We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Galileo Resources Plc | AQSE:GLR.GB | Aquis Stock Exchange | Ordinary Share | GB00B115T142 |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.10 | -8.33% | 1.10 | 1.00 | 1.20 | 1.20 | 1.10 | 1.20 | 363,179 | 11:29:07 |
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | N/A | 0 |
From Apr 2022 to Apr 2024
TIDMGLR
RNS Number : 3661P
Galileo Resources PLC
09 February 2023
7.00am 9 February 2023
Galileo Resources PLC
09 February 2023
Galileo Resources Plc
("Galileo" or "the Company")
JORC 2012 Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate for the Luansobe Copper Project, Zambia
Galileo Resources plc ("Galileo "or the "Company") is pleased to announce the results of an initial Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate for the Luansobe copper project ("Luansobe" or the "Project") in Zambia, completed by independent consultants Addison Mining Services. Galileo holds a 75% interest in the Project.
Highlights
-- Inferred Mineral Resources reported in accordance with the JORC code 2012 edition, including;
o Approximately 5.8 million tonnes gross at 1% total Cu above a cut-off grade of 0.25% total Cu for 56,000 tonnes of contained Cu, potentially amenable to open pit mining.
o Approximately 6.3 million tonnes gross at 1.5% total Cu above a cut-off grade of 1% total Cu for 97,000 tonnes of contained Cu, potentially amenable to underground mining.
-- Additionally, 3.0 to 7.0 million tonne gross exploration target with grades in the region of 1% to 1.5% total Cu at depths between 100m to 300m in an underexplored area of the licence where further drilling may serve to convert this conceptual target to a mineral resource.
-- Detailed metallurgical test work has already commenced on a 60 kilogram sample of drill core to determine the optimised processing flow sheet which may contribute to the upgrade of the Mineral Resource classification.
-- Tendering for mining contractors can commence once an optimised block model is available as part of general Project planning work
Colin Bird Chairman & CEO said: " We are very pleased with the outcome of the Luansobe drill programme and the resultant tonnage and grade estimate in our maiden inferred resources. We will now continue the process of optimising a block model and open pit planning during the current quarter as a basis for engagement with potential contractors to quote for open pit mining. The timing of mining start-up will be subject to, amongst other matters, the ongoing feasibility assessment, completion of mining and processing agreements, along with necessary Project permitting.
Samples of drill core have been sent to a metallurgical testing laboratory and are being assessed for amenability to upgrade for processing elsewhere or construction of an onsite plant. The results appear to be capable of supporting a 10-year 600,000 tonnes per year project which would represent a significant operation, well timed due to the predicted shortage of copper supplies. "
Project Background
The Luansobe area is situated some 15km to the northwest of the Mufulira Mine in the Zambian Copperbelt which produced well over 9Mt of copper metal during its operation. It forms part of the northwestern limb of the northwest - southeast trending Mufulira syncline and is essentially a strike continuation of Mufulira, with copper mineralisation hosted in the same stratigraphic horizons. At the Luansobe prospect mineralisation occurs over two contiguous zones, dipping at 20-30 degrees to the northeast, over a strike length of about 3km and to a vertical depth of at least 1,250m.
Galileo entered into a Joint Venture agreement with Statunga Investments Limited ("Statunga" or "the Vendors"), a private Zambian company which holds the Luansobe Project ("Project") comprising small-scale exploration licence No. 28340-HQ-SEL in the Zambian Copperbelt.
The JV Agreement provides Galileo the right to earn an initial 75% interest in a special purpose joint venture company to be established under Zambia law to, with Ministerial consent, acquire the exploration licence and the technical data related to the Luansobe Project by making two payments of US$200,000 each (subject to project due diligence) by 20 February 2022 and issuing 5,000,000 Galileo shares to the Vendors. These conditions were met by the Company.
As per our JV agreement, Galileo will continue to evaluate and optimise Project feasibility in parallel to seeking third party quotes for contract mining as referred to above.
If a decision to mine is made by Galileo, then the parties will be entitled to fund pro rata to their beneficial interest in the JV Company. Any funding shortfall by the Vendors will be recovered from subsequent mine production.
Mineral Resource Estimate
The initial Mineral Resource Estimate has been completed by Addison Mining Services Ltd., an independent consultancy based in the United Kingdom and is reported in accordance with the JORC code 2012 edition. Resources are of the Inferred category and include.
