REG - GreenX Metals Ltd - Aeromag Results Identify Primary Copper Source
09/09/2025 12:15
For best results when printing this announcement, please click on link below:
https://newsfile.refinitiv.com/getnewsfile/v1/story?guid=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20250909:nRSI6310Ya&default-theme=true
RNS Number : 6310Y GreenX Metals Limited 09 September 2025
NEWS RELEASE 9 SEPTEMBER 2025
AEROMAG RESULTS IDENTIFY PRIMARY COPPER SOURCE BELOW HISTORICAL TANNENBERG MINES
HIGHLIGHTS
· Successful completion of 58km(2) airborne magnetic and radiometric
survey over the Tannenberg Project in Germany, covering the brownfields
Richelsdorf copper district, which produced 416,500 tonnes of copper at grades
of between 0.8 and 1.2%* (1800s to 1950s)
· Major geological insight gained with identification of deep metal
source structures directly below the historic Richelsdorf mines, following the
first modern exploration in 40 years.
· Mid-European Crystalline Zone (MECZ) identified beneath the
Richelsdorf mining district - the same geological structure understood to be
the primary source of copper in the Kupferschiefer deposits across the
European Copperbelt in Germany and Poland
· Large-scale anomalies extend beyond survey area into the Tannenberg 2
licence, significantly increasing exploration potential
· Comprehensive exploration program integrating geophysical results with
core relogging, geological modelling and historical data to guide next phase
of exploration
· BHP Xplor funded 100% of survey with geological concept build-out and
exploration timeframe being expedited in collaboration with BHP
GreenX Metals Limited (ASX:GRX, LSE:GRX, GPW:GRX) (GreenX or Company) is
pleased to announce significant results from its Tannenberg Copper Project
(Tannenberg or Project) in Germany, with new geophysical data identifying that
the likely deep source of copper mineralisation beneath one of Europe's most
prolific historic mining districts is present under the Tannenberg licence
area.
The recently completed airborne magnetic and radiometric survey represents the
first major exploration work at Tannenberg in four decades. Combined with
reprocessed gravity data, these results have revealed large-scale geological
structures directly below the historic Richelsdorf copper mines, providing
crucial insights into the source of mineralisation that produced 416,500
tonnes of copper from these historic mining operations.
Most significantly, the survey has identified the presence of the Mid-European
Crystalline Zone (MECZ) beneath the mining district. This geological structure
is considered the primary source of copper for all major deposits along the
European copper belt spanning Germany and Poland. The presence of this same
structure beneath Tannenberg provides a strong geological rationale for the
potential of significant copper mineralisation (referred to as
"Kupferschiefer") in the project area and supports extensive further
exploration.
GreenX CEO, Mr Ben Stoikovich, commented: "After 40 years without modern
exploration, we have identified several previously unknown geological features
below the historic Richelsdorf mines that will form a fundamental part of our
understanding of the mineral system. Our historic archive review is
progressing at pace, and with the combined interpretation of the geophysics
results, continues to contribute to our confidence in the value of this
project. With our expanded 1,900 km(2) licence package, we have a large,
relatively shallow and potentially high-grade copper brownfields exploration
project, with copper being of a highly strategic commodity for both Germany
and the EU."
AIRBORNE GEOphysical SURVEY
Survey Area
The 58km(2) airborne survey area (Figure 1) was flown using a
helicopter-mounted magnetic and radiometric system, covering 660
line-kilometres with high-resolution data collection at 100-metre line
spacing.
Advanced processing techniques, including analytic signal, tilt derivative and
reduced-to-pole transforms, were applied to extract maximum geological
information from the dataset.
Figure 1: Expanded Tannenberg Project Area with historical mine workings,
showing the airborne geophysical survey area and historical underground
workings.
Key Findings
The magnetic data shows two large amplitude anomalies, which have been
interpreted alongside recent magnetic susceptibility measurements from drill
core. The only explanations for the anomalies are deep volcanic rocks within
an uplifted basement block deep below the historic mines. Consistent with the
magnetic data, the reprocessed residual gravity data shows a
northeast-southwest striking residual gravity high which is interpreted as an
uplifted basement block. These magnetic and gravity anomalies lead to the
conclusion that the MECZ underlies the historic mines.
