jorc code, 2012 edition table 1 report template...2016/08/23 · grid datum and a nominal elevation...

1

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 report template

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.

Hand auger sampling carried out at 1 metre down-hole intervals. Auger rods are one metre in length. Hollow auger bit collects the sample inside the tube and the sample is removed from the tube and placed directly into a plastic bag large enough to take the entire 1 metre sample. This is a reiterative process since the auger cutting tube does not take the entire 1m sample in one go.

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).

Hand auger with a hollow head. The auger is 5cm in diameter.

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.

The majority of drill holes would not collapse and so 100% of the sample was retrieved and bagged. A few holes in coarse gravel would collapse and these were abandoned. No relationship exists between sample size bias and gold grade

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

All drill cuttings were logged as they were retrieved from the hole down to 0.1m level of detail. Logging was based on interpreted grain size; cobble-gravel-sand-silt-clay

No photography was considered necessary

All samples were geologically logged, and drilling stopped at the

2


costean, channel, etc) photography.

The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.

tailings dump base.

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.

Either the entire sample was used for assay (smaller samples) or the sample was riffle split 50:50.

Some samples were moist and these were oven dried prior to splitting and further sub sampling. This allowed the equipment used to be kept clean as well as allowing the sample to flow through the equipment.

Sample preparation was either done by Neil Motton, Competent Person or under direct sample- by- sample supervision.

Duplicate samples were intermittently generated from larger samples for checking results and assayed using different techniques.

Blank samples were also added to the process for assay checking.

Samples were not pulverized because the free gold content was sought.

Excess sample was stored at the author’s facility for future reference. Oversize sieved samples were stored separately.

Early sampling and assaying had shown that >90% of the gold within the samples was in the finest fractions. Coarse grained nuggets may exist but were not targeted since they are erratic and are regarded as a bonus should processing recover them. The aim was to establish the overall grade based upon the fine gold content.

No sample loss occurred during the sample preparation process. All equipment used was cleaned between each sample preparation.

Samples were entirely sieved to usually -600 microns which averaged 601g in size, and a second set of assays used -355, -300 and -212 micron fractions targeting 100g in size.

All the various size fractions were weighed to 1 gram accuracy.

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.

Two assay techniques were used.

Initially used were a very fine fraction of -355, -300 or -212 microns. These small (~100g) fine sieved samples were sent to ALS Brisbane for aqua regia digest and AAS gold determination. This method extracts free gold and not total gold.

Later sampling used -600 micron samples of a larger size (average weight of 601g) and these were subjected to a Leachwell cyanide bottle roll for cyanide extractable gold (BLEG). This method again extracts free gold and not total gold. These samples were assayed by Onsite Laboratories in Bendigo.

3


Batches included intermittent blanks and duplicates.

The two assay data sets from the two laboratories were compared for all samples and where inconsistencies occurred, samples in question were further investigated by re-sampling and further assaying. One batch was found to be suspect, BE021648, and samples from this batch were omitted from the resource estimate.

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 material is tailings and does not lend itself to visual interpretation or inspection, apart from the fact that it is sand and gravel.

All assay reports are kept on file.

Data entry, assay computations, data verification are carried out by Neil Motton, Competent Person. Electronic data is stored on portable HD drives.

William Howell, FAusIMM, ECR Minerals plc's non-executive Chairman, who is also a Competent Person under the JORC Code, has verified the sampling procedures of Mr Motton in the field and has verified his assay QA/QC controls and checks.

The assayed grade of the fine fraction(A) was then used with the overall sample weight (B) and the fine sieved weight (C) to calculate an original grade total grade (D), the head grade) where D=C/B x A.

Graphic plot comparisons of the two assay techniques and the calculated head grade showed an excellent correlation and proved the reliability of the technique.

Graphic plots of duplicates, repeats, blanks and controls were also carried out for QA/QC purposes and to highlight any inconsistencies for investigation.

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.

An original grid was placed on each site using tape and compass and auger holes were drilled at 25m or 50m centres.

A digital terrain model for each dump was generated using the local grid datum and a nominal elevation using a Nikon DTM-322 total station unit.

Downhole surveys are not necessary on such short holes.

The survey was carried out to the edges of the dumps and the surrounding plain topography.

Each grid had a separate local nomenclature expressed in metres.

The total station unit was also used to pick up the entire auger drill holes flagged and marked on site.

