27 October 2023
Bezant Resources PLC
("Bezant Resources", "BZT" or "the Company")
Updated Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate
for the Hope and Gorob Copper Project,
Bezant Resources Plc ("Bezant Resources", "BZT" or the "Company") is pleased to announce the results of an updated Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate for the Hope and Gorob copper project situated within EPL 5796 ("the "Project") in
Highlights
The updated Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) has been completed by Addison Mining Services Ltd., an independent consultancy based in the
· A Total Mineral Resource of 15 million tonnes gross at 1.2 % Cu for 190 thousand tonnes of Cu estimated across the Hope, Gorob Vendome and Anomaly deposits and comprising:
o Total Indicated Resources of 1.24 million tonnes at 1.6% Cu and 0.4 g/t Au at the Hope deposit.
o Total Inferred Resources of approximately 14 million tonnes at 1.2% Cu across the Hope, Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly deposits, including approximately 3 million tonnes at 1.7% Cu and 0.4 g/t Au at Hope.
· The resource estimation has ignored gold content for all prospects other than the Hope target on the basis that many historic boreholes (pre-dating Bezant's involvement) were not assayed for gold and as such Addison could not include gold in the resource compilation. Based on the Bezant drilling programme Addison concur that it would not be unreasonable to anticipate average grades of 0.2 to 0.4 g/t Au. The Company are considering a programme to twin certain holes to give the independent consultant the data to include additional gold in the resource estimate.
· The MRE identified significant potential for open pit extraction with an open pit resource of 2.4 million tonnes and the potential, assuming favourable Cu grades from further drilling, of increasing the size of the practically open pittable resource for further 700,000 to 1 million tonnes postulating an open pit that could support five years mine life at an annual rate of 500,000 tonnes per year.
· The MRE identified that deeper parts of the orebody had the potential to be mined underground, utilising a former concrete lined shaft with additional access from the base of the open pit.
· Total tonnes of contained copper in Mineral Resource Estimate of approximately 190,000 tonnes. AMS postulate that this could be significantly increased by the drilling of untested areas where mineralization is projected and a drilling programme targeted toward increased gold credit, thereby increasing the overall copper equivalent grade.
· Addison has noted that there is significant exploration potential with extensions to the existing open pit resources being extremely likely and only omitted from the Resource Estimate due to a historic low drill density that precludes conversion to a JORC Resource. Although there are no guarantees, extension drilling could result in further addition to the updated Mineral Resource.
· The metallurgical results from direct test work are currently in progress and as such Addison have not considered them during the MRE study. The Addsion MRE considers reasonably assumed metallurgical inputs from historic testwork and prior studies. Any new metallurgical testwork will inform future MRE updates and technical studies.
Colin Bird Chairman & CEO said: "We are very pleased with the outcome of our work over the last two years and we now have a JORC (2012) resource, which our consultant agrees is both capable of significant increase and equivalent copper value.
Concurrent with the work on the resource study we have been very active on all aspects of the factors which goes toward building a mine. We are confident that we now have sufficient information, resource modelling, financial modelling and environmental innovative approach to bring a small mine into production, whilst aggressively carrying out further exploration to increase the resource significantly.
We thank Addison for a very detailed study and their work apart from producing the JORC (2012) estimate, has guided the Company in its approach to overall mine design as well as the proposed extension drilling programme."
Addison Mining Services has stated: "We have enjoyed working with Bezant on the Hope & Gorob project and producing the updated JORC (2012) estimate. Our work has shown the project to have significant scope beyond the original independent estimate. Management is well aware of what is necessary to add value both to the current mining study and also the greater exploration potential, including investigation of further gold credits and exploration of the underexplored overturned limb at Hope, which if successful may significantly increase the open pit mining inventory. We wish them well with their efforts."
Project Background
The Hope and Gorob mineral deposits are situated in the Namib Desert of
The Project location can be accessed by road either from Walvis Bay via gravel roads D1983 and D2186, or from
The Hope and Gorob Project is situated within Exclusive Prospecting (EPL) 5796, a 243 km2 license held by Hope and Gorob Mining (Pty) Ltd, a 70% subsidiary of Bezant Resources.
The Hope Copper-Gold Project is located on the southwestern most point of the Matchless Amphibolite Belt (MAB) and the deposit is characterised by surficial quaternary sand and gravel overlying the Swakop Group of the Damara Supergroup. In this area the Matchless Member consists of two main bands of amphibole-bearing schists, metagabbros, and intercalated metapelitic rocks of the Kuiseb Formation. The geology strikes east- north-east through the area, and to the west it has been deformed into a major asymmetrical syncline, known as the Hope Synform. This is over folded towards the southeast. Two distinct amphibolite layers of the southern limb appear to amalgamate on the northern limb, where they locally reach a combined thickness of 500 m.
The Hope and Gorob prospects have undergone numerous phases of exploration, undertaken by 8 or 9 companies within the project history dating back to the late 1800's and early 1900's. The project has seen multiple phases of drilling over its history. Drilling used in the MRE over all prospects is summarized as follows and presented in Figure 1.
