REG - Galileo Resources - JORC 2012 Inferred MRE for the Luansobe Project
09/02/2023 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:20230209:nRSI3661Pa&default-theme=true
RNS Number : 3661P Galileo Resources PLC 09 February 2023
7.00am 9 February 2023
Galileo Resources PLC
09 February 2023
Galileo Resources Plc
("Galileo" or "the Company")
JORC 2012 Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate for the Luansobe Copper Project,
Zambia
Galileo Resources plc ("Galileo "or the "Company") is pleased to announce the
results of an initial Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate for the Luansobe
copper project ("Luansobe" or the "Project") in Zambia, completed by
independent consultants Addison Mining Services. Galileo holds a 75% interest
in the Project.
Highlights
· Inferred Mineral Resources reported in accordance with the JORC code
2012 edition, including;
o Approximately 5.8 million tonnes gross at 1% total Cu above a cut-off
grade of 0.25% total Cu for 56,000 tonnes of contained Cu, potentially
amenable to open pit mining.
o Approximately 6.3 million tonnes gross at 1.5% total Cu above a cut-off
grade of 1% total Cu for 97,000 tonnes of contained Cu, potentially amenable
to underground mining.
· Additionally, 3.0 to 7.0 million tonne gross exploration target with
grades in the region of 1% to 1.5% total Cu at depths between 100m to 300m in
an underexplored area of the licence where further drilling may serve to
convert this conceptual target to a mineral resource.
· Detailed metallurgical test work has already commenced on a 60
kilogram sample of drill core to determine the optimised processing flow sheet
which may contribute to the upgrade of the Mineral Resource classification.
· Tendering for mining contractors can commence once an optimised block
model is available as part of general Project planning work
Colin Bird Chairman & CEO said: "We are very pleased with the outcome of the Luansobe drill programme and the resultant tonnage and grade estimate in our maiden inferred resources. We will now continue the process of optimising a block model and open pit planning during the current quarter as a basis for engagement with potential contractors to quote for open pit mining. The timing of mining start-up will be subject to, amongst other matters, the ongoing feasibility assessment, completion of mining and processing agreements, along with necessary Project permitting.
Samples of drill core have been sent to a metallurgical testing laboratory and are being assessed for amenability to upgrade for processing elsewhere or construction of an onsite plant. The results appear to be capable of supporting a 10-year 600,000 tonnes per year project which would represent a significant operation, well timed due to the predicted shortage of copper supplies."
Project Background
The Luansobe area is situated some 15km to the northwest of the Mufulira Mine
in the Zambian Copperbelt which produced well over 9Mt of copper metal during
its operation. It forms part of the northwestern limb of the northwest -
southeast trending Mufulira syncline and is essentially a strike continuation
of Mufulira, with copper mineralisation hosted in the same stratigraphic
horizons. At the Luansobe prospect mineralisation occurs over two contiguous
zones, dipping at 20-30 degrees to the northeast, over a strike length of
about 3km and to a vertical depth of at least 1,250m.
Galileo entered into a Joint Venture agreement with Statunga Investments
Limited ("Statunga" or "the Vendors"), a private Zambian company which holds
the Luansobe Project ("Project") comprising small-scale exploration licence
No. 28340-HQ-SEL in the Zambian Copperbelt.
The JV Agreement provides Galileo the right to earn an initial 75% interest in
a special purpose joint venture company to be established under Zambia law to,
with Ministerial consent, acquire the exploration licence and the technical
data related to the Luansobe Project by making two payments of US$200,000 each
(subject to project due diligence) by 20 February 2022 and issuing 5,000,000
Galileo shares to the Vendors. These conditions were met by the Company.
As per our JV agreement, Galileo will continue to evaluate and optimise
Project feasibility in parallel to seeking third party quotes for contract
mining as referred to above.
If a decision to mine is made by Galileo, then the parties will be entitled to
fund pro rata to their beneficial interest in the JV Company. Any funding
shortfall by the Vendors will be recovered from subsequent mine production.
Mineral Resource Estimate
The initial Mineral Resource Estimate 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 edition. Resources are of the
Inferred category and include.
· Approximately 5.8 million gross tonnes at 1% total Cu above a cut-off
grade of 0.25% total Cu, potentially amenable to open pit mining.
