REG - Bezant Resources PLC - Hope & Gorob Updated Mineral Resource Estimate
27/10/2023 07:00
For best results when printing this announcement, please click on link below:
http://newsfile.refinitiv.com/getnewsfile/v1/story?guid=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20231027:nRSa4334Ra&default-theme=true
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 g/t Ag g/t Cu t Au ozt Ag 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 2
5
4
,
0
0
0
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 5
6
4
,
0
0
0
INDICATED
PLUS
INFERED
Subtotal Open Pit 430,000 3.0 1.5 1.3 0.3 4.2 5,600 4,200 5
8
,
0
0
0
Subtotal Underground 3,750,000 3.0 2.0 1.7 0.4 6.3 66,000 51,000 7
6
0
,
0
0
0
Subtotal Hope 4,200,000 3.0 1.9 1.7 0.4 6.0 71,000 55,000 8
1
0
,
0
0
0
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
VENDOME 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 8
1
8
,
0
0
0
Total Indicated 1,200,000 3.0 1.8 1.6 0.4 6.2 21,100 14,800 2
5
4
,
0
0
0
Total Inferred 14,000,000 3.0 1.2 169,200 60,400 5
6
4
,
0
0
0
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 35-40° towards the 340°
(north-northwest), along strike to the northeast mineralization plunges by
around 13°, 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 38° to 320°(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 40° to 340°(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 Rotation° (left-handed, about axis) Sub Blocks, number
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 per drillhole Max comps per search Discretization
Azi/ Plunge Azi/ Plunge Azi/ Plunge Number
E,N,Z
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 (m) Thickness (m) Down Dip Depth (m) Volume (m3) Density (t/m3) Tonnage (t) +/- 25% Cu (%) +/- 25% Cu (t) +/- 25% Au
g/t
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 +44 (0) 20 3416 3695
Colin Bird, Executive Chairman
Beaumont Cornish Limited - Nomad +44 (0) 20 7628 3396
Roland Cornish/Asia Szusciak
Novum Securities Limited - Joint Broker +44 (0) 20 7399 9400
Jon Belliss
Shard Capital Partners LLP - Joint Broker +44 (0) 20 7186 9952
Damon Heath
or visit https://www.bezantresources.com/ (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, random chips, or · Sampling of BZT drilling and was by sawn 1/2 HQ or NQ core.
specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the
minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF · All samples were sent to ALS Okahandja, Namibia for sample preparation
instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad and ALS Johannesburg, South Africa for analysis. All samples were assayed for
meaning of sampling. 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% < 2 mm
· Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to · PUL-31 - Pulverize up to 250 g 85% <75 um
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 · ME-ICP61a - High Grade Four Acid ICP-AES
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 · Au-AA23 - Au 30 g FA-AA finish
is 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 to meet
information. 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 hammer, rotary · All drilling by BZT was HQ diamond drilling with NQ tails
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, · Legacy drilling was diamond drilling with core sizes approximately
whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). 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 sample recoveries and · BZT Drillholes were logged for total core recovery (TCR) and rock
results assessed. 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 · No relationship was identified between recovery and grade.
whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of
fine/coarse material. · Details of legacy drilling are unknown
Logging · Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and · All BZT drilling was geotechnically and geologically logged.
geotechnically logged to a level of detail to 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 · BZT logging contained qualitative and quantitative logging.
costean, channel, etc) photography.
· The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.
Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation · If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core · All BZT drilling is of half sawn core and help sample representivity.
taken.
· No field duplicates were taken.
· If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and
whether sampled wet or dry. · HQ core size is appropriate for the material under investigation.
· 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.
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests · The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and · During 2020 - 2022 diamond drilling Bezant collected 493 half core
laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or samples and inserted 58 control samples (29 CRMs and 29 blanks), which
total. respectively represents 5.8% of the whole sample population.
· For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, · CRM and Blank material performed adequately.
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.
