit by the Competent Person and QA/QC procedures were |
| techniques and data. | applied. This especially considered the validation of the databases that served | |||
| as input for geological modelling and resource estimation. |
viii
==> picture [86 x 32] intentionally omitted <==
Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
| Criteria | JORC Code Explanation | JORC Code Explanation | JORC Code Explanation | Practices During 2020/21 Drilling Campaign | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mineral tenement and land tenure | • |
Type, reference | name/number, location and ownership | • | The Prospecting Right GP 30/5/1/1/2/183 (10035) PR was originally held by | |||||
| status | including | agreements or material issues with | third | Durban Roodepoort Deep (Pty) Ltd. In 2012 West Wits signed a contractual | ||||||
| parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding | agreement with the Prospecting Right holder allowing the prospecting of | |||||||||
| royalties, | native title interests, |
historical | sites, | underground resources. On the 1stof February 2018 the application for consent | ||||||
| wilderness or national park and environmental settings. | in terms of Section 11 (1) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development | |||||||||
| • | The security of the tenure held at the | time of reporting | Act, Act 28 of 2002 to cede the renewed Prospecting Right GP 30/5/1/1/2/183 | |||||||
| along with any | known impediments to obtaining | a | (10035) PR to West Wits MLI (Pty) Ltd (WWI) was accepted. West Wits holds | |||||||
| licence to | operate in the area. | 66.6% in the company with the remaining 33.6% being held by Lalitha (Pty) Ltd | ||||||||
| a black empowered (“BEE”) entity ensuring compliance with South African laws. | ||||||||||
| The Prospecting Right was renewed for 3 years in April 2016. A Mining Right | ||||||||||
| Application was submitted in April 2018. West Wits is proposing to establish a | ||||||||||
| mining operation in an area located south of Roodepoort and to the north of | ||||||||||
| Soweto in the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng. West | ||||||||||
| Wits has applied for a mining right in terms as amended, for gold, uranium and | ||||||||||
| silver over various portions of the farms Roodepoort 236 IQ, Roodepoort 237 | ||||||||||
| IQ, Tshekisho 710 IQ, Uitval 677 IQ, Vlakfontein 238 IQ, Vogelstruisfontein 231 | ||||||||||
| IQ, Vogelstruisfontein 233 IQ, Witpoortjie 245 IQ, Glenlea 228 IQ. The | ||||||||||
| Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) formally accepted WWI’s | ||||||||||
| Scoping Report including the Plan of Study for Environmental Impact | ||||||||||
| Assessment during 2019. The DMRE thereafter granted the Environmental | ||||||||||
| Authorisation (EA) authorisation on the 24thof June 2020. The EA was subjected | ||||||||||
| to public participation for 20 calendar days. WWI is currently awaiting feedback | ||||||||||
| from the DMRE. | ||||||||||
| • | South Africa’s Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment has through | |||||||||
| a detailed written appeal decision dismissed all three appeals lodged against the | ||||||||||
| DMRE EA approval. The Minister’s decision reinstates the DMRE’s EA approval, | ||||||||||
| initially granted 24thJune 2020, and paves the way to complete the granting of | ||||||||||
| the mining right application through the DMRE. West Wits has engagement with | ||||||||||
| the DMRE officers to expedite thegrant of the miningright. | ||||||||||
| Exploration done by other parties | • | Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by | other | • | Since the MSA drilling in 2009, no other parties have performed exploration in | |||||
| parties. | theKimberleyEast project area. | |||||||||
| Geology | • | Deposit | type, | geological | setting | and style |
of | • | The deposit forms part of the Central Rand Goldfield hosted by the | |
| mineralisation. | Witwatersrand Supergroup strata. The Central Rand Goldfield is situated | |||||||||
| immediately to the south of Johannesburg and has been host to one of the most | ||||||||||
| extensive gold reserves in the world. The reefs have been mined continuously | ||||||||||
| on strike for approximately 55 km in an east/west direction, bordered by DRD in | ||||||||||
| the west, and down-dip, to the south, for about 6 km from its outcrop position, to | ||||||||||
| depths of approximately 3 km. Between 1897 and 1984, approximately 247 | ||||||||||
| million ounces ofgold were extracted from the Central Rand Goldfield. The reef |
ix
==> picture [86 x 32] intentionally omitted <==
