Fireweed Metals Corp. (“Fireweed” or the “Company”) (TSXV: FWZ;
OTCQX: FWEDF) is pleased to announce the updated Mineral Resource
Estimate (“MRE”) for the Tom and Jason deposits, as well as the
inaugural resource estimates for the Boundary Zone and End Zone
deposits at the Macmillan Pass Project (“Macpass”). The MRE was
prepared by SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. in accordance with
Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”)
definitions, as required under National Instrument 43-101 (“NI
43-101”).
Peter Hemstead (Interim CEO) commented, “The
delivery of the updated Mineral Resource Estimate for the Macpass
project marks another key milestone in demonstrating the
exploration potential of the Macpass district. The team has
increased the contained zinc equivalent* metal in
the Indicated Resources category by approximately 300% and more
than doubled the overall tonnage. The addition of Boundary Zone now
positions Macpass as one of the world’s largest undeveloped primary
zinc districts1.”
Mineral Resource Estimate Highlights
-
Global Mineral Resource Estimate comprising:
-
An Indicated Resource of 56.00 Mt at 7.27% Zinc Equivalent
(“ZnEq”)* (5.49% zinc, 1.58% lead, and 24.2 g/t
silver).
-
An Inferred Resource of 48.49 Mt at 7.48% ZnEq* (5.15%
zinc, 2.08% lead, and 25.3 g/t silver).
-
Macpass is now one of the world’s largest undeveloped primary zinc
districts1.
-
Contained ZnEq* metal in the Indicated Resources category increased
by approximately 300% compared to the 2018 resource estimate2.
-
The resource estimate is supported by verified data, robust
geological models, well-defined estimation domains, constrained
with open pit shells and underground mining shapes and supported by
thorough sensitivity analysis.
-
Fireweed continues to build and prioritize a portfolio of targets
through a large regional exploration campaign in an under-explored
land package (977 km2).
Dr. Jack Milton, VP Geology, commented, “This
resource is the culmination of six years of exploration success at
Macpass, including an additional 43,000 metres of drilling at Tom,
Jason, End Zone, and our discovery at Boundary Zone, which is one
of the most globally significant zinc discoveries of the last 15
years1. We have more than doubled the tonnage from our previously
reported resource2, increased the contained zinc metal by 83%, and
added open-pit and underground mining volume constraints for
reporting. The potential for by-product gallium and germanium could
enhance the Macpass district with further critical minerals
exposure. The deposits remain open along strike and at depth and,
with the 2024 drill program (14,000 m) not yet included in this
MRE, there exists the potential for an increase to the resource as
part of future technical work. In addition, we are undertaking a
large and comprehensive regional exploration program to continue to
provide a pipeline of high-quality targets for future testing.”
Conference Call and Webinar
Investors, media, and the
public are invited to join the conference call and webinar hosted
by Dr. Jack Milton, P. Geo., during which management will discuss
the result of the Macpass MRE update as reported in this
release.
- September 5, 2024, at 9:00am PT
(12:00pm ET)
- Toll-free in U.S. and Canada: +1
(844) 763-8274
- All other callers: +1 (647)
484-8814
- Webinar:
https://www.c-meeting.com/web3/joinTo/M94CVMUU83PQMW/vobcPfLtLGOvjaB9xTlsxQ
- Webinar replay: Available on the
Company’s website for one year.
Global Mineral Resource Estimate
The MRE at Macpass is comprised of four distinct
deposits: Tom, Jason, End Zone, and Boundary Zone (Figure 1). Table
1 lists the global mineral resources for Macpass by deposit.
Table 1: Macpass Project Global Mineral
Resource Estimate by Deposit (combined OP and UG constrained
resources).
2024 SLR Class |
Deposit |
Tonnes (Mt) |
ZnEq (%) |
Zn Grade (%) |
Pb Grade (%) |
Ag Grade (g/t) |
Zn Contained Metal (Mlbs) |
Pb Contained Metal (Mlbs) |
Ag Contained Metal (Moz) |
Indicated |
Tom |
17.52 |
9.90 |
6.30 |
3.34 |
33.0 |
2,435 |
1,291 |
18.56 |
Jason |
3.80 |
9.09 |
7.62 |
1.86 |
1.7 |
638 |
156 |
0.21 |
End Zone |
0.34 |
16.15 |
3.81 |
12.32 |
86.2 |
29 |
93 |
0.95 |
Boundary Zone |
34.34 |
5.63 |
4.86 |
0.55 |
21.6 |
3,682 |
412 |
23.83 |
Total Indicated |
56.00 |
7.27 |
5.49 |
1.58 |
24.2 |
6,784 |
1,952 |
43.54 |
Inferred |
Tom |
18.94 |
9.10 |
6.56 |
2.30 |
25.2 |
2,738 |
960 |
15.37 |
Jason |
11.65 |
10.40 |
5.48 |
4.33 |
48.2 |
1,407 |
1,112 |
18.05 |
End Zone |
0.44 |
8.76 |
1.86 |
6.88 |
48.1 |
18 |
67 |
0.68 |
Boundary Zone |
17.46 |
3.75 |
3.48 |
0.23 |
9.5 |
1,337 |
87 |
5.32 |
Total Inferred |
48.49 |
7.48 |
5.15 |
2.08 |
25.3 |
5,500 |
2,227 |
39.42 |
Table 1 footnotes:
- All mineral resources have been estimated in accordance with
CIM definitions, as required under NI 43-101.