The MECZ is a belt of very old rocks that runs across central Germany and into
Western Poland (Figure 2). These rocks include ancient granites, volcanic
rocks, and sediments that were later changed by metamorphism during a
mountain-building event called the Variscan orogeny about 300 million years
ago. Today, the zone can be seen at surface in areas like the Odenwald (south
of Frankfurt), while in other places like the Tannenberg project it is buried
under much younger sediments. When a mineral deposit is formed, a source of
metals is required through which fluids move to scavenge the copper, these
fluids then redeposit the metals higher up within sedimentary rocks.
The consensus in European Kupferschiefer research is that the MECZ of the
basement as well as intra-basinal volcanic rocks are the source and as such
have contributed the copper and other metals to these mineral deposits
(Rentzsch & Franzke 1997, Borg et al. 2012).
Figure 2: Extent and location of the wider Mid-European Crystalline Zone
(schematic) in Germany and Poland (after Bankwitz 1994) in relation to the
locations of key historical and currently operating mines, mineral deposits,
and tenements.
While the major geophysical anomalies identify the source of the copper, other
patterns in the magnetic data can be explained by faulting that could have
provided pathways for the upwards movement of the metal bearing fluids that
formed the mineral deposits. These anomalies and faults are hidden below the
deepest drilling data so far known and represent an important advancement in
the understanding of the deep geological and structural architecture and gives
important guidance of how new mineral deposits can be found.
The anomalies and faults extend well out of the boundaries of the survey area
and towards the east into and beyond Tannenberg 1 and towards both the north
and southwest into the new and larger Tannenberg 2 licence area (Figure 3 and
Figure 4). Not only do these results highlight the prospectivity of the wider
Tannenberg licence package, but they show that deep-reaching, low-impact and
low-cost exploration methods such as ground gravity and airborne magnetic
surveys can contribute considerably to the discovery of new mineralisation and
ore deposits.
Figure 3: Residual gravity anomaly within the Tannenberg 1 and Tannenberg 2
licences. Showing the gravity high (red) feature interpreted as Mid-European
Crystalline Zone.
Figure 4: Location of the magnetic anomaly associated with deep-seated
geological structures (green) seen at depth below and adjacent to the
Tannenberg historic mining areas. The image also shows the proximity to
historic mines and related outcropping geology as well as fault structures.
The helicopter surveyed the area by flying between north and south along lines
100m apart.
survey METHODOLOGY
The airborne magnetic survey was conducted by Terratec Geophysical Services
GmbH & Co KG between 19 and 22 May 2025 and comprised 660 line-kilometres
of total field magnetic and radiometric data collection, flown at 100-metre
line spacing with 1,000-metre tie-lines. A helicopter-mounted Scintrex Cs-I
magnetometer and MEDUSA radiometric system were used in a nose-boom
configuration to minimise noise and improve resolution. The survey area was
designed to be a test over known historic mining other areas with exploration
potential (Figure 4).
Data processing included magnetic compensation, diurnal and IGRF corrections,
tie-line levelling, and advanced filtering (including analytic signal, tilt
derivative and reduced-to-pole transforms). Radiometric datasets were fully
calibrated, with potassium, uranium, thorium and total count grids produced.
In relation to the reprocessed gravity data, the input data originated from
the Hessen State Bouguer anomaly dataset and was prepared by the Hessian State
Agency for Nature Conservation, Environment and Geology (Hessisches Landesamt
für Naturschutz, Umwelt und Geologie) in collaboration with Leibniz-Institut
für Angewandte Geophysik (LIAG, Hannover). Gravity readings were collected at
ground stations on a regular grid across the region, with precise elevation
control from differential GPS to allow correction for latitude, elevation, and
terrain effects. Subsequent residual gravity processing removed the broad,
long-wavelength regional signal from Bouguer gravity data in order to isolate
shorter-wavelength anomalies caused by local geological features. This has
allowed Company geologists to more clearly identify the features directly
related to mineralisation.
Upcoming Work Programs
The geophysical survey is part of a larger exploration work program planned in
collaboration with and funded by the BHP Xplor program, which has been
extended to 31 October 2025. Key features of GreenX's 2025 exploration program
at Tannenberg include:
· Logging, assaying, and hyperspectral scanning of historical core;
· Reprocessing and analysis of historical geophysical data; and
· Collation of historic exploration, mining and production data.
Following the highly successful trial aeromagnetic survey, the Company also is
investigating possible additional data collection.
ENQUIRIES
Ben Stoikovich
Chief Executive Officer
+44 207 478 3900
references
Bankwitz, P. (1994). In Behr, H.-J., et al. Crustal structure of the
Saxothuringian Zone: Results of the deep seismic profile MVE-90 (East).