Occasional old holes could not be found and these holes were

4


stitched to the newly generated topographic DTM surface by raising or lowering their collar level.

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.

Generally the auger drill density is at 25 metre centres. Good correlation between holes in terms of geology and assays is considered to have been established.

No sample compositing has been applied.

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.

The tailings are flat lying and widespread therefore the vertical drilling is perpendicular to the geological orientation.

Sample

security

The measures taken to ensure sample security. All samples were collected by Neil Motton, Competent Person and securely stored at his workshop shed.

Audits or

reviews

The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. A review of the assay techniques used was undertaken to see if assay bias occurred for either of the two techniques, as well as to investigate whether any batches showed bias. As a result of this review it was shown that an early BLEG batch exhibited considerable positive bias and this batch BE021648 was deleted from the data set. In this case control samples as well as all assays were much higher than any repeated assays. All other batches were proven to be consistent by cross checking assay duplicates, sample repeats and blanks.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

(Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)


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,

The resources are held under Exploration Licence 5387 in the State of Victoria by Currawong Resources Ltd. The licence is located in Central Victoria surrounding the township of Avoca. Mercator Gold Australia Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of ECR Minerals Ltd, has a purchase agreement with Currawong Resources Ltd.

EL5387 was granted on the 25th January for a period of 5 years. The licence may be renewed upon expiry.

Investigations into the Heritage, environmental and Native Title issues relevant to the dumps show that

5


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.

there are no known restrictions to the re-processing of these dumps. Native Vegetation offsets will be required for any trees removed during the mining process, which could form part of the site rehabilitation as following normal procedure.

The Licence is subject to a Native Title agreement under the Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA), which is signed and ratified.

There are no Heritage restrictions sites present on any of the dumps.

Exploration

done by other

parties

Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.

No other previous information was used for the establishment of these resources, apart from those established by Currawong and Mercator.

Geology Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.

The tailings deposits were formed by a central discharge slurry point which then allowed the gravel, sand and clay to flow out in a fan shape with a general downward reposing slope away from this discharge point. Some later earthworks occurred where some of the material was removed for land fill and road base.

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

HOLE-ID LOCATIONX LOCATIONY LOCATIONZ LENGTH AZIMUTH DIP PROSPECT

EX01 1975.0 3075.0 196.13 0.40 0 -90 Excelsior

EX02 1950.0 3075.0 196.24 0.40 0 -90 Excelsior

EX03 1925.0 3075.0 198.64 2.90 0 -90 Excelsior

EX04 1900.0 3075.0 197.41 2.00 0 -90 Excelsior

EX05 1900.0 3050.0 197.81 0.60 0 -90 Excelsior

EX06 1925.0 3050.0 199.96 2.65 0 -90 Excelsior

EX07 1950.0 3050.0 197.91 1.20 0 -90 Excelsior

EX08 1975.0 3050.0 197.62 0.50 0 -90 Excelsior

EX09 1975.0 3100.0 195.27 0.30 0 -90 Excelsior

EX10 1975.0 3150.0 193.83 0.20 0 -90 Excelsior

EX11 1949.0 3150.0 194.22 0.80 0 -90 Excelsior

EX12 1925.0 3150.0 194.01 0.35 0 -90 Excelsior

GL01 4199.8 5058.4 200.06 0.60 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL02 4150.0 5054.8 199.80 0.23 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL03 4100.7 5049.6 199.83 1.10 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL04 4051.3 5046.9 199.23 0.25 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL05 4050.0 5000.0 199.36 0.30 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL05A 4101.7 5000.0 199.24 0.15 0 -90 Golden Lake

6


from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly explain why this is the case.