· 28 Diamond Drillholes by Bezant Resources over 2,680 m (2020 and 2023)
· 118 Diamond Drillholes by Kuiseb Mining over 36,900 m (2006 to 2008)
· 78 Drillholes by JCI over 18,680 m (1973 to 1976)
· 26 Drillholes completed by SA Vendome over 5,470 m (1971 to 1973)
· 119 Open Hole Percussion drillholes completed by JCI (1971) over 5416 m were used by previous consultants for Resource Estimation. AMS consider this data unreliable due to grade smearing and cross sample contamination and have excluded them from the estimate.
Figure 1: Summary map of drilling and deposit areas.
No MRE has been completed by AMS for Anomaly East.
Mineral Resource Estimate
An update to the Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) for the Hope and Gorob Project has seen Mineral Resources estimated for in-situ mineralisation and reported in accordance with the JORC code (2012). Wireframe restricted block models were generated for the copper and gold mineralization at the Hope, Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly prospects. Gold was not estimated for all areas due to lack of assay data.
Resources are of the Inferred and Indicated category for Hope and Inferred for all other deposits and are set out in Table 1. Open pit Resources are reported at a 0.25% Cu% or CuEq% grade and 0.70% for Underground Resources. Due to the low number of Au assays at Vendome and Anomaly no Au content is reported, but maybe expected to be in the region of 0.2 to 0.4 g/t based on the data at Hope and Bezant and Kuiseb drilling. At Gorob increased gold grades may be realized by continued exploration due to the low number of Au assays.
Table 1: Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate for the Hope and Gorob Project,
|
Area |
Cut-off |
Type |
Tonnes |
Density |
CuEq% |
Cu% |
Au g/t |
Ag g/t |
Cu t |
Au ozt |
Ag ozt |
|
|
INDICATED |
||||||||||
|
HOPE |
0.25 |
Open Pit |
290,000 |
3.0 |
1.6 |
1.4 |
0.30 |
4.7 |
4,100 |
2,800 |
44,000 |
|
0.70 |
Underground |
950,000 |
3.0 |
1.9 |
1.7 |
0.40 |
6.7 |
17,000 |
12,000 |
210,000 |
|
|
Subtotal Indicated |
1,240,000 |
3.0 |
1.8 |
1.6 |
0.4 |
6.2 |
21,100 |
14,800 |
254,000 |
||
|
INFERRED |
|||||||||||
|
0.25 |
Open Pit |
140,000 |
3.0 |
1.2 |
1.1 |
0.30 |
3.1 |
1,500 |
1,400 |
14,000 |
|
|
0.70 |
Underground |
2,800,000 |
3.0 |
2.0 |
1.7 |
0.43 |
6.1 |
49,000 |
39,000 |
550,000 |
|
|
Subtotal Inferred |
2,940,000 |
3.0 |
2.0 |
1.7 |
0.4 |
6.0 |
50,500 |
40,400 |
564,000 |
||
|
INDICATED PLUS INFERED |
|||||||||||
|
Subtotal Open Pit |
430,000 |
3.0 |
1.5 |
1.3 |
0.3 |
4.2 |
5,600 |
4,200 |
58,000 |
||
|
Subtotal Underground |
3,750,000 |
3.0 |
2.0 |
1.7 |
0.4 |
6.3 |
66,000 |
51,000 |
760,000 |
||
|
Subtotal Hope |
4,200,000 |
3.0 |
1.9 |
1.7 |
0.4 |
6.0 |
71,000 |
55,000 |
810,000 |
||
|
|
INFERRED |
||||||||||
|
GOROB |
0.25 |
Open Pit |
800,000 |
3.0 |
|
1.1 |
0.1 |
|
8,700 |
2,000 |
|
|
0.70 |
Underground |
5,100,000 |
3.0 |
|
1.2 |
0.1 |
|
58,700 |
18,000 |
|
|
|
Subtotal Gorob |
5,900,000 |
3.0 |
|
1.2 |
0.1 |
|
67,400 |
20,000 |
|
||
|
VENDOME |
0.25 |
Open Pit |
310,000 |
3.0 |
|
1.6 |
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
0.70 |
Underground |
3,300,000 |
3.0 |
|
1.0 |
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
|
|
Subtotal Vendome |
3,610,000 |
3.0 |
|
1.0 |
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
||
|
ANOMALY |
0.25 |
Open Pit |
850,000 |
3.0 |
|
0.6 |
|
|
5,300 |
|
|
|
0.70 |
Underground |
680,000 |
3.0 |
|
0.9 |
|
|
6,000 |
|
|
|
|
Subtotal Anomaly |
1,530,000 |
3.0 |
|
0.7 |
|
|
11,300 |
|
|
||
|
TOTAL |
0.25 |
Open Pit |
2,400,000 |
3.0 |
|
1.0 |
|
|
24,600 |
6,200 |
58,000 |
|
0.70 |
Underground |
12,800,000 |
3.0 |
|
1.3 |
|
|
165,700 |
69,000 |
760,000 |
|
|
Grand Total |
15,200,000 |
3.0 |
|
1.2 |
|
|
190,300 |
75,200 |
818,000 |
||
|
Total Indicated |
1,200,000 |
3.0 |
1.8 |
1.6 |
0.4 |
6.2 |
21,100 |
14,800 |
254,000 |
||
|
Total Inferred |
14,000,000 |
3.0 |
|
1.2 |
|
|
169,200 |
60,400 |
564,000 |
||
Notes relating to Mineral Resource Estimate:
1. The independent Competent Person for the Mineral Resource Estimate, as defined by the JORC Code (2012 edition), is Mr. Richard Siddle, MSc, MAIG, of Addison Mining Services Ltd since November 2014. The effective date of the Mineral Resource Estimate is 30th of May 2023 and was signed on the 29th of August 2023. Mr Siddle has completed a site visit between 27th April and 28th April 2023.