Zeitschrift für Geologische Wissenschaften, 22(6), 647-769.
Borg, G., Piestrzyński, A., Bachmann, G. H., Püttmann, W., Walther, S.,
& Fiedler, M. (2012). An overview of the European Kupferschiefer deposits.
In J. W. Hedenquist, M. Harris & F. Camus (Eds.), Geology and Genesis of
Major Copper Deposits and Districts of the World: A Tribute to Richard H.
Sillitoe (Economic Geology Special Publication No. 16, pp. 455-486).
Society of Economic Geologists.
Messer, E. (1955). Kupferschiefer, Sanderz und Kobaltrücken im Richelsdorfer
Gebirge (Hessen). Hessisches Lagerstättenarchiv, Heft 3. Herausgabe und
Vertrieb: Hessisches Landesamt für Bodenforschung, Wiesbaden
Rentzsch, J., & Franzke, H. J. (1997). Regional tectonic control of the
Kupferschiefer mineralization in Central Europe. Presented in Economic Geology
Special Publication 15.
* As reported by the operating company Deutscher Kupferbergbau GmbH (Messer,
1955)
Competent Persons Statement
Information in this announcement that relates to Exploration Results is based
on information compiled by Dr Matthew Jackson, a Competent Person who is a
Member of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Dr Jackson is
employed by GreenX who has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style
of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity
being undertaken, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012
Edition of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results,
Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves'. Dr Jackson consents to the inclusion in
this announcement of the matters based on his information in the form and
context in which it appears
Forward Looking Statements
This release may include forward-looking statements, which may be identified
by words such as "expects", "anticipates", "believes", "projects", "plans",
and similar expressions. These forward-looking statements are based on
GreenX's expectations and beliefs concerning future events. Forward looking
statements are necessarily subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors,
many of which are outside the control of GreenX, which could cause actual
results to differ materially from such statements. There can be no assurance
that forward-looking statements will prove to be correct. GreenX makes no
undertaking to subsequently update or revise the forward-looking statements
made in this release, to reflect the circumstances or events after the date of
that release.
The information contained within this announcement is deemed to constitute
inside information as stipulated under the Regulation 2014/596/EU which is
part of domestic law pursuant to the Market Abuse (Amendment) (EU Exit)
Regulations (SI 2019/310) ("UK MAR"). By the publication of this announcement
via a Regulatory Information Service, this inside information (as defined in
UK MAR) is now considered to be in the public domain.
JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1 Report
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 specific No samples taken
specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals
under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF
instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad
meaning of sampling.
Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the Magnetic/Radiometrics Survey:
appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.
Helicopter-borne total magnetic field and radiometrics acquired in a nose-boom
configuration on 100 m line spacing with 1,000 m tie-lines, oriented N-S with
E-W ties to best evaluate known lithological/structural trends-supporting even
coverage and representivity.
Target nominal height 40-80 m AGL (mean ~50 m where safe) with government
mandated minimum 1,000 ft over populated areas.
Magnetic compensation ("cloverleaf") flights to derive platform-effect
coefficients; diurnal monitoring via base station; flights avoided during
geomagnetic storms.
Gravity Survey:
Precise information about the instruments used and the dates of collection are
not available. The dataset was compiled from multiple data collection
campaigns and partners between the 1950's and 1970's, with additional data
collected in the 1990's.
Leibniz-Institut für Angewandte Geophysik (LIAG) compiled gravity data from
federal/state surveys that were quality-checked using DEM height comparisons
(DGM25, SRTM) and cross-validation. Only consistent points (quality-flagged)
were included in the database. Historic instruments were mainly astatic spring
gravimeters (e.g., Worden, LaCoste & Romberg).
Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Magnetic/Radiometrics Survey:
Report. In cases where 'industry standard' work has been done this would be
relatively simple (eg 'reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m All data collection and processing was "industry standard". Instruments &
samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire sampling rates: Scintrex Cs-I magnetometer (nose-boom, 10 Hz sampling
assay'). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there interval); GEM GSM-19 Overhauser base station (1 Hz sampling interval); MEDUSA
is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or 4 L CsI spectrometer with 256-channel MCA (1 Hz sampling interval).
mineralisation types (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed
information. Survey extent: 660 line-km planned over ~58 km² and 660 line-km flown on
completion.
Gravity Survey:
All data collection and processing was "industry standard".
Precise information about the instruments, collection date and parameters are
not available due to large historic database from multiple sources
(1950-2000).
