Taronga Tin Project – Drilling Update
Summary by AI BETAClose X
26 August 2025
First Tin PLC
("First Tin" or "the Company")
Taronga Tin Project - Drilling Update
First Tin PLC, a tin development company with advanced, low capex projects in Germany and Australia, is pleased to announce that its 100% owned subsidiary, Taronga Mines Pty Ltd ("TMPL"), has received encouraging first tin assay results from its ongoing infill and extension drilling programme in progress at Taronga.
The drilling is designed to convert Inferred resources to Indicated status and to test several interpreted zones of mineralisation close to the proposed pits (refer to RNS dated 24th December 2024).
As of 18th August, a total of 2,780m of RC drilling has been completed in 39 drill-holes as part of the resource drilling programme.
In addition, 384m of PQ diamond drilling has been completed in 3 drill-holes to collect samples for additional mineral processing testwork. These samples have now been dispatched to a mineral processing laboratory in Perth, Australia.
Assay results from the first 4 drill-holes have been received, and these confirm similar grade tin mineralisation to that in the current resource and reserve including:
· TMTARC044 23m @ 0.13% Sn from 30m including 12m @ 0.17% Sn from 36m
· TMTARC045 10m @ 0.06% Sn from 17m including 2m @ 0.14% Sn from 17m
· TMTARC047 17m @ 0.13% Sn from 43m including 5m @ 0.20% Sn from 43m
· TMTARC048 17m @ 0.13% Sn from 0m including 6m @ 0.16% Sn from 2m
All of the results returned to date are from the northern part of the proposed South Pit (Figure 1). This drilling was designed to convert Inferred resources at the Hillside Extended zone into Indicated resources, and to extend this zone to the northeast within the current pit outline.
Drilling has confirmed this interpretation and has shown that mineralisation is present within the South Pit in areas that were previously classified as waste rock.
Drilling is continuing and results will be reported regularly as work progresses.
Details of all drilling completed to date are shown in Figure 1 and Table 1.
First Tin CEO, Bill Scotting, commented:
"These first results validate our interpretation that additional mineralisation exists within and adjacent to the current pit outlines. The grades and widths intercepted are consistent with existing quantified resources and are expected to result in additional resources being added within the current South Pit outline. Results from the remainder of the programme are eagerly awaited and will be reported as they are received."
Figure 1: Taronga Tin Project 2025 Drilling Summary Plan Showing Holes Completed
Table 1: Drilling Summary - Holes Completed to 18/08/2025
Competent Person Statement
Information in this announcement that relates to exploration results, data quality and geological interpretations is based on information compiled by Mr Antony Truelove. Mr Truelove is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG) and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM). Mr Truelove has sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration, and to the activities undertaken, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC) Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Truelove is Chief Operating Officer of First Tin Plc and consents to the inclusion in this announcement of the matters based on this information in the form and context in which it appears.
Enquiries:
|
First Tin |
Via SEC Newgate below |
|
Bill Scotting - Chief Executive Officer |
|
|
Arlington Group Asset Management Limited (Financial Advisor and Joint Broker) |
|
|
Simon Catt |
020 7389 5016 |
|
|
|
|
Zeus Capital Limited (Joint Broker) |
|
|
Harry Ansell / Dan Bristowe / Katy Mitchell |
020 3829 5000 |
|
|
|
|
SEC Newgate (Financial Communications) |
|
|
Molly Gretton / Gwen Samuel |
07970664807 |
Notes to Editors
First Tin PLC is an ethical, reliable, and sustainable tin production company led by a team of renowned tin specialists. The Company is focused on becoming a tin supplier in conflict-free, low political risk jurisdictions through the rapid development of high value, low capex tin assets in Germany and Australia, which have been de-risked significantly, with extensive work undertaken to date.
Tin is a critical metal, vital in any plan to decarbonise and electrify the world, yet Europe and North America have very little supply. Rising demand, together with shortages, is expected to lead tin to experience sustained deficit markets for the foreseeable future.
First Tin's goal is to use best-in-class environmental standards to bring two tin mines into production in three years, providing provenance of supply to support the current global clean energy and technological revolutions.
JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1 Taronga Tin Project (TMPL)
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 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 appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. · Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public 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 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. |
· Sampling consisted of three surface drilling phases: Newmont 1979 to 1982, Taronga Mines Pty Ltd (TMPL) 2022 to 2023, and Taronga Mines Pty Ltd 2025 (current programme). · Diamond drilling (DD) was used to obtain 1m samples of NQ3/HQ3 core which was sawn in half longitudinally. The half core was bagged and sent to a commercial laboratory for sample prep and assay. This is industry standard work. · The 2025 diamond drilling was large diameter (PQ) core to collect samples for mineral processing testwork. · The Newmont open hole percussion (OHP) and JACRO percussion drilling was used to obtain 1m samples. (a JACRO percussion rig was used to sample shallow areas with shallow angled drillholes). · The TMPL Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling was used to obtain 1m samples from a 4.5 inch diameter drill hole. This is industry standard work. · To ensure sample representivity all diamond drilling was triple tube. · To ensure sample representivity appropriate compressors were used for the OHP/JACRO/RC drilling to lift all the sample and prevent water inflows. · Mineralisation is characterised as sheeted quartz veins with minor cassiterite, arsenopyrite and chalcopyrite in hornfelsed metasediments. Veins are often hairline fractures and there is no obviously visible pervasive alteration associated with the hornfelsing. No discrete boundaries to the mineralisation are known to exist. All drilling samples were analysed and hence no prior determination of mineralisation was made. · Laboratory sample prep involved industry standard drying, weighing and crushing followed by splitting (where sample size was too large) and pulverising. For Newmont this was completed on site with analysis at a commercial laboratory, whilst for TMPL the sample prep and analysis was completed at a commercial laboratory. The subsequent pulp sample was analysed by an appropriate industry standard method for the time. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Drilling techniques |
· Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary 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, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). |
· Details of drilling for the general area:
Newmont · DD were collared HQ or with OHP, reducing to NQ triple tube once solid ground was met. Triple tube drilling was employed to maximise core recovery and minimise the loss of cassiterite. Core was not oriented. · OHP drilling was originally undertaken using a high pressure Schramm rig. Later percussion drilling, including all drillholes in the PG 400 series, used a high pressure T-3 rig with a 140mm tungsten bit. The rig was equipped with a primary cyclone connected to a manifold at the collar for sample recovery. A secondary Donaldson filter was attached to the outlet of the primary cyclone to collect minus 5 micrometre dust. · A modified JACRO percussion rig equipped with a vacuum sample recovery system was used exclusively for Newmont's shallow angle drilling.
TMPL · Diamond drilling was undertaken using an HQ bit with a soft matrix. Triple tube drill rods were used to ensure good core recovery and avoid washing out of cassiterite. Core was not oriented. The 2025 drilling was PQ core to obtain as much sample as possible for mineral processing testwork. · Percussion drilling was undertaken using a face sampling 4.5 inch "Black Diamond" hammer, 137mm PED (polycarbonate diamond) bit and a 4.5 inch, 6m stainless steel rod. A tight shroud (3mm gap) ensured the holes remained as straight as possible. A 350psi, 900cfm compressor was used to keep holes dry and ensure all heavy minerals such as cassiterite are recovered. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Drill sample recovery |
· Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. · Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. · Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material. |
· All core intervals are measured and compared with the drillers marks to determine actual recovery. Recovery was generally 100% apart from isolated intervals with poor ground conditions, generally either near surface or in fault zones. Average recovery for Newmont DD is 97.3% with average recovery for TMPL DD of 96.8% · All RC and OHP samples were weighed at site. This gives a good idea as to recovery for the 1m intervals sampled as the density does not vary significantly. Recovery for the OHP was estimated to be very good in general. Semi quantitative analysis of the TMPL weighed RC samples indicated an average recovery >90%. · No information on the JACRO holes' recovery was available. · All diamond drilling used triple tube rods to maximise sample recovery. · There is some speculation by TMPL that the drilling and core cutting processes may have resulted in small scale loss of tin through washout associated with the vein margins and very small vughs in the tin-bearing veins. Conclusive evidence for this is lacking. · For the percussion drilling a high pressure and volume compressor was used to ensure good sample return and to keep holes dry. No significant water was encountered meaning sample quality was good. The hole was cleaned out with compressed air after every rod change and no significant volume of material was returned via this process. · No relationship can be seen between recovery and tin grade. No sample bias is noted. · Previous work by Mining One suggested that there was downhole smearing of tin grade associated with the JACRO drilling based on geostatistical work, but a review of the Newmont JACRO/DD twin hole drilling indicated no bias; check modelling without the JACRO drilling indicated no difference in global block grades. Visual inspection might suggest possible smearing but it is difficult to be certain. The JACRO holes were included in the Mineral Resource estimate. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Logging |
· Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged 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, channel, etc) photography. · The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged. |
· All samples have been geologically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate mineral estimation, mining, and metallurgical studies. · The TMPL diamond holes have been geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate mineral estimation, mining, and metallurgical studies · All drill core logging is both qualitative and quantitative in nature, with the TMPL logging following a strict set of guidelines. The entire length each hole has been logged. · The Newmont drilling was completed as hardcopy logsheets which were transcribed into a digital format in 2013. All TMPL core was digitally logged and has been photographed. · All RC, OHP and JACRO logging is semi-quantitative in nature, with the TMPL RC drilling following a strict set of guidelines, with percentage estimates made. Representative sub-samples were collected, sieved and selectively panned to visually estimate heavy mineral content. A sub-set of rock chips for each RC sample are kept in chip-trays for reference and stored on site. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation |
· If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. · If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. · 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. |
Newmont drilling sample prep · NQ core was sawn in half longitudinally at 1m intervals with one half dispatched to Analabs Pty Limited ("Analabs") in Perth, Australia for assay. The half core selected for assay was crushed (size unknown) then ground to 500 microns from which a 100g sample was split and pulverized to less than 75 microns. A lab duplicate of each tenth sample was split and pulverised to check sample preparation and assaying reliability. These were appropriate, industry standard, sampling and sample preparation techniques for the time. · All 1m percussion drill samples were prepared for assay on site using four stages of size reduction comprising jaw crusher, rolls crusher, disc grinder and ring grinder (pulveriser), with sample splitting between stages in accord with Pierre Gy's "Particulate Sampling Procedures". The pulverised material was dispatched to Analabs in Perth for assay. · A duplicate of each tenth sample was split and pulverised to check sample preparation and assaying reliability. These were appropriate, industry standard, sampling and sample preparation techniques at the time. · Duplicate samples showed that a majority of duplicate Sn assays deviated by less than 2.5% relative to perfect correlation.
TMPL drilling sample prep · HQ core was sawn in half longitudinally after fitting together of core across drillers breaks and a reference line marked on the core. A consistent side of the core is taken for sampling with the samples sent to the ALS laboratory in Brisbane, Australia. · All RC cuttings were weighed then riffle split on site to obtain between 3kg and 5kg of sample. All samples are dry. The sub-sample is sent to the ALS laboratory in Brisbane. · Core and RC chip sample prep consists of crushing to 70% passing 6mm with splitting used if crushed sample is over 3kg. The entire sample or sub-sample is then pulverized in a mill to 85% finer than 75µm. · Prior to dispatch of samples, the following QAQC samples are added: o Field duplicates are added at the rate of 1 in 20 samples for RC. These are riffle split from the original sample on site. o For diamond drilling, the half core is split into two quarter cores every 1 in 20 samples and these are sent as field duplicates. · Sample sizes are considered appropriate for the material being sampled as the tin mineralisation occurs as cassiterite (SnO2) within sub-vertical veins that are between 0.05mm and 0.5cm wide (rarely to 5cm) and cassiterite crystals are smaller than the vein width. Vein density varies from about 5/m to greater than 20/m and hence several veins are sampled in each metre. This compares favourably with the sample size that is approximately 10,000 cm3 for RC and 3,200cm3 for HQ core before sub-sampling. · No independent sizing checks were completed. The ALS Lab completed its own internal checks and reported the results. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests |
· The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. · For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, 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. |
Newmont · All Sn assays were performed by taking 10g samples from the 100g pulverised samples. The samples were analysed for Sn using pressed powder X-ray fluorescence at Analabs. Pressed powder X-ray fluorescence was the industry standard for Sn analysis at the time. · Comparison of Sn assays of samples from diamond drill and percussion holes was good and no bias between the two sets of analyses is evident. · For every 30 samples, four standards were inserted on rotation. In addition, every tenth sample was lab duplicate assayed. · Selected samples were check assayed at other laboratories and using other assay methods, including an XRF method developed by Cleveland Tin Limited in Tasmania which was a significant Australian tin producer at the time. The checks confirmed that Analab's procedures were satisfactory and that sample preparation and assay quality were consistently maintained by Analabs.