-- Approximately 5.8 million gross tonnes at 1% total Cu above a cut-off grade of 0.25% total Cu, potentially amenable to open pit mining.
-- Approximately 6.3 million gross tonnes at 1.5% total Cu above a cut-off grade of 1% total Cu, potentially amenable to underground mining.
The southeast of the Luansobe licence area remains under explored with insufficient data to allow estimation of a mineral resource. Historic drilling in this area suggests an exploration target of approximately 3 million to 7 million tonnes between depths of 100 to 300m with grades in the region of 1% to 1.5% total Cu. The target area is approximately 2 km by 1 km in surface expression. The exploration target is conceptual in nature and may not be realised. Galileo plans to test the exploration target following evaluation of the open pit mining potential and, given favourable results, the commencement of production. Approximately 5,000m of drilling is recommended to test the area.
The Mineral Resource Estimate is based on wireframe restricted block modelling with grade estimation by ordinary kriging. Pit optimisation was used to identify material which may be amenable to open pit mining - these data are presented in Table 1 below above a cut-off grade off 0.25% total Cu, in addition to Resources that may be amenable to underground mining techniques above a cut-off grade of 1% total Cu. For further information see JORC Table 1 below. Supporting images can be found by clicking on the following links.
Luansobe Plan View Drill Overview
http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3661P_4-2023-2-8.pdf
Luansobe MRE BM X-section 1
http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3661P_2-2023-2-8.pdf
Luansobe MRE BM X-section 2
http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3661P_1-2023-2-8.pdf
Luansobe Plan View Resource Type
http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3661P_3-2023-2-8.pdf
The estimate incorporates new drilling by Galileo completed between 4(th) August and 9(th) November 2022. Galileo drilled 28 diamond holes, totalling of 3,568.4m (ranging between 47.7m and 230.3m in depth). Drillhole size was PQ in overburden with HQ tails. All drillholes are vertical. In addition, 78 drillholes completed in 2006-2007 by previous operators Z.C.C.M. Ltd along with 86 other historical drillholes completed by Roan Consolidated Mines Ltd in 1950 to 1970 were used in the estimate, 30 of which were re-logged by independent consultants GeoQuest on behalf of Galileo. GeoQuest completed pXRF verification of Cu values on the historic core inspected and sampled previously unsampled mineralised core for inclusion in the mineral resource estimate.
Table 1 : Inferred Mineral Resources for the Luansobe Project, Zambia.
Hot Features
Premium
Cut-off Tonnes Density Total Acid Soluble Total Acid Soluble
Total (t) (t/m3) Cu Cu (%) Cu Metal Cu Metal
Cu (%) (%) (t) (t)
======== ========== ======== ====== ============= ========== =============
Open Pit Potential Resources 100% Gross
1 2,400,000 2.5 1.4 0.6 34,000 14,000
========== ======== ====== ============= ========== =============
0.5 4,900,000 2.5 1.1 0.4 53,000 21,000
========== ======== ====== ============= ========== =============
0.25 5,800,000 2.5 1 0.4 56,000 22,000
========== ======== ====== ============= ========== =============
Underground Potential Resources 100% Gross
2 770,000 2.5 3.5 0.4 27,000 2,900
========== ======== ====== ============= ========== =============
1.5 1,600,000 2.5 2.5 0.3 40,000 5,200
========== ======== ====== ============= ========== =============
1 6,300,000 2.5 1.5 0.2 97,000 15,000
========== ======== ====== ============= ========== =============
Open Pit Potential Resources 75% Net*
1 1,800,000 2.5 1.4 0.6 25,500 10,500
========== ======== ====== ============= ========== =============
0.5 3,675,000 2.5 1.1 0.4 39,800 15,800
========== ======== ====== ============= ========== =============
0.25 4,350,000 2.5 1 0.4 42,000 16,500
========== ======== ====== ============= ========== =============
Underground Potential Resources 75% Net*
2 578,000 2.5 3.5 0.4 20,300 2,200
========== ======== ====== ============= ========== =============
1.5 1,200,000 2.5 2.5 0.3 30,000 3,900
========== ======== ====== ============= ========== =============
1 4,725,000 2.5 1.5 0.2 72,800 11,300
========== ======== ====== ============= ========== =============
* Net calculations are performed on a 75% basis reflecting Galileo's interest in the Project
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 21(st) of December 2022. Mr Siddle has not yet completed a site visit and as such the Mineral Resources are restricted to the Inferred category.
