NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page i
1 Title Page
SPINIFEX RIDGE IRON ORE PROJECT WESTERN AUSTRALIA
NI 43-101 UPDATED TECHNICAL REPORT
JUNE 25TH 2012
REPORT PREPARED FOR MOLY MINES LIMITED
Main Author:
Ben Cairns, Exploration Manager, Moly Mines Ltd, BSc., Hons, MAIG For personal use only use personal For Contribution Clay Gordon, Director & Principal Geologist, Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd, B.Sc., M.Sc., MAusIMM, MAIG
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page ii
2 Table of Contents
1 Title Page ...... i
2 Table of Contents ...... ii
3 Summary ...... 1
4 Introduction ...... 3 4.1 Purpose ...... 3 4.2 Authors ...... 3 4.3 Definition of Terms ...... 4
5 Reliance on Other Experts ...... 5
6 Property Description and Location ...... 6 6.1 Location and Project History ...... 6 6.2 Land Ownership ...... 8 6.3 State Reserves ...... 8 6.4 State Royalties ...... 9 6.5 Permitting required for Project Development Activities ...... 9 6.5.1 Drilling ...... 10 6.5.2 Mining ...... 10 6.5.3 Indigenous Heritage ...... 11
7 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography .. 14
8 Project History ...... 16 8.1 Mount Goldsworthy Mining Associates (GMA) (1963) ...... 16 8.2 Anglo American Corporation Australia (“AAA”) Ltd (1969-1973) ...... 16 8.2.1 1969 ...... 16 8.2.2 1970 ...... 16 8.2.3 1971 ...... 17 8.2.4 1972 ...... 17 8.2.5 1973 ...... 17 8.3 ESSO Exploration and Production Australia Inc (ESSO) (1975 to 1986) ...... 18 8.3.1 1975 ...... 18 8.3.2 1976 ...... 18 8.3.3 1977 ...... 18 8.3.4 1978 ...... 19 8.3.5 1979 ...... 19 8.3.6 1980 ...... 19 8.3.7 1981 ...... 19 8.3.8 1982-1986 ...... 19 8.4 City Resources Ltd (1986 to 1991) ...... 19
9 Geological Setting ...... 21 9.1 Regional Scale ...... 21 9.2 Local Scale - Lithology, Structure and Alteration ...... 22 9.2.1 Lithology ...... 22
For personal use only use personal For 9.2.2 Structure ...... 23 9.2.3 Alteration and Metamorphism ...... 24
10 Deposit Type ...... 25
11 Mineralization ...... 27 NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page iii
12 Exploration ...... 29
13 Drilling ...... 31 13.1 Auton ...... 31 13.2 Auton NE ...... 35 13.3 Gallifrey ...... 35 13.4 Dalek ...... 36 13.5 Torchwood ...... 36
14 Sampling Method and Approach ...... 38 14.1 Field Sample Preparation Procedure ...... 38 14.1.1 One Metre RC Samples...... 38 14.1.2 One Metre Half Diamond Core Samples ...... 38
15 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security ...... 39 15.1 Security and Transport ...... 39 15.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation Procedure ...... 39 15.2.1 Sample Laboratory Preparation ...... 39 15.2.2 Diamond Half Core 1 m Sample Laboratory Preparation ...... 41 15.3 Analytical Procedures ...... 41 15.3.1 Iron analysis ...... 41 15.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ...... 42 15.4.1 Primary Laboratory Quality Assurance and Control Procedures ...... 42 15.4.2 Quality Assessment of ALS Chemex QA/QC procedures by Moly Mines .. 43 15.4.3 Moly Mines Quality Assurance Procedures ...... 44 15.4.4 Moly Mines Quality Control Results ...... 44 15.4.5 Concluding Statement ...... 46
16 Data Verification ...... 47 16.1 Data Entry and Validation ...... 47
17 Adjacent Properties ...... 47
18 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing ...... 47
19 Mineral Resource Estimates ...... 49 19.1 Mineral Resource ...... 49 19.1.1 Drill Data ...... 49 19.1.2 Geological Interpretation...... 50 19.1.3 Drill Data Composites ...... 51 19.1.4 Descriptive Statistics ...... 51 19.1.5 Top Cutting ...... 52 19.1.6 Geostatisical Analysis ...... 52 19.1.7 Block Model ...... 53 19.1.8 Estimation ...... 54 19.1.9 Density ...... 55 19.1.10 Validation ...... 57 19.1.11 Classification of Results...... 60 19.2 Key Assumptions ...... 61
20 Other Relevant Data and Information ...... 61 For personal use only use personal For 20.1 Geotechnical Studies ...... 61 20.2 Environmental Studies ...... 62 20.3 Labour ...... 62 20.4 Infrastructure ...... 62 20.5 Port Access ...... 63
21 Interpretations and Conclusions ...... 64 NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page iv
22 Recommendations ...... 66
23 References ...... 67
24 Date and Signature Page ...... 68
25 Additional Requirements for Technical Reports on Development Properties and Production Properties ...... 69 25.1 Mining Operations ...... 69 25.1.1 Production ...... 70 25.2 Marketing ...... 71 25.3 Environmental Considerations ...... 71 25.4 Taxes ...... 72 25.4.1 Corporate Tax ...... 72 25.4.2 Goods and Services Tax ...... 73 25.5 Royalties ...... 73 25.6 Operating and Capital Cost Estimates ...... 73 25.6.1 Operating Cost ...... 73 25.6.2 Capital cost ...... 74 25.7 Economic Analysis ...... 74 25.8 Payback ...... 76 25.9 Mine Life ...... 76
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Spinifex Ridge Iron Mineral Resource Estimate, 25th June 2012 ...... 2 Table 6.1 Moly Metals Granted Tenements ...... 7 Table 6.2 Moly Metals Tenement Applications ...... 8 Table 13.1 Summary of Drilling Completed at Spinifex Ridge ...... 33 Table 19.1 Drill Details used in the Resource Estimate ...... 50 Table 19.2 Descriptive statistics: composite data ...... 51 Table 19.3 Summary Tables for Variography for BID and DID ...... 53 Table 19.4 Block Model Extents ...... 53 Table 19.5 Block Model attributes ...... 54 Table 19.6 Block Model input files ...... 54 Table 19.7 Estimation search parameters ...... 54 Table 19.8: ISBD ...... 55 Table 19. 9 Volume comparison: block model Vs wireframe ...... 57 Table 19.10 Grade Comparison: Block Model v’s Composite Data ...... 58 Table 19.11 Mineral Resource Estimate ...... 60 Table 25.1 Production Statistics ...... 70 Table 25.2 Product Specification ...... 71 Table 25.3 Gross Sales Revenue ...... 71 Table 25.4 Financial Performance ...... 73 Table 25.5 Operating Costs ...... 73 Table 25.6 Capital Cost ...... 74 Table 25.7 Basis for Financial Model ...... 75 Table 25.8 Outcomes of Financial Modelling at Various Price Sensitivities ...... 75 Table 25.9 Cashflow before tax ...... 76
For personal use only use personal For NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page v
List of Figures
Figure 6.1 Spinifex Ridge Project Location ...... 6 Figure 6.2 Tenement plan for the Spinifex Ridge Project ...... 13 Figure 9.1 Geological map of the Pilbara region from Van Kranendonk et al., (2001)...... 21 Figure 9.2 Geological map of the Spinifex Ridge area from Van Kranendonk et al., (2001)...... 24 Figure 11.1 Location Map of the Spinifex Ridge Iron Resources ...... 29 Figure 15.1 Summary of RC Sample Preparation for Samples <3 kg in weight ...... 40 Figure 15.2 Summary of RC Samples Preparation for Samples >3 kg in weight ...... 40 Figure 15.3 Summary of Diamond Drill Core Sample Preparation ...... 41 Figure 19.1 Drill Hole Locations ...... 41 Figure 19.2 Histograms: composite data ...... 52 Figure 19.3 Block Model grade distribution; long section, BID mineralisation ...... 55 Figure 19.4 Block Model Fe grade Vs drill Fe grade – cross section 196 700N ...... 57 Figure 19.5: Block model validation: BID...... 59
List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Certificates of Qualification Appendix 2: Compilation Map Appendix 3: Drill Intersections Appendix 4: QA/QC Report MAT - 2009 Appendix 5: Updated QA/QC report completed by MAT Appendix 6: 2012 Updated QA/QCReport Advance Geological Consulting Appendix 7: Certification of Standards; Appendix 8: Bulk Density Determinations Appendix 9: Coffey Mining ISBD Review Appendix 10: Resource Report – Advance Geological Consulting
For personal use only use personal For NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 1
3 Summary
In 2011 and early 2012 Moly Mines Ltd (“MOL”) undertook a two stage Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling program to infill and refine the inferred and indicated iron ore resources at the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project. This Updated NI 43-101 Technical Report reflects an update to the Mineral Resource only from the previous resource statement issued on the 16th July 2010 and available for download from www.sedar.com. On the basis of the July 2010 Resource/Reserve statement MOL commenced mining operations at the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project in the Pilbara region of Western Australia in November 2010.
MOL commissioned Mr Clay Gordon of Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd (“AGC”) to provide the updated Mineral Resource for the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project based on the additional drilling and taking into account the mining depletion, from the commencement of operations in late 2010 through to March 31st 2012.
This report has been compiled by Mr Ben Cairns who is the Exploration Manager and a fulltime employee of MOL and has been prepared in conformity with National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101) and the CIM Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve definitions referred to in NI 43-101. The Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project is located on the same granted mining tenure as MOL’s Spinifex Ridge Molybdenum / Copper Project.
The opinions expressed in this report by AGC have been based on the information supplied to AGC by MOL. The opinions in this report are provided in response to a specific request from MOL to provide a Mineral Resource estimate in accordance with industry standards, including the JORC Code and the CIM Standards. AGC have exercised all due care in reviewing the information supplied by MOL.
The Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project is located approximately 50 km northeast of Marble Bar in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. The property is accessible by sealed roads and graded tracks. The resources are located within a granted Mining Lease (M45/1095) which is 100% owned by Moly Metals Australia Pty Ltd (“Moly Metals”), a wholly owned subsidiary of MOL. Annual fees, rates and required exploration expenditures for the leases have been met and the leases remain in good standing.
Iron mineralization at Spinifex Ridge is hosted within the Archean Nimingarra Banded Iron Formation which regionally also hosts operating (BHPB Yarrie Mine and Atlas Iron Pardoo Operation) and historical iron ore mines (Niminagarra, Goldsworthy and Shay Gap). Locally the ore is classified into two styles:
1. Lode style Bedded Iron Deposit (BID) For personal use only use personal For 2. Derived iron deposit (DID) The formation of these two ore types involves the iron enrichment of an already iron-rich proto-ore, the removal and re-distribution of silica often enhanced by favourable structural positions, fluid migration and in situ leaching. Further NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 2
upgrading of the iron deposits may be associated with regional metamorphic overprinting. Iron mineralisation at Spinifex Ridge is hosted in four separate ore bodies, Auton, Auton North East, Gallifrey and Torchwood. Optimisation studies completed in 2010 indicated that mining of Auton and Auton North East would be from a single pit whilst Gallifrey and Dalek would be mined from stand-alone pits. The Mineral Resource at Torchwood has been classified as Inferred and will not be included in optimisation studies. The geology and grade data used for this report have been derived from drill and assay records completed by MOL between 2007 and 2012. The drill data have been verified using a series of validation and due diligence procedures by MOL/AGC.
MOL has completed adequate drilling to identify sufficient Indicated Mineral Resources for mine planning.
The maiden Mineral Resource estimate for the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project was tabled in the NI 43-101 Technical Report completed on July 27, 2009. Further drilling and feasibility studies were carried out in 2009 and 2010 and an initial Ore Reserve estimate was tabled in July 2010. The following table is an update of the July 2010 Mineral Resource.
Table 3.1 Spinifex Ridge Iron Mineral Resource Estimate, 25th June 2012 Fe SiO Al O P S LOI Classification Tonnes 2 2 3 (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Measured ------Indicated 4,548,000 59.5 9.2 1.2 0.134 0.0075 3.9
Total Mineral Resource 4,548,000 59.5 9.2 1.2 0.134 0.0075 3.9
Inferred 954,000 51.1 24.2 1.3 0.06 0.0032 1.1 TOTAL Measured + Indicated + Inferred 5,502,000 58.0 11.8 1.2 0.122 0.0067 3.4
Concurrent optimisation studies are being undertaken based on the updated Mineral Resource estimate to further aid mine planning. An updated Ore Reserve statement will be issued upon completion of this work.
The significant changes in this Mineral Resource arise from;
The conversion of Inferred Mineral Resources into the Indicated category.
Improved understanding of the geology of the ore bodies at depth.
Refining the In-situ Bulk Density (ISBD) values used in the Resource
Estimate. For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 3
4 Introduction
4.1 Purpose
MOL has completed this NI 43-101 Technical Report.
