Resource Update at Mina do Barroso Lithium Project
9 April 2019
Savannah Resources Plc
Mineral Resource Increase of 17% to 23.5Mt at Mina do Barroso Lithium Project
Significant scope for further expansions
Highlights
· Continued resource expansion at Mina do Barroso, increasing the Project's lead as Western Europe's most significant spodumene lithium Mineral Resource
· ~17% increase in overall JORC compliant Mineral Resource Estimate for the Project, which now stands at 23.5Mt at 1.02% Li₂O for 241,000t of contained Li₂O
· 100% of mineralisation within the Grandao Stage 1 pit classified as Measured or Indicated Mineral Resource
· 28% increase in Measured and Indicated Resource to 13.3Mt at 1.0% Li₂O representing 58% of the total Mineral Resource
· Inferred Mineral Resource established at Pinheiro of 2.0Mt at 1.0% Li₂O
· Exploration Target* remains unchanged for Mina do Barroso, calculated at 9-15Mt at 1.0-1.2% Li₂O, giving a potential mineral inventory of over 30Mt for the Project
· Recent test work has reduced iron content of the Mineral Resource by 41% to 0.8% Fe₂O₃ confirming a low iron deposit
· The Board believes significant upside remains at all deposits to further increase the resource inventory in addition to any potential inaugural Mineral Resource Estimate for the Aldeia Quarry Prospect
*Cautionary Statement: The potential quantity and grade of the Exploration Targets is conceptual in nature, there has been insufficient exploration work to estimate a mineral resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in defining a mineral resource.
Savannah Resources plc (AIM: SAV, FWB: AFM and SWB: SAV) ('Savannah' or 'the Company'), the resource development company, is pleased to announce a significant increase in the JORC 2012 Compliant Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate, with supporting Exploration Target at the Company's flagship asset, the Mina do Barroso Lithium Project ('Mina do Barroso' or the 'Project'), located in northern Portugal (Figure 1 and Table 1-2). To view the press release with the illustrative maps and diagrams please use the following link: http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/5067V_1-2019-4-8.pdf
Savannah's CEO, David Archer said: "This is the fourth major increase in the Mina do Barroso Mineral Resource and it has been achieved in less than 14 months. The increasing Mineral Resource highlights the continued growth potential for the Project which is underscored by the Exploration Target remaining unchanged. With a potential mining inventory of over 30Mt, we have a long-life asset that can become a secure, long term supply source of lithium which is a strategic metal for the burgeoning battery and Electric Vehicle industries of Europe."
Figure 1. Mina do Barroso Project Summary Map showing key deposits and drilling completed to date
Mineral Resource Summary
Table 1. Updated Mineral Resource Estimation Summary
|
Deposit |
Resource |
Tonnes |
Li2O |
Fe2O3 |
Li2O |
|
Mt |
% |
% |
Tonnes |
||
|
All Deposits |
Measured |
6.6 |
1.1 |
0.7 |
71,600 |
|
Indicated |
6.8 |
1.0 |
0.8 |
65,400 |
|
|
Inferred |
10.2 |
1.0 |
0.9 |
103,900 |
|
|
Total |
23.5 |
1.02 |
0.8 |
241,000 |
(Note: Minor rounding discrepancies may occur)
Table 2. Exploration Target Summary
|
Deposit |
Tonnage Range (Mt) |
Li2O % |
|
|
Lower |
Upper |
|
|
|
Reservatorio |
5.0 |
7.0 |
1.0-1.2% |
|
Grandao |
4.0 |
8.0 |
1.0-1.2% |
|
Total Mina do Barroso Exploration Target |
9.0 |
15.0 |
1.0-1.2% |
(Note: Minor rounding discrepancies may occur)
*Cautionary Statement: The potential quantity and grade of the Exploration Targets is conceptual in nature, there has been insufficient exploration work to estimate a mineral resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in defining a mineral resource.
Importantly, this exploration target only includes Grandao and Reservatorio with further upside remaining from the many other high priority exploration targets within the Project area.
Improved Confidence in the Mining Inventory
Reverse Circulation ('RC') and diamond drilling incorporated into this Mineral Resource update has focused on both improving the Mineral Resource Estimate category of the existing Mining Inventory, as well as targeting areas in and close to the potential open pit mining areas, defined as part of the Scoping Study. This work has led to some excellent results, now with 100% of the Mining Inventory within the stage one Grandao pit defined in the June 2018 Scoping Study being converted to either Measured or Indicated category and approximately 80% of the total mining inventory for Grandao now in the Measured or Indicated category.
Approximately 80% of the mining inventory defined in the scoping study for the NOA open pit is now in an Indicated Mineral Resource category.
This is an important stepping stone for the Feasibility Study as all material needs to be either Measured or Indicated to be considered as part of an Ore Reserve Estimate, which will be generated from the Feasibility Study (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Grandao Resource Estimate coloured by Category showing Scoping Study Stage 1 Pit
Recent drilling has also defined significant near surface mineralisation at the Pinheiro deposit that has the potential to add low strip, high-grade material to the early stage of the mining inventory (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Pinheiro Pegmatite wireframes and drilling
Assessment of Iron Contamination
Detailed test work by Savannah demonstrated that a large proportion of the assayed iron is due to contamination from the abrasion of steel sample preparation equipment. This was demonstrated by taking field duplicates of 208 samples and submitting them for analysis using ceramic sample preparation equipment. The duplicates had a Fe content 41% less than the original samples and this was attributed to contamination. The amount of contamination increased with lithium content, so a regression formula was developed to factor the Fe grade based on the lithium grade. The iron content of the mineralisation in the updated Mineral Resource estimates uses the factored Fe values to better estimate the true iron content of the mineralisation.
Mineral Resource Estimate
The Mineral Resource Estimate for the Grandao, NOA and Pinheiro Lithium Deposit has been updated by Payne Geological Services Pty Ltd, an external and independent mining consultancy - http://www.paynegeo.com.au/paul-payne. The Deposits forms part of Savannah's Mina do Barroso Lithium Project, located in northern Portugal. The Mineral Resource Estimates have been classified as Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource in accordance with the JORC Code, 2012 Edition and is summarised in Table 3 and Appendix 1.
Table 3. April 2019 Mineral Resource Summary (0.5% Li2O cut-off)
|
Deposit |
Resource |
Tonnes |
Li2O |
Fe2O3 |
Li2O |
|
Mt |
% |
% |
Tonnes |
||
|
Grandao |
Measured |
6.6 |
1.1 |
0.7 |
71,600 |
|
Indicated |
6.4 |
1.0 |
0.8 |
65,300 |
|
|
Inferred |
4.8 |
1.0 |
0.7 |
48,900 |
|
|
Total |
17.7 |
1.04 |
0.7 |
181,800 |
|
|
Reservatorio |
Measured |
|
|
|
|
|
Indicated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inferred |
3.2 |
1.0 |
1.4 |
32,000 |
|
|
Total |
3.2 |
1.0 |
1.4 |
32,000 |
|
|
Pinheiro |
Measured |
|
|
|
|
|
Indicated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inferred |
2.0 |
1.0 |
0.7 |
20,000 |
|
|
Total |
2.0 |
1.0 |
0.7 |
20,000 |
|
|
NOA |
Measured |
|
|
|
|
|
Indicated |
0.4 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
4,200 |
|
|
Inferred |
0.3 |
1.0 |
0.9 |
2,900 |
|
|
Total |
0.6 |
1.1 |
0.9 |
7,100 |
|
|
All Deposits |
Measured |
6.6 |
1.1 |
0.7 |
71,600 |
|
Indicated |
6.8 |
1.0 |
0.8 |
65,400 |
|
|
Inferred |
10.2 |
1.0 |
0.9 |
103,900 |
|
|
Total |
23.5 |
1.02 |
0.8 |
241,000 |
(Note: Minor rounding discrepancies may occur)
Grandao Mineral Resource Estimate
The Grandao Deposit comprises two main pegmatite intrusions. The upper part of the deposit occurs within a broad, shallow dipping pegmatite body with a typical thickness of 20m-40m. The lower portion is a steep dipping dyke, which is 15m-20m in true width striking north south. In addition, minor parallel lenses of pegmatite are also included in the Mineral Resource Estimate. Both main pegmatite zones remain open either along strike or down plunge (Figure 4-6).
Figure 4. Grandao Resource Model coloured by resource classification (looking NE)
Figure 5. Cross Section (4608000N) through Grandao Resource Model (looking north)
*Cautionary Statement: The potential quantity and grade of the Exploration Targets is conceptual in nature, there has been insufficient exploration work to estimate a mineral resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in defining a mineral resource.
The Grandao Mineral Resource Estimate is based on results from 92 RC drill holes, 31 diamond holes and 25 RC holes with diamond tails completed by Savannah between 2017 and 2019.
Figure 6. Grandao Resource Model coloured by Li2O content (looking NE)
Potential Resource Expansion
The Grandao Deposit remains open both along strike in a number of directions, as well as, down dip. Given the consistency and predictability with which the drilling programme has been able to regularly intersect the main flat lying pegmatite, it is reasonable to interpret that further drilling could lead to an expansion of the Grandao Deposit (Figure 4).
Geology
At Mina do Barroso, lithium mineralisation occurs predominantly in the form of spodumene-bearing pegmatites, which are hosted in metapelitic and mica schists, and occasionally carbonate schists of upper Ordovician to lower Devonian age. The main Grandao pegmatite is a flat-lying, tabular zone defined over an area of 600m north-south and 980m east-west and varies in thickness from 10m-60m. It is very close to surface and is visible in outcrop over a significant area. A lower zone of mineralisation is also present at Grandao, hosted in a north-south trending steep-dipping, tabular pegmatite dyke 15m-20m in true width. (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Grandao Geological Model
At the Project, lithium is present in most pegmatite compositions and laboratory test work confirms that the lithium is almost exclusively within spodumene. Distinct lithium grade zonation occurs within the pegmatites, with weakly mineralised zones often evident at the margins of the dykes. Minor xenoliths and inliers of schist are observed within the main pegmatite. Where these have sufficient continuity, they have been separately modelled and excluded from the estimate.
The weathering profile at Grandao comprises a shallow, surficial zone of weak to moderate oxidation, particularly of the schistose country rock. A zone of deeper weathering exists on the western side of the Grandao Deposit with moderate oxidation to a depth of up to 50m.
Drilling
A total of 92 RC drill holes, 31 diamond holes and 25 RC holes with diamond tails were completed by Savannah between 2017 and 2019. The holes were drilled on an approximate grid spacing of 20m-60m with a number of closer spaced holes in the shallow part of the deposit.
Drill collar locations are recorded in Universal Traverse Mercator ("UTM") coordinates using differential GPS. All Savannah drilling has been down-hole surveyed using a gyroscopic tool.