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 improved structural understanding of the deposit, fault mapping, further verification of legacy drillholes and metallurgical testing. Following a site visit by the CP it may be possible to convert some of the Inferred Mineral Resources to Indicated Mineral Resources.
3. Acid Soluble Cu (%) represents the concentration of copper that is susceptible to leaching by a 5% sulphuric acid digestion and is a proxy for the concentration of copper present in oxide phases. Chalcocite, a secondary sulphide copper mineral may also report in part to the Acid Soluble Cu. By extension Total Cu (%) minus Acid Soluble Cu (%) is a proxy for the concentration of copper in sulphide phases. Estimation of copper phases is important for future evaluation work as sulphide and oxide copper minerals maybe processed by different methods such as flotation and leaching with electrowinning respectively, bulk flotation is also a possibility. Initial mineral processing testwork has commenced but has yet to be completed at the time of writing.
4. The Inferred mineral resource category set out in the table above at cut-off grades >0.25% Total Cu for open pit and 1% Total 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 Australia (JORC).
5. 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.
6. Open pit mining assumes a Cu price of US$9000 per tonne with 85% payability on metal in concentrate. Pit optimisation and cut-off grade selection was based on the assumption of 85% recovery of total Cu, including the acid soluble component, by flotation at $14/t plus $1.5/t G&A. Mining costs were assumed as $3/t. Underground mining was based on the same assumptions with a mining cost of $40/t.
7. Pit slopes were assumed as 40 degrees in overburden and 50 degrees in 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.
8. The Mineral Resource Estimate set out above was based on the wireframe interpretation of the mineralised massive shale, lower dolomite, BC and C quartzites of the "Ore" Formation of the Lower Roan stratigraphy. Mineralisation is interpreted to dip in the limb of a syncline to the northeast by 30-40 degrees with locally shallower sections.
9. The block size was 20 mE x 20 mN x 2 mZ in the area of closest spaced drilling covering the open pit resource area (1/2 to 1/3 of drill spacing). In areas of more sparse drilling including most of the underground resource the block size was 60 mE x 60 mN x 6 mZ (1/2 to 1/3 of drill spacing).
10. Grades were estimated using Ordinary Kriging of 2m downhole composites, no grade capping was deemed necessary. An incrementally larger search radius of 100, 200 and 300 m was used. The maximum number of samples per search was restricted to 18 maximum and samples per drillhole restricted to 2 in the area of 2 mZ blocks, elsewhere there was no restriction in the number of samples per drillhole. Discretisation was 5x5x2. The estimate was completed using Micromine 2023.1 software.
11. Mineralisation ranges from approximately 30 to 160m below surface in the open pit resource and is approximately 550m along strike to the southwest and 150m down dip to the northeast. Elsewhere the resource ranges up to 250 to 300m below surface with an additional strike length of 1200m extending down dip 300 to 500m.
12. The mineral resource is closed off by drilling and as it nears surface to the northwest and southwest. Down dip to the northeast mineralisation may continue and it has been extrapolated by 50m from the edge of drilling, were further mineralisation to be present here it would likely only be amenable to underground mining due to the high stripping ratios to the northeast. To the southeast where the deposit is deepest further mineralisation has been identified at depths 250-300m, however drilling is too sparse to infer continuity and allow reporting of a mineral resource.
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.
Glossary
"acid soluble" Essentially the oxidised component of the mineralised
body which is soluble in 5% sulphuric acid
solutions
"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.
------------------------------------------------------
"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.
------------------------------------------------------
"PQ" & "HQ" Referring to different drill core diameters,
85mm & 63.5mm respectively
------------------------------------------------------
"t/m(3) " Tonnes per cubic metre
------------------------------------------------------
"$/t" US dollars per tonne
------------------------------------------------------
You can also follow Galileo on Twitter: @GalileoResource
For further information, please contact: Galileo Resources PLC
Colin Bird, Chairman Tel +44 (0) 20 7581 4477
Beaumont Cornish Limited - Nomad Tel +44 (0) 20 7628 3396
Roland Cornish/James Biddle
--------------------------
Novum Securities Limited - Joint
Broker
Colin Rowbury /Jon Belliss +44 (0) 20 7399 9400
--------------------------
Shard Capital Partners LLP - J oint Tel +44 (0) 20 7186 9952
Broker
Damon Heath
--------------------------
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 UK Domestic Law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 ("UK MAR").