The purpose of this report is to provide an updated Mineral Resource for the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project. This report complies with the requirements of NI 43-101 and will be filed with the relevant securities regulatory authorities. This report does not provide a valuation of the mineral assets, nor any comment on the fairness and reasonableness of any transactions related to the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project. In compiling this report, MOL has used a Resource Estimate completed by Advance Geological Consulting (previously trading as Mining Assets Pty Ltd) which relied on information supplied by MOL, as well as previously compiled technical reports.
The primary sources of data were:
An electronic database of resource drilling information, including drillhole collars, drillhole surveys, assay and geological data
A set of sectional geological interpretations and digital wireframes prepared by MOL staff
Digital terrain models of the topography
Various geological reports. 4.2 Authors
This report was authored and supervised by Mr Ben Cairns of MOL and includes contributions from various authors. Mr Clay Gordon, Director of Advance Geological Consulting (AGC) co-authored section 15.4 and 19. Mr Gordon is bound by the Code of Ethics of both the AIG and The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM). Mr Ben Cairns, MOL Exploration Manager, provided the information as requested by AGC in compiling the Resource Estimate. Mr Cairns is bound by the Code of Ethics of The Australian Institute for Geoscientists (AIG).
Mr Gordon holds a Bachelor of Applied Science (Geology) from The New South Wales Institute of Technology and a Master of Science (Mineral Economics) from Curtin University (Western Australia). He has over 20 years mining, exploration and management experience in a range of commodities, including gold, nickel, iron, tantalum/lithium, mineral sands, copper and molybdenum. He has worked in some
For personal use only use personal For of Australasia’s most famous mining camps, including the Golden Mile, Mt Charlotte, Porgera, St Ives, and Greenbushes where he has held a variety of senior operations and management roles. NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 4
Mr Cairns holds a Bachelor of Science from the Australian National University with Honours in Geology. Mr Cairns has fourteen years experience as an exploration geologist working on a range of projects from greenfields exploration, through to resource development, near mine exploration and project evaluation in a range of commodities including gold, copper, base metals, PGE’s, molybdenum and iron ore. Mr Cairns joined MOL in 2005 as Senior Geologist and has been responsible for much of the exploration, resource definition and related technical aspects of feasibility studies associated with the Spinifex Ridge Molybdenum / Copper and the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project. Mr Cairns was elevated to the position of Exploration Manager in MOL in 2010.
Mr Cairns, the author of this report and a Qualified Person has visited site on many occasions, the most recent being in January 2012 during drilling of the resource holes used in this Mineral Resource estimate. Mr Gordon author of Section 19 and a Qualified Person visited site on June 24, 2009 to verify drill data, examine drill core and check surface geology. Mr Gordon also visited the site in relation to the Spinifex Ridge Molybdenum / Copper Project in 2005.
Mr Gordon has also been involved with the exploration programs at Spinifex Ridge since 2005, providing professional advice and reports in relation to QA/QC programs and has discussed various technical aspects of the iron mineralisation with MOL geologists. Mr Gordon reviewed previous MOL memorandums, investigated the quality and validity of the digital datasets and undertook the Mineral Resource estimation.
4.3 Definition of Terms
Australian dollars A$ Millimetres mm Billion years ago Ga Metres m Centimetre cm Metres above sea level m ASL Cost, insurance and freight CIF Direct shipping (1) DSO Metres above sea level m RL +1000 m Feet ft Metric Tonnes (1000 kg) t Free on Board FOB Grams g Metric tonnes per day t/d Grams per tonne g/t Million tonnes per annum Mt/a Kilograms kg Ounce (troy) tr. Oz Kilolitres kL Parts per million ppm Kilometres km Pounds lb Life of Mine LOM Pre-Feasibility Study PFS Loss on Ignition LOI Run of Mine ROM
For personal use only use personal For Micron m US Dollars US$ Million years ago Ma X-Ray Fluorescence XRF (1) The term DSO was originally used in an operational context to describe the iron ore fines that could be loaded directly onto a ship as opposed to those fines that required further processing. Over time DSO has become part of iron ore industry terminology and has been applied to ores that require only crushing and screening prior to shipping. NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 5
5 Reliance on Other Experts
The opinions expressed in this report that relate to the Mineral Resource Estimate have been based on the information supplied to AGC by MOL. AGC has exercised all due care in reviewing the supplied information. The accuracy of the results and conclusions from the review are entirely reliant on the accuracy and completeness of the supplied data. AGC does not believe that any material facts or data has not been supplied that would cause this report to be misleading.
AGC does not have a material present or contingent interest in the outcome of this report, nor do they have any pecuniary or other interest that could be reasonably regarded as being capable of affecting its independence. AGC’s fee for completing this report is based on its normal professional daily rates plus reimbursement of incidental expenses. The payment of the professional fee is not contingent upon the outcome of the report.
AGC consent to this report being included in full in the form and context in which it is to appear in regulatory filings in Canada and Australia and may be posted on the MOL website. Mineral Resources estimated in this report are made as of March 31st 2012.
Certificates of Qualification for Mr Cairns and Mr Gordon are appended to this report (Appendix 1).
For personal use only use personal For NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 6
6 Property Description and Location
6.1 Location and Project History
The Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project is located at Latitude 20º 53’ 15” S and Longitude 120º 6’ 35” E, approximately 50 km northeast of the town of Marble Bar and 140 km east-southeast of the major port and regional town of Port Hedland (population 15,000) in the East Pilbara Shire (Figure 6.1).
Figure 6.1 Spinifex Ridge Project Location
The Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project resides on the same mining tenure granted for MOL’s Spinifex Ridge Molybdenum / Copper Project. E45/2226 was granted to Kallenia Mines Pty Ltd (Kallenia) on April 23, 2003 for a five year period. Hibernia Mines Limited, on beehalf of its wholly owned subsidiary, Anaconda Metals Group Pty Ltd, entered into an agreement with Kallenia on April 1, 2004 under which Hibernia purchased a 5% interest in the tenement by paying A$25,000 with an option to acquire an additional 85% from Kallenia for A$750,000. The transfer of the 5% interest to Anaconda Metals Group Pty Ltd was registered on April 7, 2004. Since the agreement was executed, Hibernia Mines Ltd has changed its name to MOL and Anaconda Metals Group has been renamed Moly Metals Australia Pty Ltd (“Moly Metals”) and the exploration license has been upgraded into two mining For personal use only use personal For leases.
On February 10, 2006 Moly Metals exercised its option to acquire the additional 85% interest in the Spinifex Ridge Project. Kallenia retained a 10% free carried interest in the tenement. On May 11, 2006, MOL purchased the remaining 10% NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 7
interest of the project in exchange for 2.4 million shares in MOL thus increasing MOL ownership to 100%. When the price of molybdenum oxide is above US$6.00/lb at the time of production, Kallenia will receive a royalty payable by MOL in the amount of A$0.02 per tonne of processed ore from the Spinifex Ridge Project, or A$0.01 per tonne of ore in the case where the market price of molybdenum oxide at the time of production is less than US$6.00/lb.
During 2006, two mining lease applications were lodged over E45/2226 with a third mining lease lodged which abutted E45/2226 to account for the datum shift between the Australian Geodetic Datum and the Geodetic Datum of Australia. On March 15, 2007, three contiguous mining leases (M45/1095, M45/1096 and M45/1097, Figure 6.2) covering over 2079.3 hectares, were granted by the Western Australia Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP). Exploration licence E45/2226 expired following the grant. Mining lease M45/1095 contains the entire Indicated and Inferred iron resource and it is likely all mining activities will be contained within it (Figure 6.2).
A further tenement to the north, M45/1164, was purchased from Muccan Minerals Pty Ltd on May 24, 2007 and is contiguous with the existing mining leases M45/1095-1097. It was granted on September 28, 2007 and was transferred to Moly Metals on grant.
All project mining leases have been granted for an initial term of 21 years.
A full list of the project tenure is listed in Table 6.1.
Table 6.2
Table 6.1 Moly Metals Granted Tenements Tenement Comments Owner Status Expenditure Area Ha. Expiry Date M45/1095 Open pit and waste Moly Metals Granted 95,900 959 14-Mar-28 dumps M45/1096 Open pit and waste Moly Metals Granted 96,200 962 14-Mar-28 dumps M45/1097 Access roads Moly Metals Granted 15,400 154 14-Mar-28 M45/1164 Processing plant and tails Moly Metals Granted 90,200 901 2-Oct-28 facilities Mo Project, Mine Village. L45/159 Water Production License Moly Metals Granted Nil 3.257 23-Apr-28 L45/160 Water Production License Moly Metals Granted Nil 7,046 23-Apr-28 L45/183 Kittys Access Road Moly Metals Granted Nil 39 15-May-29 License L45/184 Bamboo Access Road Moly Metals Granted Nil 34 15-May-29 L45/185 DeGrey Corridor License Moly Metals Granted Nil 245 15-May-29
For personal use only use personal For L45/186 Aerodrome License Moly Metals Granted Nil 1,845 15-May-29 G45/276 Accommodation camp Moly Metals Granted Nil 4,443 06-Feb-29 and tails facilities L45/187 Canning Corridor License Moly Metals Granted Nil 571 22-Oct-30 L45/195 Alternative route 187 Moly Metals Granted Nil 74 20-Aug-30 NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 8
L45/196 Poss. Replacement 187 Moly Metals Granted Nil 535 20-Aug-30 L45/200 Alternative east/west Moly Metals Granted Nil 1,831 8-Nov-2032 pipeline route L45/205 Deviation around L45/200 Moly Metals Granted 15,000 269 8-Nov-2032
Table 6.2 Moly Metals Tenement Applications Tenement Comments Owner Status Expenditure Area Ha. Expiry Date upon Grant L45/249 Power generation Moly Metals Applic Nil 9 Application L45/250 Power generation Moly Metals Applic Nil 3 Application L45/251 Power generation Moly Metals Applic Nil 29 Application E45/2744 Exploration Moly Metals Applic 20,000 1,258 Application E45/2745 Exploration Moly Metals Applic 15,000 321 Application E45/2746 Exploration Moly Metals Applic 15,000 321 Application E45/2825 Exploration Moly Metals Applic 67,000 21,507 Application
A A$2.6million bond has been lodged with the ANZ Banking Group in favour of the DMP for environmental bonds related to the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project, the Molybdenum Project and previous exploration activities. In order to keep the current granted tenements in good standing, MOL is required to spend a yearly minimum expenditure of A$297,700. Annual rates of A$35,000 and rent of A$243,000 are also payable to the Shire of East Pilbara and the DMP, respectively. The tenements boundaries have been physically surveyed on the ground as required under the Mining Act of Western Australia.
Within the immediate vicinity of Spinifex Ridge there are no known occurrences of iron reserves, resources or mineralization other than Spinifex Ridge and there is no mine infrastructure, mine workings, tailing ponds or waste dumps.
Refer to Figure 6.2 for a Project Map.
6.2 Land Ownership
The Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project is located on the Yarrie Pastoral Lease. Access to this land for the proposed operation will be in accordance with a compensation agreement currently being negotiated with the leaseholder.
6.3 State Reserves
Within the project area the following reserves have been identified:
‘A Class Reserve’ No. 31047 (Preservation of Natural Formations)
For personal use only use personal For encompassing Coppin Gap (a local tourist attraction) and its immediate environs, vested with the Shire of East Pilbara
Timber Reserve No. 13649
Water Reserve No. 12757. NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 9
In addition, MOL tenements overlap a small section of Timber Reserve 13648. This reserve will not be impacted by the proposed operation.
Mining and processing activities will be set back from the A-Class Reserve, although some environmental monitoring is likely to be undertaken. The timber and water reserves are typical of similar reserves established throughout the Pilbara as part of the historical opening of the region. There is no differentiation in the current management of these reserves from the surrounding pastoral land and no flora, vegetation, or hydrological difference between the reserves and adjacent land.
The approval for the tenements includes allowance for mining activities on these reserves following discussion between DMP and the Department of Conservation and Environment (DEC) for the timber reserve and DMP and the Department of Water (DoW) for the water reserve. This allowance is subject to other conditions including approval under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986.
6.4 State Royalties
Minerals within the project tenements are owned by the Crown. Each mineral mined may attract a different royalty levy which is applied to the value of net sales revenue. From 1 July 2012, the State of Western Australia increased the royalty to 6.25% on iron ore fines produced at Spinifex Ridge based on free on board value and then from 1 July 2013 to 7.5%, up from 5.625%.
6.5 Permitting required for Project Development Activities
The primary mining legislation in Australian is state-based. Legislation relevant to the proposal in the State of Western Australia includes:
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972
Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act 1976
Bush Fires Act 1954
Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act)
Environmental Protection Amendment Act 2003
Explosives and Dangerous Goods Act 1961
Dangerous Goods (Transport) Act 1998
Land Administration (Amendments) Act 1997
Local Government Act 1995
Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 For personal use only use personal For Town Planning & Development Act 1928
Wildlife Conservation Act 1950-1979
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 10
Occupational Safety & Health Act 1984
Mining Act 1978 6.5.1 Drilling
The main permitting requirement for the tenement during the resource drilling phase is gaining approval from the DMP to clear access and clear sites for each drill hole. Prior to the drill program commencing a Program of Work (POW) is submitted to DMP for approval. These applications and approvals take approximately 20 working days to process.