· Approximately 6.3 million gross tonnes at 1.5% total Cu above a
cut-off grade of 1% total Cu, potentially amenable to underground mining.
The southeast of the Luansobe licence area remains under explored with
insufficient data to allow estimation of a mineral resource. Historic drilling
in this area suggests an exploration target of approximately 3 million to 7
million tonnes between depths of 100 to 300m with grades in the region of 1%
to 1.5% total Cu. The target area is approximately 2 km by 1 km in surface
expression. The exploration target is conceptual in nature and may not be
realised. Galileo plans to test the exploration target following evaluation of
the open pit mining potential and, given favourable results, the commencement
of production. Approximately 5,000m of drilling is recommended to test the
area.
The Mineral Resource Estimate is based on wireframe restricted block modelling
with grade estimation by ordinary kriging. Pit optimisation was used to
identify material which may be amenable to open pit mining - these data are
presented in Table 1 below above a cut-off grade off 0.25% total Cu, in
addition to Resources that may be amenable to underground mining techniques
above a cut-off grade of 1% total Cu. For further information see JORC Table 1
below. Supporting images can be found by clicking on the following links.
Luansobe Plan View Drill Overview
http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3661P_4-2023-2-8.pdf
(http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3661P_4-2023-2-8.pdf)
Luansobe MRE BM X-section 1
http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3661P_2-2023-2-8.pdf
(http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3661P_2-2023-2-8.pdf)
Luansobe MRE BM X-section 2
http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3661P_1-2023-2-8.pdf
(http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3661P_1-2023-2-8.pdf)
Luansobe Plan View Resource Type
http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3661P_3-2023-2-8.pdf
(http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3661P_3-2023-2-8.pdf)
The estimate incorporates new drilling by Galileo completed between 4(th)
August and 9(th) November 2022. Galileo drilled 28 diamond holes, totalling of
3,568.4m (ranging between 47.7m and 230.3m in depth). Drillhole size was PQ in
overburden with HQ tails. All drillholes are vertical. In addition, 78
drillholes completed in 2006-2007 by previous operators Z.C.C.M. Ltd along
with 86 other historical drillholes completed by Roan Consolidated Mines Ltd
in 1950 to 1970 were used in the estimate, 30 of which were re-logged by
independent consultants GeoQuest on behalf of Galileo. GeoQuest completed pXRF
verification of Cu values on the historic core inspected and sampled
previously unsampled mineralised core for inclusion in the mineral resource
estimate.
Table 1: Inferred Mineral Resources for the Luansobe Project, Zambia.
Cut-off Total Cu (%) Tonnes (t) Density (t/m3) Total Cu (%) Acid Soluble Cu (%) Total Cu Metal (t) Acid Soluble Cu Metal (t)
Open Pit Potential Resources 100% Gross
1 2,400,000 2.5 1.4 0.6 34,000 14,000
0.5 4,900,000 2.5 1.1 0.4 53,000 21,000
0.25 5,800,000 2.5 1 0.4 56,000 22,000
Underground Potential Resources 100% Gross
2 770,000 2.5 3.5 0.4 27,000 2,900
1.5 1,600,000 2.5 2.5 0.3 40,000 5,200
1 6,300,000 2.5 1.5 0.2 97,000 15,000
Open Pit Potential Resources 75% Net*
1 1,800,000 2.5 1.4 0.6 25,500 10,500
0.5 3,675,000 2.5 1.1 0.4 39,800 15,800
0.25 4,350,000 2.5 1 0.4 42,000 16,500
Underground Potential Resources 75% Net*
2 578,000 2.5 3.5 0.4 20,300 2,200
1.5 1,200,000 2.5 2.5 0.3 30,000 3,900
1 4,725,000 2.5 1.5 0.2 72,800 11,300
* Net calculations are performed on a 75% basis reflecting Galileo's interest
in the Project
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 21(st) of December 2022. Mr Siddle has not yet
completed a site visit and as such the Mineral Resources are restricted to the
Inferred category.
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 improved structural
understanding of the deposit, fault mapping, further verification of legacy
drillholes and metallurgical testing. Following a site visit by the CP it may
be possible to convert some of the Inferred Mineral Resources to Indicated
Mineral Resources.