2. No mineral reserve estimates have been undertaken. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The quantity and grade of reported Inferred Resources in this Mineral Resource Estimate are uncertain in nature and there has been insufficient exploration to define these Inferred Resources as Indicated or Measured, however it is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued exploration and verification including infill drilling, further verification of legacy drillholes via twin drilling and metallurgical testing. Following further exploration it may be possible to convert some of the Inferred Mineral Resources to Indicated Mineral Resources.
3. Copper Equivalent is based on assumed prices of
4. Cu Eq% is calculated as Cu% + (Au×0.512)
5. Cut off grades assume a Cu price of
6. Indicated and Inferred mineral resource categories set out in the table above at cut-off grades >0.25% CuEq/Cu for open pit and 0.7% CuEq/Cu for underground mining comply with the resource definitions as described in the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. The JORC Code, 2012 Edition. Prepared by: The Joint Ore Reserves Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Minerals Council of
7. Numbers are rounded to reflect the fact that an Estimate of Resources is being reported. Rounding of numbers may result in differences in calculated totals and averages. All tonnes are metric tonnes.
8. Pit slopes were assumed as 45 degrees in overburden and fresh rock. No geotechnical studies have been completed to support this assumption and the requirement for shallower pit slopes may serve to materially reduce the open pit mineral resource.
9. The absence of metallurgical results from direct test work currently underway in relation to Hope & Gorob are not incorporated in the report due to delays in receiving them from the laboratory. Their non-inclusion is not considered material for the purpose of reporting updated resources in accordance with JORC (2012).
10. The Mineral Resource Estimate set out above are quoted gross with respect to the Project. Bezant Resources has 70% interest in the Project and accordingly the Net attributable to the Company is 70% of the quoted gross.
Description of Modelling and Estimation Techniques
The Mineral Resource Estimate was based on the wireframe interpretation of the mineralised units at each deposit. At the Hope project mineralisation occurs in a recumbent synform fold structure and consists of 4 mineralized horizons. True thickness is modelled as 1.5 m to approximately 8 m and typically around 5 m. The axial plane of the fold dips 35-40° towards the 340° (north-northwest), along strike to the northeast mineralization plunges by around 13°, extending from surface in the western most part of the deposit to around 450 m below the surface in the eastern most part. The strike length of the deposit is almost 2 km. The Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly deposits are more tabular in nature.
Mineralization at Gorob is hosted in two units dominated by quartz-schist and dipping approximately 38° to 320°(northwest). The lower unit is present only in the central part of the modelled area where the upper unit displays a lower degree of continuity. Mineralization ranges from surface and is interpreted to continue down dip for almost 900 m to a depth of approximately 550 m and approximately 850 m along strike. The mineralized units are modelled as having a true thickness of 1.5-8 m with mean thickness of 4 m.
Mineralization at Vendome is hosted in one unit dominated by quartz-schist and magnetite-quartzite and dipping approximately 40° to 340°(north-northwest). The unit bifurcates in the deeper southwest portion of the deposit. Mineralization ranges from surface and is interpreted to continue down dip for almost 700 m to a depth of approximately 500 m and approximately 500 m along strike. The are no drilling intercepts in the uppermost southwest quadrant of the model and mineralization here is extrapolated along strike and up dip. The mineralized units are modelled as having a true thickness of 1.5-8 m with mean thickness of 3.5 m.
Mineralization at Anomaly is hosted in sub vertical units with a strike to the northeast. The units bifurcate and join along its length varying between 2 and 3 distinct units. Mineralization is interpreted to extend from surface to approximately 270 m below the surface. Drilling has generally targeted the same level approximately 130 m from surface in the northeast half of the deposit, to the south a set of deeper drillholes test down to a depth of approximately 230 m. Mineralization is modelled as typically being 1.5 to 4 m thick, additional drilling in this deposit may significantly change its geological interpretation.
At all deposits patchy areas of oxidation are observed along fractures but no clear oxide-sulphide transition is observed. The amount of oxide material is expected to either not be material or it is expected that it might be amenable to floatation after sulphidation with sodium hydrosulphide and or ammonium sulphide, subject to further exploration and testwork.
The wireframe volumes were used to restrict the block models and the block models were rotated to fit the geometry of the deposits. Block sizes were selected with the aim of having a block size roughly 1/3 to 1/4 of drill spacing. The models were sub-blocked accordingly to preserve the domain boundaries.