6.5.2 Mining
The EP Act is the principal statute relevant to environmental protection in Western Australia. The EP Act makes provision for the prevention, control and abatement of pollution and for the conservation, preservation, protection, enhancement and management of the environment. It also provides for the control and licensing of potentially polluting activities and is the Act under which the State’s environmental assessment process operates for projects with a significant potential impact. The Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project does not qualify as a significant project and environmental approvals will be undertaken by the DMP under the Mining Act, 1978.
On August 4, 2008, the Western Australian Minister for the Environment approved the Spinifex Ridge Molybdenum / Copper Project under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, completing an exhaustive environmental impact assessment process. This approval means there are no impediments to developing that project. Although the approvals for the Spinifex Ridge Molybdenum /Copper Project are not transferable to the Iron Ore Project, some infrastructure elements overlap and all studies undertaken for the molybdenum approvals are directly relevant to assessment of the iron ore project.
All environmental approvals required under the Mining Act for the Iron Ore operations have been received, including;
A Mining Proposal was approved by the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) on March 18, 2010, with standard tenement conditions under the Mining Act (1978). All Unconditional Environmental Performance Bonds have been lodged
A Project Management Plan was approved by the DMP on April 13, 2010 satisfying the conditions of the Mine Safety and Inspection Act (1994)
A 5C License to Take Groundwater was received from the Department of For personal use only use personal For Water (DoW) on November 19, 2008 under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act (1914) at an annual entitlement of 1,460,000 kL, sufficient for the requirements of the iron ore project NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 11
Works Approvals required prior to construction of specific aspects of the project under the Environmental Protection Act (1986) were received on March 8, 2010.
6.5.3 Indigenous Heritage
There is a single registered Native Title claim over the project area (WC99/008 Njamal). Moly Metals has successfully negotiated a Native Title Agreement with the Njamal people, which establishes terms for access, compensation and management of specific heritage, cultural and environmental issues. The agreement also addresses employment, business development and training opportunities for the Njamal people. This Agreement covers the entire project area and all ancillary titles that may be required to service the project, within the Njamal claim area.
Although the agreement is focussed on the molybdenum project, other commodities are also covered by the agreement. Moly Metals and the Njamal people have entered into a compensation agreement for the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project.
In addition the agreement provides for regular meetings between Moly Metals and the Njamal representatives in the form of a Monitoring and Liaison Committee. The company provides regular community forums where the status of the project is discussed with the Njamal people, most recently on 9th May 2012.
6.5.3.1 Archaeology
Indigenous archaeological surveys within the project area were carried out during 2010 by Eureka Archaeological Research and Consulting with particular focus on the proposed areas of impact. These surveys have now salvaged sites of archaeological interest, and all associated reporting has been finalised. The disturbance footprint has been designed to minimize the identified archaeological sites, including those on the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) register, with at least a 50 m buffer. Moly Metals has applied for a Section 18 approval (Section 18 under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 is ministerial permission to impact an identified heritage site) to impact a number of identified sites within the disturbance footprint. Permission was granted by the Minister on February 17, 2010. A further Section Error! Reference source not found. application to salvage a site in order to facilitate the location of the ROM pad and other mining infrastructure within the development footprint was granted on the 19th August 2010.
6.5.3.2 Ethnography For personal use only use personal For Numerous ethnographic surveys have been undertaken in the project area. The most recent being in April 2010 in respect of the proposed airstrip and the water production areas and involved professional anthropologists and Njamal representatives. There were no ethnographic sites found within these areas. There are no ethnographic sites within the disturbance footprint for the iron ore project. NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 12
Management of the identified sites is primarily undertaken through exclusion of these areas from the operational footprint, as far as practicable, and in accordance with the Conditions of the Section 18 approval and the approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan.
6.5.3.3 Non-Indigenous Heritage
A search of the Register of the National Estate, State Register of Heritage Places, National Trust’s List of Classified Places and the Local Government’s Municipal Inventory was undertaken and did not identify any sites of European heritage significance within or in close proximity to the project area.
6.5.3.4 Federal Government Legislation
Under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), a referral to the Commonwealth is required where there is potential for impacts on a matter of National Environmental Significance. The Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project is not expected to impact on any matter of National Environmental Significance and as such was referred to the Commonwealth .
For personal use only use personal For NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 13
Figure 6.2 Tenement plan for the Spinifex Ridge Project For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 14
7 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
Access to the Spinifex Ridge Project is via the sealed Port Hedland – Marble Bar road and then via the Warrawagine gravel road. The gravel road leaves the sealed road 35 km north of Marble Bar and it is approximately 35 km into the project site. All roads are open to the public and will accommodate light vehicles to heavy articulated trucks. Both the sealed and gravel roads are traversed by rivers which may be inundated for up to 5 days in periods of extreme wet weather. Access to site during periods of inundation is gained by chartering light aircraft.
The topography of the site is dominated by gently undulating basalt hills (elevation 160 to 180 m ASL) and open granite plains with a sharp, linear, east- west Banded Iron Formation (BIF) ridge traversing the project area (elevation 300 to 320 m ASL). An ephemeral watercourse traverses the molybdenum deposit from the southwest to the northeast, which breaks through the BIF ridge at Coppin Gap and flows during periods of high rainfall, a similar, smaller, watercourse is found immediately west of the iron ore deposits transecting the BIF ridge and provides for north south access through the ridge close to the mine processing facilities. The undulating hills and plains are covered in low-lying spinifex grass with eucalyptus gums and smaller trees occupying the creeks and watercourse. The area is generally sparsely vegetated.
The climate is sub-tropical to semi-arid with a mean annual rainfall of 360 mm (280 mm at Marble Bar) which falls during a marked wet season between December and March. Much of the rainfall in the wet season is derived from tropical cyclones, several of which affect the area each year. The maximum daily rainfall recorded in Marble Bar from a cyclonic event is 304 mm. Mean temperatures range between 26°C to 41°C in January (summer), and 12 °C and 27 °C in July (winter). Exploration activities can be maintained throughout the year although the hot and wet conditions of the summer months may reduce productivity.
The crushing and associated mining infrastructure is all located within the mining license, M45/1095 and the mine village is located on the adjacent license M45/1164.
Port Hedland is a major mining community that provides various services to the mining and shipping industries of the Pilbara. The port itself is Australia’s highest tonnage export facility, with total exports through the port in 2009 being 158.4 million tonnes. Its two largest users by tonnage are BHP Billiton and Fortescue
Metals Group Limited, who export iron ore lump and fines from their various For personal use only use personal For deposits located in the Pilbara. Their respective operations are linked to the port by purpose-built iron ore railways. There are also public access facilities at the port from which bulk commodities (such as iron ore, salt and manganese) and container-based cargo (such as copper concentrates) are shipped. Additional capacity was created at the port in 2010 when the Port Hedland Port Authority
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 15
completed the Utah Point multi user facility and it currently has plans for further berths at South West Creek.
MOL has been allocated a minimum 0.8 Mtpa of iron ore shipping capacity from the commencement of operations at the Utah Point Facility until September 2015 from the Port Hedland Port Authority (PHPA).
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 16
8 Project History
Several companies have explored for molybdenum, copper and gold but, apart from MOL, only one company (Mount Goldsworthy Mining Associates) has conducted exploration specifically targeting the iron ore potential at Spinifex Ridge.
There has been no ore production from the property and previous historic resource and reserve estimates for iron ore are limited to those published by MOL in 2009 and 2010.
Previous iron ore exploration has been conducted by Mount Goldsworthy Mining Associates and this is detailed in Section 8.1. In addition, Sections 8.2 to 8.4 detail the non-iron ore work of previous explorers on the tenement that hosts the iron ore deposits.
8.1 Mount Goldsworthy Mining Associates (GMA) (1963)
GMA held Temporary Reserve 2064H and completed broad scale mapping to identify four areas of iron mineralisation. GMA described the mineralisation as being typical of replacement ore that was low to medium grade with locally well developed high iron grades. The iron was classified by GMA as mainly hematite- geothite ore with two lenses comprising massive or partly massive hematite. In addition GMA also noted the presence of surficial type iron mineralisation which was likely to be sub-grade and offered little in the way of tonnage potential.
Whilst several mineralised horizons were identified by GMA they relinquished the Temporary Reserve because they determined that the tonnage potential was limited and there was a lack of access to rail transport.
GMA did not undertake any drilling or chemical analysis on the iron formations.
8.2 Anglo American Corporation Australia (“AAA”) Ltd (1969-1973)
8.2.1 1969
After pegging several Temporary Reserves in the Marble Bar region, AAA completed broad scale regional reconnaissance style stream sediment sampling over the Yarrie Temporary Reserve (No. 4714H). This program identified the Cu anomalism at the Coppin Gap Prospect, which has been subsequently renamed Spinifex Ridge.
8.2.2 1970
For personal use only use personal For AAA drilled the first holes into the Coppin Gap Prospect located within the Yarrie Temporary Reserve (No. 4714H). In addition, AAA completed an extensive program of:
stream sediment sampling
regional geological mapping
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 17
soil sampling
ground magnetics
extensive costeaning and trenching
detailed geological mapping
three diamond holes for a total of 566.32 m. AAA was the first company to recognize that the elevated molybdenum and copper results from Spinifex Ridge may be related to a porphyry system.
8.2.3 1971
AAA completed mainly infill programs to the initial reconnaissance surveys, which included:
detailed stream sediment sampling
prospect geological mapping
infill soil sampling
further extensive costeaning and rock chip sampling (5,194 m of costeans)
detailed geological mapping of the costeans
airborne EM Survey
four diamond drill holes for 965.6 m (CGDD1, CGDD3, CGDD6 and CGDD7)
one percussion/diamond drill hole for 105.5 m (CGPDDD1)
one percussion hole for 33.5 m. 8.2.4 1972
AAA converted the Yarrie Temporary Reserve (No. 4714H) into Mineral Claims 3568 to 3573, 5496 to 5501 and 6163 to 6168 that covered the Coppin Gap Prospect. AAA summarized all of the known geology and surface geochemistry and determined that better quality drill targets were required. AAA completed several lines of an induced polarization (IP) survey (which is used to detect disseminated sulphides) over their previous drilling and extended the lines away from the main prospect. The IP survey results were encouraging and showed large chargeable anomalies away from the completed drill holes extending to the east.
8.2.5 1973
For personal use only use personal For AAA completed a 122 x 122 m dipole IP array over six profiles totalling 3,352.8 m. The results failed to generate any stronger chargeability and the 1971 airborne EM survey also failed to highlight any further significant drill targets. This led AAA to conclude that the grade was unlikely to get any higher than 0.23% Cu and 0.13% Mo intersected in hole CGDD7 and therefore it was unlikely that the deposit would be economic and the mineral claims were relinquished.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 18
8.3 ESSO Exploration and Production Australia Inc (ESSO) (1975 to 1986)
ESSO was primarily exploring for volcanic hosted massive sulphide deposits, however they recognized the porphyry copper-molybdenum potential after reviewing the exploration completed by AAA. ESSO pegged Temporary Reserve 5948H in 1975 and commenced exploration. Between 1980 and 1981 American Metal Climax Inc (AMAX) joint ventured into the prospect and completed some further drilling and detailed resource and feasibility studies.
8.3.1 1975
ESSO followed up on the AAA work by completing the following work programmes:
Drilling six diamond holes for 2,571 m (NGD001 to NGD006) on a triangular grid pattern with 250 m centres
Extensive downhole IP surveys including dipole-radial IP, radial IP and azimuth IP
290 line km of airborne EM
Reprocessed the surface IP acquired by AAA
Ground magnetics over the prospect on a 25 x 100 m grid
Petrology of surface rock samples and down hole diamond core
Geochronology which dated the last hydrothermal event to 2,978 Ma +/- 207 Ma using Rb/Sr. 8.3.2 1976
During 1976, ESSO completed two drill programs: initially, 10 diamond holes for 4,548 m (NGD007 to NGD016) followed by seven holes (NGD017 to NGD023) for a total of 3,124 m. ESSO also compiled the geology and wrote a comprehensive description of the geology, alteration, mineralization and structure of the Nuggety Gully prospect. ESSO compiled several base plans from which they could measure accurate coordinates for drillhole collars and locations of surface activities.
8.3.3 1977
ESSO continued drilling the prospect with a further 4 holes (NGD024 to NGD027) for 1,664 m and an additional 157 m was drilled as extensions to existing holes. In total, ESSO drilled 27 holes for 11,907 m. Prospect mapping also continued in
areas such as Kitty Gap and Nuggety Gully. For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 19
8.3.4 1978
ESSO determined that the molybdenum-copper prospect could not be economically mined and prepared to divest the project. They compiled all of the available data, which was then passed onto interested parties.
8.3.5 1979
No field work was undertaken by ESSO in 1979. They negotiated with the following potential investors: Carpentaria Exploration Company, Placer Austex Pty Ltd, Noranda, CRA, Asarco, Union Oil Development Corp, Anaconda and AMAX. Three of these companies completed detailed studies of the economics of the prospect.