3. Acid Soluble Cu (%) represents the concentration of copper that is
susceptible to leaching by a 5% sulphuric acid digestion and is a proxy for
the concentration of copper present in oxide phases. Chalcocite, a secondary
sulphide copper mineral may also report in part to the Acid Soluble Cu. By
extension Total Cu (%) minus Acid Soluble Cu (%) is a proxy for the
concentration of copper in sulphide phases. Estimation of copper phases is
important for future evaluation work as sulphide and oxide copper minerals
maybe processed by different methods such as flotation and leaching with
electrowinning respectively, bulk flotation is also a possibility. Initial
mineral processing testwork has commenced but has yet to be completed at the
time of writing.
4. The Inferred mineral resource category set out in the table above
at cut-off grades >0.25% Total Cu for open pit and 1% Total 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).
5. 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.
6. Open pit mining assumes a Cu price of US$9000 per tonne with 85%
payability on metal in concentrate. Pit optimisation and cut-off grade
selection was based on the assumption of 85% recovery of total Cu, including
the acid soluble component, by flotation at $14/t plus $1.5/t G&A. Mining
costs were assumed as $3/t. Underground mining was based on the same
assumptions with a mining cost of $40/t.
7. Pit slopes were assumed as 40 degrees in overburden and 50 degrees
in 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.
8. The Mineral Resource Estimate set out above was based on the
wireframe interpretation of the mineralised massive shale, lower dolomite, BC
and C quartzites of the "Ore" Formation of the Lower Roan stratigraphy.
Mineralisation is interpreted to dip in the limb of a syncline to the
northeast by 30-40 degrees with locally shallower sections.
9. The block size was 20 mE x 20 mN x 2 mZ in the area of closest
spaced drilling covering the open pit resource area (1/2 to 1/3 of drill
spacing). In areas of more sparse drilling including most of the underground
resource the block size was 60 mE x 60 mN x 6 mZ (1/2 to 1/3 of drill
spacing).
10. Grades were estimated using Ordinary Kriging of 2m downhole composites,
no grade capping was deemed necessary. An incrementally larger search radius
of 100, 200 and 300 m was used. The maximum number of samples per search was
restricted to 18 maximum and samples per drillhole restricted to 2 in the area
of 2 mZ blocks, elsewhere there was no restriction in the number of samples
per drillhole. Discretisation was 5x5x2. The estimate was completed using
Micromine 2023.1 software.
11. Mineralisation ranges from approximately 30 to 160m below surface in the
open pit resource and is approximately 550m along strike to the southwest and
150m down dip to the northeast. Elsewhere the resource ranges up to 250 to
300m below surface with an additional strike length of 1200m extending down
dip 300 to 500m.
12. The mineral resource is closed off by drilling and as it nears surface
to the northwest and southwest. Down dip to the northeast mineralisation may
continue and it has been extrapolated by ~50m from the edge of drilling, were
further mineralisation to be present here it would likely only be amenable to
underground mining due to the high stripping ratios to the northeast. To the
southeast where the deposit is deepest further mineralisation has been
identified at depths 250-300m, however drilling is too sparse to infer
continuity and allow reporting of a mineral resource.
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.
Glossary
"acid soluble" Essentially the oxidised component of the mineralised body which is soluble in
5% sulphuric acid solutions
"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.
"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.
"PQ" & "HQ" Referring to different drill core diameters, 85mm & 63.5mm respectively
"t/m(3)" Tonnes per cubic metre
"$/t" US dollars per tonne
You can also follow Galileo on Twitter: @GalileoResource
For further information, please contact: Galileo Resources PLC
Colin Bird, Chairman Tel +44 (0) 20 7581 4477
Beaumont Cornish Limited - Nomad Tel +44 (0) 20 7628 3396
Roland Cornish/James Biddle
Novum Securities Limited - Joint Broker +44 (0) 20 7399 9400
Colin Rowbury /Jon Belliss
Shard Capital Partners LLP - Joint Broker Tel +44 (0) 20 7186 9952
Damon Heath
The information contained within this announcement is deemed by the Company to
constitute inside information as stipulated under the Market Abuse Regulations
(EU) No. 596/2014 as it forms part of UK Domestic Law by virtue of the
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 ("UK MAR").
This information is provided by RNS, the news service of the London Stock
Exchange. RNS is approved by the Financial Conduct Authority to act as a
Primary Information Provider in the United Kingdom. Terms and conditions
relating to the use and distribution of this information may apply. For
further information, please contact rns@lseg.com or visit www.rns.com
(http://www.rns.com) .
