For immediate
release
25 October
2024
Galileo Resources Plc
("Galileo" or "the Company")
ADDITIONAL MINING LICENCE ISSUED FOR THE
LUANSOBE COPPER PROJECT, ZAMBIA
Galileo Resources plc ("Galileo "or the
"Company") is pleased to announce the award of a further small
scale mining licence for the Luansobe copper project ("Luansobe" or
the "Project") in Zambia to Statunga Investments Limited
("Statunga"). Galileo has a 75% interest in the Project.
Highlights
·
Following on from the previous announcement of the granting
of a small-scale mining licence to Statunga over part of the former
Luansobe exploration licence encompassing the shallow open pittable
part of the Project (refer to RNS dated 29 May 2024), the Company
can confirm that the additional small-scale mining licence
indicated in that announcement has now been awarded encompassing
the potential underground mineral resource and exploration
target.
· The
new small-scale mining licence 34545-HQ-SML covering an area of 384
hectares has been granted from 4th August 2024 for a period of ten
years for mining of copper and other base and precious
metals.
· The
two mining licences cover an area for which Galileo has previously
reported Inferred Mineral Resources reported in accordance with the
JORC code 2012 edition as summarised below (refer to RNS dated 09
February 2023):-
o Approximately
5.8 million tonnes gross at 1% total Cu above a cut-off grade of
0.25% total Cu for 56,000 tonnes of contained Cu, potentially
amenable to open pit mining.
o Approximately
6.3 million tonnes gross at 1.5% total Cu above a cut-off grade of
1% total Cu for 97,000 tonnes of contained Cu, potentially amenable
to underground mining.
·
Historic drilling suggests a further exploration
target of approximately 3 million to 7 million tonnes between
depths of 100 to 300m with grades in the region of 1% to 1.5% total
Cu, reported in accordance with the JORC code 2012 edition. The
exploration target is conceptual in nature and may not be
realised (refer to RNS dated 09 February 2023). Sparse
historical drilling indicates that there is potential for
additional resources beyond those highlighted above subject to
confirmation by deeper drilling.
Colin Bird Chairman & CEO said:
"As indicated in our announcement of 29 May 2024,
we are pleased to be able to report that Statunga is now in receipt
of the second mining licence for Luansobe covering the area of the
underground resource. This marks an important step forward in our
plan for the development of the open pit and accessible underground
resources separate from a deeper drilling programme targeted at
investigation of the extent of the deposit at depth (refer to RNS
dated 06 September 2024). We continue to believe that there is the
potential to define a much larger resource within our licence
boundary and we look forward to announcing further progress on the
Project in the coming period."
Project Background
The Luansobe area is situated some 15km to the
northwest of the Mufulira Mine in the Zambian Copperbelt which
produced well over 9Mt of copper metal during its operation. It
forms part of the northwestern limb of the northwest - southeast
trending Mufulira syncline and is essentially a strike continuation
of Mufulira, with copper mineralisation hosted in the same
stratigraphic horizons. At the Luansobe prospect mineralisation
occurs over two contiguous zones, dipping at 20-30 degrees to the
northeast, over a strike length of about 3km and to a vertical
depth of at least 1,250m.
Galileo entered into a Joint Venture agreement
with Statunga, a private Zambian company which held the Project
comprising small-scale exploration licence No. 28340-HQ-SEL in the
Zambian Copperbelt prior to its conversion to two mining licences
(see RNS of 30 December 2021).
Information on
Statunga: Statunga Investments Limited was
registered on 4 May 2020 in Zambia with company number
120200003303 owned by Zambian
individuals, including Lukonde Makungu who is a director of
Statunga Investments Limited and an executive director of
Cooperlemon consultancy which provides consultancy services to
Statunga. Statunga's main activity is mining,
and registered address office is at Plot No. 2457B,
Kamfinsa, Copperbelt Province, Zambia.
