TIDMBZT
RNS Number : 4334R
Bezant Resources PLC
27 October 2023
27 October 2023
Bezant Resources PLC
("Bezant Resources", "BZT" or "the Company")
Updated Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate
for the Hope and Gorob Copper Project, Namibia
Bezant Resources Plc ("Bezant Resources", "BZT" or the
"Company") is pleased to announce the results of an updated
Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate for the Hope and
Gorob copper project situated within EPL 5796 ("the "Project") in
Namibia, completed by independent consultants Addison Mining
Services Ltd ("Addison" or "AMS"). Bezant Resources holds a 70%
interest in the Project.
Highlights
The updated Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) has been completed
by Addison Mining Services Ltd., an independent consultancy based
in the United Kingdom and is reported in accordance with the JORC
Code (2012). Resources are of Indicated and Inferred categories and
include:
-- A Total Mineral Resource of 15 million tonnes gross at 1.2 %
Cu for 190 thousand tonnes of Cu estimated across the Hope, Gorob
Vendome and Anomaly deposits and comprising:
o Total Indicated Resources of 1.24 million tonnes at 1.6% Cu
and 0.4 g/t Au at the Hope deposit.
o Total Inferred Resources of approximately 14 million tonnes at
1.2% Cu across the Hope, Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly deposits,
including approximately 3 million tonnes at 1.7% Cu and 0.4 g/t Au
at Hope.
-- The resource estimation has ignored gold content for all
prospects other than the Hope target on the basis that many
historic boreholes (pre-dating Bezant's involvement) were not
assayed for gold and as such Addison could not include gold in the
resource compilation. Based on the Bezant drilling programme
Addison concur that it would not be unreasonable to anticipate
average grades of 0.2 to 0.4 g/t Au. The Company are considering a
programme to twin certain holes to give the independent consultant
the data to include additional gold in the resource estimate.
-- The MRE identified significant potential for open pit
extraction with an open pit resource of 2.4 million tonnes and the
potential, assuming favourable Cu grades from further drilling, of
increasing the size of the practically open pittable resource for
further 700,000 to 1 million tonnes postulating an open pit that
could support five years mine life at an annual rate of 500,000
tonnes per year.
-- The MRE identified that deeper parts of the orebody had the
potential to be mined underground, utilising a former concrete
lined shaft with additional access from the base of the open
pit.
-- Total tonnes of contained copper in Mineral Resource Estimate
of approximately 190,000 tonnes. AMS postulate that this could be
significantly increased by the drilling of untested areas where
mineralization is projected and a drilling programme targeted
toward increased gold credit, thereby increasing the overall copper
equivalent grade.
-- Addison has noted that there is significant exploration
potential with extensions to the existing open pit resources being
extremely likely and only omitted from the Resource Estimate due to
a historic low drill density that precludes conversion to a JORC
Resource. Although there are no guarantees, extension drilling
could result in further addition to the updated Mineral
Resource.
-- The metallurgical results from direct test work are currently
in progress and as such Addison have not considered them during the
MRE study. The Addsion MRE considers reasonably assumed
metallurgical inputs from historic testwork and prior studies. Any
new metallurgical testwork will inform future MRE updates and
technical studies.
Colin Bird Chairman & CEO said: "We are very pleased with
the outcome of our work over the last two years and we now have a
JORC (2012) resource, which our consultant agrees is both capable
of significant increase and equivalent copper value.
Concurrent with the work on the resource study we have been very
active on all aspects of the factors which goes toward building a
mine. We are confident that we now have sufficient information,
resource modelling, financial modelling and environmental
innovative approach to bring a small mine into production, whilst
aggressively carrying out further exploration to increase the
resource significantly.
We thank Addison for a very detailed study and their work apart
from producing the JORC (2012) estimate, has guided the Company in
its approach to overall mine design as well as the proposed
extension drilling programme."
Addison Mining Services has stated: " We have enjoyed working
with Bezant on the Hope & Gorob project and producing the
updated JORC (2012) estimate. Our work has shown the project to
have significant scope beyond the original independent estimate.
Management is well aware of what is necessary to add value both to
the current mining study and also the greater exploration
potential, including investigation of further gold credits and
exploration of the underexplored overturned limb at Hope, which if
successful may significantly increase the open pit mining
inventory. We wish them well with their efforts."
Project Background
The Hope and Gorob mineral deposits are situated in the Namib
Desert of Namibia within the Swakopmund District, Erongo Region.
The capital of Namibia, Windhoek, is approximately 250 km northeast
of the property and Walvis Bay is about 120 km northwest. The
nearest town is Walvis Bay and is the main port city of Namibia.
There is an international airport with daily flights to South
Africa (Johannesburg and Cape Town) and several international chain
hotels.
The Project location can be accessed by road either from Walvis
Bay via gravel roads D1983 and D2186, or from Windhoek via highway
M36 and connecting gravel road D2186.
The Hope and Gorob Project is situated within Exclusive
Prospecting (EPL) 5796, a 243 km(2) license held by Hope and Gorob
Mining (Pty) Ltd, a 70% subsidiary of Bezant Resources.
The Hope Copper-Gold Project is located on the southwestern most
point of the Matchless Amphibolite Belt (MAB) and the deposit is
characterised by surficial quaternary sand and gravel overlying the
Swakop Group of the Damara Supergroup. In this area the Matchless
Member consists of two main bands of amphibole-bearing schists,
metagabbros, and intercalated metapelitic rocks of the Kuiseb
Formation. The geology strikes east- north-east through the area,
and to the west it has been deformed into a major asymmetrical
syncline, known as the Hope Synform. This is over folded towards
the southeast. Two distinct amphibolite layers of the southern limb
appear to amalgamate on the northern limb, where they locally reach
a combined thickness of 500 m.
The Hope and Gorob prospects have undergone numerous phases of
exploration, undertaken by 8 or 9 companies within the project
history dating back to the late 1800's and early 1900's. The
project has seen multiple phases of drilling over its history.
Drilling used in the MRE over all prospects is summarized as
follows and presented in Figure 1.
-- 28 Diamond Drillholes by Bezant Resources over 2,680 m (2020 and 2023)
-- 118 Diamond Drillholes by Kuiseb Mining over 36,900 m (2006 to 2008)
-- 78 Drillholes by JCI over 18,680 m (1973 to 1976)
-- 26 Drillholes completed by SA Vendome over 5,470 m (1971 to 1973)
-- 119 Open Hole Percussion drillholes completed by JCI (1971)
over 5416 m were used by previous consultants for Resource
Estimation. AMS consider this data unreliable due to grade smearing
and cross sample contamination and have excluded them from the
estimate.