END
JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1 report template
Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data
(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)
Sampling techniques · Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or · Sampling of Galileo 2022 drilling and resampled legacy core was by
specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the sawn 1/4 HQ core.
minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF
instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad · Samples were prepared at SGS Kalulushi by dry crushing to 90% passing
meaning of sampling. 2.36 mm, 1 kg split pulverized to 85% passing 75 µm.
· Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity · Routine internal and external quality control samples in the for of
and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. certified reference materials were inserted and found to perform adequately.
· Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to · Sampling was typically 1 m in length with variation to meet
the Public Report. lithological contacts.
· In cases where 'industry standard' work has been done this would be
relatively simple (eg 'reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m
samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire
assay'). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there
is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or
mineralisation types (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed
information.
Drilling techniques · Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary · All drilling by Galileo was HQ diamond drilling with PQ in
air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or overburden.
standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type,
whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). · Legacy drilling was diamond drilling with core sizes approximately
equal to NQ or HQ.
Drill sample recovery · Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and · All Galileo drilling was logged for core recovery. Mean total core
results assessed. recovery was >95%
· Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative · Shorter drill runs were used in broken ground to improve recovery.
nature of the samples.
· No relationship was identified between recovery and grade.
· Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and
whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of · Details of legacy drilling are unknown relogged core inspected from
fine/coarse material. legacy drilling showed mean recover7 of 75% for 30 holes logged. Although some
core may have been lost in storage.
Logging · Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and · All Galileo drilling was geotechnically and geologically logged.
geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral
Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies. · 30 Historic drillholes were geotechnically and geologically relogged.
· Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or · Of the legacy drillholes Thirty-four Drillholes have no geology Log,
costean, channel, etc) photography. while 968.86 Meters of missing intervals have not been logged in drillholes
with logging elsewhere in the drillhole.
· 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 · Galileo and resampled legacy core was sawn. Inspection of historical
taken. core shows it was saw and half core sampled.
· If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and · 2.1% Field duplicates were taken during Galileo drilling and showed
whether sampled wet or dry. good precision.
· For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the · No duplicate data is available for legacy core.
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 2022 Diamond Drilling Galileo collected 1874 quarter core
laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or samples (including field duplicates) and inserted 118 control samples (78 SRMs
total. and 40 blanks), which respectively represents 4.2% and 2.1% of the whole
sample population.
· For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc,
the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and · The resampling program included 5% CRM and 5% blank insertion.
model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc.
· 2.1% Field duplicates were taken during Galileo drilling and showed
· Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, good precision.
duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of
accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established. · 30 drillholes from legacy drilling were checked with PXRF and the
results showed a strong correlation to legacy assay results.
· No bias has been identified.
Verification of sampling and assaying · The verification of significant intersections by either independent · Relogging and PXRF analysis of 30 historic drillholes has confirmed
or alternative company personnel. the presence of significant intercepts.
· The use of twinned holes. · Galileo drilling twinned 5 drillholes and showed good correlation
with legacy drillholes.
· Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data
verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. · Galileo assay data was imported into a relational database and merged
by query from the digital certificates.
· Discuss any adjustment to assay data.
· Historic procedures are unknown
Location of data points · Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar · Galileo drilling was surveyed by DGPS, 4 legacy drillhole collars
and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in were located in the field and surveyed by DGPS. The collar locations are
Mineral Resource estimation. within close agreement (<1m)
· Specification of the grid system used. · Data was collected in WGS84 UTM 35s and transformed to ARC50 UTM35s
· Quality and adequacy of topographic control. · A topographic survey was completed over the open pit resource are
using DGPS and is adequate for the study.
· Details of legacy survey are unknown.
Data spacing and distribution · Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. · Drillhole spacing is ~50 m in the area of the open pit resource
estimate and 75 to 100 m in the underground resource area.
· Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish
the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral · Else where data spacing is 150 to 200 m
Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied.
· Data spacing is close enough to establish geological continuity in
· Whether sample compositing has been applied. the open pit resource area and underground resource area.
· In the wider spaced drilling areas there is insufficient data density
for reliable resource estimation.