| horizons are channelised conglomerates. The major orebodies mined in the | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Central Rand Goldfield are the Main Reef, Main Reef Leader, South Reef, Bird | ||||||
| reefs and Kimberley reefs. The Kimberley East project area targets the K8, K9B | ||||||
| andK9A Kimberleyreefs. | ||||||
| • | Drill hole Information | • | A summary of all information material to the | • | Appendix 1 | |
| understanding of the exploration results including a | ||||||
| tabulation of the following information for all Material | ||||||
| drill holes: | ||||||
oeasting and northing of the drill hole |
||||||
| collar | ||||||
oelevation or RL (Reduced Level – |
||||||
| elevation above sea level in metres) of the | ||||||
| drill hole collar | ||||||
odip and azimuth of the hole |
||||||
odown hole length and interception depth |
||||||
| hole length. | ||||||
| • | If the exclusion of this information is justified on the | |||||
| basis that the information is not Material and this | ||||||
| exclusion does not detract from the understanding of | ||||||
| the report, the Competent Person should clearly explain | ||||||
| why this is the case. | ||||||
| Data aggregation methods | • | In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging | • | Compositing was conducted against relative sample lengths due to no | ||
| techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade |
differences in waste and ore bulk densities. Minimum grades were dependent | |||||
| truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and cut-off | on laboratory detection limits. Cutting of low and high-grade samples were | |||||
| grades are usually Material and should be stated. | applied in the Mineral Resource estimation process. | |||||
| • | Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths | • | Samples were on average 20 to 25 cm in length with a minimum of 10 cm. Waste | |||
| of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade | and reef samples were taken separately. Reef samples were further split based | |||||
| results, the procedure used for such aggregation should | on lithology and mineralisation. | |||||
| be stated and some typical examples of such | • | Metal equivalent values were not applicable. | ||||
| aggregations should be shown in detail. | ||||||
| • | The assumptions used for any reporting of metal | |||||
| equivalent values should be clearly stated. | ||||||
| Relationship | • | These relationships are particularly important in the | • | All downhole lengths were converted to true widths by correcting for the dip of | ||
| between mineralisation widths | reporting of Exploration Results. | the strata. | ||||
| and | intercept lengths | • | If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the | |||
| drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported. | ||||||
| • | If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are | |||||
| reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect | ||||||
| (e.g. ‘down hole length, true width not known’). | ||||||
| Diagrams | • | Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and | • | Appendix 2 | ||
| tabulations of intercepts should be included for any |
x
==> picture [86 x 32] intentionally omitted <==
| significant discovery being reported These should | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole | ||||
| _collar locations and appropriate sectional views. _ | ||||
| Balanced reporting | • | Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration | • | Appendix 3 |
| Results is not practicable, representative reporting of | ||||
| both low and high grades and/or widths should be | ||||
| practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration | ||||
| Results. | ||||
| Other substantive exploration data | • | Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, | • | Geology of reef intercepts was noted in detail on standardised logging sheets. |
| should be reported including (but not limited to): | • | Geophysical and geochemical surveys were not conducted. | ||
| geological observations; geophysical survey results; | • | Bulk samples were not taken. | ||
| geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating |
• • • |
Bulk density was measured applying the Archimedes technique by three repeats each for hangingwall and footwall waste as well as for the reef. Groundwater intersections and flow rate was measured in litres per hour. Geotechnical and rock characteristics were noted for selected boreholes to |
||
| substances. | modern geotechnical parameters such as Rock Quality Determination (RQD) | |||