GL06 4150.0 5000.0 199.68 0.45 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL07 4150.0 5100.0 199.36 0.25 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL08 4097.3 5095.7 199.09 0.30 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL09 4101.4 5075.5 199.03 0.20 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL10 4150.7 5079.3 199.93 0.73 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL11 4125.2 5054.6 199.65 1.35 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL12 4150.8 5028.4 200.21 0.73 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL13 4174.3 4999.1 200.40 1.10 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL14 4174.2 5024.8 200.35 1.00 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL15 4099.7 5024.7 199.29 0.36 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL16 4074.9 5024.4 199.46 0.42 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL17 4050.1 5024.8 199.47 0.36 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL18 4050.6 5037.8 200.14 1.20 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL19 4075.0 5050.0 199.67 0.40 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL20 4075.0 5052.0 199.67 0.55 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL20A 4175.8 5082.7 199.52 1.00 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL21 4077.0 5073.6 199.18 0.25 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL21A 4200.0 5075.0 199.91 0.40 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL22 4126.0 5078.4 198.82 0.30 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL22A 4200.0 5100.0 199.95 0.40 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL23 4126.0 5078.4 198.82 0.38 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL23A 4150.0 5054.9 199.80 0.52 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL24 4125.0 5025.0 200.00 1.00 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL25 4129.0 5025.0 200.01 1.00 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL26 4194.6 5024.8 200.26 0.65 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL27 4174.5 5056.8 200.10 0.80 0 -90 Golden Lake

GL28 4100.0 5050.0 201.00 1.00 0 -90 Golden Lake

GLE01 4996.3 5002.1 199.04 0.80 0 -90 Golden Lake East









7

















HB50 5925.0 7000.0 200.08 1.10 0 -90 Working Miners





















8





M01 6000.0 7000.0 199.89 0.30 0 -90 Working Miners

M02 5950.0 7000.0 199.96 0.40 0 -90 Working Miners

M03 5900.0 7000.0 199.53 1.20 0 -90 Working Miners

M04 5850.0 7000.0 200.02 1.90 0 -90 Working Miners

M05 5800.0 7000.0 199.44 0.90 0 -90 Working Miners

M06 5850.0 7050.0 199.53 1.20 0 -90 Working Miners

M07 5800.0 7050.0 199.77 1.30 0 -90 Working Miners

M08 5750.0 7050.0 199.10 0.40 0 -90 Working Miners

M09 5850.0 7100.0 199.57 1.40 0 -90 Working Miners

M10 5800.0 7100.0 199.07 1.15 0 -90 Working Miners

M11 5750.0 7100.0 198.87 0.45 0 -90 Working Miners

M12 5800.0 7150.0 198.80 0.80 0 -90 Working Miners

M13 5850.0 7150.0 198.99 0.50 0 -90 Working Miners

M14 5900.0 7100.0 199.47 0.80 0 -90 Working Miners

M15 5900.0 7150.0 199.04 0.50 0 -90 Working Miners

M16 5950.0 7100.0 199.39 0.20 0 -90 Working Miners

M17 5900.0 7050.0 199.95 1.50 0 -90 Working Miners

M18 5950.0 7050.0 199.57 0.40 0 -90 Working Miners

M19 6050.0 7000.0 200.26 0.25 0 -90 Working Miners

M20 6050.0 6993.0 201.11 1.50 0 -90 Working Miners

M21 6090.0 6975.0 200.05 0.40 0 -90 Working Miners

M22 5800.0 6950.0 198.24 0.50 0 -90 Working Miners

M23 5850.0 6900.0 199.89 1.00 0 -90 Working Miners

M24 5850.0 6950.0 199.97 2.50 0 -90 Working Miners

M25 5900.0 6950.0 199.65 4.00 0 -90 Working Miners

M26 5954.0 6940.0 201.65 2.00 0 -90 Working Miners

M27 5950.0 6900.0 201.21 2.30 0 -90 Working Miners

M28 5910.0 6958.0 201.01 2.00 0 -90 Working Miners

M29 5994.0 6952.0 201.29 1.65 0 -90 Working Miners

M30 6002.0 6900.0 199.94 1.00 0 -90 Working Miners

9


HOLE-ID

FROM TO WIDTH AU_HEAD

EX01 0 0.4 0.40 0.34 EX02 0 0.4 0.40 0.47 EX03 0 1 1.00 0.18 EX03 1 2 1.00 0.27 EX03 2 2.9 0.90 0.30 EX04 0 2 2.00 0.20 EX05 0 0.6 0.60 0.38 EX06 0 1 1.00 0.19 EX06 1 2 1.00 0.22 EX06 2 2.65 0.65 0.60 EX07 0 1 1.00 0.27 EX07 1 1.2 0.20 0.48 EX08 0 0.3 0.30 0.24 EX09 0 0.3 0.30 0.23 EX10 0 0.2 0.20 0.10 EX11 0 0.8 0.80 0.28 EX12 0 0.35 0.35 3.19 GL01 0 0.4 0.40 0.23 GL01 0.4 0.6 0.20 0.47 GL02 0 0.23 0.23 0.03 GL03 0 1 1.00 0.35 GL03 1 1.1 0.10 0.22 GL04 0 0.25 0.25 57.60 GL05 0 0.15 0.15 0.86 GL05 0.15 0.3 0.15 1.31 GL05A 0 0.15 0.15 0.06 GL06 0 0.45 0.45 0.21 GL07 0 0.25 0.25 0.19 GL08 0 0.3 0.30 1.43 GL09 0 0.2 0.20 1.20 GL10 0 0.73 0.73 1.65