Sampling and Sub-Sampling Techniques
For the Savannah RC drilling, a face-sampling hammer was used with samples collected at 1m intervals from pegmatite zones with composite sampling of typically 4m in the surrounding schists in early drilling. In recent drilling the schist 5m either side of the pegmatite was sampled at 1m intervals with the rest of schist remaining unsampled. The 1m samples were collected through a rig-mounted riffle splitter and were 4kg-6kg in weight. The 4m composites were collected by spear sampling of the 1m intervals. Samples were weighed to assess the sample recovery which was determined to be satisfactory.
Core was PQ and HQ in size and sampled to geological boundaries. Core was cut using a diamond saw, and for the majority of holes, half core was collected for assay. A number of diamond holes were sampled for metallurgical test work. For those holes, quarter core was submitted for assay.
Sample Analysis Method
For all Savannah drilling, whole samples were crushed then riffle split to produce a 250g split for pulverising and analysis.
The samples were analysed using ALS laboratories ME-MS89L Super Trace method which combines a sodium peroxide fusion with ICP-MS analysis and a multi-element suite was analysed.
Quality assurance / quality control ("QAQC") protocols were in place for the drilling programmes and included the used of blanks, standards and field duplicates. The data has confirmed the quality of the sampling and assaying for use in Mineral Resource estimation.
Estimation Methodology
For the Grandao Mineral Resource Estimate, a Surpac block model was constructed with block sizes of 10m (EW) by 20m (NS) by 5m (elevation) with sub-celling to 2.5m by 5m by 2.5m. The typical drill hole spacing is 20m-60m.
Interpretation of the pegmatite dykes was completed using detailed geological logging and Fe geochemistry. Wireframes of the pegmatites were prepared and within those the sample data was extracted and analysed. A clear break in the grade distribution occurs at 0.5% Li2O and this grade threshold was used to prepare the internal grade domains for estimation. In addition to the two main pegmatite bodies, several small pegmatites were also interpreted. Zones of unmineralised schist within the pegmatite body were selectively wireframed and excluded from the estimate.
Sample data was composited into 1m intervals then block model grades estimated using ordinary kriging ("OK") grade interpolation for the two main pegmatites and inverse distance squared ("ID2") grade interpolation for the small pegmatite zones. A first pass search range of 60m was used and oriented to match the dip and strike of the mineralisation. A minimum of 10 samples and a maximum of 24 samples were used to estimate each block. The majority of the Mineral Resource Estimate (71%) was completed in the first pass with expanded search radii of 120m and 240m used for the blocks not estimated in the first pass. No extreme high grades were present in the Li2O and Fe data, and the CV of less than 1 for all elements suggested that high grade cuts were not required. However, a small number of outliers of Ta were present in Domain 1 and a high grade cut of 60ppm was applied to all Ta values.
Iron within the pegmatites is uniformly low, with a mean Fe2O3 grade of 1.3% at Grandao. Test work by Savannah suggest that a large proportion of the assayed iron (approximately 40%) is due to contamination from the abrasion of steel sample preparation equipment. Results show a substantial and consistent difference between the Fe results from the different preparation equipment. The greatest difference is in the preparation of core samples, where it appears that the coarser nature of the particles may cause greater abrasion of the steel equipment and it was considered necessary to determine a correction factor to ensure reliable Fe values were applied to the Mineral Resource estimate.
The amount of Fe contamination was determined using the derived regression formula:Fe_contamination = (0.1734 * Li2O grade) + 0.2308.
A new field "Fe_factored" was inserted into the drill hole database, and the original Fe value minus the calculated contamination was stored in that field. This allowed a "Fe_factored" value to be extracted from the database and used for grade estimation in the Mineral Resource.
Bulk density determinations using the immersion method were carried out on 3,370 half core samples. Bulk density values applied to the estimates were 2.5t/m3 for oxide lithologies, 2.65t/m3 for unoxidised pegmatite and 2.67t/m3 for unoxidised schist.
Mineral Resource Classification
The Mineral Resource Estimate was classified in accordance with the Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC, 2012).
The main pegmatite dyke at Grandao has generally been drilled at 40m to 60m holes spacings with a portion of the deposit drilled at closer spacings. The majority of holes in the main pegmatite at Grandao have consistently intersected pegmatite, with the majority intersecting resource grade Li2O mineralisation and the continuity of lithium mineralisation is good.
Due to the consistent drill hole spacing defining excellent continuity of lithology and mineralisation and accurate location data, the well drilled portion of the upper pegmatite has been classified as Measured Mineral Resource. This includes mineralisation drilled at 20m to 40m spacings where the pegmatite geometry is consistent and mineralisation is uniform.
The portion of the deposit defined by 40m to 60m spaced drill holes has been classified as Indicated Mineral Resource Estimate. Where the main pegmatite showed good potential for further extensions, the Indicated Mineral Resource Estimate was extrapolated up to 60m past drill hole intersections and the Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate was extrapolated a further 60m.
All minor pegmatite bodies were classified as an Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate due to the lack of detailed drilling or the uncertainty of geometry of the mineralisation.
The main shallow pegmatite at Grandao lies entirely above 250m vertical depth. The deep pegmatite has been reported to a depth of 230m vertical.
Cut-off Grades
The shallow and flat lying nature of the main Grandao pegmatite suggests good potential for open pit mining if sufficient resources can be delineated to consider a mining operation. As such, the Mineral Resource Estimate has been reported at a 0.5% Li2O lower cut-off grade to reflect assumed exploitation by low-cost mining methods.
Metallurgy
Metallurgical test work has been conducted by Savannah on representative mineralisation at Mina do Barroso. The work was completed by Nagrom Metallurgical in Australia and confirmed that high-grade lithium, low-grade iron concentrate can be generated from the mineralisation using conventional processing technology. Microscopy confirmed that the concentrate was almost entirely spodumene. A substantial metallurgical test work programme is ongoing to define to determine an optimised flow sheet.
Modifying Factors
No modifying factors were applied to the reported Mineral Resource Estimate. Parameters reflecting mining dilution, ore loss and metallurgical recoveries will be considered during the any future mining evaluation of the Project.
Pinheiro Mineral Resource Estimate
The Pinheiro Deposit comprises a cluster or swarm of pegmatite bodies striking broadly NS and dipping steeply to the east. The orientation and extent of two of the pegmatites have been sufficiently defined by drilling for resource estimation. The pegmatites have been defined over a strike of 250m with an average thickness of 10m-20m. The pegmatite mineralisation is predominantly fresh with a shallow weathering profile affecting the material 10-20m below surface. Both main pegmatite zones remain open either along strike or down plunge (Figure 8-10).
Figure 8. Grandao Resource Model coloured by resource classification (looking NE)
Figure 9. Pinheiro Cross Section (4606850N) (looking north)
The Pinheiro Mineral Resource Estimate is based on results from 10 RC drill holes and 2 diamond holes completed by Savannah in 2018 and both modeled pegmatite zones remain open either along strike or down dip.
Figure 10. Pinheiro Resource Model coloured by Li2O content (looking North)
Geology
At Mina do Barroso, lithium mineralisation occurs predominantly in the form of spodumene-bearing pegmatites, which are hosted in metapelitic and mica schists, and occasionally carbonate schists of upper Ordovician to lower Devonian age.
The Pinheiro pegmatites are a swarm of steeply dipping tabular dykes defined over an area of 250m north-south with a dip extent of 160m. The dykes vary in thickness from 10m-20m and are typically mineralised across the full width. The pegmatites are very close to surface and visible in outcrop over a significant area (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Pinheiro Geological Model and Mapped Pegmatites
At the Project, lithium is present in most pegmatite compositions and laboratory test work confirms that the lithium is almost exclusively within spodumene. Limited lithium grade zonation occurs within the Pinheiro pegmatites. Minor xenoliths and inliers of schist are observed within the pegmatite.
The weathering profile comprises a shallow, surficial zone of weak to moderate oxidation, particularly of the schistose country rock with moderate oxidation to a depth of up to 20m.
Drilling
A total of 19 RC drill holes and 2 diamond holes were completed by Savannah in 2018. The holes were drilled on an approximate grid spacing of 20m-60m.
Drill collar locations are recorded in Universal Traverse Mercator ("UTM") coordinates using differential GPS. All Savannah drilling has been down-hole surveyed using a gyroscopic tool.
Sampling and Sub-Sampling Techniques
For the Savannah RC drilling, a face-sampling hammer was used with samples collected at 1m intervals from pegmatite zones and the surrounding 5m either side of the pegmatite was with the rest of schist remaining unsampled. The 1m samples were collected through a rig-mounted riffle splitter and were 4kg-6kg in weight. Samples were weighed to assess the sample recovery which was determined to be satisfactory.
Core was PQ in size and sampled to geological boundaries. Core was cut using a diamond saw, and quarter core was collected for assay with the remaining sampled for metallurgical test work.
Sample Analysis Method
For all Savannah drilling, whole samples were crushed then riffle split to produce a 250g split for pulverising and analysis.
The samples were analysed using ALS laboratories ME-MS89L Super Trace method which combines a sodium peroxide fusion with ICP-MS analysis and a multi-element suite was analysed.
QAQC protocols were in place for the drilling programmes and included the used of blanks, standards and field duplicates. The data has confirmed the quality of the sampling and assaying for use in Mineral Resource estimation.
Estimation Methodology
For the Pinheiro Mineral Resource Estimate, a Surpac block model was constructed with block sizes of 5m (EW) by 20m (NS) by 5m (elevation) with sub-celling to 1.25m by 5m by 1.25m. The typical drill hole spacing is 40m-60m.
Interpretation of the pegmatite dykes was completed using detailed geological logging and Fe geochemistry. Wireframes of the pegmatites were prepared and within those the sample data was extracted and analysed. A clear break in the grade distribution occurs at 0.35% Li2O and this grade threshold was used to prepare the internal grade domains for estimation. In addition to the two main pegmatite bodies.
Sample data was composited into 1m intervals then block model grades estimated using inverse distance squared ("ID2") grade interpolation due to the small number of drill holes and limited extent of mineralisation. A first pass search range of 50m was used and oriented to match the dip and strike of the mineralisation. A minimum of 10 samples and a maximum of 24 samples were used to estimate each block. The majority of the Mineral Resource Estimate (66%) was completed in the first pass with expanded search radii of 100m and 200m used for the blocks not estimated in the first pass. No extreme high grades were present in the Li2O and Fe data, and the CV of less than 1 for all elements suggested that high grade cuts were not required. However, a small number of outliers of Ta were present at Pinheiro and a high grade cut of 60ppm was applied to all Ta values.
Iron contamination has been reported from other lithium projects, where iron is introduced into the samples via abrasion of RC drilling equipment and/or sample preparation equipment. To test the potential for iron contamination at the MBLP, SAV carried out a preliminary program of check assays and a series of comparisons were undertaken on samples from the Grandao deposit.