Table 2: Block Model Parameters
|
|
Dimension m |
Rotation° (left-handed, about axis) |
Sub Blocks, number |
||||||
|
Area |
East |
North |
RL |
Z |
X |
Y |
East |
North |
RL |
|
Hope |
25 |
5 |
5 |
-18 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
|
Gorob |
40 |
20 |
2 |
50 |
0 |
40 |
8 |
4 |
4 |
|
Vendome |
50 |
20 |
2 |
72 |
0 |
40 |
10 |
4 |
4 |
|
Anomaly |
5 |
25 |
5 |
50 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
5 |
Grades were estimated using Ordinary Kriging on a volume-by-volume basis, discretization was used to account for change of support. Cu was estimated for all deposits and Au in Hope only due to lack of data in other deposits. Kriging Neighbourhood parameters are presented in Table 3. Prior to estimation and geostatistical analysis data was composited to 2 m intervals, the minimum accepted composite length was 1 m, residual values were added to the last interval, length weighted averaging was used for grade values. At Anomaly 1 m composites with a minimum length of 0.5 m was used to aid in variogram analysis (due to the spatial distribution and number of data). No top capping was deemed necessary except at Vendome samples over 3% Cu were capped at 3% for 20% of the search distance and used their original value inside that distance.
Table 3: Kriging Neighbourhood parameters.
|
Area |
Pass |
Axis 1 m |
Axis 2 m |
Axis 3 m |
Axis 1 Azi/ Plunge |
Axis 1 Azi/ Plunge |
Axis 1 Azi/ Plunge |
Max comps per drillhole |
Max comps per search |
Discretization Number E,N,Z |
|
Hope |
1 |
75 |
20 |
20 |
72/16 |
162/0 |
72/-74 |
3 |
12 |
5,3,3 |
|
2 |
75 |
35 |
35 |
|||||||
|
3 |
75 |
50 |
50 |
|||||||
|
Gorob
|
1 |
250 |
250 |
50 |
50/0 |
140/-40 |
320/-50 |
3 |
12 |
8,4,2 |
|
Vendome |
1 |
250 |
250 |
50 |
72/0 |
162/-40 |
342/-50 |
3 |
12 |
10,4,2 |
|
Anomaly |
1 |
200 |
150 |
50 |
0/-90 |
50/0 |
320/0 |
5 |
20 |
3,3,3 |
Models were validated by comparison of declustered and clustered statistics, histograms and visual inspection in cross section and 3D.
The amount of data and lower confidence in collar locations for Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly restricts the classification of these Resource to the Inferred Category. No topographic model was available and a low resolution 30 m cell size Digital Terrain Model is used to model elevation.
Areas in the Hope deposit which were informed by recent BZT drilling and Kuiseb drilling are considered for indicated resources. While risk and uncertainty still remain in those parts of the estimates largely informed by the Kuiseb drilling, the sampling has largely been systematic and continuity reasonably well demonstrated in areas covered by this same drilling. Two areas were considered for Indicated resources where the supporting data is considered of sufficient quality to allow for preliminary mine planning. Blocks informed by 2 or more drillholes and having a Kriging Standard error of <0.35 were classified as Indicated. Small, isolated volumes were removed, and 4th lowest mineralized horizon was also excluded due to less apparent continuity.
Exploration Potential
There is significant exploration potential on the Project with opportunities to add tonnes at all prospects and realize an improved Au credit across the Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly prospects which have seen little in the way of assaying for Au. Upside potential amenable to open pit mining is presented in Table 4. The numbers and ranges are conceptual in nature and may not be realized. Further discussion of the exploration potential follows.
At the Hope deposit the transition to the selected pit and underground mining much of the resource is informed by drilling completed by JCI, (Figure 1). This drilling was selective in its sampling, with sporadic sampling of the upper overturned limb of the plunging fold which hosts the mineralization. The dominant direction of drilling from south to north does not adequately test this upper limb and as a result, potential exists to expand the selected open pit under favourable stripping ratios by drilling from the north of the structure, twinning the JCI drillholes and systematically sampling the drill core. Approximately 3500 m of drilling is recommended and should results be favourable Cu grades may improve by approximately 0.1-0.3 % while increasing the size of the practically open pittable Resource to a range of 700 kt to 1 mt. Additional drilling targeting the overturned limb further down strike has the potential to add additional underground Resource tonnes by approximately 20% to 30% of the current underground Resource tonnes.
At Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly, the potential to add additional open pit tonnage is limited in the modelled areas, however along strike potential exists at all deposits. There has not been systematic sampling of Au, Anomaly has no gold assays, Vendome has only 16/273 assays for Au and Gorob 113/466. Clearly there is potential for additional gold credits in all deposits which may be expected to be in the region of 0.2 to 0.4 g/t with locally higher grades in excess of 1 g/t. Extension drilling also has potential realize to mineralized tonnes in the open pit and underground Resources.