8.3.6 1980
During 1980, AMAX undertook a re-evaluation of the Nuggety Gully resource (now called the Spinifex Ridge deposit). AMAX completed further mapping, stream sediment and rock sampling, and drilled an additional four holes (CGD028 to CGD031) for 996 m. A Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) was completed, including a geostatistical study, estimation of geological and mining reserves and production scheduling and project financials. AMAX estimated a reserve (non-JORC compliant) of 140 Mt at 0.082% Mo, 0.091% Cu using a molybdenum equivalent cut-off of 0.06% Mo, a slope angle of 45º and a waste to ore ratio of 3:1.
8.3.7 1981
In July 1981, AMAX terminated the joint venture with ESSO and produced a comprehensive final report. AMAX concluded that the project was not economic due to the amount of overburden. Although some effort was made to locate shallower higher grade ores they withdrew from the project.
8.3.8 1982-1986
ESSO resumed control of the Coppin Gap Project and continued to seek other joint venture partners. ESSO completed limited field investigations during these years, exploring for volcanic hosted massive sulphide base metals deposits and gold deposits. After failing to locate any significant mineralization, ESSO sold the project to City Resources Ltd in 1986.
8.4 City Resources Ltd (1986 to 1991)
City Resources Ltd believed the area was prospective for gold mineralization as it
was close the Bamboo Creek Shear Zone and North Pole mining centres. They For personal use only use personal For completed programmes of:
bulk stream sediment sampling
bulk soil sampling
rock chip sampling of fault systems
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 20
general geological reconnaissance of prospective areas
re-assaying of diamond drill pulps for gold. City Resources Ltd detected low-grade gold anomalism in both rock chips and soil sampling programmes. These results were disappointing and City Resources Ltd allowed the exploration licence to lapse.
Records viewed at the Geological Survey of Western Australia show that no exploration work was undertaken over the project area from the time City Resources Ltd allowed the license to lapse until Kallenia was granted the tenement in 2003.
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 21
9 Geological Setting
9.1 Regional Scale
The Spinifex Ridge Project is located within the Archean Pilbara Craton of northern Western Australia (Figure 9.1). The Pilbara Craton is divided into two tectonically distinct terranes: the older granite-greenstones which host a wide variety of precious and base metal deposits, including Spinifex Ridge and the younger Hamersley Basin which hosts the bulk of the major iron-ore deposits.
The Pilbara granite-greenstone terrane is dominated by large domal granites intruding an older succession of greenstones consisting of metamorphosed basaltic, ultramafic and felsic volcaniclastic units. These units are commonly overlain and inter-bedded with clastic sediments consisting of cherts, siltstone, sandstone and minor banded iron formations (BIF). Typically the granites, which include monzo-granite, syeno-granite, granodiorite and migmatite, have formed domes approximating anticlines whilst the greenstone belts form thin, often strongly attenuated synclines between the granites. Blake and McNaughton (1984) isotopically dated the greenstones to between 3.6 Ga and 2.8 Ga. The granites have a range of intrusion date between 3.3 Ga and 2.6 Ga.
Figure 9.1 Geological map of the Pilbara region from Van Kranendonk et al., (2001). For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 22
9.2 Local Scale - Lithology, Structure and Alteration
The Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project is located within the Nimingarra Iron Formation of the Gorge Creek Group and forms part of the Coppin Gap Greenstone Belt (“CGGB”) (Figure 9.2) (Nijman et al., 1999; Williams 1999). The CGGB is bounded by the Coppin Gap Granodiorite of the Mount Edgar Batholith to the south and the Muccan Granitoid Complex to the north.
The oldest greenstone unit present at the Spinifex Ridge Project area is the Mount Ada Basalt of the Talga Talga Subgroup which is overlain by the Duffer Formation, Apex Basalt, Panorama Formation and the Euro Basalt of the Saglash Subgroup. Both the Talga Talga and Saglash Subgroups form part of the Warrawoona Group. Disconformably overlying the Warrawoona Group is a sequence of tightly folded BIF, chert and felsic volcanic, which form part of the mid-Archean Gorge Creek Group (Nijman et al., 1999).
9.2.1 Lithology
9.2.1.1 Talga Talga Subgroup
The Mount Ada Basalt consists primarily of massive basalt or pillowed basalts with dolerite sills and minor chert. It is only found in the southwest corner of the project area, and is not spatially related to the Spinifex Ridge mineralization.
9.2.1.2 Saglash Subgroup
The Duffer Formation consists of metamorphosed felsic volcanic rocks with subordinate fine grained amphibolites. The formation is strongly altered at the contact with the Coppin Gap Granodiorite, particularly at its apex where a significant zone of mineralized quartz veins was formed.
The Apex Basalt comprises a sequence of north facing pillowed mafic and ultramafic lavas about 2 km thick. Pillowed tholeiitic basalts are fine grained or amygdaloidal, containing quartz, chalcedony or carbonate. Williams (1999) notes that all the pillowed basalts observed consistently face to the north and east. The Apex Basalt hosts two layered ultramafic intrusions beyond the project area, the chromite-bearing Nobb Well Intrusion and the large Gap Intrusion.
The Panorama Formation is a discontinuous felsic volcanic and chert unit that thins eastwards from a maximum in the project area of 800m to about 100 m in the zone east of Coppin Gap. The formation lies along the disconformable contact between the Apex Basalt and the overlying Euro Basalt.
The Euro Basalt is the uppermost unit of the Warrawoona Group and consists of For personal use only use personal For metamorphosed pillowed tholeiitic and high-Mg basalts and peridotitic komatiites. These are intercalated with thin bedded cherts, fuchsitic quartzites and minor pelitic rocks with possible felsic tuffs. The Euro Basalt disconformably overlies the Panorama Formation, or where it is absent, the Apex Basalt.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 23
9.2.1.3 Gorge Creek Group
The Gorge Creek Group represents the disconformable resumption of sedimentation on the Warrawoona Group after a period of intense granitic intrusion and deformation which occurred over a 200 to 300 million year period. The Nimingarra Iron formation has at its base a pebble to cobble conglomerate which fines up into sandstone, siltstone and shale. A more stable tectonic environment is indicated by the deposition of BIF, jaspilite, banded and ferruginous chert and black carbonaceous shale (Williams, 1999).
9.2.2 Structure
The CGGB is structurally complex. Mapping and interpretation completed by Nijman et al., (1999) reveals a complicated history of structural events recorded as disconformities and the deposition of sedimentary facies along growth structures. Early extension formed listric normal growth faults and low angle detachment shear zones.
A major re-orientation of the stress field from largely tensile to compressive deformation, culminated in the formation of thrusts along reactivated shear zones. Numerous small depositional basins were formed along the thrusts. Further north-south compression continued which may have resulted from the intrusion of the Mount Edgar Batholith forming a tight synclinorium. Further compression resulted in the faulting off of the northern limb at its contact with the Muccan Batholith. The southern limb was left relatively intact. The final deformations include the formation of a northeast sinistral fault set, followed by dextral shearing along the contact with the Muccan Batholith to the north.
The Spinifex Ridge Iron Mineral Resources are situated within the upright to slightly overturned synclinorium sandwiched between the Coppin Gap Granodiorite to the south and Muccan Granitoid Complex to the north. The BIF units dip subvertically to the north at angles between 70° and 90° and strikes broadly east-west. The lode-style, bedded hematite deposits show a dominantly easterly trend but these can be cross-cut by northwest or northeast trending faults. Mapping of surface expressions has shown folding to be tight to open with a predominant shallow (30º) westerly plunge (although other orientations have been noted). Disharmonic, probably soft-sediment slump/folding is also present. Geological interpretation of the mineralisation suggests that fold limbs may have been sheared during ongoing progressive strain and mineralisation.
The Bamboo Creek Shear Zone contains serpentine and talc-rich ultramafic rocks of the Euro Basalt. The shear zone contains mainly a talc-chlorite mylonite
schist with boudins of carbonate and silica altered komatiites. Spinifex texture For personal use only use personal For (after olivine) is common in these komatiite boudins. The Bamboo Creek Shear Zone hosts a number of gold occurrences at the Bamboo Mining Centre approximately 15 km to the east.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 24
9.2.3 Alteration and Metamorphism
Alteration within the tenement is difficult to assess as regional and contact metamorphic overprinting masks other alteration. The greenstones have been variably metamorphosed and the degree of metamorphism is directly related to the distance from the granite-greenstone contact. In general, the rocks close to the contact are contact metamorphosed to low grade amphibolite facies, whilst further from the contact the metamorphic grade decreases to greenschist facies with preserved igneous textures. The BIF typically shows little evidence of the effects of metamorphism and alteration apart from the conversion of magnetite to martite/hematite.
Figure 9.2 Geological map of the Spinifex Ridge area from Van Kranendonk et al., (2001).
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 25
10 Deposit Type
The iron mineralisation at Spinifex Ridge can be classified with the high grade iron deposits of the proximal Shay Gap-Nimingarra-Yarrie belt as described by Brandt (1966), Podmore (1990) and Waters (1998). The formation of these deposits is reliant upon an iron rich proto-ore, favourable structures enhancing fluid migration and upgrading with regional metamorphic overprinting.
The deposits are subdivided into 3 main styles:
Lode: these are the most economically valuable deposits of the three styles. The lodes described as steeply dipping lensoid hematite deposits that are generally conformable to the jaspillitic dominated stratigraphy. They are structurally controlled and are characterised by abrupt contacts with the host rocks with evidence of faulting present as very broken ground and voids. Morris (1985) proposed a model of supergene enrichment to the large tonnage Hamersley Basin iron deposits such as Newman, Tom Price and Paraburdoo that is applicable to the formation of the lode deposits on a much smaller scale. The Morris Model postulates that the ore is formed from metasomatic replacement of cherty BIF to create a martite-geothite ore. This ore is upgraded by subsequent burial metamorphism that converts the goethite component to a higher iron grade microplaty martite/hematite. The fine banding of the original proto-ore in the lodes is often preserved supporting a metasomatic model of silica leaching and replacement with hematite. Locally where the silica/iron fluids have reached a saturation point the banding is destroyed and massive hematite breccias are deposited with a matrix or finely crystalline quartz. Alteration associated with the mineralisation is preserved as a pale soft limonitic-stained rock commonly described as a “mudstone”. However this rock can grade directly into a hard jaspillitic BIF suggesting alteration associated with circulating fluids mobilising the iron into the adjacent structures. Podmore (1990) described mineralisation to depths of 320 m but in general averages between 50 to 150 m deep with widths of around 50 – 100 m.
Brandt (1966) provides the following grade ranges for lode-style ores 65-69% Fe,
0.2-4.0% SiO2, 0.4-2.5% Al2O3, 0.01-0.006% P, and 0.1-1.5% LOI (Loss of mass on Ignition). Deposits tonnages can range from 1 to 75 Mt.
Crustal: The crustal ores are of less economic value than the lode ores but are more abundant in distribution. This ore type forms flat irregular-shaped surfaces overlying sub-vertically bedded BIF. In outcrop the ore is characteristically platy or fissile breaking readily along the bedding planes. The dominate mineralogy of crustal ore is hematite and goethite which have formed from the downward
leaching of silica and the simultaneous hydration and redistribution of the iron. For personal use only use personal For The leaching process is efficient to depths of between 25 to 50 m where it grades rapidly back into the un-mineralised BIF. The surface extent of the deposits may cover several hundreds of square metres.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 26
Brandt (1966) provides the following grade ranges for crustal style ores 57-66%
Fe, 1.0-11.0% SiO2, 1.0-3.0% Al2O3, 0.02-0.5% P, and 1.0-7.0% LOI. The deposits are small but numerous ranging from 1 to 5 Mt.
Derived; The derived or detrital class of iron deposit comprises the accumulation of iron either from mechanical erosion of existing iron deposits or solution and its re-deposition some distance from the source area. Sub-classes include hematite rich conglomerates, pisolitic limonite nodules to sheets of chemically precipitated limonite.
Brandt (1966) provides the following grade ranges for derived style ores 53-58%
Fe, 5.0-11.0% SiO2, 5.0-11.0% Al2O3, 0.02-0.05% P, and 9.0-12.0% LOI. The deposits tonnages range from 1 to 5 Mt.
After examining the results from previous historical exploration, MOL targeted the rich lode-style deposits and as a consequence also encountered some crustal and derived material. Initial drilling was not angled but it adequately defined the more horizontally defined crustal mineralisation. Due to the steep dip of the lode deposits angle drilling was preferred with the majority of the holes drilled to the south. The drilling has been designed to delineate the mineralisation of the lode
material and has been drilled closely on 20 to 25 m sections. For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 27
11 Mineralization
Since 2007 five iron prospects (Figure 11.1) have been defined at Spinifex Ridge, based on the classification of Brandt (1996) lode style and crustal style have been grouped into Bedded Iron Deposits (BID). At Spinifex Ridge the term detrital mineralisation is misleading as it implies a greater transported component than is the case, at Spinifex Ridge the detrital material is described as Derived Iron Deposit (DID):
1. Auton NE (crustal) 2. Auton (detrital, crustal & lode-style deposits) 3. Dalek (lode-style) 4. Gallifrey (crustal style) 5. Torchwood (lode style) The main host lithologies are jaspillitic BIF, iron poor BIF and rare chert and shale. Alteration is not widespread, however, localised iron leaching is apparent in some outcrops to the west of Auton NE leaving a pale pink “mudstone” appearing rock.