Verification of sampling and assaying · The verification of significant intersections by either independent · The CP inspected BZT drill core and found visual agreement with assay
or alternative company personnel. 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 holes (collar · BZT drillhole were surveyed by hand held GPS.
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
· Quality and adequacy of topographic control. number of locations identified in the field and confirmed to be within a few
meters of the expected.
Data spacing and distribution · Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. · Data spacing is highly variable over the project area 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 · Drill fence spacing is typically 25 to 50 at Hope with variable
Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. vertical coverage.
· Whether sample compositing has been applied. · Anomaly fence spacing is ~60 m with one DH per fence in most parts.
· Spacing at Gorob and Vendome is approximately 50 to 100 m
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure · Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of · Drilling has a variable angle to mineralization at Hope due to the
possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the fold hosting mineralization.
deposit type.
· At other prospects drilling is typically 90 to 70 degrees to
· If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the mineralization.
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 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.)
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status · Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including · The Hope and Gorob projects is situated within Exclusive Prospecting
agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, (EPL) 5796, a 243 km(2) license held by Hope and Gorob Mining (Pty) Ltd, a
partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, subsidiary of Bezant Resources.
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 obtaining a licence to operate in the area. · On 19 June 2020 Bezant announced the acquisition of 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 parties · Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. · The project area has a long history, exploration completed by other
parties is discussed in the documentation.
Geology · Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. · The Hope and Gorob Project lies on the Matchless Belt, which is
located within the late Neoproterozoic Damaran orogenic belt in central
Namibia
Drill hole Information · A summary of all information material to the understanding of the · No exploration results are presented in this announcement.
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.
Data aggregation methods · In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, · No exploration results are presented in this announcement.
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.
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths · These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of · No exploration results are presented in this announcement.
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').
Diagrams · Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of · No exploration results are presented in this announcement.
intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported
These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar
locations and appropriate sectional views.
Balanced reporting · Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not · No exploration results are presented in this announcement.
practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or
widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration
Results.
Other substantive exploration data · Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be · No exploration results are presented in this announcement.
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.
Further work · The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral · Further drilling is required in areas of sparse data.
extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).
· Re-sampling of any mineralized unsampled drill core or core that does
· Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, not have Au assays held in storage at the geological survey should be
including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, completed if possible
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 corrupted by, for · BZT sampling was imported into a relational database from digital
example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and certificates.
its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.
· Legacy data was provided in poor shape in multiple excel
· Data validation procedures used. spreadsheets. Not all drillholes had assays and 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 Competent Person and the · The CP completed a site visit to inspect drill core and verify collar
outcome of those visits. 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 ) the geological · Hope is the most complex of the deposits and is interpreted to be
interpretation of the mineral deposit. hosted in a recumbrant fold structure. Interpretation of the fold is aided by
the presence of a distinct amphibolite unit and 3 to4 distinct magnetite
· Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made. schist units that are mineralized.
· The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral · Alternative interpretation would see the lenses as tabular rather
Resource estimation. than folded but this is not considered likely due to the outcropping fold
closures visible at surface and the supporting structural measurements.
· The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource
estimation. · Tighter or looser folding may effect open pit stripping ratios.
· The factors affecting continuity both of grade and 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 expressed as · Hope: True thickness is modelled as 1.5 m to approximately 8 m
length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the and typically around 5 m. The axial plane of the fold dips 35-40° towards the
upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource. 340° (north-northwest), along strike to the northeast mineralization plunges
by around 13°, 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° to 320°(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° to 340°(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 techniques · The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied · The wireframe volumes were used to restrict the block models and
and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, the block models were rotated to fit the geometry of the deposits. Block sizes
interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data were selected with the aim of having a block size roughly 1/3 to 1/4 of drill
points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a spacing. The models were sub-blocked accordingly to preserve the domain
description of computer software and parameters used. boundaries See Technical report for details.
· The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine · Grades were estimated using Ordinary Kriging. See technical
production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate report for details on neighbourhoods used for each deposit.
account of such data.