Table 4: Exploration potential summary across all prospects.
|
Area |
Extension (m) |
Thickness (m) |
Down Dip Depth (m) |
Volume (m3) |
Density (t/m3) |
Tonnage (t) +/- 25% |
Cu (%) +/- 25% |
Cu (t) +/- 25% |
Au g/t |
|
Anomaly NE |
200 |
3 |
50 |
30,000 |
3 |
90,000 |
0.6 |
540 |
0.2-0.4 |
|
Anomaly SW |
200 |
9 |
50 |
90,000 |
3 |
270,000 |
0.6 |
1,620 |
0.2-0.4 |
|
Gorob NE |
200 |
4 |
80 |
64,000 |
3 |
192,000 |
1.2 |
2,304 |
0.2-0.4 |
|
Vendome NE |
200 |
2.5 |
60 |
30,000 |
3 |
90,000 |
1.4 |
1,260 |
0.2-0.4 |
|
Vendome SW |
200 |
6 |
40 |
48,000 |
3 |
144,000 |
1.4 |
2,016 |
0.2-0.4 |
|
Hope |
|
|
|
165,000 |
3 |
500,000 |
1.3 |
6,500 |
0.3-0.6 |
|
Grand Total |
|
|
|
|
|
1,286,000 |
1.11 |
14,240 |
|
Figure 2: Exploration potential at Hope
Comparison to Previous Mineral Resource Estimate
The previous Mineral Resource estimates for the Hope and Gorob Project were completed by Measured Group and dated October 2019 prior to Bezant Resources involvement in the project. All Mineral Resources were reported using a cut-off grade of 0.7% Cu. Over all deposits the Updated AMS models contain almost the same contained metal as the Measured Group models. However, between deposits there are significant differences in the contained Resource tonnage, metal and Cu grade (Table 5). Generally, the AMS models contain 1.4 times the tonnage and seven tenths of the Cu grade.
Reasons for the differences in the estimate are described as follows:
· Drillholes with missing samples within the interval were ignored and in places the wireframes appear to cut across sections of drillholes with no sampling. No missing intervals have been inserted into the composite file.
· Wireframe modelling appears to have focused on preserving the higher grades, the models pinch and swell and zig zag to avoid areas of lower grade between drillholes. In places extremely narrow sub-meter intervals, as thin as 30 cm are included in the model with no account for a minimum selective mining unit.
· The composite file includes the open hole percussion drilling, where these drillholes display clear smearing down the hole and have been used for wireframing and block model interpolation. This results in enlarged volumes which are likely not present.
· A Comparison of the composite mean and block model mean for the Hope deposit shows the composite mean was 1.83% Cu while the volume weighted mean of the block model was 2.05% Cu. Indicating over estimation, 47% of the tonnage in the model and 52% of the contained Cu is attributed to blocks which were informed by 1 drillhole. Only 6% of the tonnage in the model is informed by 3 drillholes. This is indicative of local conditional bias brought about by tight search neighbourhoods which do not span between drill fences, resulting in undersmoothing. Wireframe modelling appears to have biased the input data toward the higher grades and this is further compounded by the undersmoothing, preserving higher grade areas in an unrealistic fashion.
· Similar problems were identified at the other deposits, particularly with respect to local conditional bias. The Gorob and Vendome deposits were modelled as one despite being ~1km apart and used drillhole data from both deposits stacked on top of each other.
Table 5: Comparison, Measured Group vs AMS MREs.
AMS models reported at 0.7% Cu cut-off over all material.
|
|
Classification |
Tonnes |
Cu% |
Cu t |
|
Measured Group |
|
|
|
|
|
Hope |
Indicated |
3,090,000 |
2.53 |
78,300 |
|
Hope Extension |
Inferred |
1,220,000 |
1.77 |
21,600 |
|
|
Sub total |
4,310,000 |
2.31 |
99,900 |
|
Gorob and Vendome |
Inferred |
3,830,000 |
1.91 |
73,200 |
|
Anomaly |
Inferred |
2,030,000 |
0.97 |
19,700 |
|
|
TOTAL |
10,180,000 |
1.89 |
192,800 |
|
AMS |
|
|
|
|
|
Hope |
|
3,800,000 |
1.8 |
71,000 |
|
Gorob and Vendome |
|
9,500,000 |
1.13 |
106,800 |
|
Anomaly |
|
930,000 |
0.91 |
8,400 |
|
Total |
|
14,230,000 |
1.30 |
186,200 |
|
Absolute Difference |
|
|
|
|
|
Hope |
|
-510,000 |
- 0.51 |
-28,900 |
|
Gorob and Vendome |
|
5,670,000 |
- 0.78 |
33,600 |
|
Anomaly |
|
-1,100,000 |
- 0.06 |
- 11,300 |
|
Total |
|
4,050,000 |
- 0.59 |
-6,600 |
|
Relative Percentage |
|
|
|
|
|
Hope |
|
88% |
78% |
71% |
|
Gorob and Vendome |
|
248% |
59% |
146% |
|
Anomaly |
|
46% |
94% |
43% |
|
Total |
|
140% |
69% |
97% |
Technical Sign off
The technical information in this release has been reviewed by Mr R. J. Siddle, MSc, MAIG Principal Resource Geologist for Addison Mining Services Ltd. Mr. Siddle is an independent Competent Person within the meaning of the JORC (2012) code and a Qualified Person under the AIM rules, having over 15 years' experience in the industry. Mr. Siddle has reviewed and verified the technical information that forms the basis of, and has been used in the preparation of, the Mineral Resource Estimate and this announcement, including analytical data, drilling logs, QC data, density measurements, and sampling. Mr. Siddle consents to the inclusion in this announcement of the matters based on the information, in the form and context in which it appears. Mr Siddle was assisted in the preparation of the estimate by Ms P. M. Mierzwa, Mr L. D. Harvey and Mr J. N. Hogg who worked under the direction of the Competent Person and are thanked for her involvement and contribution to the study.