10


GL11 0 1 1.00 1.52 GL11 1 1.35 0.35 1.68 GL12 0 0.73 0.73 1.27 GL13 0 1 1.00 0.45 GL13 1 1.1 0.10 0.11 GL14 0 0.5 0.50 0.36 GL15 0 0.36 0.36 1.87 GL16 0 0.42 0.42 0.07 GL17 0 0.36 0.36 1.75 GL18 0 1 1.00 0.70 GL18 1 1.2 0.20 0.28 GL19 0 0.4 0.40 0.30 GL20 0.4 0.55 0.15 0.19 GL20A 0 1 1.00 0.07 GL21 0 0.25 0.25 1.40 GL21A 0 0.4 0.40 0.38 GL22 0 0.3 0.30 0.22 GL22A 0 0.4 0.40 0.15 GL23 0 0.38 0.38 0.89 GL23A 0 0.52 0.52 0.31 GL24 0 0.2 0.20 0.27 GL24 0.2 0.4 0.20 0.95 GL25 0 0.3 0.30 0.03 GL26 0 0.65 0.65 0.27 GL27 0 0.8 0.80 0.05 GLE01 0 0.8 0.80 0.14 GLE02 0 0.75 0.75 0.14 GLE03 0 0.3 0.30 1.22 GLE04 0 0.55 0.55 0.72 GLE05 0 0.2 0.20 0.93 GLE06 0 0.2 0.20 2.81 GLE07 0 0.37 0.37 7.81 GLE08 0 1.2 1.20 1.18

11


GLE09 0 0.2 0.20 0.12 GLE09 0.2 0.39 0.19 0.15 GLE10 0 0.2 0.20 0.13 GLE11 0 0.95 0.95 0.73 GLE12 0 0.85 0.85 0.03 GLE13 0 0.7 0.70 0.75 GLE14 0 0.3 0.30 0.13 GLE14 0.3 0.6 0.30 0.08 GLE15 0 0.2 0.20 0.98 GLE16 0 0.3 0.30 0.10 GLE17 0 0.17 0.17 0.05 GLE18 0 0.38 0.38 0.05 GLE19 0 0.65 0.65 0.38 GLE20 0 0.51 0.51 0.24 GLE21 0 0.23 0.23 0.81 GLE22 0 0.3 0.30 0.18 GLE23 0 1 1.00 0.04 GLE23 1 1.9 0.90 0.02 GLE24 0 1 1.00 0.12 GLE24 1 2 1.00 0.00 HB50 0 1 1.00 0.03 HB50 1 1.1 0.10 0.04 HB51 0 0.9 0.90 0.12 HB51 0.9 1.4 0.50 0.10 HB52 0 1 1.00 0.20 HB52 1 1.45 0.45 0.06 HB53 0 0.7 0.70 0.17 HB53 0.7 1 0.30 0.16 HB53 1 1.95 0.95 0.11 HB54 0 1 1.00 0.02 HB55 0 0.3 0.30 0.04 HB56 0 1 1.00 0.04 HB56 1 1.1 0.10 0.12

12


HB57 0 0.9 0.90 0.14 HB58 0 1 1.00 0.13 HB58 1 1.5 0.50 0.10 HB59 0 0.9 0.90 0.09 HB60 0 1 1.00 0.15 HB60 1 1.3 0.30 0.07 HB61 0 0.6 0.60 0.14 HB62 0 0.95 0.95 0.34 HB63 0 1 1.00 0.06 HB63 1 1.1 0.10 0.05 HB64 0 0.4 0.40 0.03 HB65 0 1 1.00 0.13 HB65 1 1.2 0.20 0.06 HB66 0 1 1.00 0.15 HB66 1 1.8 0.80 0.03 HB67 0 0.8 0.80 0.10 HB68 0 0.8 0.80 0.11 HB69 0 0.9 0.90 0.23 HB70 0 1 1.00 0.19 HB70 1 2 1.00 0.21 HB70 2 2.2 0.20 0.38 HB71 0 0.3 0.30 1.56 HB72 0 0.4 0.40 1.02 HB73 0 0.2 0.20 0.06 M01 0 0.3 0.30 1.07 M02 0 0.4 0.40 0.47 M03 0 1 1.00 0.24 M03 1 1.2 0.20 0.01 M04 0 1 1.00 0.17 M04 1 1.3 0.30 0.09 M04 1.3 1.9 0.60 0.34 M05 0 0.9 0.90 0.08 M06 0 0.95 0.95 0.07