| and Rock Mass Rating (RMR), etc. The hole was then repeated by drilling a | ||||
| deflection 18 m above the reef in order to obtain undisturbed core for logging | ||||
| and sampling purposes. | ||||
| • | Deleterious or contaminating substances such as methane were tested for by | |||
| drill operators utilisingappropriate sensors. | ||||
| Further work | • | The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests | • | No further work is planned, other than mine planning on the final block model. |
| for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale | ||||
| step-out drilling). | ||||
| • | Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible | |||
| extensions, including the main geological |
||||
| interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this | ||||
| _information is not commercially sensitive. _ |
xi
==> picture [86 x 32] intentionally omitted <==
Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources
(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section)
| Criteria | JORC Code Explanation | Practices During 2020/21 Drilling Campaign | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Database Integrity | • | Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, | • | Sample values received from the laboratory were captured into Microsoft Excel, | ||
| for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial | and then imported into Studio RM. QA/QC was performed by the Chief Geologist | |||||
| collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes. | of West Wits. Final independent QA/QC was performed by the team represented | |||||
| • | Data validation procedures used. | by the Competent Person. | ||||
| • | FullQA/QCwas performed utilisingvarious graphicalpresentations. | |||||
| Site Visits | • | Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent | • | The Mineral Resources were reported by the Competent Person, the former | ||
| Person and the outcome of those visits. | Mineral Resource Manager of DRD and who has relevant experience and | |||||
| • | If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the | qualifies as a Competent Person in South Africa and internationally according to | ||||
| case. | the requirements as stipulated by JORC (2012). The Competent Person also | |||||
| audited the exploration conducted byWest Wits. | ||||||
| Geological | • | Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological | • |
The previous geological model was updated with the latest drilling. Resource | ||
| Interpretation | interpretation of the mineral deposit. | blocks were generated in Datamine Studio RM. | ||||
| • | Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made. | • | The previous wireframing was updated in Leapfrog Geo utilising the latest drilling. | |||
| • | The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral | • |
Analysis of grade continuity was undertaken for the total dataset, that was | |||
| Resource estimation. | updated with the latest drilling, from which homoscedastic geodomains were | |||||
| • | The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource | derived exhibiting stationarity with respect to gold accumulation and channel | ||||
| estimation. | width. | |||||
| • | _The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology. _ | |||||
| Dimensions | • | The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as | • | The reefs are part of the world-famous Witwatersrand Basin, and are renowned | ||
| length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below | for their regional lateral (hundreds of kilometres) and down dip (tens of kilometres) | |||||
| surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource. | continuity. | |||||
| • | The K8, K9B and K9A reefs were reported down to 2.2 km below surface, the | |||||
| strikelengthtotalling4.8km. | ||||||
| Estimation | • | The nature and appropriateness of the estimation |
• |
Sample grades were capped per estimation domain. | ||
| and | technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including | • |
The capped estimation dataset consisted of underground chip samples and | |||
| Modelling Techniques | treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation | stretch composite samples with various lengths and boreholes. After inspection of | ||||
| parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data | distribution characteristics it was identified that the distribution attributes of these | |||||
| points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen | three data types overlap sufficiently for them to be considered part of the same | |||||
| include a description of computer software and parameters | distribution. | |||||
