We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kefi Gold And Copper Plc | LSE:KEFI | London | Ordinary Share | GB00BD8GP619 | ORD 0.1P |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.009 | -1.69% | 0.522 | 0.516 | 0.528 | 0.538 | 0.50 | 0.538 | 40,982,439 | 16:35:07 |
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metal Mining Services | 0 | -7.9M | -0.0010 | -5.30 | 42.38M |
From Mar 2023 to Mar 2025
TIDMKEFI
RNS Number : 0426V
Kefi Gold and Copper PLC
03 April 2023
3 April 2023
KEFI Gold and Copper plc
("KEFI" or the "Company")
Maiden Al Godeyer Resource to contribute to the Hawiah Project Open Pittable Resources
KEFI Gold and Copper (AIM: KEFI), the gold and copper exploration and development company with projects in the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is pleased to present the maiden Mineral Resource Estimate ("MRE") at the Al Godeyer Project ("Al Godeyer" or the "Project"), which forms part of the Hawiah Complex, all part of KEFI's Saudi Arabian joint-venture Gold and Minerals Company Limited ("GMCO").
In Saudi Arabia, the Jibal Qutman Gold Project ("Jibal Qutman"), the Hawiah Copper-Gold Project ("Hawiah") and the other Saudi projects are under GMCO (now planned to be 25-30% owned by KEFI). In Ethiopia, the Tulu Kapi Gold Project is under TKGM (now planned to be 70-80% owned by KEFI). Final beneficial ownership will depend on project financing requirements.
Highlights
-- Maiden Al Godeyer Inferred Open-Pit Mineral Resource Estimate of 1.35 million tonnes ("Mt") at 0.6% copper, 0.54% zinc, 1.4g/t gold and 6.6g/t silver potentially complements the Inferred Resources reported for the Open-Pit Scenario at the nearby Hawiah deposit of 11.1Mt, as announced by KEFI on 9 January 2023.
-- Al Godyer continues to be open at depth and along strike
-- This reaffirms the potential for an initial open-pit mining operation at Hawiah as does early oxide metallurgical testwork which indicates that the Al Godeyer ore can be processed at the Hawiah plant located 12km from the site.
-- Drilling planned to commence in Q2 2023 will be aimed at converting unclassified areas of the deposit to the Inferred category and to further test the strike extent of the orebody.
-- Concurrent drilling planned at Hawiah will focus on upgrading and further expanding its total resources reported on 9 January 2023 of 29.0 Mt at 0.89% copper, 0.94% zinc, 0.67 g/t gold and 10.1 g/t silver.
Harry Anagnostaras-Adams, Executive Chairman of KEFI, commented :
"This Al Godeyer maiden copper-zinc-gold-silver Mineral Resource has confirmed the clear potential to support the Hawiah project, at this stage lifting to over 12Mt the total tonnage being considered for the Open-Pit Scenario.
"Feedback from the early metallurgical testwork is particularly exciting and demonstrates the amenability of Al Godeyer to provide additional open pit feed material to the proposed Hawiah Complex.
"The work completed at Al Godeyer further demonstrates our ability to discover and rapidly advance projects in our ever-growing exploration portfolio within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with the GMCO team taking the Al Godeyer target from a mineral occurrence to a JORC compliant resource in a little over a year.
"Elsewhere within the Kingdom, the Jibal Qutman project is advancing on schedule with our aim to start construction by the end of 2023. The Hawiah Pre-feasibility Study is currently being finalised and drilling is set to shortly recommence on the Hawiah site. This drilling is primarily focused on converting Inferred Resources to the Indicated category, but is also aiming at extending the planned mine life by further increasing the Hawiah Mineral Resource in a few key areas.
"KEFI has very exciting growth prospects in both Saudi Arabia and in Ethiopia, where our working environments have improved enormously over the past 18 months ."
Background
Since the commencement of major exploration works at Al Godeyer in early 2022, the GMCO exploration team has undertaken mapping, trenching, and a Self-Potential ("SP") geophysical survey along with diamond and reverse circulation ("RC") drilling programmes. Completing 3,007m of diamond drilling and 1,169m of RC drilling, for a total of 4,176m of drilling.
The drilling and trenching had three main objectives:
Hot Features
Premium
- Testing the volcanogenic massive sulphide ("VMS") geological model at the surface and depth;
- Understanding the geometry and grade characteristics of the ore body; and
- Increasing geological and grade confidence in the deposit to a level sufficient for resource estimation and reporting.
These objectives have been achieved and with the deposit remaining open along strike to the southeast and at depth, there is considerable opportunity to further expand resources.
Following the completion of the drilling programme GMCO appointed The MSA Group (Pty) Ltd ("MSA") as the Independent Consultants and Competent Person to prepare a maiden MRE for Al Godeyer in accordance with the Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves ("JORC Code 2012"). These estimation works included a site visit by the MSA competent person.
Al Godeyer Work Programme for 2023
Looking forward to 2023, further diamond drilling and additional trenching is being planned to upgrade the 'unclassified areas' of the deposit to the Inferred category. In addition to this, further metallurgical test work will be undertaken. If results are in line with expectations, then additional drilling will be planned to upgrade the Resource to the Indicated classification for use in the Hawiah Complex Definitive Feasibility Study ("DFS") and Reserve calculations.
Maiden Al Godeyer MRE
The maiden MRE for the Al Godeyer deposit is detailed in Table 1 below and now totals:
- 1.35 Mt at 0.6% copper, 0.54% zinc, 1.40 g/t gold and 6.6 g/t silver.
Based on this MRE, the Al Godeyer deposit is estimated to contain a total of 8,100 tonnes or 17.9 million lbs of copper, 7,200 tonnes or 15.9 million lbs of zinc, 60,400 gold ounces and 284,600 silver ounces.
Table 1 : MSA Minerals Resource Statement for Al Godeyer,
Effective Date 27 March 2023 (see notes 1 to 7)
Class Mining Type Material Type Tonnes (Mt) Grade Metal Content
------------- ------------- -------------- ------------ ---------------------------- ----------------------------
Cu Zn Au Ag Cu Zn Au Ag
------------- ------------- -------------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- ----- ------ ------
(%) (%) (g/t) (g/t) (kt) (kt) (koz) (koz)
------------- ------------- -------------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- ----- ------ ------
Inferred Open Pit Oxide 0.24 0 0 2.06 1.41 0 0 16.0 11.0
------------- ------------- -------------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- ----- ------ ------
Transition 0.26 0.54 0.11 1.34 4.90 1.4 0.3 11.0 40.2
------------------------------------------ ------------ ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- ----- ------ ------
Fresh 0.85 0.79 0.82 1.22 8.63 6.7 6.9 33.4 235.3
------------------------------------------ ------------ ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- ----- ------ ------
Total
Inferred Open Pit All 1.35 0.60 0.54 1.40 6.60 8.1 7.2 60.4 286.6
------------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- ----- ------ ------
Total
Resource Open Pit All 1.35 0.6 0.54 1.40 6.60 8.1 7.2 60.4 286.6
------------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- ----- ------ ------
Notes on MSA Resource statement:
(1) koz = one thousand ounces, kt = one thousand metric tonnes, Mt = one million metric tonnes.
(2) All tabulated data have been rounded and as a result minor computational errors may occur.
(3) Mineral Resources, which are not Mineral Reserves, have no demonstrated economic viability.
(4) The Gross Mineral Resource for the Project is reported.
(5) The Mineral Resource is reported in accordance with the guidelines of the 2012 Edition of The Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves ('the JORC Code').
(6) A Whittle optimised pit shell was used to report open-pit Mineral Resources. The Whittle optimisation was based on the following assumed technical parameters:
- Pit slope angle: Fresh 56deg, Transition 51deg and Oxide: 44deg. - Dilution of 10% and mining recovery of 95%.
- Concentrator Recovery via an Albion circuit: Cu 90%, Zn 90%, Au 85%, Ag 60% No recovery of zinc and copper in oxide. Metallurgical factors based on initial metallurgical test-work.
Cost and revenue assumptions:
- Metal Prices: copper 9350 USD/t, zinc 3300 USD/t, gold 1820 USD/oz, silver 26 USD/oz. - Smelter recovery/payability: copper 96.5%, zinc 83.5%. gold Dore - gold 99.5%, silver 99.6%.
- Mining cost: open pit oxide 2.2 US$/t, open pit transition and fresh 2.4 US$/t. Transport to Hawiah plant 1.125 US$/t and rehandling cost of 0.7 US$/t. Cost adjustment for open-pit depth US$0.004 / vertical m.
- Total Processing cost: oxide 13.9 US$/t, transition and fresh 21.4 US$/t. - G&A: 5.6 US$/t ore.
(7) The cut-off grade was applied on a net smelter return (NSR) basis: open-pit transition and fresh ore 31.2 US$/t, open-pit oxide ore 23.5 US$/t. NSR was calculated for each block model cell using the following formulae:
Oxide = (copper %*0)+(zinc %*0)+(gold g/t 49.4732 )+(silver g/t*0.4868)
Transition and Fresh = (copper %*76.5870)+(zinc %*20.1118)+(gold g/t *49.4732)+(silver g/t*0.4868)
The MRE is based on 4,176 metres of diamond drilling and RC completed since March 2022 and is reported in accordance with the Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Targets, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves, The JORC Code (2012).