The JV Agreement provides Galileo the right to
earn an initial 75% interest in a special purpose joint venture
company to be established under Zambia law to, with Ministerial
consent, acquire the exploration licence and the technical data
related to the Luansobe Project by making two payments of
US$200,000 each (subject to project due diligence) by 20 February
2022 and issuing 5,000,000 Galileo shares to the Vendors. These
conditions were met by the Company. Statunga retains a 25% interest
in the Project. The Company is discussing the establishment of the
JV company which is intended to hold the Project licences and will
update Shareholders once this is agreed in due course.
If a decision to mine is made by Galileo, then
the parties will be entitled to fund pro rata to their beneficial
interest in the JV Company. Any funding shortfall by the Vendors
will be recovered from subsequent mine production.
Technical Sign off
Technical information in this
announcement has been reviewed by Edward (Ed) Slowey, BSc, PGeo,
Technical Director of Galileo. Mr Slowey is a geologist with more
than 40 years' relevant experience in mineral exploration and
mining, a founder member of the Institute of Geologists of Ireland
and is a Qualified Person under the AIM rules. Mr Slowey has
reviewed and approved this announcement.
Beaumont Cornish Limited ("Beaumont
Cornish") is the Company's Nominated Adviser and is authorised and
regulated by the FCA. Beaumont Cornish's responsibilities as the
Company's Nominated Adviser, including a responsibility to advise
and guide the Company on its responsibilities under the AIM Rules
for Companies and AIM Rules for Nominated Advisers, are owed solely
to the London Stock Exchange. Beaumont Cornish is not acting for
and will not be responsible to any other persons for providing
protections afforded to customers of Beaumont Cornish nor for
advising them in relation to the proposed arrangements described in
this announcement or any matter referred to in it.
You can also follow Galileo on Twitter:
@GalileoResource
For further information, please contact: Galileo
Resources PLC
Colin Bird, Chairman
|
Tel +44 (0) 20 7581 4477
|
Beaumont Cornish Limited -
Nomad
Roland Cornish/James
Biddle
|
Tel +44 (0) 20 7628 3396
|
Novum Securities Limited - Joint
Broker
Colin Rowbury /Jon
Belliss
|
+44 (0) 20 7399 9400
|
Shard Capital Partners LLP -
Joint Broker
Damon Heath
|
Tel +44 (0) 20 7186 9952
|
The information contained within this
announcement is deemed by the Company to constitute inside
information as stipulated under the Market Abuse Regulations (EU)
No. 596/2014 as it forms part of UK Domestic Law by virtue of the
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 ("UK MAR").
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.
END
JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1 report
template
Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data
(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding
sections.)
|
|
|
Sampling techniques
|
·
Nature and
quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specific
specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the
minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or
handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken
as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.
·
Include
reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the
appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems
used.
·
Aspects of the
determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public
Report.
·
In cases where
'industry standard' work has been done this would be relatively
simple (eg 'reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m
samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for
fire assay'). In other cases more explanation may be required, such
as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems.
Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg submarine nodules)
may warrant disclosure of detailed information.
|
·
Sampling of Galileo 2022 drilling and resampled
legacy core was by sawn 1/4 HQ core.
·
Samples were prepared at SGS Kalulushi by dry
crushing to 90% passing 2.36 mm, 1 kg split pulverized to 85%
passing 75 µm.
·
Routine internal and external quality control
samples in the for of certified reference materials were inserted
and found to perform adequately.
·
Sampling was typically 1 m in length with
variation to meet lithological contacts.
|
Drilling techniques
|
·
Drill type (eg
core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast,
auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or
standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other
type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method,
etc).
|
·
All drilling by Galileo was HQ diamond drilling
with PQ in overburden.
·
Legacy drilling was diamond drilling with core
sizes approximately equal to NQ or HQ.
|
Drill sample recovery
|
·
Method of
recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results
assessed.
·
Measures taken
to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the
samples.
·
Whether a
relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether
sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of
fine/coarse material.
|
·
All Galileo drilling was logged for core recovery.
Mean total core recovery was >95%
·
Shorter drill runs were used in broken ground to
improve recovery.
·
No relationship was identified between recovery
and grade.