It was concluded from the Grandao study that a significant proportion of the iron being reported in the drilling assay data was introduced as contamination during the sample preparation process. It was determined that the amount of contamination was proportional to the lithium content of the samples. A regression formula was calculated using all samples, with the derived regression formula being:
Fe_contamination = (0.1734 * Li2O grade) + 0.2308.
The amount of Fe contamination was determined using the derived regression formula. A new field "Fe_factored" was inserted into the drill hole database, and the original Fe value minus the calculated contamination was stored in that field. This allowed a "Fe_factored" value to be extracted from the database and used for grade estimation in the Mineral Resource.
Extensive bulk density determinations using the immersion method were carried out on 3,370 half core samples from the Grandao deposit. Results from these tests were applied to the Pinheiro mineralisation. Values applied to the estimates were 2.5t/m3 for oxide lithologies, 2.65t/m3 for unoxidised pegmatite and 2.67t/m3 for unoxidised schist.
Mineral Resource Classification
The Mineral Resource Estimate was classified in accordance with the Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC, 2012).
Mineral Resource classification was considered on the basis of drill hole spacing, continuity of mineralisation and data quality. The continuity of the Pinheiro pegmatite is not well defined with patchy outcrop and multiple intrusions. Accurate drill hole collar and topographic surveys have been obtained for the deposit, so the spatial location of data and topography has a high level of confidence. The quality of the drilling and assaying has been confirmed through independent verification of procedures and through a satisfactory QAQC protocol.
Due to the uncertainty in the interpreted geometry of the mineralisation and the sparse drilling at the deposit, the entire deposit was classified as Inferred Mineral Resource.
Cut-off Grades
The shallow nature of the main Grandao pegmatite suggests good potential for open pit mining if sufficient resources can be delineated to consider a mining operation. As such, the Mineral Resource Estimate has been reported at a 0.5% Li2O lower cut-off grade to reflect assumed exploitation by low-cost mining methods.
Metallurgy
Metallurgical test work has been conducted by Savannah on representative mineralisation at Mina do Barroso. The work was completed by Nagrom Metallurgical in Australia and confirmed that high-grade lithium, low-grade iron concentrate can be generated from the mineralisation using conventional processing technology. Initial assessments of the mineralogy and chemistry suggest mineralisation is broadly similar to other deposits at Mina do Barroso. Samples have been collected from the Pinheiro deposit are currently being tested to determine their exact processing requirement.
Modifying Factors
No modifying factors were applied to the reported Mineral Resource Estimate. Parameters reflecting mining dilution, ore loss and metallurgical recoveries will be considered during the any future mining evaluation of the Project.
NOA Mineral Resource Estimate
The NOA Deposit is hosted in steep dipping NW trending tabular pegmatite which has a true width of 5-10m thick. The estimate is based on results from 22 RC and two diamond drill holes all completed by Savannah in 2017 and 2018. The deposit outcrops over a strike length of approximately 420m and remains open along strike and at depth. (Figure 12-14).
Figure 12. NOA Resource Model coloured by Li2O% (looking west)
Figure 13. NOA Cross Section (4606850N) (looking north)
Figure 14. NOA Resource Model coloured Resource Classification (looking West)
Geology
At Mina do Barroso, lithium mineralisation occurs predominantly in the form of spodumene-bearing pegmatites, which are hosted in metapelitic and mica schists, and occasionally carbonate schists of upper Ordovician to lower Devonian age.
At the NOA deposit, the host pegmatite is a steep dipping, NW trending body which is 5-10m in true width. It has been mapped in outcrop over much of the interpreted 420m strike length of the Mineral Resource (Figure 15). The weathering profile comprises a shallow, surficial zone of weak to moderate oxidation, particularly of the schistose country rock. A weathering surface representing the top of fresh rock ("TOFR") was used to define the transitional and fresh mineralisation.
Figure 15: NOA pegmatite wireframes and drilling
At the Project, lithium is present in most pegmatite compositions and laboratory test work confirms that the lithium is almost exclusively within spodumene. Limited lithium grade zonation occurs within the NOA pegmatites. Minor xenoliths and inliers of schist are observed within the pegmatite.
Drilling
A total of 25 RC drill holes and 2 diamond holes were completed by Savannah in 2017 and 2018. The holes were drilled on an approximate grid spacing of 20m-40m.
Drill collar locations are recorded in Universal Traverse Mercator ("UTM") coordinates using differential GPS. All Savannah drilling has been down-hole surveyed using a gyroscopic tool.
Sampling and Sub-Sampling Techniques
For the Savannah RC drilling, a face-sampling hammer was used with samples collected at 1m intervals from pegmatite zones and the surrounding 5m either side of the pegmatite was with the rest of schist remaining unsampled. The 1m samples were collected through a rig-mounted riffle splitter and were 4kg-6kg in weight. Samples were weighed to assess the sample recovery which was determined to be satisfactory.
Core was PQ in size and sampled to geological boundaries. Core was cut using a diamond saw, and quarter core was collected for assay with the remaining sampled for metallurgical test work.
Sample Analysis Method
For all Savannah drilling, whole samples were crushed then riffle split to produce a 250g split for pulverising and analysis.
The samples were analysed using ALS laboratories ME-MS89L Super Trace method which combines a sodium peroxide fusion with ICP-MS analysis and a multi-element suite was analysed.
QAQC protocols were in place for the drilling programmes and included the used of blanks, standards and field duplicates. The data has confirmed the quality of the sampling and assaying for use in Mineral Resource estimation.
Estimation Methodology
For the NOA Mineral Resource Estimate, a Surpac block model was constructed with block sizes of 20m (EW) by 5m (NS) by 5m (elevation) with sub-celling to 5m by 1.25m by 1.25m. The typical drill hole spacing is 20m-40m.
Interpretation of the pegmatite dykes was completed using detailed geological logging and Fe geochemistry. Wireframes of the pegmatites were prepared and within those the sample data was extracted and analysed. A clear break in the grade distribution occurs at 0.35% Li2O and this grade threshold was used to prepare the internal grade domains for estimation.
Sample data was composited into 1m intervals then block model grades estimated using inverse distance squared ("ID2") grade interpolation due to the small number of drill holes and limited extent of mineralisation. A first pass search range of 50m was used and oriented to match the dip and strike of the mineralisation. A minimum of 10 samples and a maximum of 24 samples were used to estimate each block. The majority of the Mineral Resource Estimate (82%) was completed in the first pass with expanded search radii of 100m used for the blocks not estimated in the first pass. No extreme high grades were present in the Li2O and Fe data, and the CV of less than 1 for all elements suggested that high grade cuts were not required. However, a small number of outliers of Ta were present at Pinheiro and a high grade cut of 100ppm was applied to all Ta values.
Iron contamination has been reported from other lithium projects, where iron is introduced into the samples via abrasion of RC drilling equipment and/or sample preparation equipment. To test the potential for iron contamination at the MBLP, SAV carried out a preliminary program of check assays and a series of comparisons were undertaken on samples from the Grandao deposit.
It was concluded from the Grandao study that a significant proportion of the iron being reported in the drilling assay data was introduced as contamination during the sample preparation process. It was determined that the amount of contamination was proportional to the lithium content of the samples. A regression formula was calculated using all samples, with the derived regression formula being:
Fe_contamination = (0.1734 * Li2O grade) + 0.2308.
The amount of Fe contamination was determined using the derived regression formula. A new field "Fe_factored" was inserted into the drill hole database, and the original Fe value minus the calculated contamination was stored in that field. This allowed a "Fe_factored" value to be extracted from the database and used for grade estimation in the Mineral Resource.
Extensive bulk density determinations using the immersion method were carried out on 3,370 half core samples from the Grandao deposit. Results from these tests were applied to the Pinheiro mineralisation. Values applied to the estimates were 2.5t/m3 for oxide lithologies, 2.65t/m3 for unoxidised pegmatite and 2.67t/m3 for unoxidised schist.
Mineral Resource Classification
The Mineral Resource Estimate was classified in accordance with the Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC, 2012).
At NOA, the continuity of the controlling pegmatite appears to be good. Where the pegmatite is exposed, the interpretation is supported by mapped contacts at surface and within the small pit being mined. The portion of the NOA pegmatite defined by 40m to 60m spaced drill holes and showing good continuity of pegmatite and Li2O distribution has been classified as Indicated Mineral Resource. The Indicated portion was extended for the full length of the pegmatite which had been exposed and mapped in the pit and was extrapolated up to 30m past drill hole intersections. Inferred Mineral Resource was assigned to those areas of the NOA deposit defined by a drill hole spacing of greater than 60m.
Cut-off Grades
The shallow nature of the main NOA pegmatite suggests good potential for open pit mining if sufficient resources can be delineated to consider a mining operation. As such, the Mineral Resource Estimate has been reported at a 0.5% Li2O lower cut-off grade to reflect assumed exploitation by low-cost mining methods.
Metallurgy
Metallurgical test work has been conducted by Savannah on representative mineralisation at Mina do Barroso. The work was completed by Nagrom Metallurgical in Australia and confirmed that high-grade lithium, low-grade iron concentrate can be generated from the mineralisation using conventional processing technology. Initial assessments of the mineralogy and chemistry suggest mineralisation at NOA is broadly similar to other deposits at Mina do Barroso. Samples have been collected from the NOA deposit are currently being tested to determine their exact processing requirements.
Modifying Factors
No modifying factors were applied to the reported Mineral Resource Estimate. Parameters reflecting mining dilution, ore loss and metallurgical recoveries will be considered during the any future mining evaluation of the Project.
Exploration Target*
Savannah has defined a Mineral Resource Estimate from four deposits in the Mina do Barroso Project area (Table 5). All four deposits remain open and untested by drilling either down dip or along strike of the defined Mineral Resource Estimate and there is excellent potential to extend the deposits with further drilling. In addition, there are numerous other outcropping pegmatite dykes that require drill testing to determine if they are also lithium bearing.
Savannah has been drilling at Mina do Barroso since mid-2017 and ongoing programmes in 2018 and 2019 are designed to test for extensions of the defined deposits and to test other outcropping pegmatite targets in the Project area. The drilling at the Grandao deposit has been very successful and has allowed a major increase to the reported Mineral Resource Estimate, as well as, increasing confidence in the estimate. Infill drilling at NOA has allowed the confidence in a significant portion of the Mineral Resource Estimates to be increased to Indicated.
To quantify the potential of the Project beyond the currently defined Mineral Resource Estimates, an Exploration Target* for the Grandao and Reservatorio Deposits of 9-15Mt at 1.0% to 1.2% Li₂O. This gives a project target (including Mineral Resource Estimate) of 32-38Mt at 1.0-1.2% Li₂O. Importantly, this exploration target only includes Grandao and Reservatorio with further upside remaining from the many other high priority exploration prospects within the project area.