- Data for this mineral resource estimate has been independently
reviewed and validated by a third-party consultancy, SLR Consulting
(Canada) Ltd.
- Pierre Landry P.Geo. of SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd.
(“SLR”) is independent of Fireweed Metals Corp.,
and a ‘Qualified Person’ as defined under NI 43-101. Pierre Landry
is responsible for the Macpass Mineral Resource Estimate.
- g/t: grams per tonne; Mlbs: million pounds; Moz: millions of
troy ounces; Mt: million metric tonnes.
- Mineral resources are reported within conceptual open pit
(“OP”) shells and underground (“UG”) mining volumes to demonstrate
Reasonable Prospects for Eventual Economic Extraction (“RPEEE”), as
required under NI 43-101; mineralization lying outside of the OP
shell or UG volumes is not reported as a mineral resource. Note the
conceptual OP shell and UG volumes are used for mineral resource
reporting purposes only and are not indicative of the proposed
mining method; future mining studies may consider UG mining, OP
mining or a combination of both. Mineral resources are not mineral
reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
- All quantities are rounded to the appropriate number of
significant figures; consequently, sums may not add up due to
rounding.
- All prices in Canadian dollars unless otherwise stated.
- Open Pit mineral resources are reported at a pit wall angle of
45°, Revenue Factors of 0.8 (Tom, End Zone), 0.6 (Jason), 1.0
(Boundary Zone), and Net Smelter Return (“NSR”) cut-off of
$30/tonne (“t”).
- Underground mineral resources are constrained within reporting
panels with heights (H) of 20 m, lengths (L) of 10 m, with 10 m H
and 5 m L sub-shapes and minimum widths of 2 m at Tom, Jason, and
End Zone; and 20 m H by 20 m L with 10 m sub-shapes and a minimum
width of 5 m at Boundary Zone, using an average panel NSR cut-off
of $112/t.
- NSR block values and zinc equivalency are based on a price of
US$1.40/lb Zn, US$1.10/lb Pb, and US$25/oz Ag, CAD:USD exchange
rate of 1.32, and a number of operating cost and recovery
assumptions specific to each deposit or mineralization domain (see
Tables 2 and 3).
- ZnEq has been calculated on a block-by-block basis using the
NSR calculation and input parameters related to each deposit or
mineralization domain (Tables 2 and 3). For reporting subtotals and
totals, ZnEq values have been calculated using the mass weighted
average of the ZnEq block values of each respective domain for its
respective classification category within OP and UG reporting
volumes.
- The effective date of the MRE is September 4, 2024 and the MRE
is based on all drilling data up to and including holes drilled in
2023 with a final database cut-off date of June 23, 2024. The MRE
does not include any data from holes drilled in 2024.
- Inferred mineral resources are considered too speculative
geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that
would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is
also no certainty that these inferred mineral resources will be
converted to the measured and indicated categories through further
drilling, or into mineral reserves, once economic considerations
are applied. The Inferred Mineral Resource in this estimate has a
lower level of confidence than that applied to an Indicated Mineral
Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral Reserve. It is
reasonably expected that the majority of the inferred Mineral
Resource could be upgraded to an Indicated Mineral Resource with
continued exploration.
Deposit Geology
The Tom, Jason, End Zone, and Boundary Zone
deposits are examples of stratiform, strata-bound sediment hosted
zinc-lead-silver deposits. Historically the term SEDEX was used to
describe these deposits of Yukon’s Selwyn Basin and since then the
term has been used to describe these deposits worldwide. This class
of deposits are now referred to as sediment hosted massive sulphide
deposits and are also known as clastic-dominated or “CD” deposits.
Previously considered to be formed strictly at the
sediment-seawater interface by the exhalation of mineralizing
fluids in seafloor environments, the model at Tom, Jason, End Zone
and Boundary Zone has subsequently been reinterpreted to involve
the replacement of porous, poorly consolidated muddy to silty,
barite-rich sediment in the sub-seafloor environment.
Mineralization at these deposits comprises an
early stage of finely laminated and stratiform pyrite, sphalerite,
and galena grading to semi-massive and massive sulphides with
increasing proximity to feeder structures, and these intervals are
associated with barite-rich layers at multiple stratigraphic levels
within black mudstone sequences. At Boundary Zone a later,
cross-cutting style of mineralization is also present, forming
discrete, broadly stratiform bodies consisting of breccia and veins
of pyrite, sphalerite, and galena; flooding and replacement of
matrix material by pyrite, sphalerite, and galena; all accompanied
by abundant siderite and hosted in conglomerates, diamictites,
mudstones, and carbonate-altered mafic volcaniclastic rocks.