·
Details of legacy drilling are unknown relogged
core inspected from legacy drilling showed mean recover7 of 75% for
30 holes logged. Although some core may have been lost in
storage.
|
Logging
|
·
Whether core and
chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a
level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation,
mining studies and metallurgical studies.
·
Whether logging
is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean,
channel, etc) photography.
·
The total length
and percentage of the relevant intersections
logged.
|
·
All Galileo drilling was geotechnically and
geologically logged.
·
30 Historic drillholes were geotechnically and
geologically relogged.
·
Of the legacy drillholes Thirty-four Drillholes
have no geology Log, while 968.86 Meters of missing intervals have
not been logged in drillholes with logging elsewhere in the
drillhole.
|
Sub-sampling techniques and sample
preparation
|
·
If core, whether
cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core
taken.
·
If non-core,
whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether
sampled wet or dry.
·
For all sample
types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample
preparation technique.
·
Quality control
procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise
representivity of samples.
·
Measures taken
to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ
material collected, including for instance results for field
duplicate/second-half sampling.
·
Whether sample
sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being
sampled.
|
·
Galileo and resampled legacy core was sawn.
Inspection of historical core shows it was saw and half core
sampled.
·
2.1% Field duplicates were taken during Galileo
drilling and showed good precision.
·
No duplicate data is available for legacy
core.
|
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests
|
·
The nature,
quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory
procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or
total.
·
For geophysical
tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters
used in determining the analysis including instrument make and
model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their
derivation, etc.
·
Nature of
quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks,
duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable
levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been
established.
|
·
During 2022 Diamond Drilling Galileo collected
1874 quarter core samples (including field duplicates) and inserted
118 control samples (78 SRMs and 40 blanks), which respectively
represents 4.2% and 2.1% of the whole sample population.
·
The resampling program included 5% CRM and 5%
blank insertion.
·
2.1% Field duplicates were taken during Galileo
drilling and showed good precision.
·
30 drillholes from legacy drilling were checked
with PXRF and the results showed a strong correlation to legacy
assay results.
·
No bias has been identified.
|
Verification of sampling and assaying
|
·
The verification
of significant intersections by either independent or alternative
company personnel.
·
The use of
twinned holes.
·
Documentation of
primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data
storage (physical and electronic) protocols.
·
Discuss any
adjustment to assay data.
|
·
Relogging and PXRF analysis of 30 historic
drillholes has confirmed the presence of significant
intercepts.
·
Galileo drilling twinned 5 drillholes and showed
good correlation with legacy drillholes.
·
Galileo assay data was imported into a relational
database and merged by query from the digital
certificates.
·
Historic procedures are unknown
|
Location of data points
|
·
Accuracy and
quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole
surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in
Mineral Resource estimation.
·
Specification of
the grid system used.
·
Quality and
adequacy of topographic control.
|
·
Galileo drilling was surveyed by DGPS, 4 legacy
drillhole collars were located in the field and surveyed by DGPS.
The collar locations are within close agreement (<1m)
·
Data was collected in WGS84 UTM 35s and
transformed to ARC50 UTM35s
·
A topographic survey was completed over the open
pit resource are using DGPS and is adequate for the
study.
·
Details of legacy survey are unknown.
|
Data spacing and distribution
|
·
Data spacing for
reporting of Exploration Results.
·
Whether the data
spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of
geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral
Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and
classifications applied.
·
Whether sample
compositing has been applied.
|
·
Drillhole spacing is ~50 m in the area of the open
pit resource estimate and 75 to 100 m in the underground resource
area.
·
Else where data spacing is 150 to 200 m
·
Data spacing is close enough to establish
geological continuity in the open pit resource area and underground
resource area.
·
In the wider spaced drilling areas there is
insufficient data density for reliable resource
estimation.
|
Orientation of data in relation to geological
structure
|
·
Whether the
orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible
structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the
deposit type.
·
If the
relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation
of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a
sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if
material.
|
·
All drilling is vertical. The mineralization is
inclined to the northeast by ~30 degrees, locally it can be flat or
up to 45 degrees.