· No grade capping was used, thresholds were used to prevent over
· The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. smearing of high grades in the sparsely drilled Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly
deposits.
· Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of
economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). · No assays are available for deleterious elements.
· In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation · Minimum SMU is considered to be ~1.5 m
to the average sample spacing and the search employed.
· It is assumed Au will be recovered in the Cu concentrate or by
· Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. gravity.
· Any assumptions about correlation between variables. · Models were validated by comparison of declustered and clustered
statistics, histograms and visual inspection in cross section and 3D.
· 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 · Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural · Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis.
moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.
Cut-off parameters · The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters · Cut-off grades assume a Cu price of $9000 per tonne and Au price of
applied. $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 45°. 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, minimum mining · Pit optimization tests were used to determine the likely open pit to
dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is underground transitions. At Hope the selected pit has a stripping ratio of
always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects approximately 1:7, a much larger open pit with resource tonnage of
for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the approximately 2.5 Mt at 1.5% Cu and 0.3 g/t Au (diluted and recovered) would
assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating optimize but with stripping ratios of 1:18, which is not considered practical.
Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this As such a smaller pit was 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 assumptions · The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical · No modern testwork was completed at the time of the MRE.
amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining
reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential · Process recovery is assumed as 88% for Cu and 65% for Au
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.
Environmen-tal factors or assumptions · Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue · The project is located in a sensitive ecosystem and permitting will
disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining require robust environmental studies. In particular water is scares and as
reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the such dry preconcentration with floatation off site maybe required.
potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While
at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts,
particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the
status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should
be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be
reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made.
Bulk density · Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the · A total of 5900 density determinations are available over the
assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency project. The exact determination method is not known, and the density is
of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples. recorded as Specific Gravity rather than Bulk Density. It is not clear if
porosity was considered during density determination, while some of the wall
· The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods rock schist and amphibolite is highly permeable zones of more massive
that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and magnetite and sulphides are less permeable. Upper and lower outliers are
differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit. present across all deposits. Inspection of the mean values indicate that a
density of 3 t/m3 is appropriate for resource estimation and although a large
· Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation number of density determinations are present, interpolation or variable
process of the different materials. density estimation would not be appropriate until further validation of the
density values is completed, and the process of data collection better
understood.
Classification · The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into · The amount of data and lower confidence in collar locations for
varying confidence categories. Gorob, Vendome and Anomaly restricts the classification of these Resource to
the Inferred Category. No topographic model was available and a low resolution
· Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors 30 m DTM is used to model elevation.
(ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input
data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity · Areas in the Hope deposit which were informed by recent BZT drilling
and distribution of the data). and Kuiseb drilling are considered for indicated resources. While risk and
uncertainty still remain in those parts of the estimates largely informed by
· Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person's view the Kuiseb drilling, the sampling has largely been systematic and continuity
of the deposit. 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 4(th) lowest mineralized horizon was also excluded due to less apparent
continuity.
· 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 · The estimate is local estimate and is accurate to those typical of an
level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed inferred estimate with errors of +/-30 on a local basis and +/- 20-30% on a
appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of global basis.
statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of
the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not · Indicated Resources are considered +/- 15% on a local basis.
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.
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 (mailto:rns@lseg.com)
or visit
www.rns.com (http://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 (https://www.lseg.com/privacy-and-cookie-policy)
. END UPDBBBDGDBDDGXLRecent news on Bezant Resources
See all newsREG - Bezant Resources PLC - Proposed sale of Eureka Project in Argentina
AnnouncementREG - Bezant Resources PLC - Holding(s) in Company
AnnouncementREG - Bezant Resources PLC - Proposed sale of Eureka Project in Argentina
AnnouncementREG - Bezant Resources PLC - Award of Environmental Clearance Certificate
AnnouncementREG - Bezant Resources PLC - Mankayan Project Update
Announcement