13


M06 0.95 1.2 0.25 0.11 M07 0 0.8 0.80 0.26 M07 0.8 1.3 0.50 0.10 M08 0 0.4 0.40 0.22 M09 0 1 1.00 0.14 M09 1 1.4 0.40 0.19 M10 0 0.7 0.70 0.25 M10 0.7 1.15 0.45 0.09 M11 0 0.45 0.45 0.18 M12 0 0.8 0.80 0.16 M13 0 0.5 0.50 0.13 M14 0 0.2 0.20 0.13 M15 0 0.5 0.50 0.15 M16 0 0.2 0.20 0.32 M17 0 0.65 0.65 0.07 M17 0.65 1.5 0.85 0.19 M18 0 0.4 0.40 0.19 M19 0 0.25 0.25 0.59 M20 0 0.7 0.70 0.53 M20 0.7 0.9 0.20 0.15 M21 0 0.4 0.40 0.04 M22 0 0.5 0.50 0.11 M23 0 0.8 0.80 0.24 M24 0 1 1.00 0.10 M24 1 1.5 0.50 0.04 M24 1.5 1.75 0.25 0.02 M25 0 0.4 0.40 0.02 M26 0 1 1.00 0.25 M26 1 1.4 0.40 0.24 M27 0 1 1.00 0.09 M27 1 2 1.00 0.09 M27 2 2.3 0.30 0.09 M28 0 0.5 0.50 0.16

14


M28 0.5 1 0.50 0.61 M28 1 2 1.00 0.03 M29 0 1 1.00 0.16 M29 1 1.65 0.65 0.45 M30 0 0.5 0.50 0.02

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.

Top cut grade for Golden Lake is 5.36g/t based upon mean plus 3 standard deviations.

Top cut for Golden Lake was 10g/t, similarly based.

Multiple assays for the same sample were head grade averaged.

No minimum cut-off grade was used, the results are for the entire dump.

Averages where appropriate are weight averaged for assaying or length averaged for resource estimation.

No metal equivalents were used.

No aggregate sample averaging was used

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

The assays used are for an entire dump, since the dumps are small and volumes of sand and gravel for retail possibilities are also important.

Dumps are visually apparent on site and the sandy gravel contrasts readily with the surrounding pasture land.

15


clear statement to this effect (eg ‘down hole length, true width not known’).

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.

Maps and sections are attached below.

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.

Total reporting is above

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.

Bulk density sampling has not yet been carried out and an assumed dry weight density of 1.52 t/m3 has been used based upon similar deposits around the world of sand, silt and gravel.

Metallurgical test results are underway by an independent third party consultancy.

There are no other deleterious substances within the dumps.

Further work The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth

Dry bulk density and moisture content tests will be carried out on the various types of ore, such as sand, gravel, silt, clay for each dump

Further metallurgical testwork is likely.

16


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.

No other immediate areas exist around the dumps but other dumps remain to be assessed.

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section.)


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.

The database is maintained by Neil Motton, Competent Person with an intimate knowledge of all aspects of the data gathering and where low and high grade zones occur.

Validation of the data set is carried out via Minemap software, when it is imported from text files.

The data set is held in an Access database, which has its own validation routines.

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 author Neil Motton is the Competent Person and has actually physically carried out all the work.

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.

The deposits are visually obvious.

The tailings sand and silt are distinct in character from the underlying original soil profile that exists and this helped with knowing when to stop drilling.

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.

The dumps lens out at the perimeters and once they reached less than 30cm they were no longer explored and this was considered the edge of the dump.

17


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 topographic surface created by the DTM survey was made by triangulating the 3D data points.

The drill holes were plotted in sections relative to this surface.

Another surface was made from the base of drill hole data.