Oxide mineralisation includes hematite and goethite/limonite. No magnetite has been encountered despite specifically targeting aeromagnetic anomalies in several diamond drill holes to depths in excess of 225 m vertical. Gangue minerals include silica and some clay with the proportion of gangue being directly related to the degree to which primary bedded silica has been removed. As such iron grades can be variable with highest variability occurring in the derived-style mineralisation.
Typically, the lode-style mineralisation is massive hematite, vuggy and porous and lacks significant coherent banding. Occasionally the hematite is crystalline forming clusters of specular hematite within the overall massive lode material. Lode-style mineralisation (e.g. at Auton and Dalek) can have a selvage of lower grade (55 – 58% Fe) material which is also characterised by higher LOI (reflecting an increase in goethite) and higher silica content. Higher silica may reflect less effective removal of primary bedded silica or the precipitation of secondary silica as open-space quartz vein infill in vughs and pore spaces.
Crustal-style mineralisation (e.g. at Auton NE and Gallifrey) generally exhibits well banded textures, is highly fissile, and lacks brecciation and re-cementation typical of the detrital-style mineralisation.
Auton comprises steep dipping lode-style mineralisation capped by a thin, flat For personal use only use personal For layer of derived-style mineralisation. The derived-style comprises cemented hematite fragments eroded from the main lode and secondary enriched limonite/goethite oxide material. It is commonly 3 m deep but towards the west of the prospect it has been drilled to 20 m depth. The contact with the lode-style is gradational and often difficult to identify especially where obscured by crustal- style enrichment. The hematite rich lode-style mineralisation at Auton has
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 28
dimensions of approximately 250 m along strike (east-west) by 25 m wide and to depths of around 150 m vertical. The potential for strike of depth extensions appears to be low. Mineralisation is interpreted to be displaced by a series of northwest trending faults that dislocate and rotate the lodes by several metres. These faults have been encountered in surface mapping and infill drilling. The mineralisation is dominated by hematite and it contains significant voids due to the leaching of primary bedded silica and redistribution of iron related to the initial mineralising event. Post-mineralisation deposition of specular hematite and further re-crystallisation of the hematite ore has occurred and is possibly related to a low grade metamorphic event. Later still, the precipitation of quartz occurs in voids close to the edges of the mineralised lode. The euhedral quartz infill is fine to medium grained and forming crystalline encrustations between brecciated hematite fragments.
The Auton NE resource exhibits features of both the crustal-style deposit in near- surface material and lode-style in the deeper, higher hematite material. The surface expression is poor but drilling has defined a block of mineralisation approximately 100 m by 100 m and to depths of approximately 40 m that remain open down plunge. Mineralisation is also generally well-bedded, hematite-rich and quite friable.
The surface extent of Gallifrey is poorly exposed but it is interpreted to be two converging tabular zones between 120 and 200 m in length and up to 20 m wide thickening to 45 m at their intersection. Drilling has defined the mineralisation to at least 80 m deep and open at depth. The mineralisation is generally well- bedded, hematite-rich and quite friable, typical of crustal enrichment.
The smallest resource is Dalek with a surface expression of around 40 x 65 m and a vertical extent of at least 100 m. Dalek is typical of the high grade, hematite-rich, lode-style deposits but differs from the elongate- lozenge shape of Auton, instead having a relatively small surface expression and elongated more in the vertical direction. Iron grades increase towards its centre with the contacts characterised by relatively high silica content due to crystalline quartz in vughs. The resource is open at depth.
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 29
Figure 11.1 Location Map of the Spinifex Ridge Iron Resources
. 12 Exploration
Exploration completed by MOL between 2007 and 2012 comprises two programs of reconnaissance mapping and rock chip sampling followed by several phases of reverse circulation (RC) and diamond drilling. The last two RC drilling programs were undertaken after the commencement of mining operations at Spinifex Ridge.
The reconnaissance field excursions were completed in July 2007 and February 2008 and involved traversing the BIF ridge and undertaking broad-scale fact mapping of lithologies and major structures in order to locate zones of iron enrichment at surface.
In conjunction with the mapping a total of 82 rock chip samples were gathered along 3 km of strike of the east-west trending BIF ridge. The rock chip samples were located on the ground using a GPS with an accuracy of 10 m and assayed
by ALS Chemex Laboratories for 20 elements (Fe, SiO2, Al2O3, S,, P, As, Ba,
CaO, Co, Cr, Cu, K2O, MgO, Mn, Na2O, Ni, Pb, TiO2, V, Zn) and LOI. .
In summary, twenty-one samples contained greater than 60% iron and another 32 contained greater than 50% iron and were successful in delineation of the Auton, Dalek and Gallifrey prospects, the subsequent targets of the drilling.
The aim of the drilling was to delineate the extents of the mineralisation identified from surface mapping and sampling, improve the understanding of geological
For personal use only use personal For controls, grade distributions and test deeper magnetic targets for potential magnetite mineralisation. The RC and diamond drilling was completed by several independent drilling contractors under the supervision of MOL staff. Drill details are described further in Section 13.
In addition, MOL purchased and re-processed available magnetic data which was successful in defining some strong magnetic anomalies. The modelling indicated
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 30
that the top of the shallowest magnetite features should be located at approximately 200 m depth. These were subsequently targeted by a small programme of deep diamond drilling although no source for the magnetic anomalies was found.
Late in 2009/ early 2010 MOL undertook two programs of downhole directional and geophysical surveying. Surtron Technologies were contracted to undertake downhole density, natural gamma and 3 element guard resistivity measurements down selected drill holes at 10 cm intervals. This program was completed in conjunction with gyroscopic directional surveying of the drill holes, also
undertaken by Surtron. For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 31
13 Drilling
As described in Section 12 all drilling for iron at Spinifex Ridge has been completed by MOL.
In total, MOL has drilled 298 drill holes for 21,382 m of which 2,402 m has been drilled using diamond coring and the remainder has been drilled using RC. Drilling commenced in May 2008 and the final drill program for this resource estimate was completed in February, 2012.
The drilling was staged as follows:
Initial reconnaissance consisting of vertical RC holes drilled to 50 m on a 100 x 50 m grid
Infill RC drilling of better zones to 20 x 20 m or 20 x 40 m using a combination of vertical and angled drill holes (note: due to topographical constraints the drill patterns, spacings and drill angles do vary) Diamond drilling of deep geophysical targets.
Drilling completed at each prospect is summarised below and in Table 13.1. Drill intersections quoted do not always represent the true width of the mineralisation as various drill intersection angles were utilised due to drill access constraints. However, the true width of mineralisation was accounted for during the 3- dimensional interpretation completed prior to estimation of resource tonnes and grade.
13.1 Auton
A total of 135 holes were drilled for 9,310.2 m including 1042.9 m of diamond core drilling (PQ, HQ and NQ diameter). The initial drill programs utilised wide- spaced drill patterns of 100 x 50 m covering an area of 400 x 300 m. The initial RC holes were drilled vertically to around 50 m or deeper if encouraging mineralisation was encountered down-hole. The drill density was subsequently increased to 25 x 40 m or 25 x 20 m, with the majority of holes drilled -60° to magnetic south with some holes angled to the north where dictated by topography. The drilling has been conducted on a UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) coordinate system grid
Significant results from Auton include
19 m @ 61.6% Fe from 3 m
55 m @ 64.3% Fe from surface For personal use only use personal For
29 m @ 58.3% Fe from surface, including 11 m at 61.2% Fe
29 m @ 64% Fe from 23 m
56 m @ 64% Fe from 1m including 32 m @ 67% Fe from 2 m
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 32
33 m @ 64% Fe from 21 m
63 m @ 60% Fe from surface including 44 m @ 62% from15 m
78 m @ 59% Fe from surface including 17 m @ 61% Fe from 6 m and 39 m @ 62% Fe from 39 m
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 33
Table 13.1 Summary of Drilling Completed at Spinifex Ridge Company Prospect Number of Holes Hole Type Metres MOL Dalek SRC211-SRC214 RC 364 SRC300-SRC301 RC 216 SRC352-SRC355 RC 441 SRD107 NQ diamond 93.6 SRD112 core 55 GTD079 PQ diamond 60 core SRC531, 506 SRC545-SRC550 HQ diamond 1,735.6 core RC Sub Total Auton SRC215-SRC242 RC 791 SRC245-SRC247 RC 308 SRCD248- RC/NQ 199.7 SRCD249 diamond tail 844 SRC250-SRC262 RC 449 SRC267-SRC273 RC 106.5 SRCD274 RC/NQ 284 SRC275-276 diamond tail 663 RC SRC332-SRC340 203 RC SRC347-SRC351 465 SRC399-SRC403 RC 966.9 RC SRD102-SRD106 856 SRC418-SRC423 RC/NQ 219 diamond tail SRC425-SRC434 206 RC SRC436 136 RC SRC439-SRC443 72.2 RC SRD108-SRD109 100 RC SRD113 70 PQ diamond SRD117 core 179.9 GTD076-GTD077 PQ diamond 347 SRC488-SRC494 core 966 SRC525-SRC530 PQ diamond 878 SRC534, core 9,310.2 SRC536-SRC541 RC/HQ diamond tail RC RC RC Sub Total Auton NE SRC243-SRC244 RC 75 SRC263-SRC266 RC 290 SRC341-SRC346 RC 498 SRC387-SRC398 RC 1152 SRC404-SRC405 RC 159 SRC414-SRC417 RC 314 SRD111 PQ diamond 42 SRD114 core 65 GTD078 PQ diamond 80 SRC495-SRC504 core 500 RC/HQ 3,175 diamond tail RC Sub Total
For personal use only use personal For Gallifrey SRC302-SRC331 RC 2066 SRC406-SRC413 RC 433 SRC424 RC 80 SRC435 RC 80 SRC437-SRC438 RC 239 SRC444 RC 204 SRC456-SRC477 RC 1108 SRD110,SRD115- PQ diamond 152
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 34
116 core 1,577 SRC508-SRC524 RC 388 SRC532- RC SRC533,SRC535 SRC542-SRC544 Sub Total 6,327 RC 591 SRC478-SRC486 Torchwood RC 244 SRC505-SRC507 Sub Total 835 Waste SRC445-SRC453 RC 454 sterilisation 250 holes TOTALS 21,836.8
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 35
13.2 Auton NE
A total of 44 holes for 2,716 m have been drilled into the Auton NE resource, including 165.3 m of diamond core. The resource is largely blind, being covered by a siliceous cap of low grade iron enrichment. It was identified by a single hole from the maiden RC program which encountered 15 m of mineralisation.. The current drill density is approximately 25 x 25 m but it has not been drilled on a regular pattern due to poor drill access related to surface topography. The drilling has been designed and implemented using the UTM grid. The drill holes dip both north and south (magnetic) at -60° and as such have intersected near true thickness as the resource body has a largely flat orientation on a north-south section with a plunge to the west at about 30°. Geological interpretation based on the drilling to date suggests that the true thickness of the resource body ranges from about 35 to 55 m.
Significant results from Auton NE include:
36 m @ 62% Fe from 14 m including 23 m @ 64% Fe from 26 m
18 m @ 58.3% Fe from surface, including 8 m at 61.4% Fe.
13.3 Gallifrey
A total of 93 holes for 6,327m have been drilled at Gallifrey, including 266.6 m of diamond core. The first drill program was designed to follow-up discrete areas of outcropping high-grade iron mineralisation where rock chip samples had yielded results in excess of 62% Fe. The western portion of the resource was initially drilled using a 40 x 40 m triangular grid with vertical holes down to a depth of at least 50 m. On the eastern side of the prospect a local grid has been established with angled holes drilled towards 135° on drill lines 30-40 m apart at approximately 20 to 30 m centres. The drilling covered an area 350 m x 160 m while mapping indicates surface mineralisation extending over an area 300 m long x 100 m wide. Geological interpretation of the drilling indicates a true thickness of the individual mineralised bands at Gallifrey of 20 m thickening to 40 m at their intersection.
Significant results from Gallifrey include:
20 m @ 64% Fe from surface
31 m @ 64% Fe from surface
17 m @ 61% Fe from 5 m For personal use only use personal For 42 m @ 60% Fe from 18 m
m @ 62% Fe from 28 m
20 m @ 61% Fe from 3 m
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 36
30 m @ 61% Fe from 3 m, including 13 m @ 63% Fe from 20 m
79 m @ 66% Fe from 1m, including 24 m @ 67% Fe from 48 m
36 m @ 63% Fe from surface, including 6 m @ 65% Fe from 27 m
33 m @ 63% Fe from surface
56 m @ 62% Fe from 1 m, including 17 m @ 66% Fe from 24 m.
13.4 Dalek
A total of 18 holes for 1,735.6 m of RC and 187.9 m of diamond drilling have been completed at Dalek. The drill spacing is irregular due to its small surface footprint and limited drill access. Geological interpretation of the drill data and surface mapping shows the Dalek deposit to be broadly cylindrical and plunging/elongated sub-vertically.