Trenching, supported by surface diamond and RC drilling has consistently intersected copper-zinc-gold-silver mineralisation contained within gossanous ex-massive and semi-massive sulphides at surface and massive and semi-massive sulphides at depth, over 1.3 kilometres of strike length.
The Al Godeyer deposit has only been drill tested to a vertical depth of 200 metres below the surface and it remains open at depth and along strike to the southeast.
Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) Disclosure
This announcement contains inside information for the purposes of Article 7 of the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) 596/2014 as it forms part of UK domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 ("MAR"), and is disclosed in accordance with the Company's obligations under Article 17 of MAR.
Enquiries
KEFI Gold and Copper plc Harry Anagnostaras-Adams (Managing Director) +357 99457843 John Leach (Finance Director) +357 99208130 SP Angel Corporate Finance LLP (Nominated Adviser and Joint Broker) +44 (0) 20 3470 0470 Jeff Keating, Adam Cowl Tavira Securities Limited (Joint Broker) +44 (0) 20 7100 5100 Oliver Stansfield, Jonathan Evans WH Ireland Limited (Joint Broker) +44 (0) 20 7220 1666 Katy Mitchell, Andrew de Andrade IFC Advisory Ltd (Financial PR and IR) Tim Metcalfe, Florence Chandler +44 (0) 20 3934 6630
Competent Person Statement
The Hawiah Mineral Resource estimate was completed by Mr Jeremy Charles Witley (BSc Hons, MSc (Eng.)) who is a geologist with 34 years of experience in base and precious metals exploration and mining as well as Mineral Resource evaluation and reporting. He is a Principal Mineral Resource Consultant for The MSA Group (an independent consulting company). He is registered with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions ("SACNASP"), is a Fellow of the Geological Society of South Africa ("GSSA") and a Fellow of the Professional Society of Independent Experts of the Subsurface Resources ("PONEN"), Kazakhstan. Mr Witley has the appropriate relevant qualifications and experience to be considered a "Competent Person" as defined by JORC (2012) for the style and type of mineralisation and activity being undertaken.
The information in this announcement that relates to exploration results is based on information compiled by Mr Tomos Bryan, Exploration Manager for GMCO. Mr Bryan is a member of the AusIMM. Mr Bryan is a geologist with sufficient relevant experience for Company reporting to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the JORC Code 2012. Mr Bryan consents to the inclusion in this announcement of the matters based on this information in the form and context in which it appears.
Notes to Editor
KEFI Gold and Copper plc
KEFI is focused primarily on the development of the Tulu Kapi Gold Project in Ethiopia and its pipeline of highly prospective exploration and development projects in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, also in the Arabian-Nubian Shield. KEFI targets that Tulu Kapi Gold, along with its two most advanced Saudi projects Jibal Qutman Gold and Hawiah Copper-Gold will come into production over the period 2025-2027 and will generate cash flows for capital repayments, further exploration and dividends to shareholders.
APPIX A
Additional Background information on the Al Godeyer deposit
The Al Godeyer deposit is located within the Wadi Bidah Mineral District ("WBMD") in the southwest of the Arabian Shield. The WBMD is a 120-kilometre-long belt which hosts over 20 Volcanic Massive Sulphide ("VMS") known occurrences and historic workings for copper and gold.
The Al Godeyer project is located 12km east of the company's flagship Hawiah project which hosts a mineral resource of 29.0 Mt at 0.89% copper, 0.94% zinc, 0.67 g/t gold and 10.1 g/t silver.
GMCO commenced drilling at Al Godeyer in March 2022 and quickly confirmed that the VMS style of mineralisation underlies the gossanous ridgeline at the surface.
A total of 16 diamond drillholes, 19 reverse circulation drillholes and 25 trenches have led to the definition of a copper-zinc-gold-silver massive sulphide lode that remains open at depth and along strike to the southeast (see Figure 3 in Appendix C).
The deepest massive sulphide intersection at Al Godeyer is at a vertical depth of 200m where 3.3m true width of massive sulphide was intersected. The average true width of Al Godeyer is 4.5m with the widest intersection of 7.5m found at a depth of 20m.
Drilling spans over 1km of strike length at a drill spacing of approximately 100m or less for areas reporting to Inferred classification.
Summary of Resource Estimate Parameters and Reporting Criteria
In accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition), a summary of the material information used to estimate the Mineral Resource is detailed below (for further information please refer to Table 1 in Appendix F).
Geology and Geological Interpretation
The Al Godeyer VMS deposit is located on the western limb of a regional-scale antiform within the locally known, 'Group 3' volcanoclastic and epiclastic units of the Wadi Bidah Mineral Belt.
The Al Godeyer deposit is expressed at surface by a northwest-southeast trending gossan that forms a slight ridgeline exposed over a length of approximately 1,000 m, with a thickness that typically varies from 2m to 13m. The gossan outcrop strikes approximately west to east for a further 300m in the southern area, and a fault has been interpreted to explain the sudden strike change. Away from this main deposit area, the gossan horizon can be traced discontinuously along strike for an additional 800m.
The ridge has been interpreted by GMCO as the modern-day expression of the original VMS palaeohorizon with varying degrees of remobilised sulphides. The rock package comprises a suite of gossanous ex-massive sulphides, chert breccias, banded ironstones and sulphide-rich epiclastics. The deposit has been subject to varying degrees of the supergene alteration as a result of groundwater interactions.
The deposit comprises three weathering/alteration domains; Oxide, Transitional, and Fresh, within which different resulting facies are described. The oxide and transition domains typically show supergene gold enrichment and copper depletion. The fresh mineralised domain appears to be a dominantly pyritic stratiform semi-massive to massive sulphide body.
The Oxide domain mineralisation at the Al Godeyer is a combination of gossan, saccharoidal silica and haematitic cherts derived from leaching of the semi-massive to massive sulphide deposit. Higher-grade gold mineralisation is typically associated with saccharoidal silica facies, similar to the Hawiah deposit.
In the Transition domain, mineralisation is typically characterised by its dark grey to black colour due to patrial oxidation of the semi-massive to massive sulphide. The base of the transition zone is predominantly defined by the observed sulphide state, where dark grey altered sulphides become yellow un-oxidised massive pyrite at depth. Transition material is analogous to that of the Hawiah deposit albeit without a noticeable enrichment in copper.
Petrographic studies on drillcore from the Fresh domain have shown that the majority of the sulphides have undergone a degree of recrystallisation. This is in contrast to the Hawiah deposit where sulphide textures indicate the massive sulphide ore body is relatively undisturbed. The remobilisation and recrystallisation of sulphides at Al Godeyer are interpreted to have occurred due to regional metamorphism to amphibolite facies followed by retrograde metamorphism to greenschist and local emplacement of granodiorite intrusions. This remobilisation and recrystallisation have resulted in a semi-massive to massive sulphide ore body with between 10-60% pyrite unlike Hawiah which typically contains >80% pyrite. Due to the continuity of the orebody and no evidence of a feeder structure it appears the remobilisation likely occurred locally within the original paleohorizon.
The central portion of the deposit is the thickest and contains mineralisation elevated in gold, copper, zinc and silver, which extends 300m to 400m along strike and extends to at least 200m below surface. The northwest and southeast areas have not been tested below the oxide and transition domains.
Sampling Techniques and Hole Spacing
A total of 16 diamond drillholes (3,007), 19 reverse circulation drillholes (4,167) and 25 trenches (1,022) have been used for this Mineral Resource Estimate. Drillhole spacing for trenching is approximately 100m (Inferred classification). Drilling spacing across all three domains is typically 120m (Indicated classification).
Drillholes were logged for a combination of geological and geotechnical attributes. The core has been photographed and measured for RQD and core recovery.
Sampling and Sub-Sampling Techniques
Diamond drilling and surface trenching were used to obtain sample intervals that typically range from 0.3-3m for drilling, and 1-3m for reverse circulation drilling and trenching.
The whole diamond core was split using a core saw by GMCO personnel and then submitted for preparation at ALS Jeddah, during which material was crushed to 2mm, pulverised to 75um, with 250g split sent for analysis. The sample preparation procedures used for reverse circulation and trench samples are consistent with the drillcore samples.
The mineralised interval for all sample types was continuously sampled from hangingwall to footwall, which included samples a short distance into the hangingwall and footwall.
Sampling Analysis Method
Samples have undergone analysis at the ALS Laboratory, located in Jeddah., Saudi Arabia.
- Gold - Fire assay digest with AAS instrumentation - Copper, Zinc, Silver: Four acid digest ICP-AES
QAQC
QAQC procedures include:
- Insertion of CRM standards, certified blanks, and field duplicates at a rate of 15% (5% each)
- Monthly internal QAQC reporting - Regular communication with the laboratory, including periodical lab inspections.