Raw gravity was reduced to Bouguer anomalies using GRS80 normal gravity,
atmospheric correction, a spherical Bouguer plate (ρ = 2670 kg/m³, reduction
radius 166.7 km), and terrain corrections from high-resolution DEMs. Older
datasets were recomputed to ensure a uniform workflow.
Drilling techniques Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, No drilling results reported
auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard
tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is
oriented and if so, by what method, etc).
Drill sample recovery Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results No drilling results reported
assessed.
Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of No drilling results reported
the samples.
Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether No drilling results reported
sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse
material.
Logging Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged No drilling results reported
to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation,
mining studies and metallurgical studies.
Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, No drilling results reported
channel, etc) photography.
The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged. No drilling results reported
Sub-sampling techniques If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. No drilling results reported
and sample preparation If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether No drilling results reported
sampled wet or dry.
For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample No drilling results reported
preparation technique.
Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise No drilling results reported
representivity of samples.
Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ No drilling results reported
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 No drilling results reported
sampled.
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory No drilling results reported
procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.
For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the Magnetic/Radiometrics Survey:
parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and
model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. Magnetic Instruments & sampling rates: Scintrex Cs-I magnetometer
(nose-boom, 10 Hz sampling interval); GEM GSM-19 Overhauser base station (1 Hz
sampling interval);
Magnetics processing parameters: Platform compensation applied; diurnal
correction (base value 49,495 nT removed); IGRF removal; despike/low-pass
filtering (Naudy 11-pt and Fuller 15-pt); tie-line levelling and
micro-levelling.
Radiometrics Instruments & sampling rates: MEDUSA 4 L CsI spectrometer
with 256-channel MCA (1 Hz sampling interval).
Radiometrics processing parameters: Gamman full-spectrum modelling
(Monte-Carlo); energy calibration, sensitivity coefficients, cosmic &
aircraft background removal; Radon removal; tie-line levelling and
micro-levelling. Products include K (%), U/Th (eppm), Total Count (cps), Dose
Rate (nGy/h). The data acquisition system is fully calibrated in a laboratory
environment by Medusa Sensing".
Gravity Survey:
Precise information about the instruments, collection date and parameters are
not available due to large historic database from multiple sources
(1950-2000).
Terrain corrections computed with Forsberg (1984) method using 25 m and 250 m
DEMs. Processing and interpolation done with Surfer, Geosoft, and ArcGIS.
Instrument specifics (make/model, read times, calibration factors) are not
stated for each survey in the public sources.
Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, No drilling results reported
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 or No drilling results reported
alternative company personnel.
The use of twinned holes. No drilling results reported
Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data No drilling results reported
storage (physical and electronic) protocols.
Discuss any adjustment to assay data. No drilling results reported
Location of data points Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and Magnetic/Radiometrics Survey:
down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in
Mineral Resource estimation. Survey positioning accuracy/quality: GeoDuster integrated GPS + 9-DoF IMU
navigation; stated accuracies Dynamic < 2.5 m CEP, Static < 2.0 m CEP;
Freeflight MK4500 radar altimeter used.
Gravity Survey:
Precise information about the instruments, collection date and parameters are
not available due to large historic database from multiple sources
(1950-2000).
Regional campaigns targeted <0.1 mGal gravity precision, <3 cm height
accuracy, and <20 m horizontal accuracy. Older positions from
1:25,000/1:50,000 maps, later improved by GPS.
Specification of the grid system used. WGS-84, UTM Zone 32N and Lambert Conformal Conic, Gauß-Krüger Zone 3 for
some gravity products
Quality and adequacy of topographic control. Magnetic/Radiometrics Survey:
Topographic control: Differential GPS altitude recorded; DTM from Hessen
authority used and resampled into line data.
Gravity Survey:
Precise information about the instruments, collection date and parameters are
not available due to large historic database from multiple sources
(1950-2000).
Terrain corrections used a fused DEM from DGM25 and SRTM (hole-filled), with
lake-depth models where required. DEMs were checked against station heights to
identify outliers.
Data spacing and distribution Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. Magnetic/Radiometrics Survey:
100 m traverse spacing with 1,000 m tie-lines; 660 km total-excellent
resolution for high-resolution airborne mapping at project.
Gravity Survey:
Regional station spacing typically 1 - 3 km in the project area, denser at
0.5-1 km or locally finer in detail surveys.
Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the No drilling results reported
degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource
and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied.