Table 4. Exploration Targets* for Mina do Barroso Project
|
Deposit |
Tonnage Range (Mt) |
Li2O5 % |
|
|
Lower |
Upper |
|
|
|
Reservatorio |
|
|
|
|
Bottom of Inferred to 200m Vertical Depth |
5.0 |
7.0 |
1.0-1.2% |
|
Grandao |
|
|
|
|
200m-400m Extension of Upper Pegmatite |
3.0 |
6.0 |
1.0-1.2% |
|
100% Expansion of Lower Pegmatite |
1.0 |
2.0 |
1.0-1.2% |
|
Total Mina do Barroso Exploration Target |
9.0 |
15.0 |
1.0-1.2% |
*Cautionary Statement: The potential quantity and grade of the Exploration Targets is conceptual in nature, there has been insufficient exploration work to estimate a mineral resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in defining a mineral resource.
Reservatorio Exploration Target*
A Mineral Resource Estimate was completed for the Reservatorio Deposit in December 2017. It was modelled and estimated for the full extent of the SAV drilling and the Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate was extended between 40m and 100m down dip from the deepest drill holes.
There is no information to suggest that the pegmatite and lithium mineralisation does not continue with the same characteristics and grade as the drilled portion. As a result, beneath the Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate boundary, a wireframe model was created, assuming continuation of the mineralisation down-dip to 200m below surface. Applying a density of 2.6t/m3 as used in the Reservatorio Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate, and assuming the same lithium grade observed in the drilled portion, the Exploration Target has been defined as 5 Mt to 7 Mt at a grade of 1.0% to 1.2% Li2O.
Grandao Exploration Target*
The current Mineral Resource Estimate was completed for the Grandao Deposit in April 2019. It was modelled and estimated for the area drilled in detail by SAV. The Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate was extended up to 120m down plunge from drilled area.
The shallow pegmatite appears to be closed off by drilling to the northeast and to the southeast. To the west and northwest and south, the mineralisation remains open and untested the limits of the mineralisation have not been found. There is no information to suggest that the pegmatite and lithium mineralisation does not continue to the west and northwest with the same characteristics and grade as the drilled portion and the strong results from the recent drilling has confirmed this.
The Exploration Target* for the shallow pegmatite is considered to be at least a 200m-400m down-plunge extension of the defined Mineral Resource Estimate for that portion of the deposit so the Exploration Target has been defined as 3 Mt to 6 Mt at a grade of 1.0% to 1.2% Li2O. This represents a 20%-40% increase on the currently defined Mineral Resource.
The steep pegmatite has been intersected in a small number of holes which have recorded thick, high grade mineralisation. The mineralisation is open in most directions and the Exploration Target has been defined as a 100% increase on the defined Mineral Resource Estimate which gives an Exploration Target of 1 Mt to 2 Mt at a grade of 1.0% to 1.2% Li2O.
*Cautionary Statement: The potential quantity and grade of the Exploration Targets is conceptual in nature, there has been insufficient exploration work to estimate a mineral resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in defining a mineral resource.
Competent Person and Regulatory Information
The information in this announcement that relates to exploration results is based upon information compiled by Mr Dale Ferguson, Technical Director of Savannah Resources Limited. Mr Ferguson is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM) and has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the December 2012 edition of the "Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves" (JORC Code). Mr Ferguson consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based upon the information in the form and context in which it appears.
The Information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Mr Paul Payne, a Competent Person who is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Payne is a full-time employee of Payne Geological Services. Mr Payne 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". Mr Payne consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.
This announcement contains inside information for the purposes of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 596/2014.
**ENDS**
For further information please visit www.savannahresources.com or contact:
|
David Archer |
Savannah Resources plc |
Tel: +44 20 7117 2489 |
|
David Hignell / Charlie Bouverat (Nominated Adviser) |
SP Angel Corporate Finance LLP |
Tel: +44 20 3470 0470 |
|
Christopher Raggett (Broker) |
finnCap Ltd |
Tel: +44 20 7220 0500 |
|
Grant Barker (Equity Adviser) |
Whitman Howard |
Tel: +44 20 7659 1225 |
|
Melissa Hancock/ Cosima Akerman (Financial PR) |
St Brides Partners Ltd |
Tel: +44 20 7236 1177 |
About Savannah
Savannah is a diversified resources group (AIM: SAV) with a portfolio of energy metals projects - lithium in Portugal and copper in Oman - together with the world-class Mutamba Heavy Mineral Sands Project in Mozambique, which is being developed in a consortium with the global major Rio Tinto. The Board is committed to serving the interests of its shareholders and to delivering outcomes that will improve the lives of the communities we work with and our staff.
The Company is listed and regulated on AIM and the Company's ordinary shares are also available on the Quotation Board of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange (FWB) under the symbol FWB: SAV, and the Börse Stuttgart (SWB) under the ticker "SAV".
Appendix 1: Detailed Mineral Resource Tables
|
Grandao April 2019 - Total Mineral Resource Estimate |
||||||||||||||
|
0.5% Li2O Cut-off |
||||||||||||||
|
Bench |
Measured Mineral Resource |
Indicated Mineral Resource |
Inferred Mineral Resource |
Total Mineral resource |
||||||||||
|
Top |
Tonnes |
Li2O |
Fe2O3 |
Tonnes |
Li2O |
Fe2O3 |
Tonnes |
Li2O |
Fe2O3 |
Tonnes |
Li2O |
Fe2O3 |
Li2O |
|
|
RL |
t |
% |
% |
t |
% |
% |
t |
% |
% |
t |
% |
% |
Tonnes |
|
|
590 |
|
|
|
40,000 |
0.71 |
0.9 |
|
|
|
40,000 |
0.71 |
0.9 |
300 |
|
|
580 |
17,000 |
1.17 |
0.9 |
183,000 |
0.76 |
0.9 |
1,000 |
0.63 |
0.9 |
201,000 |
0.79 |
0.9 |
1,600 |
|
|
570 |
188,000 |
1.09 |
0.6 |
244,000 |
0.80 |
0.8 |
8,000 |
0.65 |
0.7 |
440,000 |
0.92 |
0.7 |
4,100 |
|
|
560 |
231,000 |
0.99 |
0.5 |
204,000 |
0.76 |
0.7 |
18,000 |
0.69 |
0.6 |
454,000 |
0.87 |
0.6 |
4,000 |
|
|
550 |
220,000 |
0.98 |
0.6 |
207,000 |
0.73 |
0.9 |
30,000 |
0.75 |
0.6 |
457,000 |
0.85 |
0.7 |
3,900 |
|
|
540 |
301,000 |
0.96 |
0.6 |
187,000 |
0.71 |
0.8 |
44,000 |
0.84 |
0.7 |
533,000 |
0.86 |
0.7 |
4,600 |
|
|
530 |
368,000 |
0.91 |
0.6 |
201,000 |
0.69 |
0.8 |
54,000 |
0.91 |
0.7 |
623,000 |
0.84 |
0.7 |
5,200 |
|
|
520 |
452,000 |
0.87 |
0.6 |
237,000 |
0.77 |
0.7 |
62,000 |
0.92 |
0.7 |
751,000 |
0.84 |
0.7 |
6,300 |
|
|
510 |
408,000 |
0.88 |
0.8 |
227,000 |
0.82 |
0.8 |
68,000 |
0.99 |
0.7 |
703,000 |
0.87 |
0.8 |
6,100 |
|
|
500 |
468,000 |
0.96 |
0.9 |
282,000 |
0.85 |
0.9 |
128,000 |
1.01 |
0.8 |
878,000 |
0.93 |
0.9 |
8,200 |
|
|
490 |
471,000 |
1.10 |
0.9 |
326,000 |
0.91 |
0.9 |
153,000 |
1.02 |
1.0 |
951,000 |
1.02 |
0.9 |
9,700 |
|
|
480 |
406,000 |
1.21 |
0.8 |
281,000 |
0.90 |
1.1 |
149,000 |
0.95 |
1.2 |
836,000 |
1.06 |
1.0 |
8,800 |
|
|
470 |
435,000 |
1.11 |
0.7 |
308,000 |
0.95 |
1.0 |
134,000 |
0.92 |
1.2 |
877,000 |
1.03 |
0.9 |
9,000 |
|
|
460 |
492,000 |
1.15 |
0.6 |
361,000 |
0.97 |
0.9 |
125,000 |
0.97 |
1.1 |
979,000 |
1.06 |
0.8 |
10,400 |
|
|
450 |
499,000 |
1.22 |
0.6 |
340,000 |
1.05 |
0.7 |
110,000 |
0.93 |
1.0 |
949,000 |
1.12 |
0.7 |
10,700 |
|
|
440 |
409,000 |
1.30 |
0.6 |
284,000 |
1.13 |
0.6 |
116,000 |
0.96 |
0.9 |
809,000 |
1.19 |
0.6 |
9,600 |
|
|
430 |
308,000 |
1.25 |
0.9 |
240,000 |
1.15 |
0.6 |
153,000 |
1.06 |
0.7 |
701,000 |
1.17 |
0.7 |
8,200 |
|
|
420 |
234,000 |
1.25 |
0.8 |
214,000 |
1.13 |
0.6 |
168,000 |