Estimation Methodology
In summary, for this Mineral Resource Estimate, the following approach has been utilised:
-- modelling of the mineralised lode and weathering domains in 3D, in conjunction with the GMCO geological team;
-- composited the sample data to 1m intervals using length and density (assigned by rock type) weighting;
-- applied high-grade caps per estimation domain from outlier analysis;
-- undertaken geostatistical analyses to determine appropriate interpolation parameters;
-- created a block model that was rotated 49deg into the dominant strike direction with parent block dimensions of 12.5m (strike) x 2m (across strike) x 5m (dip), sub-blocked to a fraction of parent cell of 1/4 (strike) x 1/8 (across strike) x 1/4 (dip);
-- interpolated copper, zinc, gold and silver grades into the block model using ordinary kriging;
-- assigned density values by weathering domain; and
-- visually and statistically validated the estimated block grades relative to the original sample results.
Classification Criteria
The Al Godeyer resource has been classified in the Inferred Mineral Resource classification category, as defined by JORC 2012.
Mineral Resource Statement Parameters and Cut-off Grade
MSA has applied basic economic considerations based on initial metallurgical testwork results and assumptions provided by the Company, similar deposit types located within Saudi Arabia and MSA's experience to determine which portion of the block model has reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction by underground and open-pit mining methods.
To achieve this, the Mineral Resource has been subject to open-pit optimisation studies, based on long-term metal price forecasts (with appropriate uplift to reflect the potential for assessing Mineral Resources) for copper, zinc, gold and silver, to assist in determining the material with potential for underground and open pit mining and reporting above a suitable Resource Net Smelter Return ("NSR") USD/t cut-off value ("Resource NSR").
The Resource NSR cut-off calculation has been determined based on metal price forecasts, initial metallurgical recovery results and assumptions, mining costs, processing costs, general and administrative (G&A) costs, and other NSR factors. The final Resource NSR value calculation is based on average assumptions for the deposit and applied to the block model using the following formulae:
Resource NSR (USD) value for oxide material = (CU_PCT*0) + (ZN_PCT*0) + (AU_PPM*49.4732) + (AG_PPM*0.4868)
Resource NSR (USD) value for transition and fresh material = (CU_PCT*76.5870) + (ZN_PCT*20.1118) + (AU_PPM*49.4732) + (AG_PPM*0.4868)
The cut-off values determined for reporting the Mineral Resource on a Resource NSR USD/t basis, are given below and were based on the technical and economic inputs presented in Table 3 below:
- USD23.49/t for open pit material reported from within the oxide mineralisation domain;
- USD31.23/t for open pit material reported from within the transition and fresh mineralisation domains; and
Table 3 - Summary of key assumptions for conceptual underground stope optimisation, open pit optimisation and cut-off grade calculation
Parameters Units
Production Rate
Production Rate - Ore (mtpa) 1.35
Geotechnical
Overall Slope Angle (Oxide) (Deg) 44
Overall Slope Angle (Transition) (Deg) 51
Overall Slope Angle (Fresh) (Deg) 56
Open Pit Mining Factors
Dilution (%) Included in regularised
Block Model 5x5x2.5 m
95
Recovery (%)
Processing (Oxide: Cyanide Leach)
Recovery - Cu (%) 0%
Recovery - Zn (%) 0%
Recovery - Au (%) 85%
Recovery - Ag (%) 60%
Processing (Transition and Fresh: Albion Circuit and Cyanide
Leach)
Recovery - Cu (%) 90%
Recovery - Zn (%) 90%
Recovery - Au (%) 85%
Recovery - Ag (%) 60%
Commodity Prices
Cu (USD/t) 9,350
Zn (USD/t) 3,300
Au (USD/oz) 1,820
Ag (USD/oz) 26
Operating Costs
(USD/t
Open Pit Mining (Oxide Ore) rock) 6.6
(USD/t
Open Pit Mining (Oxide Waste) rock) 2.2
Open Pit Mining (Transition (USD/t
and Fresh Ore) rock) 7.2
Open Pit Mining (Transition (USD/t
and Fresh Waste) rock) 2.4
Processing (Oxide: Cyanide (USD/t
Leach) ore) 13.86
Processing (Transition and
Fresh: Albion Circuit Cyanide (USD/t
Leach) ore) 21.40
G&A (incl. corporate, sales/ (USD/t
marketing) ore) 5.6
--------------------------------- -----------------------
Mining and Metallurgical Methods and Parameters
Initial metallurgical test work has been completed for the Oxide mineralisation at Al Godeyer. This test work comprised comminution, cyanide leach, thickening and filtration test work done at the South African laboratories of Mealgwyn Mineral Services (Johannesburg) and Paterson & Cooke (Cape town). Further test work which including floatation test work on Transition and Fresh Ore has commenced and will be followed by Albion Amenability testwork once the floatation test is complete. Once all testwork is completed, if the metallurgical recovery results change significantly from the current approximated values, this would impact the parameters used to report the Mineral Resource, which, in turn, could also impact the tonnages and grades considered to have 'reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction' for reporting in the Mineral Resource Statement.
Appendix B - Glossary of Technical Terms
Ag Silver
AAS Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
--------------------------------------------------
AIC All-in Costs
--------------------------------------------------
Arabian-Nubian The Arabian-Nubian Shield is a large area
Shield or ANS of Precambrian rocks in various countries
surrounding the Red Sea
--------------------------------------------------
ARTAR Abdul Rahman Saad Al Rashid & Sons Company
Limited
--------------------------------------------------
Au Gold
--------------------------------------------------
Cu Copper
--------------------------------------------------
DFS Definitive Feasibility Study
--------------------------------------------------
g/t Grams per tonne
--------------------------------------------------
Gossan An iron-bearing weathered product overlying
a sulphide deposit
--------------------------------------------------
ICP-AES Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission
Spectroscopy
--------------------------------------------------
IDW Inverse Distance Weighted
--------------------------------------------------
IP Induced polarisation - a ground-based geophysical
survey technique measuring the intensity
of an induced electric current, used to
identify disseminated sulphide deposits
--------------------------------------------------
JORC Joint Ore Reserves Committee
--------------------------------------------------
JORC Code 2012 Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration
Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves
--------------------------------------------------
m Metres
--------------------------------------------------
Massive sulphide Rock comprised of more than 40% sulphide
minerals
--------------------------------------------------
Mt Million tonnes
--------------------------------------------------
Mtpa Million tonnes per annum
--------------------------------------------------
MRE Mineral Resource Estimate
--------------------------------------------------
NSR Net Smelter Return
--------------------------------------------------
oz Troy ounce of gold
--------------------------------------------------
PCT Percent
--------------------------------------------------
PEA Preliminary Economic Assessment
--------------------------------------------------
PFS Pre-Feasibility Study
--------------------------------------------------
PPM Parts per million
--------------------------------------------------
Precambrian Era of geological time before the Cambrian,
from approximately 4,600 to 542 million
years ago
--------------------------------------------------
VMS deposits Volcanogenic massive sulphides; refers
to massive sulphide deposits formed in
a volcanic environment with varying base
metals (copper, lead and zinc) often with
significant additional gold and silver
--------------------------------------------------
Zn Zinc
--------------------------------------------------
Appendix C - Diagrams
The Appendix C diagrams may be accessed via the following link:
http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/0426V_1-2023-4-2.pdf
Appendix D - Collar Locations
Hole_ID Projection Utm Zone Utm Easting Utm_Northing Elevation Azimuth Dip Depth
AGTR_001 WGS84 37N 729086 2334417 1389 225 0 28
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_002 WGS84 37N 729152 2334362 1394 225 0 37
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_003 WGS84 37N 729228 2334307 1383 225 0 57
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_004 WGS84 37N 729297 2334235 1380 225 0 45
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_005 WGS84 37N 729361 2334165 1378 225 0 60
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_006 WGS84 37N 729428 2334102 1376 225 0 35
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_007 WGS84 37N 729518 2334043 1379 225 0 41
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_008 WGS84 37N 729601 2333998 1392 225 0 40
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_009 WGS84 37N 729665 2333916 1387 225 0 51
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_010 WGS84 37N 729710 2333826 1386 225 0 38
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_011 WGS84 37N 729809 2333788 1385 225 0 50
AGTR_012 WGS84 37N 729849 2333766 1384 155 0 39
AGTR_013 WGS84 37N 729900 2333793 1392 170 0 70
AGTR_014 WGS84 37N 729969 2333769 1390 195 0 55
AGTR_015 WGS84 37N 730022 2333764 1393 215 0 46
AGTR_016 WGS84 37N 730062 2333742 1395 210 0 40
AGTR_017 WGS84 37N 730094 2333716 1395 210 0 40
AGTR_018 WGS84 37N 730146 2333360 1423 360 0 38
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_019 WGS84 37N 730173 2333367 1418 360 0 37
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_020 WGS84 37N 730196 2333370 1412 360 0 29
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_021 WGS84 37N 730238 2333385 1408 360 0 26
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_022 WGS84 37N 730265 2333413 1404 180 0 34
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_023 WGS84 37N 730290 2333388 1413 210 0 36
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_024 WGS84 37N 730279 2333365 1420 210 0 17
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGTR_025 WGS84 37N 730666 2333861 1390 135 0 37
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGRC_001 WGS84 37N 729438 2334100 1377 225 -50 41
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGRC_002 WGS84 37N 729345 2334175 1379 225 -50 44
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGRC_003 WGS84 37N 729408 2334153 1377 225 -55 70
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGRC_004 WGS84 37N 729539 2334025 1382 225 -50 45
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGRC_005 WGS84 37N 729635 2333955 1391 225 -50 60
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGRC_006 WGS84 37N 729618 2334018 1397 225 -50 84