Significant results from Dalek include:
72 m @ 60.7% Fe from surface, including 42 m at 66.2% Fe
47 m @ 65.8% Fe from 18 m.
28m @ 66.4% Fe from 1m (1315 bench)
58m @ 63.3% Fe from surface (1315 bench)
95m @ 63.4% Fe from 1m (1315 bench)
Table 13.1 represents a complete summary of holes drilled for this resource estimate up to March 2012. This table also includes re-drills (i.e. where the RC drilling component was unsuccessful and a diamond tail needed to be added to ensure a complete mineralisation intersection, or where the initial RC collar failed, or where the hole collapsed and a new hole was completed in the same approximate location.
Appendix 3 contains a Compilation Map showing the location of drill holes used in this estimate.
13.5 Torchwood
The Torchwood prospect is located to the west of Gallifrey. Torchwood was defined by surface mapping which identified high grade hematite mineralisation
both parallel to and discordant to bedding. Five RC drill holes were completed at For personal use only use personal For Torchwood in the first phase of drilling at the prospect with a further three drilled in the most recent program, results indicate moderate to high grade hematite
mineralisation but with high SiO2. Physical access to Torchwood is difficult and the ability to drill test the upper 50m of the ore body is problematic and as such the ore remains in the Inferred category.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 37
Significant results from Torchwood include:
46 m @ 46.94% Fe & 32.13% SiO2 from 32 m; including 3 m @ 65.03% Fe & 5.33% SiO2
8 m @ 55.77% Fe & 18.24% SiO2.
39 m @ 52.42% Fe & 23.99% SiO2 from 30 m
24 m @ 55.87% Fe & 12.17% SiO2 from 35 m.
44m @ 57.4% Fe & 17.3% SiO2
MOL drill holes were initially sited with an accuracy of +/- 10 m using a GPS (Global Positioning System) in conjunction with survey controlled ortho-photos. Once drilled, the holes were then surveyed using a DGPS (Differential Global Positioning System) to an accuracy of +/- 10 mm.
All diamond core and representative individual metre RC chips from holes drilled by MOL are stored on site at Spinifex Ridge.
The interpretation of results is provided in Section 16. A Compilation Map showing the location of drilling is provided as Appendix 2 and down-hole drill
intersections are found in Appendix 3. For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 38
14 Sampling Method and Approach
14.1 Field Sample Preparation Procedure
The drilling completed by MOL extends over an area of 2,100 m by 330 m to an average depth of approximately 70 m and incorporates all 5 prospect areas. Recoveries in general were very good as expected using a face sampling RC drill hammer. However, due to natural cavities and voids within the Auton lode style some recoveries were reduced in specific intervals. Intersected widths and the down-hole drill intersections are tabulated in Appendix 3. These are generally not representative of the true width of mineralisation except at Auton NE where the mineralisation is horizontal.
Sample density and further statistics are discussed in Section 16. Sample practices remain largely unchanged from previous resource estimates, the only significant change has been in the use of a cone splitter as opposed to a 87.5/12.5 riffle splitter for sampling. Independent reviews of the sampling procedures employed by MOL have been carried out and are reported in previous documents. Sampling for both the RC and diamond drilling programs has been carried out in a representative and thorough manner adopting current industry best practices.
14.1.1 One Metre RC Samples
All drill cuttings are collected for each 1 m interval drilled in the form of a 35 to 45 kg bulk sample, a 3 kg sub-sample is generated through a rig-mounted riffle or cone splitter. The 3 kg sub-sample is dispatched to ALS Chemex laboratory in Karratha or Perth for further sample preparation. MOL retains all bulk samples on site for a period of up to 6 months. All sampling is completed by MOL staff.
14.1.2 One Metre Half Diamond Core Samples
After geological/geotechnical logging and photography, intervals of mineralised core are marked on the core for sampling. These intervals are then sawn in half using an electric core saw to 1 m sample lengths. These samples are sent to Karratha for further sample preparation by ALS Chemex. Unmineralised or barren BIF is not assayed. The remaining half and full core is stored permanently on site. Further quarter core samples may have been taken for polishing and presentation purposes. These locations are marked on the core trays. MOL staff
completed this sampling. For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 39
15 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security
15.1 Security and Transport
The RC and diamond core samples drilled by MOL were placed into polyweave bags, which were then sealed with cable ties. The bags were loaded on a weekly basis onto a secured truck, which transported the samples to Port Hedland and then Karratha or Perth to the ALS Chemex laboratory facilities at these two locations for further sample preparation. Samples were unloaded and stored under lock and key in a secured compound when the laboratory was unattended.
As described in detail below, ALS Chemex has completed all sample preparation and analysis for samples generated by MOL.
15.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation Procedure
15.2.1 Sample Laboratory Preparation
All samples from drilling programs completed since the last resource update were despatched to the ALS facilities in Perth using a dedicated freight service contracted to the Spinifex Ridge Mine Operation. Previously samples were shipped to the ALS facility in Karratha from where they were either prepped or forwarded to the Perth facility dependent of local workload and labour availability. At either laboratory ALS Chemex used the following procedure (Figure 15.1 and Figure 15.2):
The 1m RC samples were weighed and dried
Samples <3.0 kg were pulverised in an LM5 pulverising machine with a standard steel grinding bowl until 85% passed 75 µm
The coarse reject was retained indefinitely
One pulp was split off for analysis
A similar process was undertaken for samples >3.0 kg but the initial sample was split into two samples <3.0 kg, pulverised and then totally homogenized in the LM5 before the single pulp was split out for assay
The residues of the bulk pulp were retained until MOL was notified.
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 40
Figure 15.1 Summary of RC Sample Preparation for Samples <3 kg in weight
Figure 15.2 Summary of RC Samples Preparation for Samples >3 kg in weight
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 41
15.2.2 Diamond Half Core 1 m Sample Laboratory Preparation
The 1 m half core samples were processed in the following way:
Crush the entire half core using a Jacques jaw crusher to 75% passing 6 mm
Progressively split using a riffle splitter until a <3.0 kg sample remains
Pulverise using an LM5 to 85% passing 75 µm
Weigh out a 20 g pulp and one 200 g bulk pulp that are sent to the laboratory for analysis and storage respectively. The coarse reject and the bulk pulp are retained at the Karratha Laboratory or until MOL notifies them and is able to adequately store them.
Figure 15.3 Summary of Diamond Drill Core Sample Preparation
15.3 Analytical Procedures
15.3.1 Iron analysis
ALS Chemex Laboratories were chosen to analyse the RC and diamond core For personal use only use personal For pulps for 20 elements (Fe, SiO2, Al2O3, S, , P, As, Ba, CaO, Co, Cr, Cu, K2O,
MgO, Mn, Na2O, Ni, Pb, TiO2, V, Zn) and LOI using sample fusion followed by X- Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (fusion/XRF method ME-XRF11s) and multi- temperature LOI (method OA-GRA05t) respectively. ALS Chemex, using their Perth laboratory, has undertaken all of the analytical work as the primary laboratory.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 42
15.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control
15.4.1 Primary Laboratory Quality Assurance and Control Procedures
15.4.1.1 ALS Chemex Accreditation
ALS Chemex has attained ISO 9001:2000 registration at the Perth site where the samples were assayed for iron using fusion XRF. ISO 9001:2000 requires evidence of a quality management system covering all aspects of the organization. To ensure compliance with this system regular internal audits are undertaken by staff members specially trained in auditing techniques.
In addition, ALS Chemex is currently working towards accreditation to ISO 17025, which provides specific assessment of the laboratories’ analytical competence for specific analytical techniques. The combination of the two ISO standards provides clients with a complete assurance regarding the quality of every aspect of ALS Chemex operations.
15.4.1.2 Sample Management
Laboratory sample management commences with sample receipt and sample preparation procedures. Upon receipt of the sample, a laboratory barcode label was attached to each sample and scanned and referenced to the company sample tag. All subsequent processes used the barcode as reference. The barcode system eliminates transcription errors, as well as allowing the recording of sample metadata such as operator identification and date stamping. This recording process allows easy tracking and auditing of a sample through the laboratory system.
15.4.1.3 Screen Sizing
Sample preparation is monitored daily and all LM5 pulverisers are tested once a shift to ensure that pulverized material meets the agreed specification of 85% passing a 75 µm screen.
15.4.1.4 Blanks
ALS Chemex routinely uses barren wash material between sample preparation batches and, where necessary, between highly mineralized samples to ensure that there is no cross contamination between jobs and clients. This cleaning material is tested before use to ensure no contaminants are present and results are retained for reference. In addition, logs are maintained for all sample preparation activities. In the event that a problem is identified with a sample
preparation batch, these logs can be used to trace the sample batch preparation For personal use only use personal For and initiate appropriate action.
15.4.1.5 Quality Assurance
ALS Chemex performs a number of routine quality assurance checks during the analytical process to monitor contamination, accuracy and precision.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 43
In the XRF sample stream, samples are run in batches of 50 and the quality assurance procedures are based on these batches
Contamination is monitored by the insertion of a blank standard at the start of every sample batch
Accuracy is monitored through the use of appropriate standard reference material (SRM). Two SRM samples are inserted randomly into each sample batch
Precision is monitored by the duplication of routine samples. Two samples per batch are randomly selected and are duplicated from the pulp before being assayed at the end of the sample batch.
15.4.1.6 Quality Control
Quality control limits for the SRM, blank and duplicate samples are determined according to the analytical technique employed and are automatically flagged as being erroneous if they fall outside these limits by the laboratory information management system. Prior to their release, laboratory personnel validate all results and flagged errors are assessed and, if necessary, the sample batch is re- assayed.
15.4.1.7 Quality Assessment
All data generated from quality control samples are automatically captured and retained in a separate database used for Quality Assessment. Control charts for in-house reference materials from frequently used analytical methods are regularly generated and evaluated by senior technical staff at Quality Assurance meetings to ensure internal specifications for precision and accuracy are being met. Quality control reports are generated and despatched to MOL with the sample result file for each laboratory job. Prior to the assay results being accepted by MOL, the quality control data is again reviewed to ensure that duplicate and laboratory standards have performed according to established guidelines. Duplicate data is plotted by despatch date and recorded in the Perth office.
15.4.2 Quality Assessment of ALS Chemex QA/QC procedures by Moly Mines
MOL has commissioned AGC (formerly known as Mining Assets Pty Ltd) to undertake independent reviews of the QA/QC procedures in place and to report on the quality of the data generated.
15.4.2.1 Standards and Blanks For personal use only use personal For On a job-by-job basis MOL reviews the QC report generated by ALS which outlines the performance of internal laboratory standards and blanks. Values above and below that expected for a given standard and the blanks are examined and, if the reported values are consistently beyond the expected values, the job is
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 44
flagged. This process is secondary to the verification completed by authorized laboratory staff and to date no jobs have failed this procedure.
15.4.2.2 Duplicates
The laboratory duplicates for fusion XRF show excellent repeatability with the
statistics and plots showing similar distributions for the critical analyses Fe, SiO2,
Al2O3, S, P and LOI.
Appendices 6 contains an assessment of the laboratory duplicates associated with the RC assay batches generated from each sample dispatch used in this resource estimate.
15.4.3 Moly Mines Quality Assurance Procedures
Sampling one metre intervals using RC chips or half diamond core are methods of sampling that have been used extensively by the mining and exploration industry for many years. MOL has not adopted any other method of sampling RC or diamond that could be viewed as non-industry standard or that is markedly different to any other techniques being utilised by other iron explorers. MOL is confident that the sampling procedure is appropriate and without bias.
15.4.3.1 RC sampling – field duplicates
Duplicate field samples are collected as a means to assessing errors in the sampling process up to and including the sub-sample splitting. A total of 250 sample pairs have been collected, 193 from previous resource estimates which were reported in the previous NI 43-101 technical reports and 57 related to the additional drilling completed as part of this resource update. Data for 57 pairs (original and duplicate split) were collected with all samples being analysed by XRF. Bivariate statistics shown values for central tendency and spread have only small differences indicating the field duplicate samples and original splits have similar distributions. However, it is worth noting that these differences albeit small, are larger than seen in previous assessments. Similarly, the scatter plots also show excellent correlations hence, the current protocols for splitting of RC samples at the rig can be deemed to be appropriate.
This study has shown that the current protocols for sampling 1 m RC samples is appropriate with the results being reproducible in duplicate samples. Further information is available in Appendices 4.
15.4.4 Moly Mines Quality Control Results
15.4.4.1 Drilling Quality Control – accuracy, precision and contamination For personal use only use personal For
The Standard Reference Materials (SRM) used in the course of the current resource update differed from those used previously. Six new SRM’s were made and certified by ORE Research and Exploration Pty Ltd of Victoria, Australia from material sourced from the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Deposit, ORES401 to ORES406, certificates for these can be found in Appendix 7. These multi
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 45
element standards are composited from hematite and goethite high grade, RoM, low grade and waste material collected by MOL personnel. The feed stock was subsequently blended and homogenised into six different SRM’s by ORE. A total of 68 SRM samples were submitted to the lab for analysis and does not include SRM material already reported on in previous NI 43-101 technical reports.