1.07 |
0.8 |
616,000 |
1.16 |
0.7 |
7,200 |
|
|
410 |
205,000 |
1.23 |
0.7 |
212,000 |
1.13 |
0.7 |
152,000 |
0.97 |
0.9 |
569,000 |
1.13 |
0.7 |
6,400 |
|
|
400 |
154,000 |
1.25 |
0.7 |
155,000 |
1.21 |
0.6 |
205,000 |
0.99 |
0.8 |
515,000 |
1.14 |
0.7 |
5,800 |
|
|
390 |
114,000 |
1.30 |
0.5 |
176,000 |
1.19 |
0.6 |
220,000 |
1.01 |
0.8 |
511,000 |
1.14 |
0.7 |
5,800 |
|
|
380 |
80,000 |
1.24 |
0.5 |
223,000 |
1.16 |
0.6 |
254,000 |
1.05 |
0.7 |
556,000 |
1.12 |
0.7 |
6,200 |
|
|
370 |
53,000 |
1.13 |
0.6 |
274,000 |
1.06 |
0.7 |
289,000 |
1.11 |
0.7 |
616,000 |
1.09 |
0.7 |
6,700 |
|
|
360 |
31,000 |
1.14 |
0.6 |
293,000 |
0.95 |
0.7 |
297,000 |
1.09 |
0.6 |
621,000 |
1.03 |
0.7 |
6,400 |
|
|
350 |
10,000 |
1.10 |
0.6 |
278,000 |
0.97 |
0.7 |
287,000 |
1.07 |
0.6 |
575,000 |
1.02 |
0.6 |
5,900 |
|
|
340 |
|
|
|
230,000 |
0.98 |
0.6 |
322,000 |
1.06 |
0.7 |
553,000 |
1.03 |
0.7 |
5,700 |
|
|
330 |
|
|
|
137,000 |
1.09 |
0.6 |
406,000 |
1.01 |
0.6 |
543,000 |
1.03 |
0.6 |
5,600 |
|
|
320 |
|
|
|
60,000 |
1.11 |
0.5 |
416,000 |
1.13 |
0.6 |
476,000 |
1.13 |
0.6 |
5,400 |
|
|
310 |
|
|
|
10,000 |
1.17 |
0.5 |
274,000 |
1.04 |
0.6 |
285,000 |
1.04 |
0.6 |
3,000 |
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
104,000 |
0.97 |
0.7 |
104,000 |
0.97 |
0.7 |
1,000 |
|
|
290 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,000 |
0.80 |
0.7 |
18,000 |
0.80 |
0.7 |
100 |
|
|
280 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000 |
0.65 |
0.7 |
1,000 |
0.65 |
0.7 |
|
|
|
Total |
6,555,000 |
1.09 |
0.7 |
6,417,000 |
0.95 |
0.8 |
4,767,000 |
1.03 |
0.7 |
17,739,000 |
1.03 |
0.7 |
181,800 |
|
(Note: Minor rounding discrepancies may occur)
|
NOA April 2019 - Total Mineral Resource |
|||||||||||||
|
0.5% Li2O Cut-off |
|||||||||||||
|
Bench |
Transitional |
Fresh |
Total |
||||||||||
|
Top |
Tonnes |
Li2O |
Ta2O5 |
Fe2O3 |
Tonnes |
Li2O |
Ta2O5 |
Fe2O3 |
Tonnes |
Li2O |
Ta2O5 |
Fe2O3 |
Li2O |
|
RL |
t |
% |
ppm |
% |
t |
% |
ppm |
% |
t |
% |
ppm |
% |
Tonnes |
|
700 |
3,418 |
1.07 |
23 |
1.04 |
|
|
|
|
3,418 |
1.07 |
23 |
1.04 |
37 |
|
690 |
37,461 |
1.03 |
27 |
0.97 |
36,189 |
1.09 |
27 |
1.01 |
73,650 |
1.06 |
27 |
0.99 |
777 |
|
680 |
25,215 |
0.96 |
26 |
0.96 |
119,250 |
1.02 |
27 |
1.01 |
144,465 |
1.01 |
27 |
1.00 |
1,457 |
|
670 |
|
|
|
|
129,643 |
1.07 |
26 |
0.96 |
129,643 |
1.07 |
26 |
0.96 |
1,384 |
|
660 |
|
|
|
|
79,935 |
1.12 |
23 |
0.81 |
79,935 |
1.12 |
23 |
0.81 |
894 |
|
650 |
|
|
|
|
44,222 |
1.15 |
21 |
0.73 |
44,222 |
1.15 |
21 |
0.73 |
510 |
|
640 |
|
|
|
|
37,866 |
1.20 |
20 |
0.71 |
37,866 |
1.20 |
20 |
0.71 |
453 |
|
630 |
|
|
|
|
35,775 |
1.22 |
18 |
0.72 |
35,775 |
1.22 |
18 |
0.72 |
437 |
|
620 |
|
|
|
|
32,173 |
1.25 |
16 |
0.72 |
32,173 |
1.25 |
16 |
0.72 |
403 |
|
610 |
|
|
|
|
29,108 |
1.26 |
15 |
0.71 |
29,108 |
1.26 |
15 |
0.71 |
367 |
|
600 |
|
|
|
|
20,641 |
1.30 |
14 |
0.70 |
20,641 |
1.30 |
14 |
0.70 |
269 |
|
590 |
|
|
|
|
9,316 |
1.34 |
14 |
0.68 |
9,316 |
1.34 |
14 |
0.68 |
125 |
|
580 |
|
|
|
|
352 |
1.35 |
14 |
0.68 |
352 |
1.35 |
14 |
0.68 |
5 |
|
Total |
66,094 |
1.00 |
26 |
0.97 |
574,470 |
1.12 |
23 |
0.86 |
640,564 |
1.11 |
23 |
0.88 |
7,117 |
(Note: Minor rounding discrepancies may occur)
|
Pinheiro April 2019 - Total Mineral Resource |
|||||||||||||
|
0.5% Li2O Cut-off |
|||||||||||||
|
Bench |
Transitional |
Fresh |
Total |
||||||||||
|
Top |
Tonnes |
Li2O |
Ta2O5 |
Fe2O3 |
Tonnes |
Li2O |
Ta2O5 |
Fe2O3 |
Tonnes |
Li2O |
Ta2O5 |
Fe2O3 |
Li2O |
|
RL |
t |
% |
ppm |
% |
t |
% |
ppm |
% |
t |
% |
ppm |
% |
Tonnes |
|
590 |
9,199 |
1.06 |
46 |
0.61 |
|
|
|
|
9,199 |
1.06 |
46 |
0.61 |
98 |
|
580 |
20,469 |
1.10 |
31 |
0.62 |
11,697 |
1.03 |
37 |
0.63 |
32,166 |
1.07 |
33 |
0.62 |
346 |
|
570 |
9,727 |
1.17 |
25 |
0.56 |
42,234 |
1.06 |
28 |
0.61 |
51,961 |
1.08 |
28 |
0.60 |
564 |
|
560 |
23,379 |
1.31 |
19 |
0.49 |
58,404 |
1.07 |
30 |
0.58 |
81,783 |
1.14 |
27 |
0.56 |
929 |
|
550 |
28,066 |
1.37 |
19 |
0.46 |
83,351 |
1.06 |
29 |
0.60 |
111,417 |
1.14 |
27 |
0.57 |
1,265 |
|
540 |
22,773 |
1.38 |
20 |
0.46 |
118,194 |
1.03 |
28 |
0.70 |
140,967 |
1.08 |
27 |
0.66 |
1,528 |
|
530 |
|
|
|
|
149,394 |
1.08 |
26 |
0.71 |
149,394 |
1.08 |
26 |
0.71 |
1,619 |
|
520 |
|
|
|
|
149,290 |
1.14 |
26 |
0.67 |
149,290 |
1.14 |
26 |
0.67 |
1,707 |
|
510 |
|
|
|
|
147,593 |
1.07 |
25 |
0.71 |
147,593 |
1.07 |
25 |
0.71 |
1,572 |
|
500 |
|
|
|
|
148,462 |
1.02 |
25 |
0.76 |
148,462 |
1.02 |
25 |
0.76 |
1,518 |
|
490 |
|
|
|
|
150,180 |
1.05 |
24 |
0.70 |
150,180 |
1.05 |
24 |
0.70 |
1,570 |
|
480 |
|
|
|
|
152,271 |
1.02 |
25 |
0.70 |
152,271 |
1.02 |
25 |
0.70 |
1,560 |
|
470 |
|
|
|
|
152,561 |
0.99 |
25 |
0.71 |
152,561 |
0.99 |
25 |
0.71 |
1,510 |
|
460 |
|
|
|
|
146,682 |
0.99 |
23 |
0.71 |
146,682 |
0.99 |
23 |
0.71 |
1,449 |
|
450 |
|
|
|
|
132,873 |
1.00 |
20 |
0.67 |
132,873 |
1.00 |
20 |
0.67 |
1,323 |
|
440 |
|
|
|
|
80,908 |
0.80 |
19 |
0.58 |
80,908 |
0.80 |
19 |
0.58 |
648 |
|
430 |
|
|
|
|
63,683 |
0.67 |
18 |
0.59 |
63,683 |
0.67 |
18 |
0.59 |
428 |
|
420 |
|
|
|
|
43,787 |
0.60 |
19 |
0.62 |
43,787 |
0.60 |
19 |
0.62 |
261 |
|
410 |
|
|
|
|
13,478 |
0.59 |
20 |
0.62 |
13,478 |
0.59 |
20 |
0.62 |
79 |
|
Total |
113,613 |
1.27 |
24 |
0.52 |
1,845,042 |
1.00 |
25 |
0.68 |
1,958,655 |
1.02 |
25 |
0.67 |
19,973 |
(Note: Minor rounding discrepancies may occur)
APPENDIX 2 - JORC 2012 Table 1 - Grandao
JORC Table 1 Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data
|
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. |
· The majority of holes were reverse circulation, sampled at 1m intervals. RC samples were collected in large plastic bags from an onboard rig splitter and a 4-6kg representative sample taken for analysis. · A substantial number of diamond holes were also completed. Core was HQ size, sampled at 1m intervals in the pegmatite, with boundaries sampled to geological boundaries. Half core samples were collected for analysis. · Drilling was on a nominal 40m by 40m to 80m by 80m spacing with selected infill to 40m by 20m spacings. · Collar surveys are carried using differential GPS with an accuracy to within 0.2m. · A down hole survey for each hole was completed using gyro equipment. · The lithium mineralisation is predominantly in the form of Spodumene-bearing pegmatites, the pegmatites are unzoned and vary in thickness from 10m-109m.
|
|
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). |
• RC drilling used a 120mm bit diameter. · Core drilling was carried out using an HQ triple tube core barrel.
|
|
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. |
· RC drilling sample weights were monitored to ensure samples were maximised. Samples were carefully loaded into a splitter and split in the same manner ensuring that the sample split to be sent to the assay laboratories were in the range of 4-6kg. · Core recovery was measured and was found to be generally excellent. · No obvious relationships between sample recovery and grade. |
|
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. |
· RC holes were logged in the field at the time of sampling. Core was logged in detail in a logging yard. · Each 1m sample interval was carefully homogenised and assessed for lithology, colour, grainsize, structure and mineralisation. · A representative chip sample produced from RC drilling was washed and taken for each 1m sample and stored in a chip tray which was photographed. · Core was photographed. |
|
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. |
· 1m RC samples were split by the riffle splitter on the drill rig and sampled dry. · The 4m composites were collected using a spear with the spear inserted into the bag at a high angle and pushed across the sample to maximise representivity of the sample. · Core was cut in half using a diamond saw with 1m half core samples submitted for analysis. · The sampling was conducted using industry standard techniques and were considered appropriate. · Field duplicates were used to test repeatability of the sub-sampling and were found to be satisfactory. · Every effort was made to ensure that the samples were representative and not biased in any way.