Glossary
|
"CuEq" |
Copper Equivalent is based on assumed prices of |
|
"g/t" |
Grammes per tonne |
|
"Indicated Resource" |
An 'Indicated Mineral Resource' is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade (or quality), densities, shape and physical characteristics are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. |
|
"Inferred Resource" |
That part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade (or quality) are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. Geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade (or quality) continuity. It is based on exploration, sampling and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes. |
|
"JORC" |
The Australasian Joint Ore Reserves Committee Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves 2012 (the "JORC Code" or "the Code"). The Code sets out minimum standards, recommendations and guidelines for Public Reporting in |
|
"Kriging" |
Geostatistical process to extrapolate numerical values from samples into areas of no data |
|
"Mineral Resource" |
A concentration or occurrence of material of economic interest in or on the earth's crust in such form and quantity that there are reasonable and realistic prospects for eventual economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade, continuity, and other geological characteristics of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated from specific geological evidence and knowledge, or interpreted from a well-constrained and portrayed geological model. |
|
"oz" |
Troy Ounce, unit of mass for selling of precious metals ( |
|
"t" |
Tonnes (metric) |
|
"$/t" |
US dollars per tonne |
For further information, please contact:
|
Bezant Resources PLC Colin Bird, Executive Chairman |
+44 (0) 20 3416 3695 |
|
Beaumont Cornish Limited - Nomad Roland Cornish/Asia Szusciak |
+44 (0) 20 7628 3396 |
|
Novum Securities Limited - Joint Broker Jon Belliss |
+44 (0) 20 7399 9400 |
|
Shard Capital Partners LLP - Joint Broker Damon Heath |
+44 (0) 20 7186 9952 |
or visit https://www.bezantresources.com/
The information contained within this announcement is deemed by the Company to constitute inside information as stipulated under the Market Abuse Regulations (EU) No. 596/2014 as it forms part of
JORC 2012 Table 1
Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data
(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)
|
Criteria |
JORC Code explanation |
Commentary |
|
Sampling techniques |
· Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, 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 (eg '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 (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information. |
· Sampling of BZT drilling and was by sawn 1/2 HQ or NQ core. · All samples were sent to ALS Okahandja, · CRU-31 - Fine crushing - 70% < 2 mm · PUL-31 - Pulverize up to 250 g 85% <75 um · Analytical Method Details: · ME-ICP61a - High Grade Four Acid ICP-AES · Au-AA23 - Au 30 g FA-AA finish · Sampling was typically 1 m in length with variation to meet lithological contacts. · Exact analysis and sample preparation procedures for the pre Kuiseb (2004) exploration are unknown. Kuiseb drilling was analysed at ALS in
|
|
Drilling techniques |
· Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg 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). |
· All drilling by BZT was HQ diamond drilling with NQ tails · Legacy drilling was diamond drilling with core sizes approximately equal to NQ. · 119 Open hole percussion drilling by previous operators was not used in the estimate |
|
Drill sample recovery |
· Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. · Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. · Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material. |
· BZT Drillholes were logged for total core recovery (TCR) and rock quality designation (RQD), TCR mean was 96% and RQD mean was 78%. No relationship between core recovery and grade was identified. · Shorter drill runs were used in broken ground to improve recovery. · No relationship was identified between recovery and grade. · Details of legacy drilling are unknown |
|
Logging |
· Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies. · Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography. · The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged. |
· All BZT drilling was geotechnically and geologically logged. · 29/78 JCI and 100/118 Kuiseb Drillholes had lithology logs. · BZT logging contained qualitative and quantitative logging. |
|
Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation |
· If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. · If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. · For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. · Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. · Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling. · Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled. |
· All BZT drilling is of half sawn core and help sample representivity. · No field duplicates were taken. · HQ core size is appropriate for the material under investigation.