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGRC_007 WGS84 37N 729673 2333921 1390 225 -50 75
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGRC_008 WGS84 37N 729665 2333842 1386 45 -50 45
AGRC_009 WGS84 37N 729707 2333797 1383 45 -50 56
AGRC_010 WGS84 37N 729779 2333791 1387 45 -50 60
AGRC_011 WGS84 37N 729816 2333775 1384 180 -50 48
AGRC_012 WGS84 37N 729875 2333799 1394 180 -50 93
AGRC_013 WGS84 37N 729498 2334081 1379 225 -50 85
AGRC_014 WGS84 37N 729318 2334232 1382 225 -50 74
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGRC_015 WGS84 37N 729265 2334262 1382 225 -50 50
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGRC_016 WGS84 37N 729241 2334324 1388 225 -50 75
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGRC_017 WGS84 37N 729174 2334344 1390 225 -50 42
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGRC_018 WGS84 37N 729142 2334397 1399 225 -50 72
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGRC_019 WGS84 37N 729091 2334414 1392 225 -50 50
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGDD_001 WGS84 37N 729746 2334000 1393 225 -55 302.5
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGDD_002 WGS84 37N 729692 2334094 1385 225 -55 281.5
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGDD_003 WGS84 37N 729589 2334173 1379 225 -55 269.5
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGDD_004 WGS84 37N 729322 2334405 1384 225 -55 215.5
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGDD_005 WGS84 37N 729412 2334326 1384 225 -55 221.5
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGDD_006 WGS84 37N 729931 2333867 1395 225 -55 212.5
AGDD_007 WGS84 37N 729820 2333936 1399 225 -55 220
AGDD_008 WGS84 37N 729676 2333999 1396 225 -55 215.5
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGDD_009 WGS84 37N 729591 2334078 1386 225 -55 140.5
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGDD_010 WGS84 37N 729457 2334211 1376 225 -55 128.5
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGDD_011 WGS84 37N 729651 2333971 1395 225 -55 257
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGDD_012 WGS84 37N 729603 2334003 1394 225 -55 58.5
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGDD_013B WGS84 37N 729746 2333929 1406 225 -55 230.5
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGDD_014 WGS84 37N 729560 2334050 1386 225 -55 83.1
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGDD_015 WGS84 37N 729476 2334065 1377 225 -55 40
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
AGDD_016 WGS84 37N 729503 2334160 1378 155 -55 130.5
------------ --------- ------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ---- ------
Appendix E - Results
Hole_ID Depth From To Intercept Cu% Zn% Au ppm Ag ppm
AGTR_001 28 13 19.2 6.2 0.13 0.05 0.35 0.17
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_002 37 15.5 17 1.5 0.19 0.02 1.06 0.09
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_003 57 19 27.4 8.4 0.19 0.01 0.35 0.00
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_004 45 22 26 4 0.18 0.01 0.76 0.00
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_005 60 20 27.5 7.5 0.16 0.01 2.65 0.12
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_006 35 12.5 15 2.5 0.15 0.02 1.70 0.22
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_007 41 18.75 24.2 5.45 0.19 0.04 18.90 1.42
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_008 40 18.75 24 5.25 0.56 0.12 1.59 1.04
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_009 51 13 23 10 0.17 0.09 1.50 1.08
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_010 38 20 25 5 0.36 0.35 0.64 0.70
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_011 50 18 21 3 0.08 0.06 1.95 0.00
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
34.3 36.5 2.2 0.25 0.11 0.47 0.39
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_012 39 10.9 14.3 3.4 0.36 0.21 1.67 2.64
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
15 19 4 0.38 0.11 0.41 1.14
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_013 70 30 33 3 0.16 0.12 1.17 0.50
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
38 46.6 8.6 0.23 0.10 0.85 1.19
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_014 55 8 11 3 1.14 0.23 4.65 1.92
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
17 19.85 2.85 1.32 0.47 2.44 2.76
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_015 46 10.6 12 1.4 0.19 0.06 0.66 1.21
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
18 19.6 1.6 0.41 0.38 1.47 1.04
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_016 40 13.75 15 1.25 0.09 0.04 0.24 0.00
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
16 17 1 0.43 0.17 0.32 0.25
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_017 40 Non-Mineralised
------ ------------------------------------------------------------
AGTR_018 38 9.1 9.45 0.35 0.05 0 3.22 1
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_019 37 9.4 10 0.6 1.07 0.38 1.17 0.5
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_020 29 8 9 1 0.58 0.09 0.25 1.43
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_021 26 7 8 1 0.67 0.14 0.91 0.9
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_022 34 18 20 2 1.46 0.11 0.7 0.78
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_023 36 7 10 3 0.23 0.03 0.52 1.12
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_024 17 12.3 13 0.7 0.34 0.05 0.46 0.71
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGTR_025 37 Non-Mineralised
------ ------------------------------------------------------------
AGRC_001 41 14 20 6 0.12 0.04 1.39 0.25
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_002 44 18 22 4 0.16 0.01 4.99 0.30
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_003 70 37 40 3 0.63 0.08 0.70 1.57
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_004 45 18 28 10 0.27 0.15 1.34 1.40
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_005 60 26 38 12 0.07 0.11 5.86 3.17
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_006 84 59 65 6 1.79 0.21 5.22 78.77
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_007 75 38 52 14 0.03 0.04 4.88 12.38
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_008 45 5 11 6 0.37 0.52 0.48 2.03
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
14 18 4 0.24 0.16 0.86 3.43
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_009 56 17 20 3 0.17 0.17 0.63 1.97
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
39 53 14 0.46 0.30 0.45 3.07
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_010 60 16 18 2 0.21 0.19 0.10 0.00
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
26 32 6 0.51 0.13 3.97 4.58
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_011 48 6 17 11 0.14 0.10 0.92 2.65
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
34 36 2 0.31 0.10 0.92 6.75
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_012 93 40 44 4 0.56 0.23 1.68 6.98
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
57 60 3 0.20 0.20 0.81 1.90
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_013 85 42 45 3 1.03 0.02 0.87 5.90
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_014 74 36 38 2 0.34 0.03 0.56 0.75
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_015 50 17 20 3 0.28 0.01 0.62 0.00
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_016 75 47 54 7 0.63 0.01 1.55 3.54
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_017 42 15 18 3 0.60 0.03 0.38 0.33
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_018 72 47 49 2 0.51 0.07 0.17 1.10
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGRC_019 50 22 23 1 0.25 0.02 0.29 1.10
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGDD_001 302.5 239.22 244.6 5.38 0.44 0.21 0.50 3.29
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGDD_002 281.5 250.9 255.3 4.4 0.90 1.21 1.91 12.68
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGDD_003 269.5 184.5 187.3 2.8 1.49 0.65 0.91 15.18
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGDD_004 215.5 167.9 169.34 1.44 2.55 0.10 2.03 5.16
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGDD_005 221.5 159.4 163.08 3.68 0.57 0.05 1.93 1.21
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGDD_006 212.5 143.11 149.2 6.09 1.08 0.58 1.22 9.25
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
159 161.15 2.15 1.33 1.24 0.88 13.13
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGDD_007 220 Hole ended before interpreted mineralisation
------ ------------------------------------------------------------
AGDD_008 215.5 154.43 166.17 11.74 1.14 1.37 1.63 13.92
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGDD_009 140.5 112.83 117 4.17 1.35 2.10 0.89 16.81
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGDD_010 128.5 100.58 105.29 4.71 0.65 0.06 0.61 1.82
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGDD_011 257 68.24 72.92 4.68 0.67 1.01 0.99 8.22
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGDD_012 58.5 35.4 41.5 6.1 0.09 0.09 2.59 3.15
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGDD_013B 230.5 181.5 184.8 3.3 0.22 0.25 0.13 3.00
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGDD_014 83.1 61.7 64 2.3 1.34 1.10 7.11 17.78
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGDD_015 40 12.9 22.35 9.45 0.19 0.06 0.99 0.50
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
AGDD_016 130.5 103.25 105.7 2.45 1.38 0.50 2.70 11.74
------ ------- ------- ---------- ----- ----- ------- -------
Appendix F - JORC Table 1
Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data (Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding
sections).
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
============================================================ =================================================================
Sampling
techniques * Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, * Trenching, diamond drilling (DD) and reverse
random chips, or specific specialised industry circulation (RC) drilling was completed by GMCO from
standard measurement tools appropriate to the January to September 2022. The exploration work
minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma comprised 16 HQ size DD holes for 3,007 m. 19 RC
sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc.). These holes for 1,169 m, and 26 trenches of a total 1,046 m
examples should not be taken as limiting the broad in length.
meaning of sampling.
* Sample intervals range from 0.3 m to 3.0 m for
* Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample diamond drilling and trenching. RC holes were sampled
representivity and the appropriate calibration of any in 1 m intervals except for ten instances of the
measurement tools or systems used. first sample in the hole that was sampled in 2 m
lengths. Typically, 1.0 m nominal length samples were
taken in mineralised zones from the trenches and DD
* Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that holes, whereas longer samples were taken outside
are Material to the Public Report. mineralised zones. Sample lengths were varied
according to lithology and/or mineralisation
intensity, honouring boundaries where possible.