Figure 1 : Summary map of drilling and deposit areas.
No MRE has been completed by AMS for Anomaly East.
Mineral Resource Estimate
An update to the Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) for the Hope
and Gorob Project has seen Mineral Resources estimated for in-situ
mineralisation and reported in accordance with the JORC code
(2012). Wireframe restricted block models were generated for the
copper and gold mineralization at the Hope, Gorob, Vendome and
Anomaly prospects. Gold was not estimated for all areas due to lack
of assay data.
Resources are of the Inferred and Indicated category for Hope
and Inferred for all other deposits and are set out in Table 1.
Open pit Resources are reported at a 0.25% Cu% or CuEq% grade and
0.70% for Underground Resources. Due to the low number of Au assays
at Vendome and Anomaly no Au content is reported, but maybe
expected to be in the region of 0.2 to 0.4 g/t based on the data at
Hope and Bezant and Kuiseb drilling. At Gorob increased gold grades
may be realized by continued exploration due to the low number of
Au assays.
Table 1 : Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate for
the Hope and Gorob Project, Namibia. *Gross representing 100%
estimated Resources - Bezant has a 70% interest in the Hope and
Gorob Project
Area Cut-off Type Tonnes Density CuEq% Cu% Au Ag Cu Au Ag
g/t g/t t ozt ozt
-------- ------------ ----------- -------- ------ ---- ----- ----- -------- -------
INDICATED
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOPE 0.25 Open Pit 290,000 3.0 1.6 1.4 0.30 4.7 4,100 2,800 44,000
---------
0.70 Underground 950,000 3.0 1.9 1.7 0.40 6.7 17,000 12,000 210,000
---------
Subtotal
Indicated 1,240,000 3.0 1.8 1.6 0.4 6.2 21,100 14,800 254,000
---------------------- ----------- -------- ------ ---- ----- ----- -------- ------- --------
INFERRED
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25 Open Pit 140,000 3.0 1.2 1.1 0.30 3.1 1,500 1,400 14,000
0.70 Underground 2,800,000 3.0 2.0 1.7 0.43 6.1 49,000 39,000 550,000
Subtotal
Inferred 2,940,000 3.0 2.0 1.7 0.4 6.0 50,500 40,400 564,000
---------------------- ----------- -------- ------ ---- ----- ----- -------- ------- --------
INDICATED PLUS INFERED
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal
Open Pit 430,000 3.0 1.5 1.3 0.3 4.2 5,600 4,200 58,000
Subtotal
Underground 3,750,000 3.0 2.0 1.7 0.4 6.3 66,000 51,000 760,000
Subtotal
Hope 4,200,000 3.0 1.9 1.7 0.4 6.0 71,000 55,000 810,000
--------- ---------------------- ----------- -------- ------ ---- ----- ----- -------- ------- --------
INFERRED
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOROB 0.25 Open Pit 800,000 3.0 1.1 0.1 8,700 2,000
---------
0.70 Underground 5,100,000 3.0 1.2 0.1 58,700 18,000
---------
Subtotal
Gorob 5,900,000 3.0 1.2 0.1 67,400 20,000
--------- ---------------------- ----------- -------- ------ ---- ----- ----- -------- ------- --------
VOME 0.25 Open Pit 310,000 3.0 1.6 5,000
---------
0.70 Underground 3,300,000 3.0 1.0 35,000
---------
Subtotal
Vendome 3,610,000 3.0 1.0 40,000
--------- ---------------------- ----------- -------- ------ ---- ----- ----- -------- ------- --------
ANOMALY 0.25 Open Pit 850,000 3.0 0.6 5,300
---------
0.70 Underground 680,000 3.0 0.9 6,000
---------
Subtotal
Anomaly 1,530,000 3.0 0.7 11,300
--------- ---------------------- ----------- -------- ------ ---- ----- ----- -------- ------- --------
TOTAL 0.25 Open Pit 2,400,000 3.0 1.0 24,600 6,200 58,000
---------
0.70 Underground 12,800,000 3.0 1.3 165,700 69,000 760,000
---------
Grand Total 15,200,000 3.0 1.2 190,300 75,200 818,000
Total Indicated 1,200,000 3.0 1.8 1.6 0.4 6.2 21,100 14,800 254,000
Total Inferred 14,000,000 3.0 1.2 169,200 60,400 564,000
--------- ---------------------- ----------- -------- ------ ---- ----- ----- -------- ------- --------
Notes relating to Mineral Resource Estimate:
1. The independent Competent Person for the Mineral Resource
Estimate, as defined by the JORC Code (2012 edition), is Mr.
Richard Siddle, MSc, MAIG, of Addison Mining Services Ltd since
November 2014. The effective date of the Mineral Resource Estimate
is 30(th) of May 2023 and was signed on the 29(th) of August 2023.
Mr Siddle has completed a site visit between 27(th) April and
28(th) April 2023.
2. No mineral reserve estimates have been undertaken. Mineral
resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated
economic viability. The quantity and grade of reported Inferred
Resources in this Mineral Resource Estimate are uncertain in nature
and there has been insufficient exploration to define these
Inferred Resources as Indicated or Measured, however it is
reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral Resources
could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued
exploration and verification including infill drilling, further
verification of legacy drillholes via twin drilling and
metallurgical testing. Following further exploration it may be
possible to convert some of the Inferred Mineral Resources to
Indicated Mineral Resources.
3. Copper Equivalent is based on assumed prices of US$9,000 per
tonne Cu, US$1,800 per oz Au and US$20 per oz. recovery and selling
factors (see below) were incorporated into the calculation of Cu Eq
values. It is the Company's and Competent Persons' opinion that all
the elements included in the metal equivalents calculation (copper,
gold and silver) have a reasonable potential to be recovered and
sold.
4. Cu Eq% is calculated as Cu% + (Au×0.512)
5. Cut off grades assume a Cu price of $9000 per tonne and Au
price of $1800 per troy ounce at 85% and 90% payability
respectively, a treatment charge of $183.35/t of Cu metal is also
applied. Process recovery is assumed as 88% for Cu and 65% for Au.
Operating costs are assumed as $14/t for processing and $1.5/t for
G&A, $30 for underground mining and $2.5 to 3 for open pit
mining. An additional allowance of $0.5 is made for ROM transport
assuming a shared processing facility.