| used. | • | Samples and estimation domains were unfolded to a planar surface. | ||||
| • | The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or | • |
A regional grade trend was observed within the K9A Reef producing a lower grade | |||
| mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource | expectation towards the east of the project. The K9A dataset was spatially divided | |||||
| estimate takes appropriate account of such data. | into east and west regions and these subsets were treated separately. Log | |||||
| • | The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. | probability plots were generated for cm.g/t which displayed potential mixed | ||||
| • | Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade | populations within the three datasets as inflections within the log probability-grade | ||||
| variables of economic significance (e.g. sulphur for acid mine | function. Population was split on these inflections which produced a channel and | |||||
| drainage characterisation. | overbank data subset,which aligns with the channel and overbank depositional |
xii
==> picture [86 x 32] intentionally omitted <==
| • In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in |
model for Kimberly reefs. Orientation of regional continuity for channelisation was | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| relation to the average sample spacing and the search | graphically determined and considered for the orientation of anisotropy for an | |||
| employed. | estimate of channel probability. A binary reclassification of channel probability was | |||
| • Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. |
performed to generate estimation domains. | |||
| • Any assumptions about correlation between variables. |
• | Simple and Ordinary Kriging was performed into 50 x 50 m parent cells for all | ||
| • Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. |
regions, with Ordinary Macro Kriging into 500 x 500 m parent cells estimating channel probability in the K9B Reef and the west region of the K9A Reef. In the |
|||
| • Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. • The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available. |
eastern region of the K9A Reef a sequential indicator simulation was performed for channel probability into 10 x 10 m parent cells for the inferred resource beyond estimation range. Grade and tonnage above cut-off in the resource was calculated from the block variance between 50 m blocks considering the cm.g/t variogram. Global channel grade and fraction above cut-off was calculated from the |
|||
| estimated global mean of the channel and the calculated block variance. | ||||
| • | Historically no by-products were recovered, hence no quantification or estimation. | |||
| • | Although the presence of pyrite resulted in severe acid mine water, sulphide was | |||
| not quantified and estimated. | ||||
| • | Selective mining units were considered to be the estimation parent cells of 50 x | |||
| 50 m, which is slightly larger than the area of the general mining panel length of | ||||
| 30 m multiplied byhalf of the inter-raise distance of 120 m. | ||||
| Moisture | • | Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural | • | Tonnages were estimated on a dry basis. |
| moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content. | ||||
| Cut-off Parameters | • | The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters | • | The cut-off was based on similar practises to those applied at other |
| applied. | Witwatersrand Gold mines. The cut-off grade applied was 2 g/t over a minimum | |||
| stopingwidth of 100 cm. | ||||
| Mining Factors | • | Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum | • | Mining methods were based on traditional Witwatersrand conventional hand-held |
| or Assumptions | mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining | drilling and scraper cleaning operations, except for the steep Kimberley reefs | ||
| dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of | where overhand shrinkage methods were employed. Mining dilution was based | |||
| determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic | on reef width with a minimum thickness of 100 cm. | |||
| extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the | • | Plans that featured steeply dipping reef were projected vertically instead of | ||
| assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters | horizontally on plans. Thus the position of the steeply dipping unmined areas | |||
| when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. | was determined in 3D space in Leapfrog Geo. | |||
| Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation | ||||
| of the basis of the mining assumptions made. | ||||
| Metallurgical | • | The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical | • | Gold extraction was based on traditional Carbon In Leach methods (CIL). |
| Factors Applied | amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process | |||
| of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic | ||||
| extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the | ||||
| assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and | ||||
| parameters made when reporting Mineral Resources may not | ||||
| always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported |
xiii
==> picture [86 x 32] intentionally omitted <==
| with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _made. _ | ||||
| Environmental Factors | • | Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue | • | Residues would be deposited on environmentally approved tailings storage |
| or Assumptions | disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of | facilities. No detailed environmental or logistical designs were considered. | ||
| determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic | ||||
| extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the | ||||
| mining and processing operation. While at this stage the | ||||
| determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a | ||||
| greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status | ||||
| of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts | ||||
| should be reported. Where these aspects have not been | ||||
| considered this should be reported with an explanation of the | ||||
| _environmental assumptions made. _ | ||||
| Bulk Density | • | Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the | • | Bulk density was accepted as the standard industry norm for pyritic conglomerate |
| assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, | i.e. 2.73 g/cm3and this was performed on a dry basis. | |||
| the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and | • | Bulk density for the new drillholes was measured by utilising the Archimedes | ||
| representativeness of the samples. | principle. | |||
| • | The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by | • | The same bulk density was multiplied with the respective volumes for all reefs in | |
| methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, | order to obtain tonnages. | |||
| etc.), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones | ||||
| within the deposit. | ||||
| • | Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimate used in the | |||
| evaluation process of the different materials. | ||||
| Classification | • | The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into | • | The estimation results were classified according to the observed relationship |
| varying confidence categories. | between Kriging Efficiency and sample spacing into Measured, Indicated and | |||
| • | Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors | Inferred categories, which were manually modified according to interpretation for | ||
| (i.e. relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of | expected geological continuity. | |||
| input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, | • | Appropriate account was taken of all relevant factors. | ||
| quality, quantity and distribution of the data). | • | The results appropriately reflect the Competent Person’s view of the deposit. | ||
| • | Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s | |||
| _view of the deposit. _ | ||||
| Audits or Reviews | • | The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource | • | The Competent Person audited the latest exploration work. |
| estimates. | ||||
| Discussion of Relative | • | Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy | • | Estimate to model reconciliation was performed for blocks containing samples |
| Accuracy/ | • | And confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an | which provided a model to regularised data correlation coefficient of 0.7. This is | |
| Confidence | approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent | appropriate for a gold estimate within a Witwatersrand style deposit. | ||
| Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical | ||||
| procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within | ||||
| stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed | ||||
| appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect | ||||
| the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate. | ||||