, the news service of the London Stock Exchange. RNS is approved by the Financial Conduct Authority to act as a Primary Information Provider in the United Kingdom. Terms and conditions relating to the use and distribution of this information may apply. For further information, please contact rns@lseg.com or visit www.rns.com.JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1 report template
Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data
(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)
Sampling
techniques * Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, * Sampling of Galileo 2022 drilling and resampled
random chips, or specific specialised industry legacy core was by sawn 1/4 HQ core.
standard measurement tools appropriate to the
minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma
sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These * Samples were prepared at SGS Kalulushi by dry
examples should not be taken as limiting the broad crushing to 90% passing 2.36 mm, 1 kg split
meaning of sampling. pulverized to 85% passing 75 um.
* Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample * Routine internal and external quality control samples
representivity and the appropriate calibration of any in the for of certified reference materials were
measurement tools or systems used. inserted and found to perform adequately.
* Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that * Sampling was typically 1 m in length with variation
are Material to the Public Report. to meet lithological contacts.
* 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.
Drilling
techniques * Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole * All drilling by Galileo was HQ diamond drilling with
hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) PQ in overburden.
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 * Legacy drilling was diamond drilling with core sizes
what method, etc). approximately equal to NQ or HQ.
Drill sample
recovery * Method of recording and assessing core and chip * All Galileo drilling was logged for core recovery.
sample recoveries and results assessed. Mean total core recovery was >95%
* Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure * Shorter drill runs were used in broken ground to
representative nature of the samples. improve recovery.
* Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery * No relationship was identified between recovery and
and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred grade.
due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse
material.
* Details of legacy drilling are unknown relogged core
inspected from legacy drilling showed mean recover7
of 75% for 30 holes logged. Although some core may
have been lost in storage.
Logging
* Whether core and chip samples have been geologically * All Galileo drilling was geotechnically and
and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to geologically logged.
support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation,
mining studies and metallurgical studies.
* 30 Historic drillholes were geotechnically and
geologically relogged.
* Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in
nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography.
* Of the legacy drillholes Thirty-four Drillholes have
no geology Log, while 968.86 Meters of missing
* The total length and percentage of the relevant intervals have not been logged in drillholes with
intersections logged. logging elsewhere in the drillhole.
Sub-sampling
techniques * If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, * Galileo and resampled legacy core was sawn.
and sample half or all core taken. Inspection of historical core shows it was saw and
preparation half core sampled.
* If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary
split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. * 2.1% Field duplicates were taken during Galileo
drilling and showed good precision.
* For all sample types, the nature, quality and
appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. * No duplicate data is available for legacy core.
* 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.
Quality of
assay data * The nature, quality and appropriateness of the * During 2022 Diamond Drilling Galileo collected 1874
and assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether quarter core samples (including field duplicates) and
laboratory the technique is considered partial or total. inserted 118 control samples (78 SRMs and 40 blanks),
tests which respectively represents 4.2% and 2.1% of the
whole sample population.
* For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF
instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining
the analysis including instrument make and model, * The resampling program included 5% CRM and 5% blank
reading times, calibrations factors applied and their insertion.
derivation, etc.
* 2.1% Field duplicates were taken during Galileo
* Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg drilling and showed good precision.
standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory
checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie
lack of bias) and precision have been established. * 30 drillholes from legacy drilling were checked with
PXRF and the results showed a strong correlation to
legacy assay results.
* No bias has been identified.
Verification
of sampling * The verification of significant intersections by * Relogging and PXRF analysis of 30 historic drillholes
and assaying either independent or alternative company personnel. has confirmed the presence of significant intercepts.
* The use of twinned holes. * Galileo drilling twinned 5 drillholes and showed good
correlation with legacy drillholes.
* Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures,
data verification, data storage (physical and * Galileo assay data was imported into a relational
electronic) protocols. database and merged by query from the digital
certificates.
* Discuss any adjustment to assay data.