6. Indicated and Inferred mineral resource categories set out in
the table above at cut-off grades >0.25% CuEq/Cu for open pit
and 0.7% CuEq/Cu for underground mining comply with the resource
definitions as described in the Australasian Code for Reporting of
Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. The JORC
Code, 2012 Edition. Prepared by: The Joint Ore Reserves Committee
of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian
Institute of Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia
(JORC).
7. Numbers are rounded to reflect the fact that an Estimate of
Resources is being reported. Rounding of numbers may result in
differences in calculated totals and averages. All tonnes are
metric tonnes.
8. Pit slopes were assumed as 45 degrees in overburden and fresh
rock. No geotechnical studies have been completed to support this
assumption and the requirement for shallower pit slopes may serve
to materially reduce the open pit mineral resource.
9. The absence of metallurgical results from direct test work
currently underway in relation to Hope & Gorob are not
incorporated in the report due to delays in receiving them from the
laboratory. Their non-inclusion is not considered material for the
purpose of reporting updated resources in accordance with JORC
(2012).
10. The Mineral Resource Estimate set out above are quoted gross
with respect to the Project. Bezant Resources has 70% interest in
the Project and accordingly the Net attributable to the Company is
70% of the quoted gross.
Description of Modelling and Estimation Techniques
The Mineral Resource Estimate was based on the wireframe
interpretation of the mineralised units at each deposit. At the
Hope project mineralisation occurs in a recumbent synform fold
structure and consists of 4 mineralized horizons. True thickness is
modelled as 1.5 m to approximately 8 m and typically around 5 m.
The axial plane of the fold dips 35-40deg towards the 340deg
(north-northwest), along strike to the northeast mineralization
plunges by around 13deg, extending from surface in the western most
part of the deposit to around 450 m below the surface in the
eastern most part. The strike length of the deposit is almost 2 km
. The Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly deposits are more tabular in
nature.
Mineralization at Gorob is hosted in two units dominated by
quartz-schist and dipping approximately 38deg to 320deg(northwest).
The lower unit is present only in the central part of the modelled
area where the upper unit displays a lower degree of continuity.
Mineralization ranges from surface and is interpreted to continue
down dip for almost 900 m to a depth of approximately 550 m and
approximately 850 m along strike. The mineralized units are
modelled as having a true thickness of 1.5-8 m with mean thickness
of 4 m.
Mineralization at Vendome is hosted in one unit dominated by
quartz-schist and magnetite-quartzite and dipping approximately
40deg to 340deg(north-northwest). The unit bifurcates in the deeper
southwest portion of the deposit. Mineralization ranges from
surface and is interpreted to continue down dip for almost 700 m to
a depth of approximately 500 m and approximately 500 m along
strike. The are no drilling intercepts in the uppermost southwest
quadrant of the model and mineralization here is extrapolated along
strike and up dip. The mineralized units are modelled as having a
true thickness of 1.5-8 m with mean thickness of 3.5 m.
Mineralization at Anomaly is hosted in sub vertical units with a
strike to the northeast. The units bifurcate and join along its
length varying between 2 and 3 distinct units. Mineralization is
interpreted to extend from surface to approximately 270 m below the
surface. Drilling has generally targeted the same level
approximately 130 m from surface in the northeast half of the
deposit, to the south a set of deeper drillholes test down to a
depth of approximately 230 m. Mineralization is modelled as
typically being 1.5 to 4 m thick, additional drilling in this
deposit may significantly change its geological interpretation.
At all deposits patchy areas of oxidation are observed along
fractures but no clear oxide-sulphide transition is observed. The
amount of oxide material is expected to either not be material or
it is expected that it might be amenable to floatation after
sulphidation with sodium hydrosulphide and or ammonium sulphide,
subject to further exploration and testwork.
The wireframe volumes were used to restrict the block models and
the block models were rotated to fit the geometry of the deposits.
Block sizes were selected with the aim of having a block size
roughly 1/3 to 1/4 of drill spacing. The models were sub-blocked
accordingly to preserve the domain boundaries.
Table 2 : Block Model Parameters
Dimension m Rotationdeg (left-handed, Sub Blocks, number
about axis)
Area East North RL Z X Y East North RL
----- ------ --- ------------ ------ -------- ------- -------- ----
Hope 25 5 5 -18 0 0 5 5 5
----- ------ --- ------------ ------ -------- ------- -------- ----
Gorob 40 20 2 50 0 40 8 4 4
----- ------ --- ------------ ------ -------- ------- -------- ----
Vendome 50 20 2 72 0 40 10 4 4
----- ------ --- ------------ ------ -------- ------- -------- ----
Anomaly 5 25 5 50 0 0 5 10 5
----- ------ --- ------------ ------ -------- ------- -------- ----
Grades were estimated using Ordinary Kriging on a
volume-by-volume basis, discretization was used to account for
change of support. Cu was estimated for all deposits and Au in Hope
only due to lack of data in other deposits. Kriging Neighbourhood
parameters are presented in Table 3 . Prior to estimation and
geostatistical analysis data was composited to 2 m intervals, the
minimum accepted composite length was 1 m, residual values were
added to the last interval, length weighted averaging was used for
grade values. At Anomaly 1 m composites with a minimum length of
0.5 m was used to aid in variogram analysis (due to the spatial
distribution and number of data). No top capping was deemed
necessary except at Vendome samples over 3% Cu were capped at 3%
for 20% of the search distance and used their original value inside
that distance.
Table 3 : Kriging Neighbourhood parameters.
Area Pass Axis 1 m Axis 2 m Axis 3 m Axis 1 Axis 1 Axis 1 Max comps Max Discretization
Azi/ Azi/ Azi/ per comps Number
Plunge Plunge Plunge drillhole per E,N,Z
search
Hope 1 75 20 20 72/16 162/0 72/-74 3 12 5,3,3
----- --------- --------- --------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------------
2 75 35 35
----- --------- --------- --------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------------
3 75 50 50
----- --------- --------- --------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------------
Gorob 1 250 250 50 50/0 140/-40 320/-50 3 12 8,4,2
----- --------- --------- --------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------------
Vendome 1 250 250 50 72/0 162/-40 342/-50 3 12 10,4,2
----- --------- --------- --------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------------
Anomaly 1 200 150 50 0/-90 50/0 320/0 5 20 3,3,3
----- --------- --------- --------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------------
Models were validated by comparison of declustered and clustered
statistics, histograms and visual inspection in cross section and
3D.