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure · Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of · All drilling is vertical. The mineralization is inclined to the
possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the northeast by ~30 degrees, locally it can be flat or up to 45 degrees.
deposit type.
· The orientation of drilling is not assumed to have introduced a
· If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the sample bias.
orientation of 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. · Samples were transported by company personnel to the lab in labelled
bags. Lab standard submission forms were used.
Audits or reviews · The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. · No such reviews have been completed.
Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
(Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)
Mineral tenement and land tenure status · Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including · Galileo has entered into a Joint Venture agreement with Statunga
agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, Investments Limited ("Statunga" or "the Vendors"), a private Zambian company
partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, which holds the Luansobe Project ("Project") comprising small-scale
wilderness or national park and environmental settings. exploration licence No. 28340-HQ-SEL in the Zambian Copperbelt.
· The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with · The JV Agreement provides Galileo the right to earn an initial 75%
any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area. interest in a special purpose joint venture company to be established under
Zambia law to, with Ministerial consent, acquire the exploration licence and
the technical data related to the Luansobe Project by making two payments of
US$200,000 each (subject to project due diligence) by 20 February 2022 and
issuing 5,000,000 Galileo shares to the Vendors.
· The licence is granted for 4 years from 16(th) of February 2021
Exploration done by other parties · Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. · 78 drillholes completed in 2006-2007 by previous operators Z.C.C.M.
Ltd plus 86 other historical drillholes completed by Roan Consolidated Mines
Ltd in 1950 to 1970 were used in the estimate, 30 of which were re-logged by
independent consultants Geoquest on behalf of Galileo.
Geology · Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. · The Luansobe area is situated some 15km to the northwest of the
Mufulira Mine in the Zambian Copperbelt which produced well over 9Mt of copper
metal during its operation. It forms part of the northwestern limb of the
northwest - southeast trending Mufulira syncline and is essentially a strike
continuation of Mufulira, with copper mineralisation hosted in the same
stratigraphic horizons. At the Luansobe prospect mineralisation occurs over
two contiguous zones, dipping at 20-30 degrees to the northeast, over a strike
length of about 3km and to a vertical depth of at least 1,250m.
Drill hole Information · A summary of all information material to the understanding of the · 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).
· Improved structural interpretation of the Siniform structure at
· Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, Luansobe will improve understanding of the deposit geometry.
including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas,
provided this information is not commercially sensitive.
Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources
(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to
this section.)
Database integrity · Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for · Galileo 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.
· All data was validated for overlapping intervals, intervals beyond
· Data validation procedures used. drillhole depth etc.
Site visits · Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the · No site visit has been undertaken as a site visit was not requested
outcome of those visits. by Galileo.
· If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.
Geological interpretation · Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of ) the geological · The Mineral Resource Estimate set out above was based on the
interpretation of the mineral deposit. wireframe interpretation of the mineralized massive shale, lower dolomite, BC
and C quartzites of the "Ore" Formation of the Lower Roan stratigraphy.
· Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.
· This allows correlation of the mineralized intervals.
· The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral
Resource estimation. · Discrepancy in legacy logging was identified in places and drillholes
relogged by Geoquest and drilling completed by Galileo was taken as priority
· The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource during interpretation.
estimation.
· The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.
Dimensions · The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as · Mineralization ranges from approximately 30 to 160 m below
length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the surface in the open pit resource and is approximately 550 m along strike to
upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource. the southwest and 150 m down dip to the northeast. Elsewhere the resource
ranges up to 250 to 300 m below surface with an additional strike length of
1200 m extending down dip 300 to 500 m
· The mineral resource is closed off by drilling and as it nears
surface to the northwest and southwest. Down dip to the northeast
mineralization may continue and it has been extrapolated by ~50m from the edge
of drilling, were further mineralization to be present here it would likely
only be amenable to underground mining due to the high stripping ratios to the
north east. To the southeast where the despot is deepest further
mineralization has been identified at depths 250-300 m, however drilling is
too sparse to infer continuity and allow reporting of a mineral resource.
Estimation and modelling techniques · The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied · The block size was 20 mE x 20 mN x 2 mZ in the area of closest
and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, spaced drilling covering the open pit resource area (1/2 to 1/3 of drill
interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data spacing). In areas of more sparse drilling including most of the underground
points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a resource the block size was 60 mE x 60 mN x 6 mZ (1/2 to 1/3 of drill
description of computer software and parameters used. spacing).