* In cases where 'industry standard' work has been done Longer samples of three metre lengths were taken a
this would be relatively simple (e.g. 'reverse distance into the hangingwall or footwall.
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 * The mineralised interval for all sample types was
explanation may be required, such as where there is continuously sampled from hangingwall to footwall,
coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. which included samples a short distance into the
Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g. hangingwall and footwall.
submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed
information.
* The RC sub-samples were collected using a rig mounted
1/8 riffle splitter under the cyclone.
* Field samples (half core, channel sample chips and RC
chip sample split) were crushed to 70% passing 2 mm
at the laboratory and then a 250 g split was
pulverised to 85% passing 75m, from which a charge
for fire assay was prepared with AAS finish for gold.
4-acid digest with ICP-AES was used for silver,
copper, and zinc.
============================================================ =================================================================
Drilling
techniques * Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole * Diamond drilling techniques were all HQ (63.4mm core
hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc.) diameter) using double tube core barrels (HQ2)
and details (e.g. core diameter, triple or standard through the hangingwall lithologies. Triple tube HQ
tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit, or drilling (HQ3) was used in the mineralised zones.
other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by
what method, etc.).
* Reverse circulation drilling used a 4.5 inch (11.43
cm) bit size.
============================================================ =================================================================
Drill sample
recovery * Method of recording and assessing core and chip * Recovered core was measured for every interval and
sample recoveries and results assessed. the core recovery percentage was calculated.
* Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure * Calculated core recovery for each oxide state in the
representative nature of the samples. mineralised zone is as follows:
* Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery o Fresh: 99.8% - 16 drillhole intersections
and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred o Transitional: no Intersections
due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse o Oxide: 100% -two drillhole intersections
material. * HQ3 diameter core (with triple tube core barrels) was
used in all mineralised zones.
* Calculated RC mass recovery is in the order of 93%.
The calculation is based on density assumptions.
* No relationship was established between sample
recovery and grade.
============================================================ =================================================================
Logging
* Whether core and chip samples have been geologically * All drillhole core and trench samples have been
and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to geologically logged. Geotechnical (RQD and core
support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, recovery) logging has been completed for all
mining studies and metallurgical studies. drillholes.
* Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in * Both quantitative (geotechnical logging of RQD and
nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc.) photography. core recovery) and qualitative (lithology) logging
was carried out. All core has been photographed.
* The total length and percentage of the relevant
intersections logged. * 100% of diamond core and trench sampling has been
logged. Chip logging of RC samples was competed for
all holes.
============================================================ =================================================================
Sub-sampling
techniques * If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, * Whole core was longitudinally cut in half using a
and sample half or all core taken. core saw on site and then half cores were submitted
preparation for preparation at the ALS laboratory in Jeddah,
where material was crushed to 70% passing 2 mm, and a
* If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary 250 g split pulverised to 85% passing 75 m for
split, etc. and whether sampled wet or dry. analysis.
* For all sample types, the nature, quality, and * All sample material from each 1 m trench sample was
appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. sent to the laboratory and then crushed, split and
pulverised in the same manner as the core samples.
* Quality control procedures adopted for all
sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of * The RC sub-samples collected every metre from a 1/8
samples. riffle splitter at the rig were sent to the
laboratory and then crushed, split and pulverised in
the same manner as the core samples.
* Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is
representative of the in-situ material collected,
including for instance results for field * The nature, quality, and sample preparation
duplicate/second-half sampling. techniques are appropriate for all sample types.
* Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain * Field duplicates were taken at a rate of 1 in 20.
size of the material being sampled. These comprised:
o RC chip sample duplicates taken from the remaining 7/8 of
the sample using a riffle splitter.
Wet samples (at the base of transition zone) were
sun-dried, hand crushed and riffle split
for duplicate sample preparation.
o Quarter core duplicates
o Trench sample duplicates.
* The RC field duplicates indicate high precision for
Cu, Zn and Ag with >90% of the duplicate pairs with
half absolute relative difference (HARD) of
* For the DD and trench field duplicate precision is
>80% of the duplicate pairs with HARD of
* Sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the
material being sampled. The variability of gold
silver, copper and zinc grades is generally low in
the fresh sulphide domain, however variability in
gold grade increases in the oxide environment where
the most extreme gold assay returned was 132.5 g/t.
The higher gold variability in the trench data
indicates that larger samples may be more
appropriate.
============================================================ =================================================================
Quality of
assay data * The nature, quality and appropriateness of the * Copper, zinc and silver were analysed at ALS Jeddah
and assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether by 4-acid digest read with ICP-AES (Method Code
laboratory the technique is considered partial or total. ME-ICP61). High grade analyses were completed where
tests the initial assay returned values at the
trigger-limit of 5,000 ppm for Cu, 8,000 ppm for Zn,
* For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF 75 ppm for Ag and 100 ppm for Au using method codes
instruments, etc., the parameters used in determining Cu-OG62, Zn-OG62, Ag-OG62 and Au-GRA22 respectively.
the analysis including instrument make and model,
reading times, calibrations factors applied and their
derivation, etc. * Gold was assayed using fire assay and read with AAS
or with gravimetric finish for over-limit.
* Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g.
standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory * The methods of analysis involve near total digest and
checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy are standard methods that are applicable to the type
(i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been of mineralisation at Al Godeyer.
established.
* The Al Godeyer QAQC programme includes blank,
certified reference material (CRM) and field
duplicate samples at an insertion rate of
approximately 5% each.
* GMCO implemented a proactive approach to QAQC,
whereby each batch of results is examined immediately
on receipt from the laboratory, any issues are
highlighted and corrective measures are implemented
where necessary. Monthly QAQC reports were created
throughout the duration of the programme.
* Blank samples are certified blank (Au and Ag) or of
trace grade (Cu and Zn). Two certified blank samples
were used; 8 of OREASC26d and 125 of OREASC27d. The
blanks revealed that no contamination was introduced
during the sample assay process.
* Nine different CRMs were used to monitor the accuracy
of the Cu, Zn, Au and Ag assays across the full
target range of the Al Godeyer mineralisation. These
were sourced from OREAS and Geostats Pty Ltd. A total
of 156 CRM assays were completed. The results of the
CRM analysis demonstrate that there was no overall
assay bias for any elements, and failures (outside
+/-3SD) were rare.
* No pulp duplicates were completed, however, the RC
field duplicates indicated high precision for Cu, Zn
and Ag with >90% of the duplicate pairs with half
absolute relative difference (HARD) of
* The results of the QAQC demonstrate that the assays
are accurate and precise with minimal contamination
and that they are of sufficient quality for use in
Mineral Resource estimation with a high degree of
confidence.
============================================================ =================================================================
Verification
of sampling * The verification of significant intersections by * Jeremy Witley of MSA completed a visit to the Al
and assaying either independent or alternative company personnel. Godeyer project from 17 February 2023 to 21 February
2023. No drilling activities were taking place at the
time, however exploration procedures were explained
* The use of twinned holes. and demonstrated by the GMCO personnel. The drillhole
collars and exposed gossan were examined and their
positions verified by hand-held GPS. A number of
* Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, diamond drill core intersections that covered the
data verification, data storage (physical and range of oxidation states and intensity of
electronic) protocols. mineralisation at the project were examined. Although
most of the trenches had been rehabilitated, their
existence was evident in the field.
* Discuss any adjustment to assay data.
* No verification twin drilling has been completed. RC
drilling into oxide material a short distance (10 m
to 20 m) below the trenches obtained similar
mineralisation to that obtained in the trenches with
comparable gold and silver grades.
* The drillhole data are stored in a Datamine Fusion
database. MSA carried out validation checks on the
database outputs, with only minimal errors found that
were corrected.
* No adjustments to assay data were made.
* No drillholes or trenches within the Mineral Resource
area were excluded from the grade estimate:
* Reconnaissance trench sampling completed on
prospective geology within the project area away from
the Al Godeyer gossan (AGTR_017 to AGTR_026) were not
considered in this Mineral Resource.
============================================================ =================================================================
Location of
data points * Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill * The topographic survey for drillhole collars at Al
holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine Godeyer has been completed by using a Topcon ES-103
workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource total station survey tool which provides a high
estimation. degree of accuracy in terms of x, y, and z
coordinates.
* Specification of the grid system used.
* All trenches were surveyed using differential GPS or
land surveyor.
* Quality and adequacy of topographic control.
* All drillholes have been surveyed down-the hole by
electronic multishot (Reflex EZ-Trac), at 6 m spaced
readings for the diamond drillholes and 3 m spaced
readings for the RC holes. The down-hole survey
measurements were examined and spurious readings
removed prior to de-surveying the drillholes.
* The grid system is WGS 84 / UTM zone 37.
* A topographic survey was completed by a GMCO surveyor
using Topcon ES-103 total station. This data was
combined with a topographic surface generated from
orthorectified satellite imagery to provide good
coverage of the property. The resolution of
topography-station points is considered to better
than 0.5 m, across the site, which is adequate for
the project.
============================================================ =================================================================
Data spacing
and * Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. * Trenches were excavated 100 m apart along the gossan
distribution outcrop.