The amount of data and lower confidence in collar locations for
Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly restricts the classification of these
Resource to the Inferred Category. No topographic model was
available and a low resolution 30 m cell size Digital Terrain Model
is used to model elevation.
Areas in the Hope deposit which were informed by recent BZT
drilling and Kuiseb drilling are considered for indicated
resources. While risk and uncertainty still remain in those parts
of the estimates largely informed by the Kuiseb drilling, the
sampling has largely been systematic and continuity reasonably well
demonstrated in areas covered by this same drilling. Two areas were
considered for Indicated resources where the supporting data is
considered of sufficient quality to allow for preliminary mine
planning. Blocks informed by 2 or more drillholes and having a
Kriging Standard error of <0.35 were classified as Indicated.
Small, isolated volumes were removed, and 4th lowest mineralized
horizon was also excluded due to less apparent continuity.
Exploration Potential
There is significant exploration potential on the Project with
opportunities to add tonnes at all prospects and realize an
improved Au credit across the Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly prospects
which have seen little in the way of assaying for Au. Upside
potential amenable to open pit mining is presented in Table 4 . The
numbers and ranges are conceptual in nature and may not be
realized. Further discussion of the exploration potential
follows.
At the Hope deposit the transition to the selected pit and
underground mining much of the resource is informed by drilling
completed by JCI, ( Figure 1 ). This drilling was selective in its
sampling, with sporadic sampling of the upper overturned limb of
the plunging fold which hosts the mineralization. The dominant
direction of drilling from south to north does not adequately test
this upper limb and as a result, potential exists to expand the
selected open pit under favourable stripping ratios by drilling
from the north of the structure, twinning the JCI drillholes and
systematically sampling the drill core. Approximately 3500 m of
drilling is recommended and should results be favourable Cu grades
may improve by approximately 0.1-0.3 % while increasing the size of
the practically open pittable Resource to a range of 700 kt to 1
mt. Additional drilling targeting the overturned limb further down
strike has the potential to add additional underground Resource
tonnes by approximately 20% to 30% of the current underground
Resource tonnes.
At Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly, the potential to add additional
open pit tonnage is limited in the modelled areas, however along
strike potential exists at all deposits. There has not been
systematic sampling of Au, Anomaly has no gold assays, Vendome has
only 16/273 assays for Au and Gorob 113/466. Clearly there is
potential for additional gold credits in all deposits which may be
expected to be in the region of 0.2 to 0.4 g/t with locally higher
grades in excess of 1 g/t. Extension drilling also has potential
realize to mineralized tonnes in the open pit and underground
Resources.
Table 4 : Exploration potential summary across all
prospects.
Area Extension Thickness Down Volume Density Tonnage Cu Cu Au
(m) (m) Dip Depth (m3) (t/m3) (t) +/- (%) (t) g/t
(m) 25% +/- +/-
25% 25%
Anomaly
NE 200 3 50 30,000 3 90,000 0.6 540 0.2-0.4
---------- ---------- ----------- -------- -------- ---------- ----- ------- --------
Anomaly
SW 200 9 50 90,000 3 270,000 0.6 1,620 0.2-0.4
---------- ---------- ----------- -------- -------- ---------- ----- ------- --------
Gorob
NE 200 4 80 64,000 3 192,000 1.2 2,304 0.2-0.4
---------- ---------- ----------- -------- -------- ---------- ----- ------- --------
Vendome
NE 200 2.5 60 30,000 3 90,000 1.4 1,260 0.2-0.4
---------- ---------- ----------- -------- -------- ---------- ----- ------- --------
Vendome
SW 200 6 40 48,000 3 144,000 1.4 2,016 0.2-0.4
---------- ---------- ----------- -------- -------- ---------- ----- ------- --------
Hope 165,000 3 500,000 1.3 6,500 0.3-0.6
---------- ---------- ----------- -------- -------- ---------- ----- ------- --------
Grand
Total 1,286,000 1.11 14,240
---------- ---------- ----------- -------- -------- ---------- ----- ------- --------
Figure 2 : Exploration potential at Hope
Comparison to Previous Mineral Resource Estimate
The previous Mineral Resource estimates for the Hope and Gorob
Project were completed by Measured Group and dated October 2019
prior to Bezant Resources involvement in the project. All Mineral
Resources were reported using a cut-off grade of 0.7% Cu. Over all
deposits the Updated AMS models contain almost the same contained
metal as the Measured Group models. However, between deposits there
are significant differences in the contained Resource tonnage,
metal and Cu grade ( Table 5 ). Generally, the AMS models contain
1.4 times the tonnage and seven tenths of the Cu grade.
Reasons for the differences in the estimate are described as
follows:
-- Drillholes with missing samples within the interval were
ignored and in places the wireframes appear to cut across sections
of drillholes with no sampling. No missing intervals have been
inserted into the composite file.
-- Wireframe modelling appears to have focused on preserving the
higher grades, the models pinch and swell and zig zag to avoid
areas of lower grade between drillholes. In places extremely narrow
sub-meter intervals, as thin as 30 cm are included in the model
with no account for a minimum selective mining unit.
-- The composite file includes the open hole percussion
drilling, where these drillholes display clear smearing down the
hole and have been used for wireframing and block model
interpolation. This results in enlarged volumes which are likely
not present.
-- A Comparison of the composite mean and block model mean for
the Hope deposit shows the composite mean was 1.83% Cu while the
volume weighted mean of the block model was 2.05% Cu. Indicating
over estimation, 47% of the tonnage in the model and 52% of the
contained Cu is attributed to blocks which were informed by 1
drillhole. Only 6% of the tonnage in the model is informed by 3
drillholes. This is indicative of local conditional bias brought
about by tight search neighbourhoods which do not span between
drill fences, resulting in undersmoothing. Wireframe modelling
appears to have biased the input data toward the higher grades and
this is further compounded by the undersmoothing, preserving higher
grade areas in an unrealistic fashion.
-- Similar problems were identified at the other deposits,
particularly with respect to local conditional bias. The Gorob and
Vendome deposits were modelled as one despite being 1km apart and
used drillhole data from both deposits stacked on top of each
other.
Table 5: Comparison, Measured Group vs AMS MREs.
AMS models reported at 0.7% Cu cut-off over all material.