· The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine · Grades were estimated using Ordinary Kriging of 2 m downhole
production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate composites, no grade capping was deemed necessary. An incrementally larger
account of such data. search radius of 100, 200 and 300 m was used. The maximum number of samples
per search was restricted to 18 maximum and samples per drillhole restricted
· The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. to 2 in the area of 2 mZ blocks, elsewhere there was no restriction in the
number of samples per drillhole. Discretization was 5x5x2. The estimate was
· Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of completed using Micromine 2022.5 software.
economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation).
· Mineralization is typically 4 to 10 m thick and mining by open
· In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation pit with flitches of 2-5 m envisaged.
to the average sample spacing and the search employed.
· No extreme outlier values were identified and grade capping was
· Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. not used.
· Any assumptions about correlation between variables. · A legacy estimate completed by ZCCM in 2008 disclosed an open pit
resource estimate of 5.5 million tonnes at 1.6%TCu. The details of the
· Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control estimate are unknown but broadly agrees with the findings of this study.
the resource estimates.
· No assays are available for deleterious elements
· 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 · Open pit mining assumes a Cu price of US$9000 per tonne with 85%
applied. payability on metal in concentrate. Pit optimization and cut off grade
selection was based on the assumption of 85% recovery of total Cu, including
the acid soluble component, by floatation at $14/t plus $1.5/t G&A. Mining
costs were assumed as $3/t. Underground mining was based on the same
assumptions with a mining costs of $40/t.
Mining factors or assumptions · Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining · Open pit mining is assumed with 5% dilution.
dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is
always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects · 40 degree pit slopes in overburden with 50 degree slopes in fresh
for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the rock assumed. There are no geotechnical studies to support this.
assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating
Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this · Detailed underground mining methods have yet to be investigated.
should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions 5-10% dilution is assumed.
made.
Metallurgical factors or assumptions · The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical · No metallurgical testwork has been completed.
amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining
reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential · 85% recovery is assumed by floatation of all Cu bearing material.
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 prominent mining area. No major
disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining settlements are within the immediate vicinity of the project. Adequate space
reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the is available for disposal of waste rock and tailings.
potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While
at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, · Social and environmental studies are required to assess the impact on
particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the local communities which may have an interest in the land use.
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 · Galileo collected 234 bulk density samples over a range of
assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency lithologies.
of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples.
· Samples were weighed dry with and without wax and waxed samples
· The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods submerged in water to account for porosity.
that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and
differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit. · Density values in t/m3 used in the estimate are as follows
· Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation · Massive shale 2.46
process of the different materials.
· Lower Dolomite 2.44
· BC Quartzite 2.50
· C Quartzite 2.50
Classification · The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into · The estimate is based on a large proportion of legacy data, however
varying confidence categories. relogging of legacy drill core from the 1970s and PXRF analysis has served to
reduce the risk associated with this data.
· Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors
(ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input · In areas of closes spaced drilling and around the open pit resource
data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity area confidence in the estimation of mineralized volumes and grades is
and distribution of the data). highest. However the CP has not visited the site to inspect the project
geology and as such the estimate is restricted to the inferred category.
· Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person's view
of the deposit. · The presence of faulting or different fold geometry may serve to
impact the resource estimate.
· Logging of some legacy drill core is inconsistent with that of new
drilling although re correlation is possible and should have minimal impact on
the estimate.
· There is no assessment of deleterious elements, acid consuming gangue
or metallurgical testwork which further supports restriction to the inferred
category.
· Geotechnical pit slope analysis may serve to materially change the
open pit resource estimate.
Audits or reviews · The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates. · The have been no such audits or reviews.
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence · Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence · 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
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 UPDFLFFDFEITIIVRecent news on Galileo Resources
See all newsREG - Galileo Resources - Mining licence issued for Luansobe Copper Project
AnnouncementREG - Galileo Resources - Receipt of cash payment for Glenover sale
AnnouncementREG - Galileo Resources - Director's Dealings
AnnouncementREG - Galileo Resources - Kamativi Lithium-Tin Project – Drill Assay Results
AnnouncementREG - Galileo Resources - Update on 51% interest in Lithium & Gold Projects
Announcement