Geological domains have been modeled at Tom,
Jason, End Zone, and Boundary Zone representing the primary
mineralization styles. These domains represent contiguous bodies
and vary in complexity between deposits and lenses. At Tom, the
main stratiform mineralized zone has been sub-domained into
distinct facies to support a detailed estimation model. At Boundary
Zone, the early phase of mineralization is represented by the
massive sulphide domain, the later phase by the Boundary Vein
domains, and surrounding low-grade mineralization is captured in
the Boundary Halo domain. Further details will be available in the
technical report.
The Macpass MRE is based on 124,632 m of
drilling, including historical (pre-2017) and contemporary
(2017-2023) drilling across 544 drill holes from 1952 to 2023. The
estimate is based on drilling up to and including TS23-009D2,
completed October 15, 2023 using a final database cut-off for 2023
and earlier drilling of June 23, 2024.
Detailed geological and fault models were
created in 3D for each of Tom, Jason, End Zone and Boundary Zone.
These models use a sequence stratigraphic approach and are based on
an improved understanding of the regional stratigraphy and
structural setting of the deposits. A mineralization model was
developed using the geological domains as a framework for defining
estimation domains. Contact-plot analysis was used to determine how
composite samples should be managed at domain contacts during
estimation.
Data Verification
The data used in this Mineral Resource Estimate
is supported by Quality Assurance and Quality Control ("QA/QC")
procedures, such as the insertion of certified standards and blanks
into the sample stream and the utilization of certified independent
analytical laboratories for all assays. Historical QA/QC data and
methodology on the project were reviewed and will be summarized in
the NI 43-101 technical report. No significant QA/QC issues were
discovered during review of the data.
The QP is of the opinion that the sample
preparation, analysis, and security procedures at Macpass are
sufficient for estimating Mineral Resources. Additionally, the QP
is of the opinion that the QA/QC program designed and implemented
by Fireweed is adequate, and the assay results in the database are
suitable for use in the Mineral Resource Estimate.
Data verification for the drill hole database
involved cross-checking database analytical values with digital
laboratory analysis certificates. These certificates were directly
sent to the Fireweed database manager by Bureau Veritas before
being passed on to SLR. The verification process also included
validating historical assay results from previous operators using a
selection of historical certificates, which were scanned from the
original paper copies by Fireweed.
In accordance with NI 43-101, Pierre Landry,
P.Geo., of SLR, conducted a site visit to Macpass and related
facilities from September 15th to 17th, 2022. During this visit,
Mr. Landry inspected the core shack, core scanning workspace, and
reviewed the logging environment and procedures for data collection
and sampling. He also examined core samples from the Tom, Jason,
End Zone, and Boundary Zone deposits, interviewed Fireweed Metals
personnel, and gathered other information necessary for completing
the Mineral Resource Estimate and accompanying technical report.
Additionally, Mr. Landry inspected drill collars and drill hole
cores relevant to the Mineral Resource estimation, including
checking collar locations with a handheld GPS and visually
comparing mineralization with interpreted drilling sections.
Fireweed Metals provided full access to all facilities and
personnel during the site visit. During the visit Mr. Landry was
accompanied by Dr. Jack Milton, Vice-President, Geology for
Fireweed Metals.
A full description of the data QA/QC will be
available in the technical report for the mineral resource
update.
Mineral Resource Estimation
Methodology
A data-driven approach was used to define grade
caps for zinc, lead, and silver within each estimation domain.
Assay caps were applied prior to compositing. Regressions of
measured densities against the sum of assay values (Zn+Pb+Ba+Fe)
were developed for each deposit or domain in order to estimate
densities of samples that lack density measurements using assay
values. Variography and trend analysis were considered for domains
with sufficient data support, and dynamic anisotropy was
implemented in the estimate, guided by the mineralization contacts
with the wall rock or other sub-domains where applicable.
Density-weighted composites were used for the interpolation of
grades into the block model using inverse distance squared (ID2)
interpolation and compared against nearest neighbor (NN) via swath
plots and tables for consistency. High-grade search restrictions
were implemented within certain domains. Sub-block models were
created using a 5 m parent cell size with sufficient sub block
increments to accurately reproduce the wireframe volumes. Density
was estimated into each block using length-weighted density
composites for each mineralization domain. Fixed, average values of
density were assigned to each of the areas of the model outside the
mineralization domains.
Resource category classification was determined
using a combination of drillhole spacing, geological continuity,
grade continuity, mineralization width, and data quality. Inferred
and Indicated categories were assigned, and no Measured resources
were defined.
Metallurgy
The metallurgical variability of the Tom, Jason,
and Boundary Zone deposits has been previously disclosed and shown
to have positive metallurgical performance, producing high grade
concentrates with high recoveries (see Fireweed News Releases May
15, 2018, and November 1, 2022). Another test program was completed
in 2023 that focused on understanding the performance of the
massive sulphide mineralization domain at Boundary Zone. Two
composites were generated from drillholes NB21-001 and NB20-004,
and open circuit tests were completed using the flowsheet from 2022
as a basis. Initial metallurgical performance of the samples is
deemed as positive with representative results for each Boundary
Zone domain given in Table 2.
Table 2: List of Deposit-Specific
Metallurgical Assumptions for NSR and ZnEq
Calculations.