·
The orientation of drilling is not assumed to have
introduced a sample bias.
|
Sample security
|
·
The measures
taken to ensure sample security.
|
·
Samples were transported by company personnel to
the lab in labelled bags. Lab standard submission forms were
used.
|
Audits or reviews
|
·
The results of
any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and
data.
|
·
No such reviews have been completed.
|
Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
(Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply
to this section.)
|
|
|
Mineral tenement and land tenure status
|
·
Type, reference
name/number, location and ownership including agreements or
material issues with third parties such as joint ventures,
partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests,
historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental
settings.
·
The security of
the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known
impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the
area.
|
·
Galileo has entered into a Joint Venture agreement
with Statunga Investments Limited ("Statunga" or "the Vendors"), a
private Zambian company which holds the Luansobe Project
("Project") comprising small-scale exploration licence No.
28340-HQ-SEL in the Zambian Copperbelt.
·
The JV Agreement provides Galileo the right to
earn an initial 75% interest in a special purpose joint venture
company to be established under Zambia law to, with Ministerial
consent, acquire the exploration licence and the technical data
related to the Luansobe Project by making two payments of
US$200,000 each (subject to project due diligence) by 20 February
2022 and issuing 5,000,000 Galileo shares to the
Vendors.
·
The licence is granted for 4 years from
16th of February 2021
|
Exploration done by other parties
|
·
Acknowledgment
and appraisal of exploration by other parties.
|
·
78 drillholes completed in 2006-2007 by previous
operators Z.C.C.M. Ltd plus 86 other historical
drillholes completed by Roan Consolidated
Mines Ltd in 1950 to 1970 were used in the
estimate, 30 of which were re-logged by independent consultants
Geoquest on behalf of Galileo.
|
Geology
|
·
Deposit type,
geological setting and style of mineralisation.
|
·
The Luansobe area is situated some 15km to the
northwest of the Mufulira Mine in the Zambian Copperbelt which
produced well over 9Mt of copper metal during its operation. It
forms part of the northwestern limb of the northwest - southeast
trending Mufulira syncline and is essentially a strike continuation
of Mufulira, with copper mineralisation hosted in the same
stratigraphic horizons. At the Luansobe prospect mineralisation
occurs over two contiguous zones, dipping at 20-30 degrees to the
northeast, over a strike length of about 3km and to a vertical
depth of at least 1,250m.
|
Drill hole Information
|
·
A summary of all
information material to the understanding of the exploration
results including a tabulation of the following information for all
Material drill holes:
o easting and northing of the
drill hole collar
o elevation or RL (Reduced
Level - elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole
collar
o dip and azimuth of the
hole
o down hole length and
interception depth
o hole
length.
·
If the exclusion
of this information is justified on the basis that the information
is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the
understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly
explain why this is the case.
|
·
No exploration results are presented in this
announcement.
|
Data aggregation methods
|
·
In reporting
Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or
minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off
grades are usually Material and should be stated.
·
Where aggregate
intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and
longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such
aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such
aggregations should be shown in detail.
·
The assumptions
used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly
stated.
|
·
No exploration results are presented in this
announcement.
|
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept
lengths
|
·
These
relationships are particularly important in the reporting of
Exploration Results.
·
If the geometry
of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is
known, its nature should be reported.
·
If it is not
known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be
a clear statement to this effect (eg 'down hole length, true width
not known').
|
·
No exploration results are presented in this
announcement.
|
Diagrams
|
·
Appropriate maps
and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be
included for any significant discovery being reported These should
include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar
locations and appropriate sectional views.
|
·
No exploration results are presented in this
announcement.
|
Balanced reporting
|
·
Where
comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not
practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades
and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of
Exploration Results.
|
·
No exploration results are presented in this
announcement.
|
Other substantive exploration data
|
·
Other
exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported
including (but not limited to): geological observations;
geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk
samples - size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results;
bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics;
potential deleterious or contaminating
substances.
|
·
No exploration results are presented in this
announcement.
|
Further work
|
·
The nature and
scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or
depth extensions or large-scale step-out
drilling).