|
|
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. |
· Samples were received, sorted, labelled and dried. · Samples were crushed to 70% less than 2mm, riffle split off 250g, pulverise split to better than 85% passing 75 microns and 5g was split of for assaying. · The samples were analysed using ALS Laboratories ME-MS89L Super Trace method which combines a sodium peroxide fusion with ICP-MS instrumentation utilising collision/reaction cell technologies to provide the lowest detection limits available. · A prepared sample (0.2g) is added to sodium peroxide flux, mixed well and then fused in at 670°C. The resulting melt is cooled and then dissolved in 30% hydrochloric acid. This solution is then analysed by ICP-MS and the results are corrected for spectral inter-element interferences. · The final solution is then analysed by ICP-MS, with results corrected for spectral inter-element interferences. · Standards/blanks and duplicates were inserted on a 1:20 ratio for both to samples taken. · Duplicate sample regime is used to monitor sampling methodology and homogeneity. · Routine QA/QC controls for the method ME-MS89L include blanks, certified reference standards of Lithium and duplicate samples. Samples are assayed within runs or batches up to 40 samples. At the fusion stage that quality control samples are included together with the samples so all samples follow the same procedure until the end. Fused and diluted samples are prepared for ICP-MS analysis. ICP instrument is calibrated through appropriate certified standards solutions and interference corrections to achieve strict calibration fitting parameters. Each 40 sample run is assayed with two blanks, two certified standards and one duplicate sample and results are evaluated accordingly. · A QA/QC review of all information indicated that all assays were satisfactory. |
|
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. |
· All information was internally audited by company personnel. · Several historical holes were twinned for comparison purposes with the modern drilling. · Savannah's experienced project geologists supervised all processes. · All field data is entered into a custom log sheet and then into excel spreadsheets (supported by look-up tables) at site and subsequently validated as it is imported into the centralised Access database. · Hard copies of logs, survey and sampling data are stored in the local office and electronic data is stored on the main server. · Results were reported as Li (ppm) and were converted to a percentage by dividing by 10,000 and then to Li2O% by multiplying by 2.153. |
|
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. |
· The coordinate of each drill hole was taken at the time of collecting using a handheld GPS with an accuracy of 5m. All collars were subsequently surveyed using DGPS with an accuracy of 0.2m. · The grid system used is WSG84. · An accurate, aerial topographic survey was obtained with accuracy of +/- 0.5m. |
|
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. |
· Drilling was on a nominal 40m by 40m to 80m by 80m spacing and based on geological targets with selected infill to 40m by 20m. · Drill data is at sufficient spacing to define Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource. · Compositing to 1m has been applied prior to resource estimation. |
|
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. |
· Drilling was generally vertical and intersected the gently dipping deposit at close to orthogonal to the known dip of the main pegmatite. · Intersections were close to true width for the main pegmatite. · No orientation-based sampling bias has been identified in the data. |
|
Sample security |
· The measures taken to ensure sample security. |
· Samples were delivered to a courier and chain of custody is managed by Savannah. |
|
Audits or reviews |
· The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. |
· Internal company auditing and a review by PayneGeo during the April 2018 site visit found that all data collection and QA/QC procedures were conducted to industry standards. |
JORC Table 1 Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
|
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 license to operate in the area. |
· All work was completed inside the Mina do Barroso project C-100. · Savannah has received written confirmation from the DGEG that under article 24 of Decree-Law no. 88/90 of March 16 being relevant justification based on the resources allocated exploited and intended, Savannah has been approved an expansion up to 250m of C100 mining concession in specific areas where a resource has been defined and the requirement for the expansion can be justified. |
|
Exploration done by other parties |
· Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. |
· Limited exploration work has been carried out by previous operators. · No historic information has been included in the Mineral Resource estimates. |
|
Geology |
· Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. |
· The lithium mineralisation is predominantly in the form of Spodumene-bearing pegmatites which are hosted in meta-pelitic and mica schists, and occasionally carbonate schists of upper Ordovician to lower Devonian age. The pegmatites vary in thickness from 15m-109m. |
|
Drill hole information |
· A summary of all information material to the under-standing of the exploration 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 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.
|
· Grid used WSG84. · No material data has been excluded from the release. · Drill hole intersections used in the resource have been previously reported.
|
|
Data aggregation methods |
· In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. 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. |
· Length weighted average grades have been reported. · No high-grade cuts have been applied to reported grades. · Metal equivalent values are not being reported. |
|
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 (e.g.'down hole length, true width not known'). |
· The majority of holes have been drilled at angles to intersect the mineralisation approximately perpendicular to the orientation of the mineralised trend. · The geometry of the steep pegmatite at Grandao is steep dipping and some holes have drilled at a close angle to the mineralisation in that part of the deposit. |
|
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. |
· A relevant plan showing the drilling is included within this release.
|
|
Balanced Reporting |
· 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. · 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 relevant results available have been previously 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. |
· Geological mapping and rock chip sampling has been conducted over the project area. |
|
Further work |
· The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. 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. |
· Further RC and DD drilling to test for further extensions and to increase confidence. · Economic evaluation of the defined Mineral Resources. |
JORC Table 1 Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources
|
Criteria |
JORC Code explanation |
Commentary |
|
Database integrity |
· Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes. · Data validation procedures used. |
· The assay data was captured electronically to prevent transcription errors. · Validation included visual review of results. |
|
Site visits |
· Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. · If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case. |
· Numerous site visits were undertaken by Dale Ferguson in 2017 which included an inspection of the drilling process, outcrop area and confirmation that no obvious impediments to future exploration or development were present. · A site visit by Paul Payne was undertaken in April 2018 to confirm geological interpretations, drilling and sampling procedures and general site layout. |
|
Geological interpretation |
· Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit. · Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made. · The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation. · The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.
· The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology. |
· The pegmatite dykes hosting the Grandao mineralisation are well defined in outcrop and in drilling and boundaries are generally very sharp and distinct. · The shape and extent of the >0.5% Li2O mineralisation is clearly controlled by the general geometry of the pegmatites. · Zonation of lithium within the pegmatite is evident, and typically the margins are weakly mineralised. · Xenoliths or inliers of barren schist country rock occur within the pegmatite, and these have been excluded from the estimate where large enough to model. |
|
Dimensions |
· The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource. |
· The Grandao main pegmatite has a drilled extent of 500m NS and 700m EW and a maximum vertical depth of 200m. The thickness of the mineralisation ranges from 10m to 60m. · The Grandao lower pegmatite has a modelled strike extent of 320m NS and a dip extent of 230m and a maximum vertical depth of 150m. The true thickness of the mineralisation ranges from 15m to 20m. |
|
Estimation and modelling techniques |
· The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used. · The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data. · The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. · Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). · In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. · Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. · Any assumptions about correlation between variables. · Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. · Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. · The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available. |
· Ordinary kriging (main pegmatites) and inverse distance squared (minor zones) was used to estimate block grades within the resource. · Surpac software was used for the estimation. · Samples were composited to 1m intervals to match the sample lengths. Due to the extremely low CV of the data no high grade cuts were applied to Li2O in the estimate. A cut of 60ppm was applied to Ta values. · At Grandao the parent block dimensions were 10m EW by 20m NS by 5m vertical with sub-cells of 2.5m by 5m by 2.5m. Cell size was based on KNA and was 50% of the average drill hole spacing. · The previous resource estimate for Grandao was reported in August 2018. · No assumptions have been made regarding recovery of by-products. · The grade of Fe2O3 was estimated for the deposit, using factored Fe data to eliminate Fe introduced in the sample preparation stage. The with a mean grade of Fe2O3 was determined to be 0.7%. · An orientated ellipsoid search was used to select data and was based on drill hole spacing and the geometry of the pegmatite dyke. · A search of 60m was used with a minimum of 10 samples and a maximum of 24 samples which resulted in 70% of blocks being estimated (79% of Meas and Ind). The remaining blocks were estimated with search radii of 120m and 240m. · Selective mining units were not modelled in the Mineral Resource model. The block size used in the model was based on drill sample spacing and deposit geometry. · The deposit mineralisation was constrained by wireframes prepared using a 0.5% Li2O grade envelope. · For validation, quantitative spatial comparison of block grades to assay grades was carried out using swath plots. · Global comparisons of drill hole and block model grades were also carried out. |
|
Moisture |
· Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content. |
· Tonnages and grades were estimated on a dry in situ basis. No moisture values were reviewed. |
|
Cut-off parameters |
· The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied. |
· The shallow, outcropping nature of both deposits and in particular the flat lying, shallow geometry of the Grandao deposit suggests good potential for open pit mining if sufficient resources can be delineated to consider a mining operation. As such, the Mineral Resource has been reported at a 0.5% Li2O lower cut-off grade to reflect assumed exploitation by open pit mining. |
|
Mining factors or assumptions |
· Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made. |
· Based on comparison with other similar deposits, the Mineral Resource is considered to have sufficient grade and metallurgical characteristics for economic treatment if an operation is established at the site. · No mining parameters or modifying factors have been applied to the Mineral Resource. |
|
Metallurgical factors or assumptions |
· The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential 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. |
· Metallurgical test work has been conducted by Savannah on representative mineralisation at the project. The work was completed by Nagrom Metallurgical in Australia and confirmed that high grade lithium, low grade iron concentrate can be generated from the mineralisation using conventional processing technology. Microscopy confirmed that the concentrate was almost entirely spodumene. · Additional metallurgical test work is underway. |
|
Environmental factors or assumptions |
· Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made. |
· The area is not known to be environmentally sensitive and there is no reason to think that proposals for development including the dumping of waste would not be approved if planning and permitting guidelines are followed.
|
|
Bulk density |
· Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples. · The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit. · Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials. |
· Bulk density determinations were carried out on 3,370 core samples. Bulk density values applied to the estimates were 2.5t/m3 for transitional lithologies, 2.65t/m3 for unoxidised pegmatite and 2.67t/m3 for unoxidised schist.
|
|
Classification |
· The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories. · Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data). · Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person's view of the deposit. |
· The Mineral Resources was classified in accordance with the Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC, 2012). · The portion of the deposit defined by 40m by 20m to 40m by 40m drilling and showing excellent continuity of geology and Li2O grade has been reported as Measured Mineral Resource. · The portion of the deposit defined by 40m by 40m to 80m by 80m drilling has been reported as Indicated Mineral Resource. · The remainder of the Mineral Resource was classified as Inferred due the sparse drilling. Inferred Mineral Resource was extrapolated up to 120m past drill hole intersections. · The results reflect the view of the Competent Person. |
|
Audits or reviews |
· The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates. |
· The Mineral Resource estimate has been checked by an internal audit procedure. |
|
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence |
· Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of 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. |
· The estimate utilised good estimation practices, high quality drilling, sampling and assay data. The extent and dimensions of the mineralisation are sufficiently defined by outcrop and the detailed drilling. The deposit is considered to have been estimated with a high level of accuracy. · The Mineral Resource statement relates to global estimates of tonnes and grade. · There is no historic production data to compare with the Mineral Resource. |
APPENDIX 2 - JORC 2012 Table 1 -NOA
JORC Table 1 Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data
|
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. |
· The majority of holes were reverse circulation, sampled at 1m intervals. RC samples were collected in large plastic bags from an onboard rig splitter and a 4-6kg representative sample taken for analysis. · A small number of diamond holes were also completed. Core was HQ size, sampled at 1m intervals in the pegmatite, with boundaries sampled to geological boundaries. Half core samples were collected for analysis. · Drilling was on a nominal 40m by 40m spacing. · Collar surveys are carried using differential GPS with an accuracy to within 0.2m. · A down hole survey for each hole was completed using gyro equipment. · The lithium mineralisation is predominantly in the form of Spodumene-bearing pegmatites, the pegmatites are unzoned and vary in thickness from 10m-20m.