Category |
Unit |
Tom, Jason & End Zone |
Boundary Zone Massive Sulphide |
Boundary Zone Vein |
Boundary Zone Halo |
Recovery Zn, Zn Conc |
% |
89% |
85% |
88% |
80% |
Recovery Ag, Zn Conc |
% |
22% |
30% |
22% |
22% |
Recovery Pb, Pb Conc |
% |
75% |
55% |
55% |
38% |
Recovery Ag, Pb Conc |
% |
59% |
40% |
30% |
20% |
Zn Concentrate Grade Zn |
% |
58% |
49% |
56% |
58% |
Zn Concentrate Grade Hg |
g/t |
155 |
777 |
693 |
922 |
Hg Penalty |
USD$/dmt |
$0.00 |
$14.11 |
$11.63 |
$21.63 |
Pb Concentrate Grade Pb |
% |
62% |
45% |
46% |
44% |
Zn Conc Payable Zn |
% |
85% |
84% |
85% |
85% |
Pb Conc Payable Pb |
% |
95% |
93% |
93% |
93% |
Net smelter return (“NSR”) values were
calculated on a block-by-block basis using zinc, lead, and silver
block grades with the input parameters listed in Tables 2 and 3.
For NSR and ZnEq calculations, fixed values are applied to all
blocks within each domain for: metallurgical recoveries; grades of
Zn, Pb, and Hg in Zn and Pb concentrates; mercury penalties; and
payability of Zn and Pb. Silver grades and payability in zinc and
lead concentrates were calculated on a block-by-block basis. For
silver grades in lead concentrates less than 620.0 g/t, a minimum
deduction was applied of 31 g/t silver with a maximum payability of
95% for silver in lead concentrates. For silver grades in zinc
concentrates less than 311.0 g/t, a minimum deduction was applied
of 93 g/t silver with a maximum payability of 70% for silver in
zinc concentrates.
Table 3: List of Global Assumptions for
NSR Calculations, Cut-off-grade Determinations, and Reporting
Parameters
Category |
Unit |
Parameter |
Cut-off grade |
$/t NSR |
$112.00 UG/ $30.00 OP |
Processing |
$/t milled |
$22.00 |
G&A |
$/t milled |
$8.00 |
Mining (OP) |
$/t moved |
$4.67 |
Mining (UG) |
$/t milled |
$61.00 |
UG Sustaining (capex) |
$/t milled |
$21.00 |
Foreign Exchange rate |
CAD:USD |
1.32 |
Transport Costs |
$/wmt conc |
$293.55 |
Treatment Charges Zn/Pb |
USD$/dmt conc |
$225.00/$150.00 |
Concentrate moisture content |
% |
8.0 |
Silver Refining Costs |
USD$/oz |
$1.25 |
Zn Price |
USD$/lb |
$1.40 |
Pb Price |
USD$/lb |
$1.10 |
Ag Price |
USD$/oz |
$25.00 |
Royalty |
NSR % |
0.00 |
Mining Constraints
Blocks were constrained by OP shells and UG
mining shapes at a base case mining scenario to demonstrate RPEEE
at an NSR cut-off of $30/t OP and $112/t UG. The cut-off grades
were selected using cost estimates listed in Table 3 that assume: a
mill throughput rate of 10,000 tonnes-per-day (tpd); open-pit
mining rates of 10,000 tpd; and underground mining rates of 5,000
tpd per deposit.
Resources were reported for Inferred or
Indicated blocks that are above the stated cut-off within the OP
shells, and for all Inferred or Indicated blocks within UG
reporting panels that meet the average panel cut-off including all
“must-take” internal dilution material within those panels. Tables
5 and 6 show portions of the global resource that are constrained
by OP shapes and UG reporting panels, respectively (see Figures 2–9
for block model cross sections, plan views and base case mining
shape visualizations).
Table 4: Macpass Revenue Factors and
Strip Ratios for Base Case OP Reporting Shells.
Category |
Tom |
Jason |
End Zone |
Boundary Zone |
Base Case OP Revenue Factor |
0.8 |
0.6 |
0.8 |
1.0 |
Base Case OP Strip Ratio |
9.4 |
6.2 |
10.0 |
4.9 |
Different revenue factors between 0.6 and 1.0
were selected for each deposit during the OP optimization process.
The revenue factor is a scaling parameter applied to the metal
prices (or commodity prices) used in the economic evaluation of pit
shells. It is expressed as a percentage or factor of the base case
(or expected) metal price. For example, a revenue factor of 1.0
corresponds to using the full base case metal prices in the
optimization process, while a revenue factor of 0.8 means that the
prices used are 80% of the base case prices. This approach was used
to optimize the strip ratio, maximize net resource, minimize waste
production, limit environmental impacts, and provide a resource
suitable for optimizing economics in any future studies (revenue
factors and strip ratios are listed in Table 4).