Classification Tonnes Cu% Cu t
Measured Group
---------------- ----------- ------- ---------
Hope Indicated 3,090,000 2.53 78,300
---------------- ----------- ------- ---------
Hope Extension Inferred 1,220,000 1.77 21,600
---------------- ----------- ------- ---------
Sub total 4,310,000 2.31 99,900
-------------------------------------- ----------- ------- ---------
Gorob and Vendome Inferred 3,830,000 1.91 73,200
---------------- ----------- ------- ---------
Anomaly Inferred 2,030,000 0.97 19,700
---------------- ----------- ------- ---------
TOTAL 10,180,000 1.89 192,800
-------------------------------------- ----------- ------- ---------
AMS
---------------- ----------- ------- ---------
Hope 3,800,000 1.8 71,000
----------- ------- ---------
Gorob and Vendome 9,500,000 1.13 106,800
----------- ------- ---------
Anomaly 930,000 0.91 8,400
----------- ------- ---------
Total 14,230,000 1.30 186,200
----------- ------- ---------
Absolute Difference
---------------- ----------- ------- ---------
Hope -510,000 - 0.51 -28,900
----------- ------- ---------
Gorob and Vendome 5,670,000 - 0.78 33,600
----------- ------- ---------
Anomaly -1,100,000 - 0.06 - 11,300
----------- ------- ---------
Total 4,050,000 - 0.59 -6,600
----------- ------- ---------
Relative Percentage
---------------- ----------- ------- ---------
Hope 88% 78% 71%
----------- ------- ---------
Gorob and Vendome 248% 59% 146%
----------- ------- ---------
Anomaly 46% 94% 43%
----------- ------- ---------
Total 140% 69% 97%
----------- ------- ---------
Technical Sign off
The technical information in this release has been reviewed by
Mr R. J. Siddle, MSc, MAIG Principal Resource Geologist for Addison
Mining Services Ltd. Mr. Siddle is an independent Competent Person
within the meaning of the JORC (2012) code and a Qualified Person
under the AIM rules, having over 15 years' experience in the
industry. Mr. Siddle has reviewed and verified the technical
information that forms the basis of, and has been used in the
preparation of, the Mineral Resource Estimate and this
announcement, including analytical data, drilling logs, QC data,
density measurements, and sampling. Mr. Siddle consents to the
inclusion in this announcement of the matters based on the
information, in the form and context in which it appears. Mr Siddle
was assisted in the preparation of the estimate by Ms P. M.
Mierzwa, Mr L. D. Harvey and Mr J. N. Hogg who worked under the
direction of the Competent Person and are thanked for her
involvement and contribution to the study.
Glossary
"CuEq" Copper Equivalent is based on assumed prices
of US$9,000 per tonne Cu, US$1,800 per oz Au
and US$20 per oz Ag. Recovery and selling factors
(see below) were incorporated into the calculation
of Cu Eq values. It is the Company's and Competent
Persons' opinion that all the elements included
in the metal equivalents calculation (copper,
gold and silver) have a reasonable potential
to be recovered and sold.
------------------------------------------------------
"g/t" Grammes per tonne
--------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
"Indicated Resource" An 'Indicated Mineral Resource' is that part
of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade
(or quality), densities, shape and physical
characteristics are estimated with sufficient
confidence to allow the application of Modifying
Factors in sufficient detail to support mine
planning and evaluation of the economic viability
of the deposit.
--------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
"Inferred Resource" That part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity
and grade (or quality) are estimated on the
basis of limited geological evidence and sampling.
Geological evidence is sufficient to imply
but not verify geological and grade (or quality)
continuity. It is based on exploration, sampling
and testing information gathered through appropriate
techniques from locations such as outcrops,
trenches, pits, workings and drill holes.
--------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
"JORC" The Australasian Joint Ore Reserves Committee
Code for Reporting of Exploration Results,
Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves 2012 (the
"JORC Code" or "the Code"). The Code sets out
minimum standards, recommendations and guidelines
for Public Reporting in Australasia of Exploration
Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves
--------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
"Kriging" Geostatistical process to extrapolate numerical
values from samples into areas of no data
--------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
"Mineral Resource" A concentration or occurrence of material of
economic interest in or on the earth's crust
in such form and quantity that there are reasonable
and realistic prospects for eventual economic
extraction. The location, quantity, grade,
continuity, and other geological characteristics
of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated
from specific geological evidence and knowledge,
or interpreted from a well-constrained and
portrayed geological model.
--------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
"oz" Troy Ounce, unit of mass for selling of precious
metals (
--------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
"t" Tonnes (metric)
--------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
"$/t" US dollars per tonne
--------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
For further information, please contact:
Bezant Resources PLC
Colin Bird, Executive Chairman +44 (0) 20 3416 3695
Beaumont Cornish Limited - Nomad
Roland Cornish/Asia Szusciak +44 (0) 20 7628 3396
Novum Securities Limited - Joint
Broker
Jon Belliss +44 (0) 20 7399 9400
Shard Capital Partners LLP - Joint
Broker
Damon Heath +44 (0) 20 7186 9952
or visit https://www.bezantresources.com/
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").
JORC 2012 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 (eg cut channels, * Sampling of BZT drilling and was by sawn 1/2 HQ or NQ
random chips, or specific specialised industry core.
standard measurement tools appropriate to the
minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma
sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These * All samples were sent to ALS Okahandja, Namibia for
examples should not be taken as limiting the broad sample preparation and ALS Johannesburg, South Africa
meaning of sampling. for analysis. All samples were assayed for
multi-element suite (ME-ICP61a) as well as gold
(Au-AA23). Details of the methods provided below.
* Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample
representivity and the appropriate calibration of any
measurement tools or systems used. * CRU-31 - Fine crushing - 70%
* Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that * PUL-31 - Pulverize up to 250 g 85%
are Material to the Public Report.
* Analytical Method Details:
* 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 * ME-ICP61a - High Grade Four Acid ICP-AES
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 * Au-AA23 - Au 30 g FA-AA finish
coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems.
Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg
submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed * Sampling was typically 1 m in length with variation
information. to meet lithological contacts.
* Exact analysis and sample preparation procedures for
the pre Kuiseb (2004) exploration are unknown. Kuiseb
drilling was analysed at ALS in Windhoek, analytical
codes equivalent to modern ALS procedures are not
provided in the certificates, but gold was assayed by
Fire Assay and ICP and Cu by ICP with Aqua Regia
digestion.