|
|
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). |
• RC drilling used a 120mm bit diameter. · Core drilling was carried out using an HQ triple tube core barrel.
|
|
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. |
· RC drilling sample weights were monitored to ensure samples were maximised. Samples were carefully loaded into a splitter and split in the same manner ensuring that the sample split to be sent to the assay laboratories were in the range of 4-6kg. · Core recovery was measured and was found to be generally excellent. · No obvious relationships between sample recovery and grade. |
|
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. |
· RC holes were logged in the field at the time of sampling. Core was logged in detail in a logging yard. · Each 1m sample interval was carefully homogenised and assessed for lithology, colour, grainsize, structure and mineralisation. · A representative chip sample produced from RC drilling was washed and taken for each 1m sample and stored in a chip tray which was photographed. · Core was photographed. |
|
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. |
· 1m RC samples were split by the riffle splitter on the drill rig and sampled dry. · The 4m composites were collected using a spear with the spear inserted into the bag at a high angle and pushed across the sample to maximise representivity of the sample. · Core was cut in half using a diamond saw with 1m half core samples submitted for analysis. · The sampling was conducted using industry standard techniques and were considered appropriate. · Field duplicates were used to test repeatability of the sub-sampling and were found to be satisfactory. · Every effort was made to ensure that the samples were representative and not biased in any way.
|
|
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. |
· Samples were received, sorted, labelled and dried. · Samples were crushed to 70% less than 2mm, riffle split off 250g, pulverise split to better than 85% passing 75 microns and 5g was split of for assaying. · The samples were analysed using ALS Laboratories ME-MS89L Super Trace method which combines a sodium peroxide fusion with ICP-MS instrumentation utilising collision/reaction cell technologies to provide the lowest detection limits available. · A prepared sample (0.2g) is added to sodium peroxide flux, mixed well and then fused in at 670°C. The resulting melt is cooled and then dissolved in 30% hydrochloric acid. This solution is then analysed by ICP-MS and the results are corrected for spectral inter-element interferences. · The final solution is then analysed by ICP-MS, with results corrected for spectral inter-element interferences. · Standards/blanks and duplicates were inserted on a 1:20 ratio for both to samples taken. · Duplicate sample regime is used to monitor sampling methodology and homogeneity. · Routine QA/QC controls for the method ME-MS89L include blanks, certified reference standards of Lithium and duplicate samples. Samples are assayed within runs or batches up to 40 samples. At the fusion stage that quality control samples are included together with the samples so all samples follow the same procedure until the end. Fused and diluted samples are prepared for ICP-MS analysis. ICP instrument is calibrated through appropriate certified standards solutions and interference corrections to achieve strict calibration fitting parameters. Each 40 sample run is assayed with two blanks, two certified standards and one duplicate sample and results are evaluated accordingly. · A QA/QC review of all information indicated that all assays were satisfactory. |
|
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. |
· All information was internally audited by company personnel. · Savannah's experienced project geologists supervised all processes. · All field data is entered into a custom log sheet and then into excel spreadsheets (supported by look-up tables) at site and subsequently validated as it is imported into the centralised Access database. · Hard copies of logs, survey and sampling data are stored in the local office and electronic data is stored on the main server. · Results were reported as Li (ppm) and were converted to a percentage by dividing by 10,000 and then to Li2O% by multiplying by 2.153. |
|
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. |
· The coordinate of each drill hole was taken at the time of collecting using a handheld GPS with an accuracy of 5m. All collars were subsequently surveyed using DGPS with an accuracy of 0.2m. · The grid system used is WSG84. · An accurate, aerial topographic survey was obtained with accuracy of +/- 0.5m. |
|
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. |
· Drilling was on a nominal 40m by 40m spacing. · Drill data is at sufficient spacing to define Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource. · Compositing to 1m has been applied prior to resource estimation. |
|
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. |
· At NOA, drilling was generally angled to the SW and intersected the moderately dipping deposit at close to orthogonal to the known dip of the main pegmatite. · Intersections were close to true width for the NOA pegmatite. · No orientation-based sampling bias has been identified in the data. |
|
Sample security |
· The measures taken to ensure sample security. |
· Samples were delivered to a courier and chain of custody is managed by Savannah. |
|
Audits or reviews |
· The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. |
· Internal company auditing and a review by PayneGeo during the April 2018 site visit found that all data collection and QA/QC procedures were conducted to industry standards. |
JORC Table 1 Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results - NOA
|
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 license to operate in the area. |
· All work was completed inside the Mina do Barroso project C-100. · Savannah has received written confirmation from the DGEG that under article 24 of Decree-Law no. 88/90 of March 16 being relevant justification based on the resources allocated exploited and intended, Savannah has been approved an expansion up to 250m of C100 mining concession in specific areas where a resource has been defined and the requirement for the expansion can be justified. |
|
Exploration done by other parties |
· Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. |
· Limited exploration work has been carried out by previous operators. · No historic information has been included in the Mineral Resource estimates. |
|
Geology |
· Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. |
· The lithium mineralisation is predominantly in the form of Spodumene-bearing pegmatites which are hosted in meta-pelitic and mica schists, and occasionally carbonate schists of upper Ordovician to lower Devonian age. The pegmatites vary in thickness from 5m-20m. |
|
Drill hole information |
· A summary of all information material to the under-standing of the exploration 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 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.
|
· Grid used WSG84. · No material data has been excluded from the release. · Drill hole intersections used in the resource have been previously reported.
|
|
Data aggregation methods |
· In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. 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. |
· Length weighted average grades have been reported. · No high-grade cuts have been applied to reported grades for lithium. A high grade cut of 100ppm was applied to the tantalum data. · Metal equivalent values are not being reported. |
|
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 (e.g.'down hole length, true width not known'). |
· The majority of holes have been drilled at angles to intersect the mineralisation approximately perpendicular to the orientation of the mineralised trend.
|
|
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. |
· A relevant plan showing the drilling is included within this release.
|
|
Balanced Reporting |
· 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. · 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 relevant results available have been previously 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. |
· Geological mapping and rock chip sampling has been conducted over the project area. |
|
Further work |
· The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. 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. |
· Further RC and DD drilling to test for further extensions and to increase confidence. · Economic evaluation of the defined Mineral Resources. |
JORC Table 1 Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources - NOA
|
Criteria |
JORC Code explanation |
Commentary |
|
Database integrity |
· Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes. · Data validation procedures used. |
· The assay data was captured electronically to prevent transcription errors. · Validation included visual review of results. |
|
Site visits |
· Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. · If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case. |
· Numerous site visits were undertaken by Dale Ferguson in 2017 which included an inspection of the drilling process, outcrop area and confirmation that no obvious impediments to future exploration or development were present. · A site visit by Paul Payne was undertaken in April 2018 to confirm geological interpretations, drilling and sampling procedures and general site layout. |
|
Geological interpretation |
· Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit. · Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made. · The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation. · The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.
· The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology. |
· The pegmatite dykes hosting the NOA mineralisation are defined in outcrop and in drilling and boundaries are generally very sharp and distinct. · The shape and extent of the >0.5% Li2O mineralisation is clearly controlled by the general geometry of the pegmatites. · Zonation of lithium within the pegmatite is evident, and typically the margins are weakly mineralised.
|
|
Dimensions |
· The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource. |
· The pegmatite at Noa has a drilled extent of 420m NS and a maximum vertical depth of 80m. The thickness of the mineralisation ranges from 10m to 20m.
|
|
Estimation and modelling techniques |
· The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used. · The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data. · The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. · Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). · In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. · Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. · Any assumptions about correlation between variables. · Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. · Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. · The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available. |
· Inverse distance squared interpolation was used to estimate block grades within the resource. · Surpac software was used for the estimation. · Samples were composited to 1m intervals to match the sample lengths. Due to the extremely low CV of the data no high grade cuts were applied to Li2O in the estimate. A cut of 100ppm was applied to Ta values. · At NOA the parent block dimensions were 20m EW by 5m NS by 5m vertical with sub-cells of 5m by 1.25m by 1.25m. · The previous resource estimate for NOA was reported in April 2018. · No assumptions have been made regarding recovery of by-products. · The grade of Fe2O3 was estimated for the deposit, using factored Fe data to eliminate Fe introduced in the sample preparation stage. The mean grade of Fe2O3 was determined to be 0.9% at NOA. · An orientated ellipsoid search was used to select data and was based on drill hole spacing and the geometry of the pegmatite dyke. · A search of 50m was used with a minimum of 10 samples and a maximum of 24 samples which resulted in 82% of blocks being estimated. The remaining blocks were estimated with search radii of 100m. · Selective mining units were not modelled in the Mineral Resource model. The block size used in the model was based on drill sample spacing and deposit geometry. · The deposit mineralisation was constrained by wireframes prepared using a 0.35% Li2O grade envelope. · For validation, quantitative comparison of block grades to assay grades was carried out for each estimated body. · Global comparisons of drill hole and block model grades were also carried out. |
|
Moisture |
· Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content. |
· Tonnages and grades were estimated on a dry in situ basis. No moisture values were reviewed. |
|
Cut-off parameters |
· The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied. |
· The shallow, outcropping nature of both deposit suggests good potential for open pit mining if sufficient resources can be delineated to consider a mining operation. As such, the Mineral Resource has been reported at a 0.5% Li2O lower cut-off grade to reflect assumed exploitation by open pit mining. |
|
Mining factors or assumptions |
· Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made. |
· Based on comparison with other similar deposits, the Mineral Resource is considered to have sufficient grade and metallurgical characteristics for economic treatment if an operation is established at the site. · No mining parameters or modifying factors have been applied to the Mineral Resource. |
|
Metallurgical factors or assumptions |
· The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential 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. |
· Metallurgical test work has been conducted by Savannah on representative mineralisation at the Grandao deposit. The work was completed by Nagrom Metallurgical in Australia and confirmed that high grade lithium, low grade iron concentrate can be generated from the mineralisation using conventional processing technology. Microscopy confirmed that the concentrate was almost entirely spodumene. · Additional metallurgical test work is underway and there is no reason to consider that the NOA mineralisation will behave any differently to the Grandao deposit. |
|
Environmental factors or assumptions |
· Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made. |
· The area is not known to be environmentally sensitive and there is no reason to think that proposals for development including the dumping of waste would not be approved if planning and permitting guidelines are followed.
|
JORC Table 1 Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data - Pinheiro
|
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. |
· The majority of holes were reverse circulation, sampled at 1m intervals. RC samples were collected in large plastic bags from an onboard rig splitter and a 4-6kg representative sample taken for analysis. · A small number of diamond holes were also completed. Core was HQ size, sampled at 1m intervals in the pegmatite, with boundaries sampled to geological boundaries. Half core samples were collected for analysis. · Drilling was irregular and up to 130m spacings at Pinheiro. · Collar surveys are carried using differential GPS with an accuracy to within 0.2m. · A down hole survey for each hole was completed using gyro equipment. · The lithium mineralisation is predominantly in the form of Spodumene-bearing pegmatites, the pegmatites are unzoned and vary in thickness from 10m-20m.