* Whether the data spacing, and distribution is
sufficient to establish the degree of geological and * RC holes intersected the oxide / transitional
grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource mineralisation directly beneath the trenches and
and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and half-way between, resulting in a line of RC drillhole
classifications applied. intersections 50 m apart between 15 m and 30 m below
surface.
* Whether sample compositing has been applied.
* Several RC holes drilled into the sulphide portion.
However, the majority of the sulphide Mineral
Resource is informed by a loose grid of diamond
drillholes approximately 50 m to 100 m apart.
* Drillhole spacing of approximately 50 m to 100 m
apart is sufficient to establish grade continuity for
the Mineral Resource up to an Inferred level of
confidence in the oxide portion. The lower
variability evident in the sulphide portion allows
for a wider spacing of approximately 100 m for
Inferred Mineral Resources.
* The Al Godeyer deposit is characterised by strong
geological continuity over a distances of more than 1
km along strike, as observed by semi-continuous
gossan outcrops, and widely spaced drilling of around
hundred metres is sufficient to confirm this.
* One metre composites were created using length and
density (assigned) weighting to create equal sample
support for Mineral Resource estimation.
============================================================ =================================================================
Orientation
of data in * Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased * Trenches are approximately horizontal resulting in
relation to sampling of possible structures and the extent to close to true thickness for the sub-vertical dipping
geological which this is known, considering the deposit type. mineralisation.
structure
* If the relationship between the drilling orientation * Diamond drillholes were collared at surface at
and the orientation of key mineralised structures is inclinations of 50deg or 55deg, and RC holes at 50deg
considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this providing intersection angles with the mineralisation
should be assessed and reported if material. that are generally more than 40deg to 45deg as the
drillhole inclinations have a tendency to rise with
depth.
* The orientation of the drilling is not considered to
have introduced any material bias to the drillhole
samples or block model estimate.
============================================================ =================================================================
Sample
security * The measures taken to ensure sample security. * Transport of core, RC chips and channel sample chips
from drill/trench site to core processing was
supervised by GMCO personnel. Samples were driven to
the analytical laboratory in Jeddah by a GMCO driver.
Sampled half and quarter core is kept in stacked core
boxes at GMCO's core storage area at Hawiah.
* Reject pulps are collected by a GMCO driver and kept
in GMCO's storage area and stored in sealed plastic
drums.
* The Al Godeyer core and residual sample material is
kept at the Hawiah exploration facility, which is
fenced and access controlled by security guards at
the entrance.
============================================================ =================================================================
Audits or
reviews * The results of any audits or reviews of sampling * MSA carried out a review of the sampling techniques
techniques and data. and inspected the sampled core. The CP considers that
the sampling techniques are appropriate for the
nature of the material and mineralisation style at Al
Godeyer.
============================================================ =================================================================
Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results (Criteria listed in the preceding section also
apply to this section).
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
=============================================================== ============================================================
Mineral
tenement and * Type, reference name/number, location and ownership * GMCO is a joint venture partnership between ARTAR and
land tenure including agreements or material issues with third KEFI Gold and Copper. The Exploration Licence is held
status parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, by ARTAR, under the terms of the GMCO Joint Venture
overriding royalties, native title interests, agreement. ARTAR currently has a 73.2% share of the
historical sites, wilderness or national park and Project, with the remainder (26.8%) owned by KEFI.
environmental settings. The Exploration Licence was granted by order of the
Ministry of Energy, Industry and Mineral Resources
and Deputy Ministry of Mineral Resources of Kingdom
* The security of the tenure held at the time of of Saudi Arabia. The Licence was awarded in 14(th)
reporting along with any known impediments to December 2021. The Licence is due to expire on 21(st)
obtaining a licence to operate in the area. October 2026.
* Exploration licences in KSA can be renewed and held
for a period of up to 15 years if all financial,
technical, and environmental commitments are met
=============================================================== ============================================================
Exploration
done by other * Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other * Modern exploration at the Project commenced in 1987
parties parties. when the Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et
Minières ("BRGM") undertook a trench sampling
program at the Al Godeyer prospect, which followed up
on the results of earlier (1986-1987) rock chip
sampling and mapping campaigns. GMCO subsequently
acquired the Project in 2021. No drilling took place
prior to GMCO ownership.
=============================================================== ============================================================
Geology
* Deposit type, geological setting, and style of * The Al Godeyer volcanogenic massive sulphide (VMS)
mineralisation. deposit is located on the western limb of a
regional-scale antiform in the Group 3 epiclastics of
the Wadi Bidah Mineral Belt (WBMB).
* VMS deposits form at or slightly under the sea floor
by the exhalation of metal rich plumes and subsequent
settling on, or replacement of, the fine grained
sediments. They are tabular in nature and
characterised by strong geological continuity over
100s of metres to several km in their undisturbed
form.
* The Al Godeyer deposit is expressed at surface by a
northwest to southeast trending gossan that forms a
slight ridgeline exposed over a length of
approximately 1,000 m, with a thickness that
typically varies from 2 m to 13 m. The gossan outcrop
strikes approximately west to east for a further 300
m in the southern area, and a fault has been
tentatively interpreted to explain the sudden strike
change. The rock package comprises a suite of
gossanous ex-massive sulphides, chert breccias and
banded iron stones enclosed by altered greenschists.
The deposit has been subject to varying degrees of
supergene alteration as a result of groundwater
interactions.
* The deposit comprises three oxidation domains; oxide,
transition and fresh. The oxide and transition domain
typically show supergene gold enrichment and copper
and zinc leaching, although copper enrichment from
supergene processes is evident at the base of the
transitional domain. The fresh mineralised domain is
dominantly pyritic stratiform massive sulphide
containing fine grained copper sulphides
(chalcopyrite) and zinc sulphide (sphalerite) and is
characterised by low base and precious metal grade
variability. The central portion of the sulphide
deposit contains the thickest mineralisation that is
elevated in Cu, Zn and Ag, which extends 300 m to 400
m along strike and 200 m below surface.
=============================================================== ============================================================
Drill hole
Information * A summary of all information material to the * Exploration results not being reported.
understanding of the exploration results including a
tabulation of the following information for all
Material drill holes: * The exclusion of detailed information lists
pertaining to the exploration results would not
detract from the understanding of the Mineral
* easting and northing of the drill hole collar Resource in this report.
* elevation or RL (Reduced Level - elevation above sea
level in metres) of the drill hole collar
* dip and azimuth of the hole
* down hole length and interception depth
* hole length.
* If the exclusion of this information is justified on
the basis that the information is not Material and
this exclusion does not detract from the
understanding of the report, the Competent Person
should clearly explain why this is the case.
=============================================================== ============================================================
Data * Exploration results not being reported.
aggregation * In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging
methods techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations
(e.g. 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 * The mineralisation is typically sub-vertically
mineralisation reporting of Exploration Results. dipping.
widths and
intercept
lengths * If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to * Trenches are horizontal resulting in near true
the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be thickness intersections.
reported.
* Diamond drillholes were collared at surface at
* If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are inclinations of 50deg or 55deg and RC holes at 50deg
reported, there should be a clear statement to this providing intersection angles with the mineralisation
effect (e.g. 'down hole length, true width not that are generally more than 45deg to 40deg as the
known'). drillhole inclinations have a tendency to rise with
depth.
=============================================================== ============================================================
Diagrams * Exploration results not being reported.
* 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.
=============================================================== ============================================================
Balanced * Exploration results not being reported.
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.
=============================================================== ============================================================
Other
substantive * Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, * There is no other meaningful and material exploration
exploration should be reported including (but not limited to): information to disclose.
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 (e.g. * Further work planned for the project is the
tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or advancement towards various levels of feasibility
large-scale step-out drilling). study. This is in conjunction with ongoing
metallurgical test work. The current focus of the
project is on studies to demonstrate the
* Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible techno-economic feasibility of the project as a
extensions, including the main geological satellite deposit to the nearby Hawiah Project.
interpretations and future drilling areas, provided
this information is not commercially sensitive.
* Potential exists to expand the sulphide portion of
the Mineral Resource at depth with additional
drilling.
=============================================================== ============================================================
Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources (Criteria listed in section 1, and
where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section).
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
============================================================ =====================================================================
Database
integrity * Measures taken to ensure that data has not been * Data is electronically logged using "toughbooks".
corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying Laboratory results are delivered electronically and
errors, between its initial collection and its use transferred into the Fusion database. Grades are
for Mineral Resource estimation purposes. checked by the project geologist to ensure that they
are consistent with observations made on the samples.
* Data validation procedures used.
* MSA performed a number of database validation checks
on the GMCO digital sample data and found no material
issues in the final database. These include checks
for completeness of data, unexpected positional data,
grades outside of expected ranges, and gaps and
overlaps in the sampling data.
============================================================ =====================================================================
Site visits
* Comment on any site visits undertaken by the * Jeremy Witley of MSA completed a visit to the Al
Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. Godeyer project from 17 February 2023 to 21 February
2023. No drilling activities were taking place at the
time, however exploration procedures were explained
* If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why and demonstrated by the GMCO personnel. The drillhole
this is the case. collars and exposed gossan were examined and their
positions verified by hand-held GPS. A number of
diamond drill core intersections that covered the
range of oxidation states and intensity of
mineralisation at the project were examined. Although
most of the trenches had been rehabilitated, their
existence was evident in the field.