Drilling
techniques * Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole * All drilling by BZT was HQ diamond drilling with NQ
hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) tails
and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard
tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or
other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by * Legacy drilling was diamond drilling with core sizes
what method, etc). approximately equal to NQ.
* 119 Open hole percussion drilling by previous
operators was not used in the estimate
Drill sample
recovery * Method of recording and assessing core and chip * BZT Drillholes were logged for total core recovery
sample recoveries and results assessed. (TCR) and rock quality designation (RQD), TCR mean
was 96% and RQD mean was 78%. No relationship between
core recovery and grade was identified.
* Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure
representative nature of the samples.
* Shorter drill runs were used in broken ground to
improve recovery.
* Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery
and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred
due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse * No relationship was identified between recovery and
material. grade.
* Details of legacy drilling are unknown
Logging
* Whether core and chip samples have been geologically * All BZT drilling was geotechnically and geologically
and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to logged.
support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation,
mining studies and metallurgical studies.
* 29/78 JCI and 100/118 Kuiseb Drillholes had lithology
logs.
* Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in
nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography.
* BZT logging contained qualitative and quantitative
logging.
* The total length and percentage of the relevant
intersections logged.
Sub-sampling
techniques * If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, * All BZT drilling is of half sawn core and help sample
and sample half or all core taken. representivity.
preparation
* If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary * No field duplicates were taken.
split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry.
* HQ core size is appropriate for the material under
* For all sample types, the nature, quality and investigation.
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.
Quality of
assay data * The nature, quality and appropriateness of the * During 2020 - 2022 diamond drilling Bezant collected
and assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether 493 half core samples and inserted 58 control samples
laboratory the technique is considered partial or total. (29 CRMs and 29 blanks), which respectively
tests represents 5.8% of the whole sample population.
* For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF
instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining * CRM and Blank material performed adequately.
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.
Verification
of sampling * The verification of significant intersections by * The CP inspected BZT drill core and found visual
and assaying either independent or alternative company personnel. agreement with assay data.
* The use of twinned holes. * All assay data was managed electronically in a
relational database from digital certificates.
* Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures,
data verification, data storage (physical and
electronic) protocols.
* Discuss any adjustment to assay data.
Location of
data points * Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill * BZT drillhole were surveyed by hand held GPS.
holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine
workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource
estimation. * The 51 legacy collars at Hope were surveyed by
Differential GPS and converted to WGS84 UTM 33s
* Specification of the grid system used.
* Other legacy collars were transformed from the local
grid and a number of locations identified in the
* Quality and adequacy of topographic control. field and confirmed to be within a few meters of the
expected.
Data spacing
and * Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. * Data spacing is highly variable over the project area
distribution and is suitable for inferred resource estimation with
minor areas of indicated.
* Whether the data spacing and distribution is
sufficient to establish the degree of geological and
grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource * Drill fence spacing is typically 25 to 50 at Hope
and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and with variable vertical coverage.
classifications applied.
* Anomaly fence spacing is 60 m with one DH per fence
* Whether sample compositing has been applied. in most parts.
* Spacing at Gorob and Vendome is approximately 50 to
100 m
Orientation
of data in * Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased * Drilling has a variable angle to mineralization at
relation to sampling of possible structures and the extent to Hope due to the fold hosting mineralization.
geological which this is known, considering the deposit type.
structure
* At other prospects drilling is typically 90 to 70
* If the relationship between the drilling orientation degrees to mineralization.
and the orientation of key mineralised structures is
considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this
should be assessed and reported if material. * The orientation of drilling is not assumed to have
introduced a sample bias but true widths may vary by
up to 50%
Sample
security * The measures taken to ensure sample security. * BZT Samples were transported by company personnel to
the lab in labelled bags. Lab standard submission
forms were used.
Audits or * No such reviews have been completed.
reviews * The results of any audits or reviews of sampling
techniques and data.
============= ============================================================ ===============================================================
Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
(Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this
section.)
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Mineral
tenement and * Type, reference name/number, location and ownership * The Hope and Gorob projects is situated within
land tenure including agreements or material issues with third Exclusive Prospecting (EPL) 5796, a 243 km(2) license
status parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, held by Hope and Gorob Mining (Pty) Ltd, a subsidiary
overriding royalties, native title interests, of Bezant Resources.
historical sites, wilderness or national park and
environmental settings.
* The Licence is Valid to 19/10/2024
* The security of the tenure held at the time of
reporting along with any known impediments to * On 19 June 2020 Bezant announced the acquisition of
obtaining a licence to operate in the area. 100% of Virgo Resources Ltd and its interests in the
Hope Copper-Gold Project in Namibia. Virgo Resources
Ltd is incorporated in Australia (ACN 626 148 347)
("Virgo"). The acquisition of Virgo completed on 14
August 2020. Virgo, through its 100% owned Australian
subsidiary Hepburn Resources Pty Ltd (ACN 624 189
162), owns i) 70% of Hope and Gorob Mining Pty Ltd
incorporated in Namibia which owns EPL5796, ii) 80%
of Hope Namibia Mineral Exploration Pty Ltd
Incorporated in Namibia which owns EPL6605 and
iEPL7170. The balance of the project is held by local
Namibian partners.
Exploration
done by other * Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other * The project area has a long history, exploration
parties parties. completed by other parties is discussed in the
documentation.
Geology
* Deposit type, geological setting and style of * The Hope and Gorob Project lies on the Matchless Belt,
mineralisation. which is located within the late Neoproterozoic
Damaran orogenic belt in central Namibia
Drill hole
Information * A summary of all information material to the * No exploration results are presented in this
understanding of the exploration results including a announcement.
tabulation of the following information for all
Material drill holes:
o easting and northing of the drill hole collar
o elevation or RL (Reduced Level - elevation above sea
level in metres) of the drill hole
collar
o dip and azimuth of the hole
o down hole length and interception depth
o hole length.
* If the exclusion of this information is justified on
the basis that the information is not Material and
this exclusion does not detract from the
understanding of the report, the Competent Person
should clearly explain why this is the case.
Data
aggregation * In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging * No exploration results are presented in this
methods techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations announcement.
(eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are
usually Material and should be stated.
* Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths
of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade
results, the procedure used for such aggregation
should be stated and some typical examples of such
aggregations should be shown in detail.
* The assumptions used for any reporting of metal
equivalent values should be clearly stated.
Relationship
between * These relationships are particularly important in the * No exploration results are presented in this
mineralisation reporting of Exploration Results. announcement.
widths and
intercept
lengths * If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to
the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be
reported.