TMPL · All Sn assays were performed on a 0.1g sub-sample of the pulverised and mixed material, which was taken and fused with lithium borate. The fused bead is then analysed by a mass spectrometer using method ME-MS85 which reports Sn, W, Ta and Nb. This returns a total tin content, including tin as cassiterite. Over limit assays of tin are re-analysed using method ME-XRF15b which involves fusion with lithium metaborate with a lithium tetraborate flux containing 20% NaNO3 with an XRF finish. · Other elements are analysed by method ME-ICP61 using a 0.25g sub-sample. This involves a 4 acid digest with an ICP-AES finish. This is an industry standard technique for a suite of 34 elements, including tin, copper, arsenic, sulphur and silver. The tin assay is only acid soluble tin and thus can be subtracted from the fusion tin assays to obtain tin as cassiterite. Acid soluble tin is generally associated with stannite and in the lattice of silicates. The acid soluble tin is generally insignificant in relation to tin as cassiterite at Taronga. · Prior to dispatch of samples, the following QAQC samples were added: o 3 Certified Reference Materials, representative of the expected grades were inserted into the sample suite at the rate of 1 in 40 samples. o Coarse Blanks were inserted at the rate of 1 in 40 samples. · If results for the CRMs indicated a >5% assay error, the sample was compared with other CRMs in the same batch. If other CRMs indicated similar errors the lab was contacted to review. · All QAQC data is within acceptable limits. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Verification of sampling and assaying |
· The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. · The use of twinned holes. · Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. · Discuss any adjustment to assay data. |
Newmont · There is no information on any verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. · Geological interpretations were made using cross-sections and level plans. Mining One accepted the Northern Zone 101 and the Southern Zones of Payback, Payback Extended, Hillside and Hillside Extended were interpreted on cross-sections as reported in a Pre-feasibility Study prepared by Newmont Holdings Pty Ltd in 1982. · A small number of twinned holes (10 pairs) were completed by Newmont and comparison of length weighted intercepts indicated no obvious bias. · There is no information available on documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage. It is assumed all data was paper copies subsequently transcribed by AusTinMining using a data entry bureau service. · There are no reports of any adjustments made to the assay data, although it appears that some transcribed assay data was limited to 2 decimal places rendering very low grade data as zeroes.
TMPL · Simon Tear, a director of independent consultants H&S Consultants Pty Ltd, has viewed and verified all core from 6 DD holes. · Twinning of previous Newmont drillholes has included: o 11 TMPL DD twins of Newmont DD Holes o 2 TMPL DD twins of Newmont OPH holes o 5 TMPL RC twins of Newmont OPH holes · Twin holes were selected to represent all zones of mineralisation and the length of the known deposit. · All results are within acceptable limits taking into account any possible nugget effect resulting from coarse cassiterite (noticed in three drill intersections). Due to the small number of high grade veins, top cutting of the high grade assays has a negligible effect on the overall grade. · All data is recorded on site in MSExcel spreadsheets and this is later transferred to an MSAccess database - the main data repository via cut and paste. Detailed protocols for data recording, logging codes etc are used. The assay data is received from the laboratory (ALS) via csv and pdf files with attached certificates. This may also be downloaded directly from the ALS website by the senior project geologist. The assay data is then merged using sample number. Detailed protocols for data recording, logging codes etc are used. · Assays below lower detection limits were substituted with half lower detection limit. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Location of data points |
· Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation. · Specification of the grid system used. · Quality and adequacy of topographic control. |
Newmont · Drill hole collars were located by theodolite traverses by qualified surveyors. · A local grid parallel to the strike of the mineralisation was used. Local grid north has a bearing of 055.103O true. A 3.5km baseline was surveyed with surveyed cross-lines at 100m intervals. · Holes were surveyed down-hole for azimuth and dip using down-hole cameras with a range of downhole depths from 15m to 50m. Given the generally non-magnetic nature of the mineralisation and the host rocks, this was a reasonable survey method. · Topographic maps at 1:1000 scale were prepared by Australian Aerial Mapping. The maps were related to the local grid.