| • | The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local |
xiv
==> picture [86 x 32] intentionally omitted <==
| • | estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should |
|---|---|
| be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation | |
| should include assumptions made and the procedures used. | |
| • | These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the |
| estimate should be compared with production data, where | |
| available. |
xv
==> picture [67 x 23] intentionally omitted <==
Appendix 1
==> picture [648 x 154] intentionally omitted <==
----- Start of picture text -----
Interception Depths
K9A K9B K8 K7
Ac tual Bh ID Y X Z AZIMUTH_DEG Dip From To From To From To From To
RLKPDRE-22 -90320.197 2900104.497 1681.044 7.9 -62.48 266.53 268.63 275.69 277.47 277.82 281.10 281.27 291.99
RLKPDRE-23 -90165.686 2899905.457 1685.956 29.8 -61.96 177.65 177.29 189.97 191.65 191.95 193.59 195.39 205.09
RLKPDRE-24 -90494.251 2900093.224 1670.620 0.0 -60.44 199.95 202.57 210.81 211.11 212.88 214.76 215.16 226.19
RLKPDRE-31 -89678.724 2899808.809 1725.859 3.5 -62.10 284.36 284.58 293.99 295.50 296.13 296.84 297.41 320.20
RLKDRE-39 -90342.004 2899956.510 1672.382 31.8 -58.31 153.32 155.03 162.05 163.10 163.65 164.15 165.39 174.75
RLKDD-40 -90173.558 2899719.227 1688.404 352.7 -70.25 88.54 93.53 98.32 101.23 102.60 104.83 105.07 107.21
RLKDD-41 -90442.916 2899878.549 1669.371 32.9 -58.88 73.30 78.54 83.19 83.96 86.41 88.09 88.77 89.20
RLKDRE-42 -90585.653 2899977.471 1656.930 47.7 -60.20 95.40 98.91 104.31 106.60 108.06 109.06
RLKDD-43 -90227.271 2899795.539 1682.984 36.8 61.50
RLKDD-44 -90318.875 2899883.109 1677.388 27.1 -57.74 113.9 118.24 123.73 125.39 126.55 127.74 127.74 129.08
----- End of picture text -----
1
Appendix 2
==> picture [67 x 23] intentionally omitted <==
==> picture [581 x 411] intentionally omitted <==
==> picture [67 x 23] intentionally omitted <==
Appendix 3
| Interception Grades | Interception Grades | Interception Grades | Interception Grades | Interception Grades | Interception Grades | Interception Grades | Interception Grades | Interception Grades | Interception Grades | Interception Grades | Interception Grades | Interception Grades | Interception Grades | Interception Grades | Interception Grades | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K9A | K9B | K8 | K7 | |||||||||||||
| Ac tual Bh ID | From | To | Width(cm) | Grade(g/t) | From | To | **Width(cm) ** | Grade(g/t) | From | To | **Width(cm) ** | Grade(g/t) | From | To | **Width(cm) ** | Grade(g/t) |
| RLKPDRE-22 | 266.12 | 268.57 | 2.45 | 1.56 | 275.33 | 277.36 | 2.03 | 2.05 | 277.82 | 281.10 | 281.27 | 291.99 | ||||
| 267.23 | 268.35 | 1.12 | 2.80 | 275.95 | 276.83 | 0.88 | 2.92 | 278.87 | 279.32 | 0.45 | 2.04 | |||||
| 279.07 | 279.32 | 0.25 | 3.18 | |||||||||||||
| RLKPDRE-23 | 177.39 | 181.29 | 3.90 | 0.20 | 189.79 | 191.55 | 1.76 | 1.58 | 192.49 | 194.40 | 1.91 | 0.67 | 195.39 | 205.21 | ||
| 179.26 | 179.47 | 0.21 | 0.89 | 189.79 | 190.45 | 0.66 | 2.40 | 192.96 | 193.89 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 195.11 | 195.53 | 0.42 | 0.44 | |
| RLKPDRE-24 | 199.94 | 202.57 | 2.63 | 0.75 | 210.78 | 211.84 | 1.06 | 2.40 | 212.88 | 214.76 | 215.16 | 226.19 | ||||
| 201.51 | 201.97 | 0.46 | 2.45 | 211.62 | 211.84 | 0.22 | 4.16 | |||||||||
| RLKPDRE-31 | 284.34 | 286.68 | 2.34 | 0.12 | 293.98 | 295.53 | 1.55 | 0.17 | 296.13 | 296.84 | 297.41 | 320.20 | ||||
| RLKDRE-39 | 153.72 | 155.47 | 1.75 | 1.15 | 162.22 | 163.34 | 1.12 | 1.12 | 165.50 | 166.15 | 0.65 | 1.84 | 165.39 | 174.75 | ||
| 155.19 | 155.47 | 0.28 | 4.92 | 162.46 | 163.34 | 0.88 | 1.37 | 166.31 | 167.20 | 0.89 | 0.26 | |||||
| RLKDD-40 | 88.51 | 94.91 | 6.40 | 0.50 | 98.29 | 101.23 | 2.94 | 0.50 | 102.60 | 104.83 | 2.08 | 0.93 | 105.07 | 112.25 | ||
| 89.22 | 91.42 | 2.20 | 1.11 | 98.29 | 99.85 | 1.56 | 0.65 | 102.77 | 103.70 | 0.93 | 1.69 | 105.00 | 105.97 | 0.97 | 0.18 | |
| 90.42 | 91.42 | 1.00 | 1.54 | |||||||||||||
| RLKDD-41 | 73.28 | 78.66 | 5.38 | 0.47 | 83.16 | 84.00 | 0.84 | 1.25 | 86.37 | 88.11 | 1.74 | 1.07 | 88.76 | 89.14 | 0.38 | 0.43 |
| 73.75 | 74.43 | 0.68 | 1.10 | 86.37 | 87.28 | 0.91 | 1.94 | |||||||||
| 75.09 | 75.92 | 0.83 | 1.45 | |||||||||||||
| RLKDRE-42 | 96.38 | 99.05 | 2.67 | 0.11 | 104.58 | 106.49 | 1.91 | 1.04 | 108.84 | 110.57 | 1.73 | 0.27 | 110.57 | 111.66 | 1.09 | 0.78 |
| 104.58 | 105.31 | 0.73 | 1.74 | |||||||||||||
| RLKDD-43 | ||||||||||||||||
| RLKDD-44 | 113.87 | 118.36 | 4.49 | 0.85 | 123.71 | 125.39 | 1.68 | 5.81 | 126.53 | 127.74 | 1.21 | 1.38 | 127.74 | 129.63 | ||
| 113.87 | 114.98 | 1.11 | 2.68 | 124.41 | 125.39 | 0.98 | 9.07 | 126.53 | 127.14 | 0.61 | 1.82 | 127.74 | 128.86 | 1.12 | 0.58 |
3