Each of these two surfaces was cut in plan view to the dump extents so that the upper and lower surfaces matched.

These two plan view matching surfaces were then stitched together to form the three dimensional wireframe model, which was then used as the restraining model on the block model generation.

Minemap software was used for the generation of the block model and the wireframes used.

The ore is totally oxidized and contains no other deleterious materials. It may contain heavy mineral sand (eg rutile) but this has not been assessed.

Blocks Search Ellipse IDW

Deposit X Y Z X Y Z power

Working Miners 5 5 0.5 30 30 1 2.5

Golden Lake East 5 5 0.5 30 30 1 2.5

Excelsior 5 5 0.5 35 35 1 2.5

Golden Lake 5 5 0.3 30 30 1 2.5

The maximum distance of extrapolation within the wireframe is 30 to 35 metres, depending upon which deposit it is, and this is appropriate for generally 25 metre drill spacing. The search ellipse used for the block model is orientated horizontally. The thickness of the search ellipse was 1 metre. The block model generation used an Inverse Distance Weighted technique to the power of 2.5. (see above table).

Grade capping was necessary for two high samples, one at Golden Lake (57.6ppm cut to 10ppm) and the other at Golden Lake East (7.81ppm cut to 5.36ppm) to bring the population to a more typical LOG normal distribution. Both these samples were found to be located in areas of higher grade material.

The block model appears to correlate well with the established grade trends present. Only a visual review was used rather than grade plots.

18


Moisture Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.

The tonnages are based upon volume and an assumed dry weight density of 1.52, which is considered to be about median for such data. Moisture content is expected to be around 5 to 10%, refer below to the SG data.

Cut-off

parameters

The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.

The upper cut off grade is based upon a mean plus three standard deviations. No lower cut-off grade was used as this is a total dump resource.

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.

The minimum mining width has been taken as 0.3m thickness, but an algorithm will need to be developed for the benefit/cost ratio when weighed up against the cost of rehabilitation and the grade of the material.

Low grade blocks generated by the block model are unlikely to be mined unless an appropriate market for the sand and gravel is found.

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.

Processing of this alluvial material is aimed toward screening off the coarse material and using a process such as gravity concentration to recover the gold, as well as selling the bi-products of sand and gravel. No economic factors have been used for these bi-products. Our calculations indicate that feed grades of around 0.4ppm would be economic, with a minimum cut off feed grade of 0.2ppm. These supposed economic grades are highly dependent upon the gold recovery factor using gravity concentration.

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.

Processing of this alluvial material is aimed toward screening off the coarse material and using a process such as gravity concentration to recover the gold, as well as selling the bi-products of sand and gravel. Selling of these bi-products would alleviate the rehabilitation costs by reducing the size of the area to be rehabilitated. Waste water will need to keep within the mine limits due to its high clay content and flocculation of the clays will be necessary. Tree planting or native vegetation remediation will be required post mine operation, all of which has been investigated from the government departments on line websites and no unusual circumstances exist that would cause undue concern for the development of the project.

Bulk density Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the The tonnages are based upon volume and an assumed dry weight

19


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.

density of 1.52, which is considered to be median for such data.

Item Density, kg/m3 Moisture

Clay, compacted 1746

Earth, packed 1522

Gravel, with sand, natural 1922

Gravel, dry 1/4 to 2 inch 1682

Sand with Gravel, dry 1650

Sand, dry 1602

Average 1687

Moisture 168.7 10%

Dry weight density 1519 Kg/m3

Dry weight density 1.52 t/m3

Source http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_materials.htm

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 entire resource is categorized as Inferred because of the lack of dry weight density information, otherwise it would be regarded as a combination of Inferred/ Indicated depending upon block counts and distances from auger holes and variography.

The assay method used was designed to establish the effects of screening off the over-size material and to see how much this effect would have on the ore in terms of both the fine fraction grade and tonnes. This information will have key benefits in terms of processing costs, which therefore determine cut-off grades.

Audits or

reviews

The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.

No other audits have been performed.

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

The resource volumes are considered accurate if generated from a 25m by 25 m (Golden Lake, Excelsior and Golden Lake East) auger sampling grid and reasonably accurate if generated from a 50m x 25m grid (Working Miners). In all cases the base of the dumps is consistently and relatively flat making the interpretation of this surface fairly easy. The hummocky nature of the Golden Lake and Golden Lake East dumps

20


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.

required extensive surveying to obtain an accurate surface, which was done and threrefore are reasonable. The topographic surfaces at Excelsior and Working Miners are straight forward.