Whether sample compositing has been applied. No drilling results reported
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible Magnetic/Radiometrics Survey:
structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit
type. N-S flight lines with E-W ties were selected with the client as regional
structural trends were believed to NW-SE or E-W.
Gravity Survey:
Regional dataset distribution is irregular (not aligned to a preferred survey
orientation), so it is not biased towards structural trends at map scale.
Interpolation to a regular grid reduces clustering or gaps.
If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of No drilling results reported
key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias,
this should be assessed and reported if material.
Sample security The measures taken to ensure sample security. No samples taken
Audits or reviews The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. Magnetic/Radiometrics Survey:
Data and report prepared by Terratec airborne operations team and then checked
by the Airborne Manager & Managing Director; submission to client
signed/dated.
Gravity Survey:
Precise information about the instruments, collection date and parameters are
not available due to large historic database from multiple sources
(1950-2000).
LIAG applied a multi-stage internal QC process (DEM height checks, location
comparison, cross-validation). Statistical review showed most stations within
±0.1 mGal of recomputed terrain corrections.
Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
(Criteria 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 agreements or The Tannenberg 1 and 2 exploration licences are held 100% by Group 11
material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, Exploration GmbH. The licences were awarded on the 7(th) of June 2025 and
overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or 22(nd) of April 2025 respectively and are both valid until 6(th) June 2028.
national park and environmental settings. The licence is free from overriding royalties and native titles interests.
There are historical mine workings within the licence area, but no known
historical sites of cultural significance outside of mining.
Within and surrounding the licence area, there are environmental protections
zones with differing levels of protections. There are small areas identified
as Natura 2000 Fauna Flora Habitat Areas and Bird Sanctuaries. Other
environmental protection designated areas include Nature Reserves, National
Natural Monuments, Landscape Protection Area, and Natural Parks. Based on due
diligence and discussions with various stakeholders and consultants, the
presence of environmental protection areas does not preclude exploration or
eventual mining if conducted in accordance with applicable standards and
regulations.
The landform across the license area comprises mostly of farmland, forested
areas, and small towns and villages.
The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known The licences are in good standing.
impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.
Exploration done by other parties Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. The gravity dataset was compiled from multiple data collection campaigns and
partners between the 1950's and 1970's, with additional data collected in the
1990's. The German Federal government and numerous partners collected data
over numerous decades and field campaigns. In recent years all data has been
compiled, validated and quality controlled by Leibniz-Institut für
Angewandte Geophysik (LIAG, Hannover). The quality of data is believed to be
suitable for exploration purposes.
Geology Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. Mineralisation is of the classic Kupferschiefer type (copper slate) within the
Permian Zechstein Basin of Germany and Poland.
The Zechstein Basin is hosted within the Southern Permian Basin ("SPB") of
Europe. The SPB is an intracontinental basin that developed on the northern
foreland of the Variscan Orogen.
Very high-grade copper mineralisation is generally associated with the
Kupferschiefer shale unit. However, minable copper mineralisation also occurs
in the footwall sandstone and hanging wall limestone units in Poland.
Mineralisation can be offset from the shale by up to 30 m above and 60 m
below.
Drill hole Information A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration No drilling results reported
results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material
drill holes:
easting and northing of the drill hole collar
elevation or RL (Reduced Level - elevation above sea level in metres) of the
drill hole collar
dip and azimuth of the hole
down hole length and interception depth
hole length.
If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the No drilling results reported
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, maximum No drilling results reported
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 No drilling results reported
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 No metal equivalent values are used.
clearly stated.
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration No drilling results reported
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 No drilling results reported
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 intercepts Appropriate diagrams, including a maps are included in the main body of this
should be included for any significant discovery being reported These should announcement.
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 practicable, Reporting of the magnetic and gravity data is considered to be balanced.
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 reported All substantive results are 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 extensions Magnetic Survey:
or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).
No additional work planned as of writing.
Gravity Survey:
No additional work planned as of writing.
Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the These diagrams are included in the main body of this release.
main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this
information is not commercially sensitive.
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 DRLSSMFFUEISESURecent news on GreenX Metals
See all newsREG - GreenX Metals Ltd - Historical Database Discovered From the 1930s
AnnouncementREG - GreenX Metals Ltd - Aeromag Results Identify Primary Copper Source
AnnouncementREG - GreenX Metals Ltd - Results of Meeting and Director/PDMR Shareholding
AnnouncementREG - GreenX Metals Ltd - Quarterly Activities Report June 2025
AnnouncementREG - GreenX Metals Ltd - Change of Director's Interest Notice
Announcement