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 are 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. • No mineral resource estimation activities have been undertaken for the Project. 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 mineral resource estimation activities have been undertaken for the Project. Geological interpretation • Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of ) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit. • The nature of the data used and 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 are both grade and geology. • No mineral resource estimation activities have been undertaken for the Project. Dimensions • The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below the surface to the upper and • No mineral resource estimation activities have been undertaken for the Project. Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary lower limits of the Mineral Resource. Estimation and modelling techniques • The nature and appropriateness of the applied estimation technique(s) and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum extrapolation distance from data points. If a computer-assisted estimation method was chosen, include a description of the computer software and the parameters used. • The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate appropriately accounts for such data. • The assumptions made regarding the recovery of by-products. • Estimating deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (e.g. 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 the modelling of selective mining units. • Any assumptions about the...
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. • Spitfire supplied validated drill hole data in Micromine format. Collar, assay and coded geology data files were provided. A detailed topography digital terrain model (DTM) was also provided. A sectional geological interpretation of the major geological boundaries was provided by Spitfire in Micromine string format. • As at the date of this report, a total of 236 Reverse Circulation (RC) holes had been drilled in the project area, of which 88 holes were at the Contact Deposit, 101 holes were at Contact North and 27 holes were at Contact South. 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 visits have been made by the CP, as there is little outcrop, and the Resource estimate was commissioned after drilling had been completed. 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 interpretation of the mineralised envelope was largely carried out by assessing manganese grades as dictated by the assay results. This gave an accurate estimate of replacement magnitude as opposed to visual estimation from logging. • The sectional interpretations provided by Spitfire represented the mineralized zones and Contact and Contact North. There was an additional minor footwall zone at Contact North, and a series of discontinuous internal waste zones were also defined. A nominal 4% Mn cutoff was used in conjunction with geological logging was used to define mineralised zones. • A series of wireframe solids were developed from this geological interpretation. Codes were assigned to assay data based on these surfaces.
Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources. (The criteria listed in Section 1 and, where relevant, in Section 2, also apply to this Section) Criteria Commentary
Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources. Criteria Commentary
Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources. (Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in sections 2, also apply to this section.) Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary 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. All historical geological and field data is stored in both hard copy and MS Excel spread sheets. Validation of the spreadsheets was undertaken in Explore 3, Leapfrog and Datamine by Terra Search in 2015 and AMC in 2016. Entech undertook further validation checks in 2019 when loading into Surpac software. • Data validation procedures used. Validation was undertaken by Terra Search in 2015 by loading the drillhole data into an Explore 3 data base which specifically targets errors in drilling data such as duplicate records and holes missing survey and collar information. Duplicate data was identified in the blasthole and sludge hole database and removed by AMC in 2016. Further validation was completed (including spatially) using Leapfrog software. The drill hole data utilised for the Mineral Resource was considered in good standing and incorporates drilling results available up to and including 31st July 2019. Site visits • Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. No site visit was undertaken. The competent person reviewed site visit reports by independent consultants Terra Search, 2015 and AMC 2016. In addition to the reviews of site visit reports, Entech utilised the experience of EUC geologists to ensure all tacit knowledge regarding the project, access to mineralisation exposures and core processing infrastructure was taken into account for this decision. • If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case. The competent person did not undertake a site visit to the Far Fanning Project due to limited accessibility to mineralisation exposures in historical open pits/underground, drill core, lack of core processing infrastructure or current drilling programmes to observe data collection procedures. There has been no drilling or processing of drill material since 2015 and mining ceased in 2004. The competent person reviewed site visit reports by independent consultants Terra Search, 2015 and AMC 2016. A site visit is planned by the competent person in October 2019 to coincide with resource infill/extensional drilling, prior to an MRE update. Geo...