|
|
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests |
· The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. · For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. · Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established. |
· During 2020 - 2022 diamond drilling Bezant collected 493 half core samples and inserted 58 control samples (29 CRMs and 29 blanks), which respectively represents 5.8% of the whole sample population. · CRM and Blank material performed adequately. |
|
Verification of sampling and assaying |
· The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. · The use of twinned holes. · Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. · Discuss any adjustment to assay data. |
· The CP inspected BZT drill core and found visual agreement with assay data. · All assay data was managed electronically in a relational database from digital certificates. |
|
Location of data points |
· Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation. · Specification of the grid system used. · Quality and adequacy of topographic control. |
· BZT drillhole were surveyed by hand held GPS. · The 51 legacy collars at Hope were surveyed by Differential GPS and converted to WGS84 UTM 33s · Other legacy collars were transformed from the local grid and a number of locations identified in the field and confirmed to be within a few meters of the expected. |
|
Data spacing and distribution |
· Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. · Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. · Whether sample compositing has been applied. |
· Data spacing is highly variable over the project area and is suitable for inferred resource estimation with minor areas of indicated. · Drill fence spacing is typically 25 to 50 at Hope with variable vertical coverage. · Anomaly fence spacing is ~60 m with one DH per fence in most parts. · Spacing at Gorob and Vendome is approximately 50 to 100 m |
|
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure |
· Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. · If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material. |
· Drilling has a variable angle to mineralization at Hope due to the fold hosting mineralization. · At other prospects drilling is typically 90 to 70 degrees to mineralization. · The orientation of drilling is not assumed to have introduced a sample bias but true widths may vary by up to 50% |
|
Sample security |
· The measures taken to ensure sample security. |
· BZT Samples were transported by company personnel to the lab in labelled bags. Lab standard submission forms were used. |
|
Audits or reviews |
· The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. |
· No such reviews have been completed. |
Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
(Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)
|
Criteria |
JORC Code explanation |
Commentary |
|
Mineral tenement and land tenure status |
· Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings. · The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area. |
· The Hope and Gorob projects is situated within Exclusive Prospecting (EPL) 5796, a 243 km2 license held by Hope and Gorob Mining (Pty) Ltd, a subsidiary of Bezant Resources. · The Licence is Valid to 19/10/2024 · On 19 June 2020 Bezant announced the acquisition of 100% of Virgo Resources Ltd and its interests in the Hope Copper-Gold Project in |
|
Exploration done by other parties |
· Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. |
· The project area has a long history, exploration completed by other parties is discussed in the documentation. |
|
Geology |
· Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. |
· The Hope and Gorob Project lies on the Matchless Belt, which is located within the late Neoproterozoic Damaran orogenic belt in central |
|
Drill hole Information |
· A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes: o easting and northing of the drill hole collar o elevation or RL (Reduced Level - elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar o dip and azimuth of the hole o down hole length and interception depth o 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. |
· No exploration results are presented in this announcement. |
|
Data aggregation methods |
· In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated. · Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail. · The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated. |
· No exploration results are presented in this announcement. |
|
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths |
· These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results. · If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported. · If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (eg 'down hole length, true width not known'). |
· No exploration results are presented in this announcement. |
|
Diagrams |
· Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views. |
· No exploration results are presented in this announcement. |
|
Balanced reporting |
· Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results. |
· No exploration results are presented in this announcement. |
|
Other substantive exploration data |
· Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples - size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances. |
· No exploration results are presented in this announcement. |
|
Further work |
· The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). · Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive. |
· Further drilling is required in areas of sparse data. · Re-sampling of any mineralized unsampled drill core or core that does not have Au assays held in storage at the geological survey should be completed if possible
|
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 |
Commentary |
|
Database integrity |
· Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes. · Data validation procedures used. |
· BZT sampling was imported into a relational database from digital certificates. · Legacy data was provided in poor shape in multiple excel spreadsheets. Not all drillholes had assays and there were significant problems with overlapping intervals. The coordinate systems were poorly defined and provided in 4 different formats without a complete coordinate set for every drillhole. · DGPS coordinates were found for the legacy hope data and this was transformed to support estimation. Other coordinates derived and verified in the field. See the technical report for further information. · Overlapping intervals were fixed following cross reference across multiple data sets and scans/copies of company reports. |
|
Site visits |
· Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. · If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case. |
· The CP completed a site visit to inspect drill core and verify collar locations in the field. |
|
Geological interpretation |
· Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of ) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit. · Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made. · The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation. · The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation. · The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology. |
· Hope is the most complex of the deposits and is interpreted to be hosted in a recumbrant fold structure. Interpretation of the fold is aided by the presence of a distinct amphibolite unit and 3 to4 distinct magnetite schist units that are mineralized. · Alternative interpretation would see the lenses as tabular rather than folded but this is not considered likely due to the outcropping fold closures visible at surface and the supporting structural measurements. · Tighter or looser folding may effect open pit stripping ratios. · Grade continuity maybe influenced by the folding due to remobilisation. · Other prospects have much simpler geology and are tabular in nature, mineralization is associated with magnetite schists. |
|
Dimensions |
· The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource. |
· Hope: True thickness is modelled as 1.5 m to approximately 8 m and typically around 5 m. The axial plane of the fold dips 35-40° towards the 340° (north-northwest), along strike to the northeast mineralization plunges by around 13°, extending from surface in the western most part of the deposit to around 450 m below the surface in the eastern most part. The strike length of the deposit is almost 2 km. · Gorob. Mineralization at Gorob is hosted in two units dominated by quartz-schist and dipping approximately 38° to 320°(northwest). The lower unit is present only in the central part of the modelled area where the upper unit displays a lower degree of continuity. There were many instances of selective sampling where the unit was not sampled despite adjacent drillholes showing the unit to be present and mineralized. Mineralization was modelled using an approximate 0.2% Cu cut-off and was pushed through non-sampled intervals where it was deemed appropriate based on the surrounding evidence. Mineralization ranges from surface and is interpreted to continue down dip for almost 900 m to a depth of approximately 550 m and approximately 850 m along strike. The mineralized units are modelled as having a true thickness of 1.5-8 m with mean thickness of 4 m. · Vendome. Mineralization at Vendome is hosted in one unit dominated by quartz-schist and magnetite-quartzite and dipping approximately 40° to 340°(north-northwest). The unit bifurcates in the deeper southwest portion of the deposit. Mineralization was modelled using an approximate 0.2% Cu cut-off. Mineralization ranges from surface and is interpreted to continue down dip for almost 700 m to a depth of approximately 500 m and approximately 500 m along strike. The are no drilling intercepts in the uppermost southwest quadrant of the model and mineralization here is extrapolated along strike and up dip. The mineralized units are modelled as having a true thickness of 1.5-8 m with mean thickness of 3.5 m. · Mineralization at Anomaly is hosted in sub vertical units with a strike to the northeast. The units bifurcate and join along its length varying between 2 and 3 distinct units. Mineralization is interpreted to extend from surface to approximately 270 m below the surface. Drilling has generally targeted the same level approximately 130 m from surface in the northeast half of the deposit, to the south a set of deeper drillholes test down to a depth of approximately 230 m. Mineralization is modelled as typically being 1.5 to 4 m thick, additional drilling in this deposit may significantly change its geological interpretation.