Table 5: Macpass OP Constrained MRE by
Deposit
2024 SLR Class |
Deposit |
Tonnes (Mt) |
ZnEq(%) |
Zn Grade (%) |
Pb Grade (%) |
Ag Grade (g/t) |
Zn Contained Metal (Mlbs) |
Pb Contained Metal (Mlbs) |
Ag Contained Metal (Moz) |
Indicated |
Tom |
13.63 |
8.60 |
5.84 |
2.63 |
24.1 |
1,754 |
789 |
10.56 |
Jason |
1.63 |
8.63 |
6.96 |
2.12 |
2.1 |
251 |
76 |
0.11 |
End Zone |
0.32 |
16.43 |
3.91 |
12.51 |
87.3 |
28 |
89 |
0.90 |
Boundary Zone |
33.50 |
5.46 |
4.72 |
0.53 |
20.9 |
3,486 |
388 |
22.45 |
Total Indicated |
49.08 |
6.51 |
5.10 |
1.24 |
21.6 |
5,518 |
1,342 |
34.02 |
Inferred |
Tom |
4.20 |
10.16 |
6.37 |
3.24 |
39.7 |
591 |
300 |
5.37 |
Jason |
1.06 |
6.59 |
5.68 |
1.16 |
0.9 |
132 |
27 |
0.03 |
End Zone |
0.24 |
9.57 |
2.27 |
7.32 |
50.1 |
12 |
38 |
0.38 |
Boundary Zone |
16.90 |
3.63 |
3.39 |
0.21 |
8.9 |
1,260 |
77 |
4.85 |
Total Inferred |
22.40 |
5.06 |
4.05 |
0.90 |
14.8 |
1,995 |
442 |
10.63 |
See Table 1 footnotes
Table 6: Macpass UG Constrained MRE by
Deposit
2024 SLR Class |
Deposit |
Tonnes (Mt) |
ZnEq (%) |
Zn Grade (%) |
Pb Grade (%) |
Ag Grade (g/t) |
Zn Contained Metal (Mlbs) |
Pb Contained Metal (Mlbs) |
Ag Contained Metal (Moz) |
Indicated |
Tom |
3.90 |
14.46 |
7.93 |
5.85 |
63.9 |
681 |
502 |
8.00 |
Jason |
2.17 |
9.43 |
8.12 |
1.67 |
1.5 |
388 |
80 |
0.10 |
End Zone |
0.02 |
11.43 |
2.16 |
9.07 |
68.0 |
1 |
4 |
0.04 |
Boundary Zone |
0.84 |
12.46 |
10.55 |
1.31 |
51.0 |
196 |
24 |
1.38 |
Total Indicated |
6.92 |
12.64 |
8.29 |
4.00 |
42.8 |
1,266 |
610 |
9.52 |
Inferred |
Tom |
14.74 |
8.80 |
6.61 |
2.03 |
21.1 |
2,148 |
660 |
10.00 |
Jason |
10.59 |
10.78 |
5.46 |
4.65 |
52.9 |
1,274 |
1,085 |
18.01 |
End Zone |
0.20 |
7.83 |
1.40 |
6.38 |
45.9 |
6 |
29 |
0.30 |
Boundary Zone |
0.56 |
7.35 |
6.29 |
0.84 |
26.6 |
77 |
10 |
0.47 |
Total Inferred |
26.09 |
9.56 |
6.09 |
3.10 |
34.3 |
3,505 |
1,784 |
28.79 |
See Table 1 footnotes
Sensitivity Analysis
Cut-off grade (“CoG”) sensitivity analyses were
run on each deposit at increments of 20% NSR cut-off, starting at a
-20% scenario and ending with a +80% scenario to determine
continuity of mineralization and resiliency of the resource to
changes in cost environment or metal pricing (Table 7). A highly
robust method was used to perform the sensitivity analysis: new OP
shells and UG mining shapes were generated based on each of the
revised cut-off values for each sensitivity scenario at each
deposit to most accurately reflect mineral resources that would be
reported at cut-off values that deviate from the base case
scenario. Results show excellent continuity of mineralization
within both OP and UG environments across the range of scenarios
tested, with contiguous UG reporting panels generating very few
isolated outlying reporting panels. Visual representations of these
scenarios are presented in Figures 10–12.
Table 7 illustrates the resiliency of the
resource to decreases in metal pricing. Keeping cost assumptions
fixed at the base case, non-unique example combinations of
break-even prices would be approximately: at +20% NSR cut-off
USD$1.24/lb Zn, USD$0.97/lb Pb, and USD$22.10/oz Ag; at +40% NSR
cut-off USD$1.12/lb Zn, USD$0.88/lb Pb, and USD$20.05/oz Ag; at
+60% NSR cut-off USD$1.03/lb Zn, USD$0.81/lb Pb, and USD$18.48/oz
Ag; and at +80% NSR cut-off USD$0.97/lb Zn, USD$0.76/lb Pb, and
USD$17.28/oz Ag.