* If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are
reported, there should be a clear statement to this
effect (eg 'down hole length, true width not known').
Diagrams
* Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and * No exploration results are presented in this
tabulations of intercepts should be included for any announcement.
significant discovery being reported These should
include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill
hole collar locations and appropriate sectional
views.
Balanced
reporting * Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration * No exploration results are presented in this
Results is not practicable, representative reporting announcement.
of both low and high grades and/or widths should be
practiced to avoid misleading reporting of
Exploration Results.
Other
substantive * Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, * No exploration results are presented in this
exploration should be reported including (but not limited to): announcement.
data geological observations; geophysical survey results;
geochemical survey results; bulk samples - size and
method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk
density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock
characteristics; potential deleterious or
contaminating substances.
Further work
* The nature and scale of planned further work (eg * Further drilling is required in areas of sparse data.
tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or
large-scale step-out drilling).
* Re-sampling of any mineralized unsampled drill core
or core that does not have Au assays held in storage
* Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible at the geological survey should be completed if
extensions, including the main geological possible
interpretations and future drilling areas, provided
this information is not commercially sensitive.
=============== =============================================================== ===============================================================
Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources
(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2,
also apply to this section.)
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Database
integrity * Measures taken to ensure that data has not been * BZT sampling was imported into a relational database
corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying from digital certificates.
errors, between its initial collection and its use
for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.
* Legacy data was provided in poor shape in multiple
excel spreadsheets. Not all drillholes had assays and
* Data validation procedures used. there were significant problems with overlapping
intervals. The coordinate systems were poorly defined
and provided in 4 different formats without a
complete coordinate set for every drillhole.
* DGPS coordinates were found for the legacy hope data
and this was transformed to support estimation. Other
coordinates derived and verified in the field. See
the technical report for further information.
* Overlapping intervals were fixed following cross
reference across multiple data sets and scans/copies
of company reports.
Site visits
* Comment on any site visits undertaken by the * The CP completed a site visit to inspect drill core
Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. and verify collar locations in the field.
* If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why
this is the case.
Geological
interpretation * Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of ) * Hope is the most complex of the deposits and is
the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit. interpreted to be hosted in a recumbrant fold
structure. Interpretation of the fold is aided by the
presence of a distinct amphibolite unit and 3 to4
* Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made. distinct magnetite schist units that are mineralized.
* The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on * Alternative interpretation would see the lenses as
Mineral Resource estimation. tabular rather than folded but this is not considered
likely due to the outcropping fold closures visible
at surface and the supporting structural
* The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral measurements.
Resource estimation.
* Tighter or looser folding may effect open pit
* The factors affecting continuity both of grade and stripping ratios.
geology.
* Grade continuity maybe influenced by the folding due
to remobilisation.
* Other prospects have much simpler geology and are
tabular in nature, mineralization is associated with
magnetite schists.
Dimensions
* The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource * Hope: True thickness is modelled as 1.5 m to
expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan approximately 8 m and typically around 5 m. The axial
width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower plane of the fold dips 35-40 deg towards the 340 deg
limits of the Mineral Resource. (north-northwest), along strike to the northeast
mineralization plunges by around 13 deg , extending
from surface in the western most part of the deposit
to around 450 m below the surface in the eastern most
part. The strike length of the deposit is almost 2
km.
* Gorob. Mineralization at Gorob is hosted in two units
dominated by quartz-schist and dipping approximately
38 deg to 320 deg (northwest). The lower unit is
present only in the central part of the modelled area
where the upper unit displays a lower degree of
continuity. There were many instances of selective
sampling where the unit was not sampled despite
adjacent drillholes showing the unit to be present
and mineralized. Mineralization was modelled using an
approximate 0.2% Cu cut-off and was pushed through
non-sampled intervals where it was deemed appropriate
based on the surrounding evidence. Mineralization
ranges from surface and is interpreted to continue
down dip for almost 900 m to a depth of approximately
550 m and approximately 850 m along strike. The
mineralized units are modelled as having a true
thickness of 1.5-8 m with mean thickness of 4 m.
* Vendome. Mineralization at Vendome is hosted in one
unit dominated by quartz-schist and
magnetite-quartzite and dipping approximately 40 deg
to 340 deg (north-northwest). The unit bifurcates in
the deeper southwest portion of the deposit.
Mineralization was modelled using an approximate 0.2%
Cu cut-off. Mineralization ranges from surface and is
interpreted to continue down dip for almost 700 m to
a depth of approximately 500 m and approximately 500
m along strike. The are no drilling intercepts in the
uppermost southwest quadrant of the model and
mineralization here is extrapolated along strike and
up dip. The mineralized units are modelled as having
a true thickness of 1.5-8 m with mean thickness of
3.5 m.
* Mineralization at Anomaly is hosted in sub vertical
units with a strike to the northeast. The units
bifurcate and join along its length varying between 2
and 3 distinct units. Mineralization is interpreted
to extend from surface to approximately 270 m below
the surface. Drilling has generally targeted the same
level approximately 130 m from surface in the
northeast half of the deposit, to the south a set of
deeper drillholes test down to a depth of
approximately 230 m. Mineralization is modelled as
typically being 1.5 to 4 m thick, additional drilling
in this deposit may significantly change its
geological interpretation.
Estimation and
modelling * The nature and appropriateness of the estimation * The wireframe volumes were used to restrict the block
techniques technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including models and the block models were rotated to fit the
treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, geometry of the deposits. Block sizes were selected
interpolation parameters and maximum distance of with the aim of having a block size roughly 1/3 to
extrapolation from data points. If a computer 1/4 of drill spacing. The models were sub-blocked
assisted estimation method was chosen include a accordingly to preserve the domain boundaries See
description of computer software and parameters used. Technical report for details.
* The availability of check estimates, previous * Grades were estimated using Ordinary Kriging. See
estimates and/or mine production records and whether technical report for details on neighbourhoods used
the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate for each deposit.
account of such data.
* No grade capping was used, thresholds were used to
* The assumptions made regarding recovery of prevent over smearing of high grades in the sparsely
by-products. drilled Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly deposits.
* Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade * No assays are available for deleterious elements.
variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for
acid mine drainage characterisation).
* Minimum SMU is considered to be 1.5 m
* In the case of block model interpolation, the block
size in relation to the average sample spacing and * It is assumed Au will be recovered in the Cu
the search employed. concentrate or by gravity.
* Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining * Models were validated by comparison of declustered
units. and clustered statistics, histograms and visual
inspection in cross section and 3D.
* 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.
Moisture * Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis.
* Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or
with natural moisture, and the method of
determination of the moisture content.
Cut-off
parameters * The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality * Cut-off grades assume a Cu price of $9000 per tonne
parameters applied. and Au price of $1800 per troy ounce at 85% and 90%
payability respectively, a treatment charge of
$183.35/t of Cu metal is also applied. Process
recovery is assumed as 88% for Cu and 65% for Au.
Operating costs are assumed as $14/t for processing
and $1.5/t for G&A, $30 for underground mining and
$2.5 to 3 for open pit mining. Underground Mining
assumes a combination of room and pillar in shallow
dipping areas at a cost of $20/t and open stoping at
$40/t at a weighting of 60/40% respectively to give
$28/t, this is rounded to $30. An additional
allowance of $0.5 is made from ROM transport assuming
a shared processing facility. Dilution and loss are
assumed at 5% and open pit slopes assumed at 45deg.
The following yield an estimated break-even cut-off
grade of 0.25% for Cu at the mill, which is used for
open pit resources, a 0.7% Cu cut-off is used for
underground mining.
Mining factors
or assumptions * Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, * Pit optimization tests were used to determine the
minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if likely open pit to underground transitions. At Hope
applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always the selected pit has a stripping ratio of
necessary as part of the process of determining approximately 1:7, a much larger open pit with
reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction resource tonnage of approximately 2.5 Mt at 1.5% Cu
to consider potential mining methods, but the and 0.3 g/t Au (diluted and recovered) would optimize
assumptions made regarding mining methods and but with stripping ratios of 1:18, which is not
parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not considered practical. As such a smaller pit was
always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this selected.
should be reported with an explanation of the basis
of the mining assumptions made.
* Other deposits would also optimize with much larger
pits but considering the local uncertainty in the
resource estimates AMS considered restricting the
open pit potential to a given elevation more
meaningful than a pit optimization wireframe. These
values were as follows:
* Gorob and Vendome, >695 RL (50 m depth)
* Anomaly >569 RL (50 m depth)
Metallurgical
factors or * The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding * No modern testwork was completed at the time of the
assumptions metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as MRE.
part of the process of determining reasonable
prospects for eventual economic extraction to
consider potential metallurgical methods, but the * Process recovery is assumed as 88% for Cu and 65% for
assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment Au
processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral
Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is
the case, this should be reported with an explanation
of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.
Environmen-tal
factors or * Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process * The project is located in a sensitive ecosystem and
assumptions residue disposal options. It is always necessary as permitting will require robust environmental studies.
part of the process of determining reasonable In particular water is scares and as such dry
prospects for eventual economic extraction to preconcentration with floatation off site maybe
consider the potential environmental impacts of the required.
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 * A total of 5900 density determinations are available
for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, over the project. The exact determination method is
whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements not known, and the density is recorded as Specific
, Gravity rather than Bulk Density. It is not clear if
the nature, size and representativeness of the porosity was considered during density determination,
samples. while some of the wall rock schist and amphibolite is
highly permeable zones of more massive magnetite and
sulphides are less permeable. Upper and lower
* The bulk density for bulk material must have been outliers are present across all deposits. Inspection
measured by methods that adequately account for void of the mean values indicate that a density of 3 t/m3
spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and is appropriate for resource estimation and although a
differences between rock and alteration zones within large number of density determinations are present,
the deposit. interpolation or variable density estimation would
not be appropriate until further validation of the
density values is completed, and the process of data
* Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used collection better understood.
in the evaluation process of the different materials.
Classification
* The basis for the classification of the Mineral * The amount of data and lower confidence in collar
Resources into varying confidence categories. locations for Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly restricts
the classification of these Resource to the Inferred
Category. No topographic model was available and a
* Whether appropriate account has been taken of all low resolution 30 m DTM is used to model elevation.
relevant factors (ie relative confidence in
tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data,
confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, * Areas in the Hope deposit which were informed by
quality, quantity and distribution of the data). recent BZT drilling and Kuiseb drilling are
considered for indicated resources. While risk and
uncertainty still remain in those parts of the
* Whether the result appropriately reflects the estimates largely informed by the Kuiseb drilling,
Competent Person's view of the deposit. the sampling has largely been systematic and
continuity reasonably well demonstrated in areas
covered by this same drilling. Two areas were
considered for Indicated resources where the
supporting data is considered of sufficient quality
to allow for preliminary mine planning. Blocks
informed by 2 or more drillholes and having a Kriging
Standard error of
* Geotechnical pit slope analysis may serve to
materially change the open pit resource estimate.
Audits or * The have been no such audits or reviews.
reviews * The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral
Resource estimates.
Discussion of
relative * Where appropriate a statement of the relative * The estimate is local estimate and is accurate to
accuracy/ accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource those typical of an inferred estimate with errors of
confidence estimate using an approach or procedure deemed +/-30 on a local basis and +/- 20-30% on a global
appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the basis.
application of statistical or geostatistical
procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the
resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such * Indicated Resources are considered +/- 15% on a local
an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative basis.
discussion of the factors that could affect the
relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate.
* The statement should specify whether it relates to
global or local estimates, and, if local, state the
relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to
technical and economic evaluation. Documentation
should include assumptions made and the procedures
used.
* These statements of relative accuracy and confidence
of the estimate should be compared with production
data, where available.
=============== ============================================================ =======================================================================
This information is provided by RNS, the news service of the
London Stock Exchange. RNS is approved by the Financial Conduct
Authority to act as a Primary Information Provider in the United
Kingdom. Terms and conditions relating to the use and distribution
of this information may apply. For further information, please
contact rns@lseg.com or visit www.rns.com.
RNS may use your IP address to confirm compliance with the terms
and conditions, to analyse how you engage with the information
contained in this communication, and to share such analysis on an
anonymised basis with others as part of our commercial services.
For further information about how RNS and the London Stock Exchange
use the personal data you provide us, please see our Privacy
Policy.
END
UPDBBBDGDBDDGXL
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
October 27, 2023 02:00 ET (06:00 GMT)
Bezant Resources (LSE:BZT)
Historical Stock Chart
From Mar 2024 to Apr 2024
Bezant Resources (LSE:BZT)
Historical Stock Chart
From Apr 2023 to Apr 2024