* Historic procedures are unknown
Location of
data points * Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill * Galileo drilling was surveyed by DGPS, 4 legacy
holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine drillhole collars were located in the field and
workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource surveyed by DGPS. The collar locations are within
estimation. close agreement (
* Specification of the grid system used. * Data was collected in WGS84 UTM 35s and transformed
to ARC50 UTM35s
* Quality and adequacy of topographic control.
* A topographic survey was completed over the open pit
resource are using DGPS and is adequate for the
study.
* Details of legacy survey are unknown.
Data spacing
and * Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. * Drillhole spacing is 50 m in the area of the open
distribution pit resource estimate and 75 to 100 m in the
underground resource area.
* Whether the data spacing and distribution is
sufficient to establish the degree of geological and
grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource * Else where data spacing is 150 to 200 m
and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and
classifications applied.
* Data spacing is close enough to establish geological
continuity in the open pit resource area and
* Whether sample compositing has been applied. underground resource area.
* In the wider spaced drilling areas there is
insufficient data density for reliable resource
estimation.
Orientation
of data in * Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased * All drilling is vertical. The mineralization is
relation to sampling of possible structures and the extent to inclined to the northeast by 30 degrees, locally it
geological which this is known, considering the deposit type. can be flat or up to 45 degrees.
structure
* If the relationship between the drilling orientation * The orientation of drilling is not assumed to have
and the orientation of key mineralised structures is introduced a sample bias.
considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this
should be assessed and reported if material.
Sample
security * The measures taken to ensure sample security. * Samples were transported by company personnel to the
lab in labelled bags. Lab standard submission forms
were used.
Audits or * No such reviews have been completed.
reviews * The results of any audits or reviews of sampling
techniques and data.
============= ============================================================ ===============================================================
Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
(Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)
Mineral
tenement and * Type, reference name/number, location and ownership * Galileo has entered into a Joint Venture agreement
land tenure including agreements or material issues with third with Statunga Investments Limited ("Statunga" or "the
status parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, Vendors"), a private Zambian company which holds the
overriding royalties, native title interests, Luansobe Project ("Project") comprising small-scale
historical sites, wilderness or national park and exploration licence No. 28340-HQ-SEL in the Zambian
environmental settings. Copperbelt.
* The security of the tenure held at the time of * The JV Agreement provides Galileo the right to earn
reporting along with any known impediments to an initial 75% interest in a special purpose joint
obtaining a licence to operate in the area. venture company to be established under Zambia law to,
with Ministerial consent, acquire the exploration
licence and the technical data related to the
Luansobe Project by making two payments of US$200,000
each (subject to project due diligence) by 20
February 2022 and issuing 5,000,000 Galileo shares to
the Vendors.
* The licence is granted for 4 years from 16(th) of
February 2021
Exploration
done by other * Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other * 78 drillholes completed in 2006-2007 by previous
parties parties. operators Z.C.C.M. Ltd plus 86 other historical
drillholes completed by Roan Consolidated Mines Ltd
in 1950 to 1970 were used in the estimate, 30 of
which were re-logged by independent consultants
Geoquest on behalf of Galileo.
Geology
* Deposit type, geological setting and style of * The Luansobe area is situated some 15km to the
mineralisation. northwest of the Mufulira Mine in the Zambian
Copperbelt which produced well over 9Mt of copper
metal during its operation. It forms part of the
northwestern limb of the northwest - southeast
trending Mufulira syncline and is essentially a
strike continuation of Mufulira, with copper
mineralisation hosted in the same stratigraphic
horizons. At the Luansobe prospect mineralisation
occurs over two contiguous zones, dipping at 20-30
degrees to the northeast, over a strike length of
about 3km and to a vertical depth of at least 1,250m.
Drill hole
Information * A summary of all information material to the * No exploration results are presented in this
understanding of the exploration results including a announcement.
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.
Data
aggregation * In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging * No exploration results are presented in this
methods techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations announcement.
(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.
Relationship
between * These relationships are particularly important in the * No exploration results are presented in this
mineralisation reporting of Exploration Results. announcement.
widths and
intercept
lengths * If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to
the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be
reported.
* If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are
reported, there should be a clear statement to this
effect (eg 'down hole length, true width not known').
Diagrams
* Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and * No exploration results are presented in this
tabulations of intercepts should be included for any announcement.
significant discovery being reported These should
include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill
hole collar locations and appropriate sectional
views.