In addition to the insertion of two SRM, one blank and two field duplicates have also been incorporated for each batch of 100 samples.
15.4.4.2 Blanks
The blank media utilised is an homogenous quartz sand certified reference material produced by Ore Research and Exploration Pty Ltd, Ores 22b, 0.5% Fe
oxide has been added to produce a pale grey pulp. High assay values for SiO2 are as expected and not particularly useful in assessing contamination. Assays for Fe% are also as expected reflecting the value of added Fe, which suggests low risk of systematic contamination. Assays for P and S are often below detection with the average value well below the deposit average and with little
risk attributable to contamination. Values for Al2O3 are also consistent suggesting low risk attributable to random contamination. However, the average value (0.12%) is at a level of approximately 10% of the deposit average although well below the scheduling cut-off. Nonetheless, closer assessment may be warranted.
Further information is available in Appendix 6.
15.4.4.3 SRM
A total of 68 SRM samples were submitted for analysis during the course of the most recent drilling program, however, this number is spread across the six SRM’s used. Analyses for the SRM were provided for assessment. The six SRM provide a good range of assays to test the laboratory, however, the trade-off is only a relatively few number of values for each SRM to check performance over time. Control charts are not provided in this instance with qualitative analysis only possible.
With respect to accuracy, the average assays are generally close to the certified value, with only a few instances where outliers result in the average value sitting outside the control limits. However, other more common but relatively minor instances which indicate issues of accuracy, include runs of successive assays at value higher or lower than the certified value but within control limits, for example
ORE401 – Fe, S, ORE402 – S, Al2O3, ORE403 – P, ORE405 – Fe, P, SiO2 &
ORE406 – Fe, P, Al2O3.
For personal use only use personal For Many outliers and other issues are noted which suggests precision is not up to the high standard set in previous assessments. Further information is available in Appendix 6.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 46
15.4.4.4 Independent umpire laboratory analysis
A total of 122 samples were submitted to a second independent (umpire) laboratory (SGS Australia) in order to assess relative bias with respect to the primary lab (ALS Chemex Laboratories). These samples are in addition to those in previous N43-101 technical reports for the SRIO Project.
Scatter plots and bivariate statistics are shown in Appendix 6 below show identical distributions, hence, it can be concluded that there is no significant relative bias with the primary lab. Note the smaller umpire lab dataset for S does not allow accurate assessment.
15.4.5 Concluding Statement
Examination of the drilling practices, sample recovery and sampling methods used by MOL are considered to be equal to, or better than current industry practice. There is no reason to consider the methods employed by MOL could have materially affected the reliability of the raw data used in this resource estimate.
In addition MOL has designed and implemented a rigorous program of QA/QC to ensure sampling and assaying is both accurate and precise. This program has included certified standards, field duplicates, laboratory duplicates, blanks and secondary analysis. With respect to the QA/QC data generated during this most recent resource revision:
1. Analysis of duplicate field splits shows excellent repeatability on a pair and population basis indicating the current procedures are acceptable. 2. Duplicate samples generated by the lab show excellent repeatability on a pair and population basis indicating lab procedures are acceptable. 3. Analyses returned from the umpire lab show excellent repeatability and indicate there is no relative bias at the primary lab. 4. Blanks used for checking for contamination in the lab are inconclusive. 5. Assessment of SRM data suggests some issues of precision in the analytical process. 6. Assessment of SRM data suggests on the whole, only minor accuracy issues in the analytical process.
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 47
16 Data Verification
16.1 Data Entry and Validation
MOL has implemented the acQuire Database Management System for data entry in the field. This system uses a series of pre-defined validation rules that are applied in real time to ensure that any data captured is appropriately coded and consistent with expected entries and that all required data is captured. The acQuire system is used for the capture of drilling metadata; collar coordinates, drill type, drill company as well as geological logging; down hole surveying and sample collection. Additions, updates and deletions from the data base are time and date stamped and the user name is recorded against all entries made.
On-site collar locations were surveyed in by an appropriately qualified mine surveyor employed by MOL prior to drilling and the final collar position was resurveyed on completion of drilling. Location data is recorded to an accuracy of 10mm.
In AGC’s opinion the total of verification protocols used by MOL are appropriate and there are no reasons to indicate the digital database provided to AGC is not of high quality and sufficient for use in this resource estimation.
17 Adjacent Properties
Spinifex Ridge is the only iron deposit of its type along the Coppin Gap Greenstone Belt within the Marble Bar region of the Pilbara. Tenements adjacent to the MOL properties do not contain any reported iron resources and are therefore not relevant.
18 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing
MOL has undertaken two drilling programs specifically for metallurgical testwork for a total of ten PQ3 drill holes from all four pit areas. These programs have been supervised by Noel Poetschka, an independent expert on iron ore processing. The results of the metallurgical test work were used to guide the design of the mining, scheduling and processing streams and final marketing of product. A more detailed description of the metallurgical test work undertaken can be found in the NI43-101 technical report dated July 16th 2010.
Composited core samples were processed using an industry accepted procedure to simulate the breakage occurring during the mining and processing operations to generate both lump (-31.5+6.3 mm) and fines (-6.3 mm) products. Product recovery was recorded and samples provided for assay. Unconfined
For personal use only use personal For Compressive Strength (UCS) and bulk density testwork was completed on selected core intervals prior to compositing and drop tower testwork. Where possible all metallurgical drill holes were sited to twin existing drill holes such that grade, mineralogy and ore type were known. Information from the test work completed on these holes provided preliminary information on the recovery and grade of both lump and fines products from the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 48
Initial test work was also carried out on a global composite of the lump and fines products to provide some information on their size distribution, size assay, physical and thermal properties. Subsequent testing focussed on investigating product recovery and grades from various locations and ore depths within the three deposits. Composites of the lump and fines products for each deposit were prepared for additional testwork to show any variability in their properties due to changes in ore types and mineralogical characteristics.
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 49
19 Mineral Resource Estimates
19.1 Mineral Resource
The geology and grade data used for this report has been derived from drill and assay records completed by MOL between 2007 and March 2012. The drill data has been verified using a series of validation and due diligence procedures by MOL and AGC.
The Mineral Resource estimate has been based on information compiled by Mr Clay Gordon MAusIMM & MAIG, an employee of AGC. Mr Gordon has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralization and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2004 edition of the JORC (Australasian Joint Ore Reserves Committee) Code and as a Qualified Person for purposes of National Instrument 43-101 of the Canadian Securities Administration. The Mineral Resources have been categorized in accordance with the standard as prescribed by NI 43-101.
19.1.1 Drill Data
Figure 19.1 Drill Hole Locations
The data set is derived from 298 RC and diamond holes for 21,382m m (Table 19.1 and Figure 19.1). All holes were drilled by MOL. Drilling was carried out on variable orientations which were determined by the geometry of mineralisation as mapped on surface. Drill spacing also varied but is based around 40 m by 40 m and 20 m by 25 m centres.
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 50
Table 19.1 Drill Details used in the Resource Estimate Date RC Drilling Diamond Drilling TOTAL 2009 153 9,742 9 1,366 162 11,108 2010 57 3,832 57 3,832 2010 6 480 6 480 2010 10 556 10 556 2011 Auton & Auton NE 17 847 17 847 2011 Galifrey 17 1,577 17 1,577 2011 Torchwood 3 244 3 244 2012 infill (SRC525 to 26 2,738 26 2,738 Total 298 21,382
All samples collected as part of the current resource update were prepared and assayed as per section 15.2 and 15.3, for previous estimates and in order to minimise laboratory costs and sample turnaround time MOL undertook a program of screening of pulverised sample material using a hand-held XRF machine. In this case samples were collected at 1 m intervals on site and were prepared by ALS Chemex (as per Section 15.2.1) and screened by MOL staff using an Innov- X System Alpha Series hand-held XRF Spectrometer. Samples which returned a result greater than 45% Fe or which were of geological interest were then returned to ALS for final XRF analysis. This process resulted in numerous holes for which there are no standard assays and substantial intervals in other holes for which there are no assay values.
The database extract supplied to AGC includes 17,502 samples, which includes 5,421 samples collected for the current resource update. Results from grade control drill sampling was used to tighten the ore waste boundary at the mining surface but was not used in the resource estimate. All samples were collected at 1 m intervals and submitted to ALS Chemex Laboratories for multi element fusion XRF analysis.
The geochemical and geological data was presented to AGC in the form of an Excel spreadsheet which was validated by AGC prior to importing into an Access database for use in the geological software called SURPAC™.
19.1.2 Geological Interpretation
Interpretations of major structures and mineralised envelopes were completed by MOL geologists and provided to AGC in the form of Micromine drafted cross sections and plans annotated by hand drawn interpretations of the various geological features.
Each mineralisation style is represented by multiple, distinct zones at Auton, Auton NE, Gallifrey, Dalek and Torchwood. At Auton, the BID ore body has been
For personal use only use personal For further subdivided into four zones due to displacement by three fault zones interpreted from drilling and surface mapping.
Interpretations at Gallifrey and Auton were largely refinements of the existing BID wireframes, DID material has either been mined out or no additional drilling has been completed since the previous estimate. Initial interpretations were guided by
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 51
mineralisation style (lode, crustal and detrital iron) and were based on a 50% Fe cut-off grade according to drill sample assays.
19.1.3 Drill Data Composites
Nearly all of the samples (99.1%) were collected at a length of 1 m, hence this was adopted as the composite length for assays with a minimum tolerance 0.75 m. Composite files within each of the wireframes were visually checked for completeness against the drill holes and digitised wireframes to ensure continuous un-sampled portions of holes were removed from the composite file.
19.1.4 Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics are presented below in order to compare the new 2012 subset with the pre-2012 data. However, due to the generally very low values of
the data (except for Fe and SiO2), comparing this data on a percentage basis is not ideal as even very small absolute differences are large when expressed as a percentage. Histograms are also provided as a more suitable tool to assess the data sets, which in all cases show the 2012 subset being contained with the pre-2012 maximum and minimum range and with similarly shaped curves and central tendency.
Table 19.2 Descriptive statistics: composite data Fe% Al2O3% LOI% Pre- Pre- Pre- 2012 % diff 2012 % diff 2012 % diff 2012 2012 2012 Mean 59.39 60.73 2% 1.30 0.85 -34% 3.75 1.98 -47% Median 61.30 62.12 1% 0.79 0.42 -47% 3.13 0.90 -71% Mode 62.90 68.44 9% 0.25 0.27 8% 0.46 0.32 -30% Stdev 7.54 6.82 -10% 1.60 1.23 -23% 2.91 2.08 -28% Var 56.90 46.54 -18% 2.57 1.51 -41% 8.44 4.34 -49% CV 0.13 0.11 -12% 1.24 1.44 17% 0.78 1.05 35% Skewness -2.21 -1.35 -39% 3.95 4.10 4% 0.73 1.25 72% Range 65.48 40.86 -38% 25.31 9.99 -61% 14.85 11.59 -22% Minimum 5.72 28.36 396% 0.05 0.11 120% 0.00 0.03 - Maximum 71.20 69.22 -3% 25.36 10.10 -60% 14.85 11.62 -22% Sum 209958 32367 -85% 4580 453 -90% 13197 1058 -92% Count 3535 533 -85% 3535 533 -85% 3521 533 -85%
P% S ppm SiO2% Pre- 2012 % diff Pre-2012 2012 % diff Pre-2012 2012 % diff 2012 Mean 0.13 0.20 60% 88.64 43.46 -51% 9.39 9.55 2% Median 0.10 0.06 -37% 50.00 30.00 -40% 5.35 7.06 32% Mode 0.05 0.04 -12% 20.00 10.00 -50% 1.64 22.00 1241% Stdev 0.19 0.48 158% 300.48 55.07 -82% 10.48 8.94 -15% Var 0.04 0.23 565% 90285.26 3032.17 -97% 109.75 79.94 -27%
CV 1.48 2.37 61% 3.39 1.27 -63% 1.12 0.94 -16% For personal use only use personal For Skewness 18.49 5.01 -73% 33.65 7.16 -79% 2.41 1.72 -29% Range 4.99 4.21 -16% 13340.00 820.00 -94% 80.66 54.43 -33% Minimum 0.01 0.01 72% 10.00 10.00 0% 0.31 0.37 18% Maximum 5.00 4.22 -16% 13350.00 830.00 -94% 80.97 54.80 -32% Sum 444 109 -76% 278675 23164 -92% 33178 5091 -85% Count 3493 533 -85% 3144 533 -83% 3535 533 -85%
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 52
Figure 19.2 Histograms: composite data
19.1.5 Top Cutting
Due to the relatively low values of spread and lack of extreme values, top-cutting was not considered necessary for all elements except sulphur.
19.1.6 Geostatisical Analysis
Based on the positive outcome of a recent reconciliation of the 2010 Ore Reserve to Grade Control estimates (see Appendix 10) certain parameters and inputs including variography have not been changed for this estimate. However, it is suggested to review this approach for subsequent estimate.