Table 7: OP and UG Macpass MRE Cut-Off
Sensitivity Analysis
Scenario NSR CoG |
Class |
OP/UG |
CoG NSR ($/t) |
CoG ZnEq % |
Tonnes (Mt) |
NSR ($/t) |
ZnEq. % |
Zn % |
Pb % |
Ag g/t |
-20 |
% |
Ind |
OP |
24.0 |
1.10 |
57.19 |
131.7 |
6.39 |
5.00 |
1.37 |
21.9 |
Base Case |
Ind |
OP |
30.0 |
1.40 |
49.08 |
130.4 |
6.51 |
5.10 |
1.24 |
21.6 |
20 |
% |
Ind |
OP |
36.0 |
1.70 |
41.78 |
137.7 |
6.68 |
5.38 |
1.33 |
23.7 |
40 |
% |
Ind |
OP |
42.0 |
2.00 |
35.27 |
142.5 |
6.91 |
5.57 |
1.38 |
24.8 |
60 |
% |
Ind |
OP |
48.0 |
2.30 |
29.89 |
149.3 |
7.24 |
5.85 |
1.44 |
26.7 |
80 |
% |
Ind |
OP |
54.0 |
2.50 |
24.31 |
157.3 |
7.63 |
6.19 |
1.48 |
28.9 |
-20 |
% |
Inf |
OP |
24.0 |
1.10 |
31.19 |
97.4 |
4.72 |
3.87 |
0.78 |
11.7 |
Base Case |
Inf |
OP |
30.0 |
1.40 |
22.40 |
103.6 |
5.06 |
4.05 |
0.9 |
14.8 |
20 |
% |
Inf |
OP |
36.0 |
1.70 |
16.98 |
112.5 |
5.46 |
4.28 |
1.06 |
18.0 |
40 |
% |
Inf |
OP |
42.0 |
2.00 |
12.99 |
125.6 |
6.09 |
4.64 |
1.29 |
21.7 |
60 |
% |
Inf |
OP |
48.0 |
2.30 |
10.06 |
139.9 |
6.78 |
5.01 |
1.55 |
25.8 |
80 |
% |
Inf |
OP |
54.0 |
2.50 |
7.20 |
159.9 |
7.75 |
5.47 |
1.96 |
32.3 |
-20 |
% |
Ind |
UG |
89.6 |
4.20 |
4.22 |
225.2 |
10.92 |
7.59 |
2.97 |
34.5 |
Base Case |
Ind |
UG |
112.0 |
5.30 |
6.92 |
259.9 |
12.64 |
8.29 |
4.00 |
42.8 |
20 |
% |
Ind |
UG |
134.4 |
6.30 |
7.45 |
266.9 |
12.94 |
8.34 |
4.05 |
43.1 |
40 |
% |
Ind |
UG |
156.8 |
7.40 |
7.62 |
285.9 |
13.87 |
8.94 |
4.38 |
50.4 |
60 |
% |
Ind |
UG |
179.2 |
8.40 |
7.04 |
308.2 |
14.95 |
9.39 |
4.89 |
57.9 |
80 |
% |
Ind |
UG |
201.6 |
9.50 |
6.44 |
329 |
15.96 |
9.78 |
5.39 |
66.2 |
-20 |
% |
Inf |
UG |
89.6 |
4.20 |
32.64 |
178.3 |
8.65 |
5.44 |
2.65 |
28.8 |
Base Case |
Inf |
UG |
112.0 |
5.30 |
26.09 |
200.3 |
9.56 |
6.09 |
3.10 |
34.3 |
20 |
% |
Inf |
UG |
134.4 |
6.30 |
19.54 |
228.9 |
11.10 |
6.44 |
3.79 |
43.6 |
40 |
% |
Inf |
UG |
156.8 |
7.40 |
13.99 |
263.5 |
12.78 |
6.84 |
4.80 |
57.7 |
60 |
% |
Inf |
UG |
179.2 |
8.40 |
11.19 |
288.1 |
13.97 |
7.11 |
5.50 |
67.6 |
80 |
% |
Inf |
UG |
201.6 |
9.50 |
9.43 |
308.4 |
14.96 |
7.33 |
6.08 |
76.3 |
Tonnes have been reported in millions, rounded
to the nearest 10,000.NSR values were calculated on a
block-by-block basis and reported as mass weighted averages for
each scenario. Zinc equivalency in this table for non-base case
scenarios was approximated using a simplified formula:
NSR($/t)/20.62 = ZnEq(%).All scenarios presented in this table are
deemed to meet the requirements for RPEEE.Base case scenarios are
presented as in Tables 5 and 6.
Gallium and Germanium By-Product
Potential
Gallium and germanium are critical minerals that
occur in elevated concentrations at MacPass. Fireweed has carried
out a comprehensive re-assay program for 2017–2023 drilling and
selected historical intervals using a specialized assay method that
can quantify gallium and germanium—a closed vessel assay (Bureau
Veritas method GC204). Fireweed is currently investigating the
potential to report by-product germanium and gallium alongside the
metals of economic interest in the MRE, zinc, lead, and silver.
Exploration Potential in the Macpass
District
The current Mineral Resources at Tom, Jason, and
Boundary Zone are open in multiple directions. Geological modeling
suggests that the trend of mineralization extends into areas that
are untested or for which mineral resources have not been defined.
Additional drilling in 2024 is intended to test targets that could
expand upon these resources and will be reflected in future
updates.