============================================================ =====================================================================
Geological
interpretation * Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the * Mineralisation wireframes have been defined primarily
geological interpretation of the mineral deposit. based on lithology logging, elevated copper and gold
grades (relevant to zones of anticipated grade
enrichment or depletion, as described below) and
* Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made. visual assessments of geological and grade
continuity. Selection of mineralised intervals for
oxide, transition, and fresh zones was typically
* The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on based on visually distinguishable boundaries between
Mineral Resource estimation. the mineralised zones and background host rock, with
lower grade samples and inter-burden incorporated
where necessary to honour geological continuity.
* The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral
Resource estimation.
* For the oxide domain, mineralisation was primarily
modelled based on a combination of gossan,
* The factors affecting continuity both of grade and saccharoidal silica and haematitic chert lithologies
geology. (i.e., weathering products of the massive sulphide),
relative enrichment of gold and depletion in copper
and zinc, and typical red/ orange colour observed in
core photos. Elevated gold values in the immediate
greenschist hangingwall and footwall were also
included where contiguous with the main
mineralisation.
* In the transition zone, mineralisation was mainly
modelled based on massive sulphide logging and core
observations, where transition material typically has
a dark-grey to black colour (which clearly contrasts
with the oxide zone). The base of the transition zone
is predominantly defined by the observed sulphide
state, where dark grey altered sulphides become
yellow unoxidised massive pyrite.
* Within the fresh rock, mineralisation was primarily
modelled based on massive sulphide logging, which
correlates closely with Cu-Zn-Au-Ag mineralisation.
Hangingwall and footwall contacts are generally sharp
and visually distinct with some banded and
semi-massive sulphide close to the contact in places.
============================================================ =====================================================================
Dimensions
* The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource * The Al Godeyer deposit is expressed at surface by a
expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan northwest to southeast trending gossan that forms a
width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower slight ridgeline exposed over a length of
limits of the Mineral Resource. approximately 1,000 m, with a thickness that
typically varies from 2 m to 13 m. The gossan outcrop
strikes approximately west to east for a further 300
m in the southern area, and a fault has been
tentatively interpreted to explain the sudden strike
change.
* The mineralisation was modelled as a tabular layer
that bifurcates in places.
* The central portion of the sulphide deposit is the
thickest and contains mineralisation elevated in Cu,
Zn and Ag, which extends 300 m to 400 m along strike
and extends to at least 200 m below surface. The
northwest and southeast areas were not drilled below
the oxide and transition domains and the Mineral
Resource therefore only extends to approximately 30 m
below surface in these areas. The deposit is open at
depth along the entire strike length.
============================================================ =====================================================================
Estimation and
modelling * The nature and appropriateness of the estimation * The Mineral Resource estimation followed the
techniques technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including following process:
treatment of extreme grade values, domaining,
interpolation parameters and maximum distance of
extrapolation from data points. If a computer o GMCO modelled the mineralisation extents and oxidation
assisted estimation method was chosen include a states using Leapfrog Geo software.
description of computer software and parameters used. MSA accepted the mineralisation models following an
interactive review process during which
slight adjustments to the original model were made.
* The availability of check estimates, previous o The validated drillhole data were selected from within
estimates and/or mine production records and whether the wireframes by mineralisation
the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate state. Basic statistical evaluation was carried out on the
account of such data. raw data, including scatterplots
by oxidation state to establish relationships between
variables and trend analysis to establish
* The assumptions made regarding recovery of quasi-stationary zones.
by-products. o The selected data was composited to 1 m intervals using
length and density (assigned by
rock type) weighting.
* Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade o Top caps were defined based on examination of histograms,
variables of economic significance (e.g. sulphur for cumulative log probability plots
acid mine drainage characterisation). and mean-variance plots. The outliers were then examined
spatially to assess whether they
formed a high grade sub-domain and whether a top-cap should
* In the case of block model interpolation, the block be applied.
size in relation to the average sample spacing and o The data for each estimation domain was selected using
the search employed. various soft and hard domain boundaries
between oxidation states and then the defined top-caps were
applied to the selected domain
* Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining data.
units. o Variograms were modelled with normal scores transformed
data for each element. The oxide
and transition domains were combined. There were
* Any assumptions about correlation between variables insufficient data in the sulphide zone to
create robust variograms, so the average Hawiah variograms
were used with modifications for
* Description of how the geological interpretation was the different orientation of the mineralisation.
used to control the resource estimates. o The primary direction is horizontally along strike for
the oxide domains and plunging 50deg
to the northwest within the steeply dipping plane of
* Discussion of basis for using or not using grade mineralisation for the fresh domains.
cutting or capping. o The oxide domain variogram ranges were modelled for Au
and Ag at 115 m and 185 m in the
primary (strike) direction, 27 m and 33 m in the down-dip
* The process of validation, the checking process used, direction and 4 m and 14 m in the
the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and across strike direction, respectively. In the fresh domain,
use of reconciliation data if available. variogram ranges applied from
Hawiah are between 115 m and 265 m in the major direction,
115 to 180 in the semi-major direction,
with short across strike ranges from 4 m to 7 m.
o The block model was rotated by 49deg into the dominant
strike direction.
o The three dimensional solid models were filled with
parent cells with dimensions of 12.5
mY (strike) by 2 mX (across strike) by 5 mZ (dip).
Sub-cells to a minimum parent cell fraction
of 1/4 Y (strike) 1/8, (across strike and 1/8 Z (dip) of
the parent cell were created to closely
fit the solid wireframe model along the edges.
o The dip and dip direction of each model cell was
estimated for use in the "Dynamic Anisotropy"
process that modifies the search ellipse according to local
variations in dip and strike.
o The boundary conditions for each oxidation state were
assessed for each element depending
on the observed grade patterns near the contacts and the
impact of the oxidation profile on
each element:
o For copper and silver, a hard boundary was used between
the oxide and transition zone. The
transition zone allowed samples from 20 m into the fresh
zone, and the fresh zone allowed
samples 5 m into the transition zone.
o For zinc, the oxide-transition boundary was treated as a
soft boundary whereby samples could
be sourced equally from both domains. The transition-fresh
boundary was treated as a hard
domain as zinc grades immediately increase as this boundary
is crossed.
o For gold, the oxide-transition boundary was treated as a
soft boundary whereby samples could
be sourced equally from both domains. The transition zone
allowed samples from the oxide and
20 m into the fresh zone, and the fresh zone allowed
samples 5 m into the transition zone.
o A high grade domain with a 50deg plunge to the north was
modelled in the fresh domain for
Cu, Zn and Ag to avoid spreading high grades away from the
well mineralised core of the deposit.
Soft boundaries were used that allowed samples from the
high- or low-grade domain 50 m either
side of the domain boundary to estimate blocks within each
domain.
o Cu, Zn, Au, and Ag grade were interpolated into the block
model using ordinary kriging using
the back transformed variogram model data:
o Search parameters selected data within the modelled
variogram range for each element, oxide
domain and spatial domain (where relevant). A second search
1.5 times the variogram range
selected samples where the minimum number was not selected
from within the variogram range.
A third search 3 times the variogram range selected samples
where the minimum number was not
selected in the first two passes. Third pass estimates
inform isolated blocks not estimated
in the first two searches and are of low confidence.
o For the oxide and transitional zone, a minimum of 8 and a
maximum of 24 one metre composites
were used for first pass estimation, a minimum of 8 and a
maximum of 20 one metre composites
were used for second pass estimation, and a minimum of 3
and a maximum of 5 one metre composites
were used for third pass estimation.
o For the fresh zone. a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 12
one metre composites were used for
first pass and second pass estimation, and a minimum of 2
and a maximum of 12 one metre composites
were used for third pass estimation.
o A maximum of five composite samples were allowed from a
single drillhole for oxide and transitional
and three for fresh.
o The estimated block grades were examined relative to the
sample composites using visual,
statistical and swath plot (sectional) validation
techniques.
o Density was estimated as follows:
o Density was assigned a constant value of 2.15 t/m3 for
oxide. This was by applying Hawiah
measured oxide densities to the lithologies in the Al
Godeyer trench logging, with a 15% discount
on the gossan density to account for the less massive
sulphide at Al Godeyer and a 5% cavity
factor. The theoretical density derived from the RC weights
is also 2.15 t/m3 indicating the
potential for the assigned density to be conservative, as
some losses are expected in RC drilling.
o For the fresh domain, the mean measured fresh density
from core was assigned to the massive
sulphide and a mean density for the remaining group of
lithologies (inter-burden) within the
mineralised envelope was assigned by logging interval. The
data were then composited to 1
m intervals. Density was estimated using inverse distance
to the power of 3 (IDW3) with a
search ellipse of 100 mY by 200 mZ that allowed for three
samples from across the load with
a minimum of four and eight samples in total. This was
reduced to two and twelve in the third
search.
o As no density values were collected for transitional (no
DD intersections), the ratio between
fresh and transitional at Hawiah was applied to the Al
Godeyer fresh mean density values to
derive transitional density data. The data were then
composited to 1 m intervals. Density
was estimated using IDW3 with a search ellipse of 55 mY by
20 mZ, that allowed for five samples
from across the load with a minimum of eight and sixteen
samples in total. This was reduced
to three and five in the third search. A 5% void factor was
then applied to transition domain
model blocks.