A considerable amount of assay work was carried out in order to verify the technique. The author Neil Motton, Competent Person considers that the dataset is reliable and representative.

Further improvements could be made by excluding the lower grade parts of the dumps from the constraining wireframes, but this is unlikely to change the overall gold resources based upon block grade cut-offs as shown below.

A summary of the resources present at each site is attached below.

21

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 report template ......................................................................................... 1

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data .................................................................................... 1

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results ................................................................................. 4

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources ..................................................... 16

1. Maps ........................................................................................................................................................ 21

1.1. Golden Lake ........................................................................................................................ 22

1.2. Golden Lake East ................................................................................................................ 24

1.3. Working Miners .................................................................................................................. 26

1.4. Excelsior .............................................................................................................................. 29

2. Resource Summary ................................................................................................................. 31

2.1. Golden Lake ........................................................................................................................ 31

2.2. Golden Lake East ................................................................................................................ 32

2.3. Working Miners .................................................................................................................. 33

2.4. Excelsior .............................................................................................................................. 34

1. Maps

The following plans demonstrate the auger sampling that has been done and the topography derived

from ground surveys as well as the derivation of the wireframes and the block models generated

within those wireframes.

A colour coded chart for the block models is also presented.

Figure 1 Gold Grade colour code for the Block Models

22

1.1. Golden Lake

Figure 2 Golden Lake Drill Plan & Wireframe/Dump extent

Figure 3 Golden Lake 3D Isometric drilling and dump topography

23

Figure 4 Golden Lake Wireframe and Block Model

Figure 5 Golden Lake Block Model

24

1.2. Golden Lake East

Figure 6 Golden Lake East Drill Plan & Wireframe/Dump extent

25

Figure 7 Golden Lake East 3D Isometric drilling and dump topography

Figure 8 Golden Lake East Wireframe and Block Model

26

Figure 9 Golden Lake East Block Model

1.3. Working Miners

Figure 10 Working Miners Drill Plan & Wireframe/Dump extent

27

Figure 11 Working Miners 3D Isometric drilling and dump topography. Mullock excised

Figure 12 Working Miners Wireframe and Block Model

28

Figure 13 Working Miners Block Model

29

1.4. Excelsior

Figure 14 Excelsior Drill Plan & Wireframe/Dump extent

Figure 15 Excelsior 3D Isometric drilling and dump topography

30

Figure 16 Excelsior Wireframe and Block Model

Figure 17 Excelsior Block Model

31

2. Resource Summary

The following table summarizes the tailings inferred resources present within the project established

thus far.

Deposit (BCM) (tonnes)

Gold Grade (grams)

Au (grams)

Au (troy oz)

Golden Lake 12,915 19,631 0.71 13,938 448

Golden Lake East

7,528 11,443 0.69 7,895 254

Working Miners

73,289 111,399 0.19 21,166 681

Excelsior 7,576 11,516 0.30 3,455 111

TOTAL 101,308 153,988 0.30 46,454 1,494

Table 1 All Resources Summary Table

2.1. Golden Lake

The global resource present at the Golden Lake deposit is 19,631 tonnes at a grade of 0.71 Au ppm

for 448 ounces, assuming a dry weight density of 1.52 t/m3. At a cut-off grade of 0.2ppm the

Golden Lake dump carries 16,109 tonnes at a grade of 0.84 for 435 ounces and contains 97% of the

global gold resource within 82% of the material.

Category Cut Ore (BCM)

Ore (Tonnes) (cumulative)

Head Grade (Au ppm – cut) Au (g)

Au (oz)

Au % Ore %

0 12,915 19,631 0.71 13,938 448 100 100

0.2 10,598 16,109 0.84 13,532 435 97 82

0.4 7,306 11,105 1.09 12,105 389 87 57

0.6 5,169 7,857 1.35 10,607 341 76 40

0.8 4,194 6,375 1.51 9,626 310 69 32

1.0 3,211 4,881 1.69 8,248 265 59 29

2.0 428 651 4.29 2,791 90 20 3 Table 2 Golden Lake Resources Table (cumulative)

32

Figure 18 Golden Lake - Grade vs Ore Tonnage

Category Cut Ore (BCM)