The Tom, Jason, End Zone and Boundary Zone
deposits are structurally and stratigraphically controlled
feeder-fault systems that occur on splays of the MacMillan-Hess
fault system. These feeder-faults occur on roughly 5–10 km centers,
within rocks of the Earn and Road River groups. These same fault
systems and prospective geology occur throughout the length of the
Macpass tenure area, along a pathway referred to as the
“prospective corridor” (Figure 1). Historically under-explored for
base metals, this prospective corridor is the focus of a
significant regional exploration program by Fireweed in 2024
comprising ground gravity geophysical surveys, soil sampling,
prospecting, and versatile time-domain electromagnetic
(VTEM)-magnetic airborne geophysical surveys.
Figure 1: Deposit locations and simplified
genetic model of Macpass: mineralization in the sub-surface
environment, with the curved pink lines representing the “stepping”
faults controlling the distribution of the deposits. The pink
plumes in the schematic cross section represent the sub-surface
environment where the early phase of stratiform mineralization at
the Tom, Jason, and Boundary Zone deposits formed within the
sediment pile, and are displayed prior to any deformation.
Qualified Person Statements and Related
Disclosure
Technical information in this news release
relating to the MRE has been reviewed and approved by SLR
Managing Principal Resource Geologist, Pierre
Landry, P.Geo. (BC), a ‘Qualified Person’ as defined under NI
43-101. Mr. Landry is considered to be “independent” of the Company
under Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.
All other technical information in this news
release has been reviewed and approved by Fireweed Metals’ VP
Geology, Dr. Jack Milton, P.Geo. (BC), a ‘Qualified Person’ as
defined under NI 43-101. Mr. Milton is not independent of the
Company within the meaning of NI 43-101, as he is VP, Geology of
the Company.
An NI 43-101 technical report supporting the MRE
will be filed on SEDAR+ within 45 days of the date of this news
release. Reference should be made to the full text of the technical
report for the assumptions, qualifications and limitations relating
thereto.
About Fireweed Metals Corp. (TSXV: FWZ;
OTCQX: FWEDF;
FSE:M0G):
Fireweed Metals Corp. is an exploration company unlocking
significant value in a new critical metals district located in
Yukon, Canada. Fireweed is 100% owner of the Macpass District, a
large and highly prospective 977 km2 land package. The Macpass
District includes the Macpass zinc-lead-silver project and the
Mactung tungsten project, both characterized by meaningful size,
grade and opportunity. At Macpass, Fireweed owns one of the largest
undeveloped zinc resources worldwide1,3, in a region with enormous
exploration upside potential. The Mactung project is a strategic
critical metals asset that hosts the world’s largest high-grade
tungsten resource1,4 – a potential long-term supply of tungsten for
North America. A Lundin Group company, Fireweed is strongly
positioned to create meaningful value.
In Canada, Fireweed (TSXV: FWZ) trades on the
TSX Venture Exchange. In the USA, Fireweed (OTCQX: FWEDF) trades on
the OTCQX Best Market for early stage and developing U.S. and
international companies and is DTC eligible for enhanced electronic
clearing and settlement. Investors can find Real-Time quotes and
market information for the Company on www.otcmarkets.com. In
Europe, Fireweed (FSE: M0G) trades on the Frankfurt Stock
Exchange.
Additional information about Fireweed and its
projects can be found on the Company’s website at
FireweedMetals.com and at www.sedarplus.com
ON BEHALF OF FIREWEED METALS
CORP.
“Peter Hemstead”
Interim CEO & Director
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its
Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the
policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for
the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
Cautionary Statements
Forward Looking Statements
This news release contains “forward-looking”
statements and information (“forward-looking statements”). All
statements, other than statements of historical facts, included
herein, including, without limitation, statements relating to
interpretation of drill results, targets for exploration, potential
extensions of mineralized zones, future work plans, the use of
funds, and the potential of the Company’s projects, are forward
looking statements. Forward-looking statements are frequently, but
not always, identified by words such as "expects”, "anticipates”,
"believes”, "intends”, "estimates”, "potential”, "possible”, and
similar expressions, or statements that events, conditions, or
results "will”, "may”, "could”, or "should” occur or be achieved.
Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs of Company
management, as well as assumptions made by and information
currently available to Company management and reflect the beliefs,
opinions, and projections on the date the statements are made.
Forward-looking statements involve various risks and uncertainties
and accordingly, readers are advised not to place undue reliance on
forward-looking statements. There can be no assurance that such
statements will prove to be accurate, and actual results and future
events could differ materially from those anticipated in such
statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to
differ materially from the Company's expectations include but are
not limited to, exploration and development risks, unanticipated
reclamation expenses, expenditure and financing requirements,
general economic conditions, changes in financial markets, the
ability to properly and efficiently staff the Company’s operations,
the sufficiency of working capital and funding for continued
operations, title matters, First Nations relations, operating
hazards, political and economic factors, competitive factors, metal
prices, relationships with vendors and strategic partners,
governmental regulations and oversight, permitting, seasonality and
weather, technological change, industry practices, uncertainties
involved in the interpretation of drilling results and laboratory
tests, and one-time events. The Company assumes no obligation to
update forward‐looking statements or beliefs, opinions, projections
or other factors, except as required by law.