Balanced
reporting * Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration * No exploration results are presented in this
Results is not practicable, representative reporting announcement.
of both low and high grades and/or widths should be
practiced to avoid misleading reporting of
Exploration Results.
Other
substantive * Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, * No exploration results are presented in this
exploration should be reported including (but not limited to): announcement.
data 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.
Further work
* The nature and scale of planned further work (eg * Further drilling is required in areas of sparse data.
tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or
large-scale step-out drilling).
* Improved structural interpretation of the Siniform
structure at Luansobe will improve understanding of
* Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible the deposit geometry.
extensions, including the main geological
interpretations and future drilling areas, provided
this information is not commercially sensitive.
=============== =============================================================== ===============================================================
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 * Galileo sampling was imported into a relational
corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying database from digital certificates.
errors, between its initial collection and its use
for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.
* All data was validated for overlapping intervals,
intervals beyond drillhole depth etc.
* Data validation procedures used.
Site visits
* Comment on any site visits undertaken by the * No site visit has been undertaken as a site visit was
Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. not requested by Galileo.
* If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why
this is the case.
Geological
interpretation * Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of ) * The Mineral Resource Estimate set out above was based
the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit. on the wireframe interpretation of the mineralized
massive shale, lower dolomite, BC and C quartzites of
the "Ore" Formation of the Lower Roan stratigraphy.
* Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.
* This allows correlation of the mineralized intervals.
* The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on
Mineral Resource estimation.
* Discrepancy in legacy logging was identified in
places and drillholes relogged by Geoquest and
* The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral drilling completed by Galileo was taken as priority
Resource estimation. during interpretation.
* The factors affecting continuity both of grade and
geology.
Dimensions
* The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource * Mineralization ranges from approximately 30 to 160 m
expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan below surface in the open pit resource and is
width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower approximately 550 m along strike to the southwest and
limits of the Mineral Resource. 150 m down dip to the northeast. Elsewhere the
resource ranges up to 250 to 300 m below surface with
an additional strike length of 1200 m extending down
dip 300 to 500 m
* The mineral resource is closed off by drilling and as
it nears surface to the northwest and southwest. Down
dip to the northeast mineralization may continue and
it has been extrapolated by 50m from the edge of
drilling, were further mineralization to be present
here it would likely only be amenable to underground
mining due to the high stripping ratios to the north
east. To the southeast where the despot is deepest
further mineralization has been identified at depths
250-300 m, however drilling is too sparse to infer
continuity and allow reporting of a mineral resource.
Estimation and
modelling * The nature and appropriateness of the estimation * The block size was 20 mE x 20 mN x 2 mZ in the area
techniques technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including of closest spaced drilling covering the open pit
treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, resource area (1/2 to 1/3 of drill spacing). In areas
interpolation parameters and maximum distance of of more sparse drilling including most of the
extrapolation from data points. If a computer underground resource the block size was 60 mE x 60 mN
assisted estimation method was chosen include a x 6 mZ (1/2 to 1/3 of drill spacing).
description of computer software and parameters used.
* Grades were estimated using Ordinary Kriging of 2 m
* The availability of check estimates, previous downhole composites, no grade capping was deemed
estimates and/or mine production records and whether necessary. An incrementally larger search radius of
the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate 100, 200 and 300 m was used. The maximum number of
account of such data. samples per search was restricted to 18 maximum and
samples per drillhole restricted to 2 in the area of
2 mZ blocks, elsewhere there was no restriction in
* The assumptions made regarding recovery of the number of samples per drillhole. Discretization
by-products. was 5x5x2. The estimate was completed using Micromine
2022.5 software.
* Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade
variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for * Mineralization is typically 4 to 10 m thick and
acid mine drainage characterisation). mining by open pit with flitches of 2-5 m envisaged.
* In the case of block model interpolation, the block * No extreme outlier values were identified and grade
size in relation to the average sample spacing and capping was not used.
the search employed.
* A legacy estimate completed by ZCCM in 2008 disclosed
* Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining an open pit resource estimate of 5.5 million tonnes
units. at 1.6%TCu. The details of the estimate are unknown
but broadly agrees with the findings of this study.
* Any assumptions about correlation between variables.
* No assays are available for deleterious elements
* 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.
Moisture * Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis.
* Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or
with natural moisture, and the method of
determination of the moisture content.
Cut-off
parameters * The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality * Open pit mining assumes a Cu price of US$9000 per
parameters applied. tonne with 85% payability on metal in concentrate.