Ore (Tonnes)

Head Grade (Au ppm – Cut) Count SG Au g

2 428 651 4.29 4.53 1.52 2,791

1 2,783 4,230 1.3 4.88 1.52 5,499

0.8 983 1,494 0.89 5.42 1.52 1,330

0.6 975 1,482 0.69 4.28 1.52 1,023

0.4 2,137 3,248 0.47 3.72 1.52 1,527

0.2 3,292 5,004 0.29 3.49 1.52 1,451

0 2,317 3,522 0.11 2.27 1.52 387 Table 3 Golden Lake Resources Table by Category

2.2. Golden Lake East

The global resource present at the Golden Lake East deposit is 11,443 tonnes at a grade of 0.69 Au

ppm. At a cut-off grade of 0.2 ppm the Golden Lake East dump carries 8,421 tonnes at a grade of

0.90 Au ppm and contains 244 ounces or 96% of the global gold resource within 74% of the

material.

Category Cut

Ore (m3)

Ore (tonnes)

Au ppm (cut) Au (g) Au (Oz)

Gold (%)

Ore (%)

0 7,528 11,443 0.69 7,895 254 100 100

0.2 5,540 8,421 0.90 7,579 244 96 74

0.4 4,402 6,691 1.05 7,026 226 89 58

0.6 3,714 5,645 1.15 6,492 209 83 49

0.8 2,651 4,030 1.33 5,359 172 68 35

1 1,413 2,148 1.71 3,673 118 47 19

2 338 514 3.25 1,670 54 21 4 Table 4 Golden Lake East Resources Table (cumulative)

33

Figure 19 Golden Lake East - Grade vs Ore Tonnage

2.3. Working Miners

The global resource present at the Working Miners deposit is 111,399 tonnes at a grade of 0.19 Au

ppm. At a cut-off grade of 0.2 ppm the Working Miners dump carries 28,300 tonnes at a grade of

0.39 Au ppm and contains 54% of the global gold resource within 26% of the material.

Category Cut (ppm)

Ore Volume (m3)

Ore Weight (t) Au (ppm) Au (g) Au (Oz) Au % Ore %

0 73,289 111,399 0.19 21,166 681 100% 100%

0.1 55,739 84,723 0.23 19,486 627 92% 76%

0.2 19,276 29,300 0.39 11,427 367 54% 26%

0.3 7,451 11,326 0.63 7,135 229 34% 10%

0.4 4,551 6,918 0.81 5,603 180 27% 6%

0.6 2,563 3,896 1.08 4,207 135 20% 3%

1 1,525 2,318 1.26 2,921 94 14% 2% Table 5 Working Miners Resources Table (cumulative)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Golden Lake East Grade vs Tonnage

BCM tonnes Au g Au cut

34

Figure 20 Working Miners- Grade vs Ore Tonnage

Figure 21 Working Miners – Grade vs Waste%

2.4. Excelsior

The global resource present at the Excelsior Tailings deposit is 11,516 tonnes at a grade of 0.30 Au

ppm for 111 ounces. The dump is essentially all of a similar grade.

Category Cut (ppm)

Ore volume (m3)

Ore Weight (t) Au ppm Au (g) Au (oz)

Au (wght%)

Ore (wght%)

0 7,576 11,516 0.30 3,455 111 100% 100%

0.1 7,576 11,516 0.30 3,455 111 100% 100%

0.2 7,101 10,794 0.31 3,346 108 96% 94%

0.3 3,588 5,454 0.38 2,072 67 59% 47%

0.4 988 1,502 0.47 706 23 21% 13%

0.6 75 114 0.60 68 2 2% 1% Table 6 Excelsior Tailings Resources Table (cumulative)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Val

ue

Au cut-off ppm

Working Miners Grade vs Tonnage

Vol

Tonne

Au g

Au ppm

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

pp

m

Au cut-off ppm

Working Miners Grade vs Waste %

Au ppm

Au %

Waste %

35

Figure 22 Excelsior – Grade vs Tonnage Chart

PREPARED BY:

Neil Motton MAusIMM, CP (Geology)

Competent Person under the JORC Code

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Val

ue

Au ppm

Excelsior Tailings Grade vs Tonnage

volume (m3)

weight (t)

Au (g)

Au (ppm)

jorc code, 2012 edition table 1 report template...2016/08/23 · grid datum and a nominal elevation...

Documents