This news release also contains references to
estimates of mineral resources. The estimation of mineral resources
is inherently uncertain and involves subjective judgments about
many relevant factors. Mineral resources that are not mineral
reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The accuracy
of any such estimates is a function of the quantity and quality of
available data, and of the assumptions made and judgments used in
engineering and geological interpretation, which may prove to be
unreliable and depend, to a certain extent, upon the analysis of
drilling results and statistical inferences that may ultimately
prove to be inaccurate. Mineral resource estimates may require
re-estimation based on, among other things: (i) fluctuations in the
price of zinc and other metals; (ii) results of drilling; (iii)
results of metallurgical testing, process and other studies; (iv)
changes to proposed mine plans; (v) the evaluation of mine plans
subsequent to the date of any estimates; and (vi) the possible
failure to receive required permits, approvals and licenses.
Footnotes and References
*Zinc equivalency is based on a price of
USD$1.40/lb Zn, USD$1.10/lb Pb, and USD$25/oz Ag, CAD:USD exchange
rate of 1.32, and a number of operating cost and metallurgical
assumptions specific to each deposit or domain (see Tables 2 and
3).
1References to relative size, grade, and metal
content of the Macpass resources and Mactung resources in
comparison to other tungsten, zinc, gallium, and germanium deposits
elsewhere in the world, respectively, are based on review of the
Standard & Poor’s Global Market Intelligence Capital IQ
database.
2: The 2018 NI43-101 technical report on the
previous mineral resource is available for comparison on
https://www.sedarplus.ca/
3: For Tom, Jason, End Zone, and Boundary Zone
Mineral Resources, the technical report will be filed on
https://www.sedarplus.ca/ within 45 days of September 4, 2024, the
effective date of this Mineral Resource.
4: For Mactung Mineral Resources, see Fireweed
news release dated June 13, 2023 “Fireweed Metals Announces Mineral
Resources for the Mactung Project: the Largest High-Grade Tungsten
Deposit in the World*” and the technical report entitled “NI 43-101
Technical Report, Mactung Project, Yukon Territory, Canada,” with
effective date July 28, 2023 filed on https://www.sedarplus.ca/.
Garth Kirkham, P.Geo. is independent of Fireweed Metals Corp., and
a ‘Qualified Person’ as defined under Canadian National Instrument
43-101. Garth Kirkham, of Kirkham Geosystems Limited., is
responsible for the Mactung Mineral Resource Estimate.
Contact: Alex CampbellPhone: +1 (604) 689-7842
Email: info@fireweedmetals.com
Figure 2: Plan View of Tom Block Model, OP shell,
drilling traces with assay ZnEq% values. The view is cut at 1450 m
above sea level to display the resource extents at 120 m below
surface.
Figure 3: Cross section view of Tom block model,
OP shell, UG Resource Panels and drilling traces with assay ZnEq%
values.
Figure 4: Plan view of Jason block model, OP
shell, drilling traces with assay ZnEq% values.. The view is cut at
1120 m above sea level to display the resource extents at 135 m
below surface.
Figure 5: Cross section view of Jason block
model, OP shell, UG Resource Panels and drilling traces with assay
ZnEq% values.
Figure 6: Plan view of End Zone block model, OP
shell, drilling traces with assay ZnEq% values. The view is cut at
1350 m above sea level to display the resource extents at 40 m
below surface.
Figure 7: Cross section view of End Zone block
model, OP shell, UG Resource Panels and drilling traces with assay
ZnEq% values.
Figure 8: Plan view of Boundary Zone block model,
OP shell, drilling traces with assay ZnEq% values. The view is cut
at 1080 m above sea level to display the resource extents at 110 m
below surface.
Figure 9: Cross section view of Boundary Zone
block model, OP shell, UG Resource Panels and drilling traces with
assay ZnEq% values.
Figure 10: Tom Deposit NSR CoG Sensitivity
Visualization.
Figure 11: Jason Deposit NSR CoG Sensitivity
Visualization.
Figure 12: Boundary Zone NSR CoG Sensitivity
Visualization
Photos accompanying this announcement are available at
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/1ca724b0-8d32-42fd-b9f5-5343574ebb11
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/79f43e56-6867-4ab4-99f4-9065c8ba610d
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/a84da88d-0382-4e8b-b97a-e3bac6cc7b61
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/5be8df50-a155-4f04-a686-4c09da5f88c0
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/6cff9705-fa48-4e5c-96dd-b2a2962f0ec8
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/71e532ca-640c-429d-8c3a-c8a96f5509a9
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/ed64a188-718e-4641-87a9-e13dd5f9b9af
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/0164a5b7-ad56-418f-9ef9-5b04cf9a3444
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/73bfbf85-d136-46da-bef5-4593cc8f5e2e
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/978b0c1d-17c0-4772-81a8-54e933e57272
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/dc6b7135-656d-4ef8-87d5-1c31fa1ffb66
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/4f9b59bc-127d-4e7e-81f4-ef7b1d623132
Fireweed Metals (TSXV:FWZ)
Historical Stock Chart
From Oct 2024 to Nov 2024
Fireweed Metals (TSXV:FWZ)
Historical Stock Chart
From Nov 2023 to Nov 2024