|
|
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). |
• RC drilling used a 120mm bit diameter. · Core drilling was carried out using an HQ triple tube core barrel.
|
|
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. |
· RC drilling sample weights were monitored to ensure samples were maximised. Samples were carefully loaded into a splitter and split in the same manner ensuring that the sample split to be sent to the assay laboratories were in the range of 4-6kg. · Core recovery was measured and was found to be generally excellent. · No obvious relationships between sample recovery and grade. |
|
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. |
· RC holes were logged in the field at the time of sampling. Core was logged in detail in a logging yard. · Each 1m sample interval was carefully homogenised and assessed for lithology, colour, grainsize, structure and mineralisation. · A representative chip sample produced from RC drilling was washed and taken for each 1m sample and stored in a chip tray which was photographed. · Core was photographed. |
|
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. |
· 1m RC samples were split by the riffle splitter on the drill rig and sampled dry. · The 4m composites were collected using a spear with the spear inserted into the bag at a high angle and pushed across the sample to maximise representivity of the sample. · Core was cut in half using a diamond saw with 1m half core samples submitted for analysis. · The sampling was conducted using industry standard techniques and were considered appropriate. · Field duplicates were used to test repeatability of the sub-sampling and were found to be satisfactory. · Every effort was made to ensure that the samples were representative and not biased in any way.
|
|
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. |
· Samples were received, sorted, labelled and dried. · Samples were crushed to 70% less than 2mm, riffle split off 250g, pulverise split to better than 85% passing 75 microns and 5g was split of for assaying. · The samples were analysed using ALS Laboratories ME-MS89L Super Trace method which combines a sodium peroxide fusion with ICP-MS instrumentation utilising collision/reaction cell technologies to provide the lowest detection limits available. · A prepared sample (0.2g) is added to sodium peroxide flux, mixed well and then fused in at 670°C. The resulting melt is cooled and then dissolved in 30% hydrochloric acid. This solution is then analysed by ICP-MS and the results are corrected for spectral inter-element interferences. · The final solution is then analysed by ICP-MS, with results corrected for spectral inter-element interferences. · Standards/blanks and duplicates were inserted on a 1:20 ratio for both to samples taken. · Duplicate sample regime is used to monitor sampling methodology and homogeneity. · Routine QA/QC controls for the method ME-MS89L include blanks, certified reference standards of Lithium and duplicate samples. Samples are assayed within runs or batches up to 40 samples. At the fusion stage that quality control samples are included together with the samples so all samples follow the same procedure until the end. Fused and diluted samples are prepared for ICP-MS analysis. ICP instrument is calibrated through appropriate certified standards solutions and interference corrections to achieve strict calibration fitting parameters. Each 40 sample run is assayed with two blanks, two certified standards and one duplicate sample and results are evaluated accordingly. · A QA/QC review of all information indicated that all assays were satisfactory. |
|
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. |
· All information was internally audited by company personnel. · Several historical holes were twinned for comparison purposes with the modern drilling. · Savannah's experienced project geologists supervised all processes. · All field data is entered into a custom log sheet and then into excel spreadsheets (supported by look-up tables) at site and subsequently validated as it is imported into the centralised Access database. · Hard copies of logs, survey and sampling data are stored in the local office and electronic data is stored on the main server. · Results were reported as Li (ppm) and were converted to a percentage by dividing by 10,000 and then to Li2O% by multiplying by 2.153. |
|
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. |
· The coordinate of each drill hole was taken at the time of collecting using a handheld GPS with an accuracy of 5m. All collars were subsequently surveyed using DGPS with an accuracy of 0.2m. · The grid system used is WSG84. · An accurate, aerial topographic survey was obtained with accuracy of +/- 0.5m. |
|
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. |
· Drilling was irregular and up to 130m spacings at Pinheiro. · Drill data is at sufficient spacing to define Inferred Mineral Resource. · Compositing to 1m has been applied prior to resource estimation. |
|
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. |
· At Pinheiro, holes have been drilled in various directions as the geometry of the deposit has been refined. A number of holes have been drilled down-dip but later holes have intersected at a more optimal angle. · No orientation-based sampling bias has been identified in the data. |
|
Sample security |
· The measures taken to ensure sample security. |
· Samples were delivered to a courier and chain of custody is managed by Savannah. |
|
Audits or reviews |
· The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. |
· Internal company auditing and a review by PayneGeo during the April 2018 site visit found that all data collection and QA/QC procedures were conducted to industry standards. |
JORC Table 1 Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results - Pinheiro
|
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 license to operate in the area. |
· All work was completed inside the Mina do Barroso project C-100. · Savannah has received written confirmation from the DGEG that under article 24 of Decree-Law no. 88/90 of March 16 being relevant justification based on the resources allocated exploited and intended, Savannah has been approved an expansion up to 250m of C100 mining concession in specific areas where a resource has been defined and the requirement for the expansion can be justified. |
|
Exploration done by other parties |
· Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. |
· Limited exploration work has been carried out by previous operators. · No historic information has been included in the Mineral Resource estimates. |
|
Geology |
· Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. |
· The lithium mineralisation is predominantly in the form of Spodumene-bearing pegmatites which are hosted in meta-pelitic and mica schists, and occasionally carbonate schists of upper Ordovician to lower Devonian age. The pegmatites vary in thickness from 15m-109m. |
|
Drill hole information |
· A summary of all information material to the under-standing of the exploration 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 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.
|
· Grid used WSG84. · No material data has been excluded from the release. · Drill hole intersections used in the resource have been previously reported.
|
|
Data aggregation methods |
· In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. 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. |
· Length weighted average grades have been reported. · No high-grade cuts have been applied to reported grades for lithium. A high grade cut of 60ppm was applied to the tantalum data. · Metal equivalent values are not being reported. |
|
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 (e.g.'down hole length, true width not known'). |
· The majority of holes have been drilled at angles to intersect the mineralisation approximately perpendicular to the orientation of the mineralised trend. · The geometry of the pegmatite at Pinheiro was difficult to define initially, and some holes have drilled at a close angle to the mineralisation in that part of the deposit. |
|
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. |
· A relevant plan showing the drilling is included within this release.
|
|
Balanced Reporting |
· 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. · 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 relevant results available have been previously 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. |
· Geological mapping and rock chip sampling has been conducted over the project area. |
|
Further work |
· The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. 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. |
· Further RC and DD drilling to test for further extensions and to increase confidence. · Economic evaluation of the defined Mineral Resources. |
JORC Table 1 Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources - Pinheiro
|
Criteria |
JORC Code Explanation |
Commentary |
|
Database integrity |
· Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes. · Data validation procedures used. |
· The assay data was captured electronically to prevent transcription errors. · Validation included visual review of results. |
|
Site visits |
· Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. · If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case. |
· Numerous site visits were undertaken by Dale Ferguson in 2017 which included an inspection of the drilling process, outcrop area and confirmation that no obvious impediments to future exploration or development were present. · A site visit by Paul Payne was undertaken in April 2018 to confirm geological interpretations, drilling and sampling procedures and general site layout. |
|
Geological interpretation |
· Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit. · Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made. · The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation. · The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.
· The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology. |
· The pegmatite dykes hosting the Pinheiro mineralisation are defined in outcrop and in drilling and boundaries are generally very sharp and distinct. · The shape and extent of the >0.35% Li2O mineralisation is clearly controlled by the general geometry of the pegmatites. · Zonation of lithium within the pegmatite is evident, and typically the margins are weakly mineralised.
|
|
Dimensions |
· The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource. |
· The pegmatite at Pinheiro has a drilled extent of 250m NS and a maximum vertical depth of 160m. The thickness of the mineralisation ranges from 10m to 20m.
|
|
Estimation and modelling techniques |
· The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used. · The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data. · The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. · Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). · In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. · Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. · Any assumptions about correlation between variables. · Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. · Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. · The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available. |
· Inverse distance squared interpolation was used to estimate block grades within the resource. · Surpac software was used for the estimation. · Samples were composited to 1m intervals to match the sample lengths. Due to the extremely low CV of the data no high grade cuts were applied to Li2O in the estimate. A cut of 60ppm was applied to Ta values. · At Pinheiro the parent block dimensions were 5m EW by 20m NS by 5m vertical with sub-cells of 1.25m by 5m by 1.25m. · There are no previous resource estimate for Pinheiro. · No assumptions have been made regarding recovery of by-products. · The grade of Fe2O3 was estimated for the deposit, using factored Fe data to eliminate Fe introduced in the sample preparation stage. The mean grade of Fe2O3 was determined to be 0.9% at Pinheiro. · An orientated ellipsoid search was used to select data and was based on drill hole spacing and the geometry of the pegmatite dyke. · A search of 50m was used with a minimum of 10 samples and a maximum of 24 samples which resulted in 66% of blocks being estimated. The remaining blocks were estimated with search radii of 100m. · Selective mining units were not modelled in the Mineral Resource model. The block size used in the model was based on drill sample spacing and deposit geometry. · The deposit mineralisation was constrained by wireframes prepared using a 0.35% Li2O grade envelope. · For validation, quantitative comparison of block grades to assay grades was carried out for each estimated body. · Global comparisons of drill hole and block model grades were also carried out. |
|
Moisture |
· Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content. |
· Tonnages and grades were estimated on a dry in situ basis. No moisture values were reviewed. |
|
Cut-off parameters |
· The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied. |
· The shallow, outcropping nature of both deposit suggests good potential for open pit mining if sufficient resources can be delineated to consider a mining operation. As such, the Mineral Resource has been reported at a 0.5% Li2O lower cut-off grade to reflect assumed exploitation by open pit mining. |
|
Mining factors or assumptions |
· Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made. |
· Based on comparison with other similar deposits, the Mineral Resource is considered to have sufficient grade and metallurgical characteristics for economic treatment if an operation is established at the site. · No mining parameters or modifying factors have been applied to the Mineral Resource. |
|
Metallurgical factors or assumptions |
· The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential 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. |
· Metallurgical test work has been conducted by Savannah on representative mineralisation at the Grandao deposit. The work was completed by Nagrom Metallurgical in Australia and confirmed that high grade lithium, low grade iron concentrate can be generated from the mineralisation using conventional processing technology. Microscopy confirmed that the concentrate was almost entirely spodumene. · Additional metallurgical test work is underway and there is no reason to consider that the Pinheiro mineralisation will behave any differently to the Grandao deposit. |
|
Environmental factors or assumptions |
· Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made. |
· The area is not known to be environmentally sensitive and there is no reason to think that proposals for development including the dumping of waste would not be approved if planning and permitting guidelines are followed.
|
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.
Latest directors dealings
- 6 hours ago ASOS
- 6 hours ago MJ Gleeson
- 6 hours ago Rolls-Royce Holdings
- 7 hours ago Crest Nicholson Holdings
- 7 hours ago Naked Wines