* No check estimates were carried out.
* No by-products have been estimated as part of this
MRE.
* No deleterious elements have been estimated as part
of this MRE.
* Block dimensions reflect 1/4 the average drillhole
spacing near surface to fit local variations of dip
and strike while reflecting the grade variability
across the modelled mineralised domains.
* Selective mining units have not been modelled as part
of this MRE.
* Slight correlation was found between the estimated
variables during raw binomial statistical analysis.
Estimation search parameters were aligned between
variables within each domain.
* No reconciliation data are available.
============================================================ =====================================================================
Moisture * Tonnages were 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 * A Whittle optimised pit shell, using an assumption of
parameters applied. maximum open-pit depth irrespective of potential
underground mining, was used to report open-pit
Mineral Resources.
* The Whittle optimisation was based on the following
assumed technical parameters:
o Metal Price: Cu 9,350 USD/t, Zn 3,300 USD/t, Au 1,820 USD/oz,
Ag 26 USD/oz.
o Dilution 10%, mining losses 5%.
o Concentrator recovery via an Albion circuit: Cu 90%, Zn 90%,
Au 85%, Ag 60% No recovery
of zinc and copper in oxide. Metallurgical factors based on
initial metallurgical test-work.
o Smelter recovery/payability: Cu 96.5%, Zn 83.5%. Au Dore - Au
99.5%, Ag 99.6%.
o Pit slope angle: Fresh 56deg, Transition 51deg and Oxide:
44deg.
o Mining cost: open pit oxide 2.2 USD/t, open pit transition
and fresh 2.4 USD/t. Cost adjustment
for open-pit depth USD0.004/ vertical m.
o Transport cost from Al Godeyer pit to Hawiah plant 1.125
USD/t and a rehandle cost of 0.7
USD/t.
o Total Processing cost: oxide 13.86 USD/t, transition and
fresh 21.4 USD/t.
o G&A: 5.6 USD/t ore.
* A net smelter return (NSR) calculation was carried
out by GMCO that was reviewed and accepted as
reasonable by MSA. The cut-off grade was applied on a
NSR basis: open-pit transition and fresh ore 31.2
USD/t, open-pit oxide ore 23.5 USD/t.
* NSR was calculated for each block model cell:
o Oxide = (Cu %*0)+(Zn%*0)+(Au g/t 49.4732 )+(Ag g/t*0.4868)
o Transition and Fresh = (Cu %*76.5870)+(Zn%*20.1118)+(Au g/t
*49.4732)+(Ag g/t*0.4868).
============================================================ =====================================================================
Mining factors * Open pit mining will be used.
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.
============================================================ =====================================================================
Metallurgical
factors or * The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding * Copper and zinc are expected to be recovered by an
assumptions metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as Albion process at the planned Hawiah plant 12 km
part of the process of determining reasonable away.
prospects for eventual economic extraction to
consider potential metallurgical methods, but the
assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment * No copper or zinc will be recovered from the oxide
processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral zone.
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.
============================================================ =====================================================================
Environmental
factors or * Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process * MSA is unaware of any environmental factors which
assumptions residue disposal options. It is always necessary as would preclude the reporting of Mineral Resources.
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.
============================================================ =====================================================================
Bulk density
* Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis * For oxide density: three "mega-trenches" were
for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, excavated at Hawiah into the oxide zone to expose the
whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements full gossan profile from hangingwall to footwall at a
, depth of between 4 m and 5 m below surface. Samples
the nature, size, and representativeness of the of each gossan lithology were taken for density
samples. measurements, using both a volumetric method
("calliper method") and by weighing in air and water
(following wax-sealing). The two methods gave similar
* The bulk density for bulk material must have been results and the average of the two was used for each
measured by methods that adequately account for void lithology. Mapping of the Al Godeyer trench sidewalls
spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture and was completed and the Hawiah densities were applied
differences between rock and alteration zones within to estimate in-situ bulk density for the oxide
the deposit. material. A 15% "sulphide factor" was applied to the
gossan densities as an allowance for the lower
sulphide concentration in the massive sulphide at Al
* Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used Godeyer than Hawiah. A cavity factor of 5% was
in the evaluation process of the different materials. applied resulting in a density of 2.15 t/m(3) for
oxide.
* Density measurements were made on drillhole core
during the 2022 diamond drilling programme. The
Archimedes principle of weight in air versus weight
in water was used on pieces of core typically
measuring 10 cm to 15 cm in length.
* For the fresh domain, the mean measured core density
was calculated and assigned to the massive sulphide,
and a mean density was calculated for the remaining
group of lithologies (inter-burden) within the
mineralised zone. Density was assigned by logging
interval and then composited to 1 m intervals and
estimated using inverse distance to the power of 3
(IDW3).
* As there were no core density measurements for
transitional, the ratio between fresh and
transitional measured values from Hawiah was applied
to the Al Godeyer fresh values. The same estimation
approach for the transitional domain as the fresh
domain was then used. A 5% void factor was applied to
the transition domain model blocks.
============================================================ =====================================================================
Classification
* The basis for the classification of the Mineral * The Mineral Resource was classified as Inferred. In
Resources into varying confidence categories. classifying the Mineral Resource, MSA considered
confidence in the data, geological continuity,
geological model confidence and grade continuity.
* Whether appropriate account has been taken of all
relevant factors (i.e. relative confidence in
tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, * The data are generally of high quality:
confidence in continuity of geology and metal values,
quality, quantity, and distribution of the data).
o Core recovery is acceptable in all domains. RC weights
indicate good recovery and minimal
* Whether the result appropriately reflects the cavities.
Competent Person's view of the deposit. o Appropriate sampling methodology was used and logging is of
acceptable quality.
o The magnitude of the trench sample grades was confirmed by
the reverse circulation sample
grades, as local trends and high-grade zones were reflected in
both data sets.
o The QAQC of the assay data demonstrates acceptable accuracy
and minimal contamination. Field
duplicates confirm that the RC sub-sampling is appropriate and
indicate good laboratory precision.
o All trenches and drillholes were accurately surveyed.
o The density data are globally applied to the oxide zone based
on data from a nearby deposit
(Hawiah), trench mapping and various assumptions. Theoretical
density calculation for the
RC recovery validates the assumed values. There are no direct
density data for transitional
domain. Fresh densities are based on core measurements and were
interpolated.
* The geological model is robust and geological
continuity is good:
o The Al Godeyer VMS deposit exhibits geological continuity on
a scale of over 1 km on strike
and has been demonstrated by drilling to continue to at least
200 m down-dip in the central
portion.
o Narrowing of the mineralised unit occurs towards the model
edges, where risk is higher.
o A single fault has been interpreted based on a change in
strike. Other faults are likely
to occur, which are unlikely to be large and to result in high
geological risk.
o The interpretation of the oxide zones is sound and based on a
combination of visual and
chemical factors. Further drilling is required in the
transitional area to refine the contact
positions.
* Grade continuity:
o Variograms have been modelled for the combined
oxide-transitional domain at Al Godeyer and
applied from Hawiah for fresh.
o The oxide variography demonstrates continuity similar to the
drillhole and trench spacing.
o The drillhole spacing is closer than the variogram range in
the central portion of the fresh
mineralisation. However, the total amount of fresh intercepts
is insufficient to confirm directions
of grade trends.
o Subtle grade trends occur that are aligned with expected near
horizontal orientations and
strike direction in the oxide and transition domains where
oxidation is a major control.
* Considering the aforementioned factors, the
classification was applied as follows:
o All oxide and transitional mineralisation was classified as
Inferred, extended from trenches
along strike to the mapped limits (65 m in the northeast and 20
m in the southwest).
o Fresh mineralisation was classified as Inferred within the
drillhole grid to approximately
100 m spacing. The Inferred area was extrapolated 60 m from the
nearest intersection. This
approach is necessitated by the rapid changes in zinc and
sulphide grade from the central
high-grade zone outwards.
* This classification was prepared by, and reflects the
views of, the Competent Person.
============================================================ =====================================================================
Audits or
reviews * The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral * Members of the GMCO geological team have reviewed and
Resource estimates. accepted this estimate.
============================================================ =====================================================================
Discussion of
relative * Where appropriate a statement of the relative * The Al Godeyer Mineral Resource has reached a level
accuracy/ accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource of confidence consistent with that of a scoping
confidence estimate using an approach or procedure deemed study. Infill drilling, additional density data and
appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the deeper exposure of the oxide zone near surface will
application of statistical or geostatistical be required to bring portions of the Mineral Resource
procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the to Indicated confidence.
resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such
an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative
discussion of the factors that could affect the * Despite block model estimation having been carried
relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate. out, Inferred Mineral Resources should be considered
global in nature and not suitable for mine planning
to derive Ore Reserves.
* The statement should specify whether it relates to
global or local estimates, and, if local, state the
relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to * No production data are available.
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
UPDFZGGDKZGGFZM
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
April 03, 2023 02:00 ET (06:00 GMT)
1 Year Kefi Gold And Copper Chart |
1 Month Kefi Gold And Copper 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