·
Diagrams clearly
highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main
geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this
information is not commercially sensitive.
|
·
Further drilling is required in areas of sparse
data.
·
Improved structural interpretation of the Siniform
structure at Luansobe will improve understanding of the deposit
geometry.
|
Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources
(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in
section 2, also apply to this section.)
|
|
|
Database integrity
|
·
Measures taken
to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example,
transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and
its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.
·
Data validation
procedures used.
|
·
Galileo sampling was imported into a relational
database from digital certificates.
·
All data was validated for overlapping intervals,
intervals beyond drillhole depth etc.
|
Site visits
|
·
Comment on any
site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of
those visits.
·
If no site
visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the
case.
|
·
No site visit has been undertaken as a site visit
was not requested by Galileo.
|
Geological interpretation
|
·
Confidence in
(or conversely, the uncertainty of ) the geological interpretation
of the mineral deposit.
·
Nature of the
data used and of any assumptions made.
·
The effect, if
any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource
estimation.
·
The use of
geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource
estimation.
·
The factors
affecting continuity both of grade and geology.
|
·
The Mineral Resource Estimate set out above was
based on the wireframe interpretation of the mineralized massive
shale, lower dolomite, BC and C quartzites of the "Ore" Formation
of the Lower Roan stratigraphy.
·
This allows correlation of the mineralized
intervals.
·
Discrepancy in legacy logging was identified in
places and drillholes relogged by Geoquest and drilling completed
by Galileo was taken as priority during interpretation.
|
Dimensions
|
·
The extent and
variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along
strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the
upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.
|
· Mineralization ranges from approximately 30 to 160 m below
surface in the open pit resource and is approximately 550 m along
strike to the southwest and 150 m down dip to the northeast.
Elsewhere the resource ranges up to 250 to 300 m below surface with
an additional strike length of 1200 m extending down dip 300 to 500
m
· The
mineral resource is closed off by drilling and as it nears surface
to the northwest and southwest. Down dip to the northeast
mineralization may continue and it has been extrapolated by ~50m
from the edge of drilling, were further mineralization to be
present here it would likely only be amenable to underground mining
due to the high stripping ratios to the north east. To the
southeast where the despot is deepest further mineralization has
been identified at depths 250-300 m, however drilling is too sparse
to infer continuity and allow reporting of a mineral
resource.
|
Estimation and modelling techniques
|
·
The nature and
appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key
assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values,
domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of
extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation
method was chosen include a description of computer software and
parameters used.
·
The availability
of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production
records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate
account of such data.
·
The assumptions
made regarding recovery of by-products.
·
Estimation of
deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic
significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage
characterisation).
·
In the case of
block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the
average sample spacing and the search employed.
·
Any assumptions
behind modelling of selective mining units.
·
Any assumptions
about correlation between variables.
·
Description of
how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource
estimates.
·
Discussion of
basis for using or not using grade cutting or
capping.
·
The process of
validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data
to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if
available.
|
· The
block size was 20 mE x 20 mN x 2 mZ in the area of closest spaced
drilling covering the open pit resource area (1/2 to 1/3 of drill
spacing). In areas of more sparse drilling including most of the
underground resource the block size was 60 mE x 60 mN x 6 mZ (1/2
to 1/3 of drill spacing).
· Grades
were estimated using Ordinary Kriging of 2 m downhole composites,
no grade capping was deemed necessary. An incrementally larger
search radius of 100, 200 and 300 m was used. The maximum number of
samples per search was restricted to 18 maximum and samples per
drillhole restricted to 2 in the area of 2 mZ blocks, elsewhere
there was no restriction in the number of samples per drillhole.
Discretization was 5x5x2. The estimate was completed using
Micromine 2022.5 software.
· Mineralization is typically 4 to 10 m thick and mining by open
pit with flitches of 2-5 m envisaged.
· No
extreme outlier values were identified and grade capping was not
used.
· A
legacy estimate completed by ZCCM in 2008 disclosed an open pit
resource estimate of 5.5 million tonnes at 1.6%TCu. The details of
the estimate are unknown but broadly agrees with the findings of
this study.