Pit optimization and cut off grade selection was
based on the assumption of 85% recovery of total Cu,
including the acid soluble component, by floatation
at $14/t plus $1.5/t G&A. Mining costs were assumed
as $3/t. Underground mining was based on the same
assumptions with a mining costs of $40/t.
Mining factors
or assumptions * Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, * Open pit mining is assumed with 5% dilution.
minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if
applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always
necessary as part of the process of determining * 40 degree pit slopes in overburden with 50 degree
reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction slopes in fresh rock assumed. There are no
to consider potential mining methods, but the geotechnical studies to support this.
assumptions made regarding mining methods and
parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not
always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this * Detailed underground mining methods have yet to be
should be reported with an explanation of the basis investigated. 5-10% dilution is assumed.
of the mining assumptions made.
Metallurgical
factors or * The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding * No metallurgical testwork has been completed.
assumptions metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as
part of the process of determining reasonable
prospects for eventual economic extraction to * 85% recovery is assumed by floatation of all Cu
consider potential metallurgical methods, but the bearing material.
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.
Environmen-tal
factors or * Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process * The project is located in a prominent mining area. No
assumptions residue disposal options. It is always necessary as major settlements are within the immediate vicinity
part of the process of determining reasonable of the project. Adequate space is available for
prospects for eventual economic extraction to disposal of waste rock and tailings.
consider the potential environmental impacts of the
mining and processing operation. While at this stage
the determination of potential environmental impacts, * Social and environmental studies are required to
particularly for a greenfields project, may not assess the impact on local communities which may have
always be well advanced, the status of early an interest in the land use.
consideration of these potential environmental
impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have
not been considered this should be reported with an
explanation of the environmental assumptions made.
Bulk density
* Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis * Galileo collected 234 bulk density samples over a
for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, range of lithologies.
whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements
,
the nature, size and representativeness of the * Samples were weighed dry with and without wax and
samples. waxed samples submerged in water to account for
porosity.
* The bulk density for bulk material must have been
measured by methods that adequately account for void * Density values in t/m3 used in the estimate are as
spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and follows
differences between rock and alteration zones within
the deposit.
* Massive shale 2.46
* Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used
in the evaluation process of the different materials. * Lower Dolomite 2.44
* BC Quartzite 2.50
* C Quartzite 2.50
Classification
* The basis for the classification of the Mineral * The estimate is based on a large proportion of legacy
Resources into varying confidence categories. data, however relogging of legacy drill core from the
1970s and PXRF analysis has served to reduce the risk
associated with this data.
* Whether appropriate account has been taken of all
relevant factors (ie relative confidence in
tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, * In areas of closes spaced drilling and around the
confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, open pit resource area confidence in the estimation
quality, quantity and distribution of the data). of mineralized volumes and grades is highest. However
the CP has not visited the site to inspect the
project geology and as such the estimate is
* Whether the result appropriately reflects the restricted to the inferred category.
Competent Person's view of the deposit.
* The presence of faulting or different fold geometry
may serve to impact the resource estimate.
* Logging of some legacy drill core is inconsistent
with that of new drilling although re correlation is
possible and should have minimal impact on the
estimate.
* There is no assessment of deleterious elements, acid
consuming gangue or metallurgical testwork which
further supports restriction to the inferred
category.
* Geotechnical pit slope analysis may serve to
materially change the open pit resource estimate.
Audits or * The have been no such audits or reviews.
reviews * The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral
Resource estimates.
Discussion of
relative * Where appropriate a statement of the relative * The estimate is local estimate and is accurate to
accuracy/ accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource those typical of an inferred estimate with errors of
confidence estimate using an approach or procedure deemed +/-30 on a local basis and +/- 20-30% on a global
appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the basis.
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.
=============== ============================================================ =======================================================================
This information is provided by RNS, the news service of the London Stock Exchange. RNS is approved by the Financial Conduct Authority to act as a Primary Information Provider in the United Kingdom. Terms and conditions relating to the use and distribution of this information may apply. For further information, please contact rns@lseg.com or visit www.rns.com.
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.
END
UPDFLFFDFEITIIV
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
February 09, 2023 02:00 ET (07:00 GMT)
1 Year Galileo Resources Chart |
1 Month Galileo Resources Chart |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