TMPL · All hole collars are accurately surveyed post drilling with a RTK GPS (+/-0.1m accuracy). · All DD are surveyed downhole at 30m intervals using Axis Champ Gyroscope. · All RC holes are surveyed at 30m intervals using a Trushot Digital survey tool. · The grid system used is GDA94, zone 56. · Topography is obtained via a LiDAR survey flown in late 2022 and is to sub-10cm accuracy. · All data was converted to local grid by H&SC for resource estimation work. · H&SC undertook field measurement of 20 drill collars from both phases using a hand held GPS. Average discrepancy was 0.5m in the easting and 0.5m in the northing. · The 2025 programme is in progress and only hand-held GPS coordinates have been collected to date. DGPS co-ordinates will be collected at the end of the programme. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Data spacing and distribution |
· Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. · Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the 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. |
· The Newmont drilling was nominally on a 50m by 50m pattern with 25m infill drilling in some areas. · The TMPL drilling completed in 2022/3 was nominally at the same 50m by 50m spacing. · Virtually all downhole sampling was 1m intervals from surface. · Data spacing is sufficient to establish the geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource estimation and classification procedures applied for this report. · No sample compositing has been applied. · The 2025 drilling is on a nominal 50m x 50m spacing but is broader in some areas. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure |
· Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. · If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material. |
· The drilling is oriented at 90° to the strike of the sheeted vein system. · The vein system is sub-vertical and the drilling is angled between -25° and -60° to be as close as possible to cutting across the veins at 90°. Due to difficulties drilling at very shallow angles, especially with RC, a default angle of -60° was adopted for the later TMPL drillholes. · As drilling was designed to cut the main sheeted vein system at as high an angle as possible, the potential for any introduced sampling bias is considered minor. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sample security |
· The measures taken to ensure sample security. |
· Samples of Newmont drill core and percussion chips were bagged and tagged and shipped to the assay laboratory by independent third party transport. No further information is available. · A chain of custody was maintained for all TMPL drilling. · TMPL samples were placed in calico bags in groups of seven which were then wrapped in opaque polyweave bags, stacked on a palette and wrapped with pallet wrap and tape. · Samples sent to the lab via registered courier with tracking capabilities. · Samples arrive at the lab and were cross checked with a separate despatch form (electronically sent to ALS). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Audits or reviews |
· The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. |
· A review of sampling procedures and protocols was completed by Simon Tear of independent consultants H&S Consultants Pty Ltd whilst drilling was in progress, with some recommendations. |
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 agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings. · 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. |
· The project is secured by two granted tenements: EL8407 and ML 1774, both of which are currently in good standing. These are held 100% by TMPL. · No joint ventures or other encumbrances are known. The underlying properties are freehold land owned 100% by TMPL apart from a block of Crown Land that covers part of the southern deposit area as defined by Newmont. · The Crown Land is the only land subject to Native Title. No Native Title claims existed at the time the tenements were granted. · No national parks, historical sites or environmental constraints are known. Recent surveys have identified the "vulnerable" flora species Velvet Wattle. This is currently being avoided as much as possible and is not considered to be a major constraint moving forward. · The only royalty is the state of NSW royalty of 4% on tin mined. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Exploration done by other parties |
· Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. |
· Detailed exploration and feasibility studies were undertaken by Newmont between 1979 and 1984. These have been used where applicable. · This work was undertaken to a high standard and all data is considered to be usable. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Geology |
· Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. |
· The tin deposit is a sheeted vein style +/- copper-silver with horizontally and vertically extensive veins of quartz-mica-cassiterite-sulphide +/-fluorite-topaz occurring over a combined area of up to 2,700m by 270m. · The veins vary in thickness from less than 0.5mm to 100mm but are generally between 1mm and 10mm thick and average about 20 veins per metre. · The host rock is hornfels derived by contact metamorphism of Permian aged metasediments by Triassic-aged granites. · The source of mineralising fluids is interpreted to be an underlying intrusion of the Triassic Mole Leucogranite, a reduced, highly fractionated, A to I type granite. The metals of interest (Sn, Cu, Ag) are interpreted to have been enriched in the late magmatic fluid of this granite via enrichment of incompatible elements during fractional crystallisation. Breaching of the magma chamber during brittle faulting in an ENE orientation, a structural corridor, has tapped these enriched fluids which have subsequently deposited the metals due to changing temperature and pressure conditions and/or mixing with meteoric fluids. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Drill hole Information |
· A summary of all information material to the understanding of the 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. |
· The current programme is resource definition with limited exploration of soil anomalies and lode extensions. Details of drilling completed to date are shown in the Table below and Table 1 and Figure 1 of the main text.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Data aggregation methods |
· In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, 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. |
· Intercepts are reported based on a 0.05% Sn lower cut-off using simple weighted averaging. Sub-intercepts are based on a 0.10% Sn lower cut-off. In both cases, internal waste is included if average grade remains above cut-off. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths |
· These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of 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'). |
· As mineralisation is sub-vertical and while holes dip at between -25° and -60°, actual true widths vary from 88% to 50% of interval widths. · No Exploration Results are being reported. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Diagrams |
· Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of 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. |
· Figure 1 shows relationship of drilling to known mineralisation. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Balanced reporting |
· Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results. |
· All exploration results are reported. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other substantive exploration data |
· Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be 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. |
· A detailed feasibility study was completed in 2024. Bulk samples have been collected for metallurgical testwork and the testwork has shown that a saleable concentrate can be produced at reasonable recovery using simple off the shelf gravity techniques. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Further work |
· The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). · Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive. |
· A definitive feasibility study has been completed. This programme is aimed at defining Inferred mineralisation to Indicated status and closing off the extremities of the mineralisation. |
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.
Latest directors dealings
- 2 days ago Savannah Energy
- 2 days ago Buccaneer Energy PLC
- 2 days ago Savannah Energy
- 2 days ago Carclo
- 2 days ago Schroder Japan Growth Fund