· No
assays are available for deleterious
elements
|
Moisture
|
·
Whether the
tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and
the method of determination of the moisture
content.
|
·
Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis.
|
Cut-off parameters
|
·
The basis of the
adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters
applied.
|
· Open
pit mining assumes a Cu price of US$9000 per tonne with 85%
payability on metal in concentrate. Pit optimization and cut off
grade selection was based on the assumption of 85% recovery of
total Cu, including the acid soluble component, by floatation at
$14/t plus $1.5/t G&A. Mining costs were assumed as $3/t.
Underground mining was based on the same assumptions with a mining
costs of $40/t.
|
Mining factors or assumptions
|
·
Assumptions made
regarding possible mining methods, 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.
|
·
Open pit mining is assumed with 5%
dilution.
·
40 degree pit slopes in overburden with 50 degree
slopes in fresh rock assumed. There are no geotechnical studies to
support this.
·
Detailed underground mining methods have yet to be
investigated. 5-10% dilution is assumed.
|
Metallurgical factors or assumptions
|
·
The basis for
assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It
is always necessary as part of the process of determining
reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider
potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding
metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when
reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this
is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the
basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.
|
·
No metallurgical testwork has been
completed.
·
85% recovery is assumed by floatation of all Cu
bearing material.
|
Environmen-tal factors or assumptions
|
·
Assumptions made
regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It
is always necessary as part of the process of determining
reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider
the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing
operation. While at this stage the determination of potential
environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may
not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of
these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where
these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with
an explanation of the environmental assumptions
made.
|
·
The project is located in a prominent mining area.
No major settlements are within the immediate vicinity of the
project. Adequate space is available for disposal of waste rock and
tailings.
·
Social and environmental studies are required to
assess the impact on local communities which may have an interest
in the land use.
|
Bulk density
|
·
Whether assumed
or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If
determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of
the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the
samples.
·
The bulk density
for bulk material must have been measured by methods that
adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture
and differences between rock and alteration zones within the
deposit.
·
Discuss
assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation
process of the different materials.
|
·
Galileo collected 234 bulk density samples over a
range of lithologies.
·
Samples were weighed dry with and without wax and
waxed samples submerged in water to account for
porosity.
·
Density values in t/m3 used in the estimate are as
follows
· Massive shale 2.46
· Lower
Dolomite 2.44
· BC
Quartzite 2.50
· C
Quartzite
2.50
|
Classification
|
·
The basis for
the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence
categories.
·
Whether
appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie
relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of
input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values,
quality, quantity and distribution of the data).
·
Whether the
result appropriately reflects the Competent Person's view of the
deposit.
|
·
The estimate is based on a large proportion of
legacy data, however relogging of legacy drill core from the 1970s
and PXRF analysis has served to reduce the risk associated with
this data.
·
In areas of closes spaced drilling and around the
open pit resource area confidence in the estimation of mineralized
volumes and grades is highest. However the CP has not visited the
site to inspect the project geology and as such the estimate is
restricted to the inferred category.
·
The presence of faulting or different fold
geometry may serve to impact the resource estimate.
·
Logging of some legacy drill core is inconsistent
with that of new drilling although re correlation is possible and
should have minimal impact on the estimate.
·
There is no assessment of deleterious elements,
acid consuming gangue or metallurgical testwork which further
supports restriction to the inferred category.
·
Geotechnical pit slope analysis may serve to
materially change the open pit resource estimate.
|
Audits or reviews
|
·
The results of
any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource
estimates.
|
·
The have been no such audits or
reviews.
|
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence
|
·
Where
appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence
level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or
procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example,
the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to
quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated
confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed
appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could
affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the
estimate.
·
The statement
should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates,
and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be
relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should
include assumptions made and the procedures used.
·
These statements
of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be
compared with production data, where available.
|
·
The estimate is local estimate and is accurate to
those typical of an inferred estimate with errors of +/-30 on a
local basis and +/- 20-30% on a global basis.
|