|
|
Estimation and modelling techniques |
· The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used. · The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data. · The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. · Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). · In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. · Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. · Any assumptions about correlation between variables. · Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. · Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. · The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available. |
· The wireframe volumes were used to restrict the block models and the block models were rotated to fit the geometry of the deposits. Block sizes were selected with the aim of having a block size roughly 1/3 to 1/4 of drill spacing. The models were sub-blocked accordingly to preserve the domain boundaries See Technical report for details. · Grades were estimated using Ordinary Kriging. See technical report for details on neighbourhoods used for each deposit. · No grade capping was used, thresholds were used to prevent over smearing of high grades in the sparsely drilled Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly deposits. · No assays are available for deleterious elements. · Minimum SMU is considered to be ~1.5 m · It is assumed Au will be recovered in the Cu concentrate or by gravity. · Models were validated by comparison of declustered and clustered statistics, histograms and visual inspection in cross section and 3D. |
|
Moisture |
· Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content. |
· Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis. |
|
Cut-off parameters |
· The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied. |
· Cut-off grades assume a Cu price of
|
|
Mining factors or assumptions |
· Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made. |
· Pit optimization tests were used to determine the likely open pit to underground transitions. At Hope the selected pit has a stripping ratio of approximately 1:7, a much larger open pit with resource tonnage of approximately 2.5 Mt at 1.5% Cu and 0.3 g/t Au (diluted and recovered) would optimize but with stripping ratios of 1:18, which is not considered practical. As such a smaller pit was selected. · Other deposits would also optimize with much larger pits but considering the local uncertainty in the resource estimates AMS considered restricting the open pit potential to a given elevation more meaningful than a pit optimization wireframe. These values were as follows: · Gorob and Vendome, >695 RL (~50 m depth) · Anomaly >569 RL (~50 m depth) |
|
Metallurgical factors or assumptions |
· The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made. |
· No modern testwork was completed at the time of the MRE. · Process recovery is assumed as 88% for Cu and 65% for Au |
|
Environmen-tal factors or assumptions |
· Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made. |
· The project is located in a sensitive ecosystem and permitting will require robust environmental studies. In particular water is scares and as such dry preconcentration with floatation off site maybe required. |
|
Bulk density |
· Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples. · The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit. · Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials. |
· A total of 5900 density determinations are available over the project. The exact determination method is not known, and the density is recorded as Specific Gravity rather than Bulk Density. It is not clear if porosity was considered during density determination, while some of the wall rock schist and amphibolite is highly permeable zones of more massive magnetite and sulphides are less permeable. Upper and lower outliers are present across all deposits. Inspection of the mean values indicate that a density of 3 t/m3 is appropriate for resource estimation and although a large number of density determinations are present, interpolation or variable density estimation would not be appropriate until further validation of the density values is completed, and the process of data collection better understood.
|
|
Classification |
· The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories. · Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data). · Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person's view of the deposit. |
· The amount of data and lower confidence in collar locations for Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly restricts the classification of these Resource to the Inferred Category. No topographic model was available and a low resolution 30 m DTM is used to model elevation. · Areas in the Hope deposit which were informed by recent BZT drilling and Kuiseb drilling are considered for indicated resources. While risk and uncertainty still remain in those parts of the estimates largely informed by the Kuiseb drilling, the sampling has largely been systematic and continuity reasonably well demonstrated in areas covered by this same drilling. Two areas were considered for Indicated resources where the supporting data is considered of sufficient quality to allow for preliminary mine planning. Blocks informed by 2 or more drillholes and having a Kriging Standard error of <0.35 were classified as Indicated. Small, isolated volumes were removed, and 4th lowest mineralized horizon was also excluded due to less apparent continuity. · Geotechnical pit slope analysis may serve to materially change the open pit resource estimate. |
|
Audits or reviews |
· The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates. |
· The have been no such audits or reviews. |
|
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence |
· Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate. · The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used. · These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available. |
· The estimate is local estimate and is accurate to those typical of an inferred estimate with errors of +/-30 on a local basis and +/- 20-30% on a global basis. · Indicated Resources are considered +/- 15% on a local basis. |
RNS may use your IP address to confirm compliance with the terms and conditions, to analyse how you engage with the information contained in this communication, and to share such analysis on an anonymised basis with others as part of our commercial services. For further information about how RNS and the London Stock Exchange use the personal data you provide us, please see our Privacy Policy.