Variography in previous Ni43-101 technical reports was run for Fe%, Al2O3%,
LOI%, SiO2%, P% and S (ppm) using the 1 m composites with the aim of determining the directions of maximum continuity and the orthogonal direcctions to
For personal use only use personal For define the search for each variable. Directional variograms were constructed and modelled with spherical models to determine the kriging parameters.
Due to the small size of individual mineralised wireframe, data for each mineralisation style were combined and assessed collectively.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 53
Table 19.3 Summary Tables for Variography for BID and DID Major Semi-Major Minor BID Domain Direction 0° to 090° 0° to 000° -90°to 000° Nugget 0.13 Fe C1/C2 0.29/0.58 R1/R2 58.14/112.67 20.56/64.26 7.19/25.16 Nugget 0.13 C1 0.87 Al2O3 R1 46.83 42.0 15.02 Nugget 0.06 C1/C2 0.32/0.62 LOI R1/R2 33.69/113.57 32.52/51.07 15.02/60.43 Nugget 0.15 C1 0.85 SiO2 R1 125.45 46.12 22.0 Nugget 0.08 C1 0.92 P R1 121.82 66.12 31.64 Nugget 0.25 C1 0.75 S R1 71.05 44.27 31.93
Variograms can be found in the previous technical report “Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project Western Australia NI43-101 Technical Report July 2010”.
19.1.7 Block Model
The extents and attributes of the block model remain unchanged from previous resource estimates. A SURPAC™ block model was used to estimate the resource with the parent block size being based on half the closest drill spacing in the X and Y ( i.e. 10 m north-south, 20 m east-west and 5 m vertical. To improve the volume resolution these blocks were sub-celled to 5 m north-south, 2.5 m east-west and 1.25 m in the vertical.
Table 19.4 Block Model Extents Y X Z
Minimum (Origin ) 7 687 100.5 195 500.5 1 000.5
Maximum 7 688 400.5 197 800.5 1 400.5
Block Size (Sub- 10 m (5 m) 20 m (2.5 m) 5 m (1.25 m) blocks)
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 54
Table 19.5 Block Model attributes Attribute Description Attribute DeDescription nearest _distance Distance to nearest sample kv Kriging variance average_distance Average distance to samples Deposit name Auton, Auton NE, Crustal, Galifrey, Fe Estimated Fe % grade pass Interpolation pass the block was
Al2O3 Estimated Al2O3 % grade JORC_class JORC classification, waste, air LOI Estimated LOI % grade isbd In-situ bulk density
SiO2 Estimated SiO2 % grade material _type Waste, mineralised or air P Estimated P % grade number_comps Number of samples used for block S Estimated S ppm grade Mineralisation_type BID, DID
Total Sum of Fe , Al2O3, LOI, SiO2, P, S
Table 19.6 Block Model input files File Name Description File Name Description
all_BID.dtm/str 50% Fe 3DMs for BID mol_fe_may_2011.mdl Surpac block model
1 m comps for low P topo_may_2012.dtm/str Topographic surface all_comps_bid_low_p.str domains
MOL_Fe_db_April_2012. Access & Surpac 1 m comps for high P mdb/ddb Database comps9.str domain (object 9)
19.1.8 Estimation
The search parameters differed slightly from previous estimates with max distance for pass 1 and min and max number of composites being kept constant across all the elements. In the previous estimate these parameters had been determined and applied for each element during a search optimisation exercise conducted for the February 2010 model. In this estimate the parameter values previously used for Fe were used for all elements, being: max distance of 30m for pass 1 (distances for pass 2 & 3 were already standardised across all elements), a minimum of 5 composites and maximum of 10.
BID – all elements pass 1 pass 2 pass 3 min. No. comps 5 5 5 max. No. comps 10 10 10 major radius (m) 30 50 100 bearing 90° 90° 90° dip 0° W 0° W 0° W plunge 0° 0° 0° semi-major factor 1 1 1
minor factor 3 2 1 For personal use only use personal For Table 19.7 Estimation search parameters
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 55
Estimation was completed using ordinary kriging with an ellipsoid search and parameters as summarised in the table above. BID and DID wireframe objects were estimated collectively as two distinct domains (i.e. individual wireframe objects were not estimated separately). Only the composites within each domain were used to estimate the domain (i.e. hard boundaries).
Figure 19.3 Block Model grade distribution; long section, BID mineralisation
19.1.9 Density
A new figure for the in-situ bulk density of the BID ore was supplied by MOL based on the recent, independent re-assessment of the ISBD data undertaken by Coffey Mining in 2011 at the request of MOL and the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project Mining contractor, BGC Contracting. The value increased from 2.9 to 3.06 t/m3 for BID but remained unchanged for DID and waste material.
Waste BID DID
ISBD 2.5 t/m3 3.06 t/m3 2.2 t/m3
Table 19.8: ISBD The in situ bulk density values were derived from a large dataset of some 38,000 records generated from downhole surveying commissioned by MOL and undertaken by Surtron Technologies. The survey tool focuses high energy gamma radiation from a Cobalt-60 source into the formation. The gamma rays interact with the formation via Compton Scattering and are then back scattered to For personal use only use personal For the detector. Photons in the photoelectric range are filtered out by the tool prior to reaching to improve the accuracy of density readings. The photons reaching the detector are used to determine apparent bulk density. As well as density the tool measures natural gamma, bore hole diameter and medium guard resistivity.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 56
Measurements are taken every 10 cm down the drill hole. For ease of data management and to mimic assay data, density readings were composited into 1 m intervals. A total 1,100 composited readings were used to determine the density of the BID and 339 composited readings were used for the DID density measurement. In 2011 Coffey Mining Ltd undertook an independent review of the available ISBD Data which resulted in a change to the ISBD values used in the
current resource estimate. The Coffey Report can be found in Appendix 9. For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 57
19.1.10 Validation
The validation process involved:
Qualitative assessment of grade (ranges) as represented in the block model versus those of the input data (drill hole grades), and Quantitative assessment of average block model grades versus in-put grades on a global and drill cross-section basis.
Each drill section was reviewed on-screen comparing the grade ranges of blocks with the underlying drill assays and taking into account an expected amount of smoothing in the estimation process. An example is provided in Figure 19.4. The review demonstrated a reasonable amount of smoothing between drill holes while the blocks immediately adjacent to drill holes reflect a closer correlation.
Figure 19.4 Block Model Fe grade Vs drill Fe grade – cross section 196 700N
A fundamental check for any block model is to compare the total volume of estimated blocks with the wireframe volume, and the average grade of estimated blocks with the average grade of the input composite data. Table 19.9 below compares the volume of wireframes with the block model for the BID deposits and shows excellent correlation with only small differences.
Table 19. 9 Volume comparison: block model Vs wireframe 3DM vol. BM vol. Deposit (m3) (m3) % Diff. Torchwood 312,165 311,750 -0.1% Galifrey 350,044 323,547 -7.6%
For personal use only use personal For Auton 436,459 407,281 -6.7% Dalek 225,397 225,891 0.2% Auton NE 419,950 419,984 0.0% BID 1,744,015 1,688,453 -3.19%
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 58
Table 19.10 below compares the average grades from the block model and input
composites for BID mineralisation. Very small differences are seen for Fe, Al2O3
and LOI with larger differences for P, S and SiO2 although the range of values typically fall within limits of marketable or blendable material and are not considered significant.
Table 19.10 Grade Comparison: Block Model v’s Composite Data
Fe % Al2O3 % LOI % comp BM % Diff. comp BM % Diff. comp BM % Diff. Total BID 59.6 58.4 -2.0% 1.24 1.1 -11.3% 3.52 3.3 -7.1% P % S ppm SiO2 % comp BM % Diff. comp BM % Diff. comp BM % Diff. Total BID 0.14 0.119 -15.0% 75.79 67.8 -18.5% 9.41 11.5 22.5% The following figures allow grade comparisons on a local basis by presenting grade data on 50m increments along strike. The line chart shows the block model grades follow the trends of the composite data closely, tracking a marginally flatter path through the grade peaks and troughs reflecting the smoothing achieved in the
interpolation. For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 59
Figure 19.5: Block model validation: BID.
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 60
19.1.11 Classification of Results
The process of classification was guided by data density, geological confidence, estimation confidence and data quality. Despite high confidence with respect to data quality, geological interpretations and data density, confidence in the estimation (as measured by the slope of regression and differences between modelled grades and input grades) could be described as being only moderate, and was a limiting factor in the classification of the resource.
The classification remains largely unchanged, however the significantly reduced extrapolation beyond the drilling and between wide spaced drilling has removed most of the zones previously classified as Inferred Mineral Resources. As a result, all BID mineralisation at Gallifrey, Auton and Dalek is now classified as Indicated Mineral Resource with only the BID at Torchwood remaining as an Inferred Resource. The total Measured + Indicated + Inferred Resource is estimated at 5.5 million
tonnes at an average grade 58.0% Fe, 1.2% Al2O3, 3.4% LOI, 0.122% P,
67.7ppm S and 11.8% SiO2. This resource estimate does not include internal dilution, hence, consideration of additional mining induced dilution is suggested, particularly on domain/object boundaries.
Table 19.11 Mineral Resource Estimate
JORC Tonnes Fe % Al2O3 % LOI % P % S ppm SiO2 % DID Inferred ------Indicated 335,000 53.1 2.4 5.2 0.153 159.7 16.1 sub-total 335,000 53.1 2.4 5.2 0.153 159.7 16.1
BID Inferred 954,000 51.1 1.30 1.1 0.060 32.0 24.2 Indicated 4,213,000 60.0 1.1 3.8 0.133 68.5 8.7 sub-total 5,167,000 58.4 1.1 3.3 0.119 61.8 11.5
Sub Total Inferred 954,000 51.1 1.3 1.1 0.06 32.0 24.2 Indicated 4,548,000 59.5 1.2 3.9 0.134 75.2 9.2
Total 5,502,000 58.0 1.2 3.43 0.122 67.7 11.8
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 61
19.2 Key Assumptions
The following key assumptions were used to estimate the Resource:
Domains were constructed according to interpreted style of mineralisation (bedded iron and detrital iron) and using a 50% Fe drill sample assay cut-off grade
The 1 m composite length was chosen as it reflected the most common sample length and would maximise the number of data points. Hence, mining parameters were not given high consideration
Due to the relatively low values of spread and lack of extreme values for the main elements, top-cutting was not considered necessary
Variography as determined for the previous estimate has been used for this estimate.
Directional variograms are oriented to the assumed elongation of the mineralized body, striking 090° grid, dipping vertically and no plunge component
The block size of 10 m X by 20 m Y by 5 m Z was chosen to correspond to the densest part of the drilling grid and to match the assumed bench height of the proposed open pit
The boundaries between BID and DID domains were treated as “hard” and composites within each zone were only used to estimate the grade of that zone
A moderate degree of anisotropy was used to elongate the shells in the assumed strike and dip directions
The parameters used for each element were based on the results of neighbourhood analysis for Fe.
The discretisation scheme was chosen to represent 5 m spacing in all three directions. Issues considered when assessing confidence included the improved geological interpretation, outcomes of recent production reconciliation s and the results of block model validation.
20 Other Relevant Data and Information
20.1 Geotechnical Studies
Initial geotechnical studies prior to the commencement of operations were
For personal use only use personal For undertaken by George, Orr and Associates and details of these studies can be found in the NI43-101 technical report dated July 16th 2010. Subsequent to the commencement of operations 2 independent geotechnical audits have been undertaken and regular monitoring of the pit walls are completed by appropriately experienced MOL personnel.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 62
20.2 Environmental Studies
A wide range of environmental studies have been undertaken during the course of the permitting processes for both the Molybdenum Project and the Iron Ore Project.. Management of the environmental issues identified is considered straightforward, and conditions and commitments developed through the assessment process are considered standard for an operation of this scale. Further details can be found in the NI43-101 Technical Report dated 16th July 2010.
20.3 Labour
The Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project requires a work force of approximately 60 people which includes all MOL staff, mining, crushing, haulage and camp contractors.
All staff and contractors are accommodated in a new purpose-built mine village. Site rosters are 8 days on and 6 days off or as stipulated by the various contractors engaged. BGC Contracting has been engaged to provide drill, blast, load and haul services for the life of the operation and Rapid Crushing is contracted to produce a single fines product from material delivered to the RoM. Crushed product is hauled Port Hedland by Bullbuck Haulage and Transport.
20.4 Infrastructure
The water requirement for the project is estimated to be 15 L/sec during operations or 0.5 GL/A and is sourced from the De Grey borefield. One bore, DG9, is sufficient to provide the full water requirement, however a second bore has been fitted out as a standby bore. These bores pump water into a collection tank at the borefield before being pumped to site.
Power for the site will be provided by local diesel generator sets located at the camp, processing plant, mining contractor workshop, and borefield. The processing and mining contractors are each be responsible for the supply, operation and maintenance of the generators in their respective areas.
Site administration including a small office, crib room, first-aid room and ablutions are appropriately located close to operations.
Additional facilities including offices, crib room, ablutions and workshops required by mining, processing and haulage contractors have been provided by the respective contractor groups.
All roads required for the operation of the site have been constructed and are
For personal use only use personal For regularly maintained by either the haulage contractor or mining contractor.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 63
20.5 Port Access
The Port Hedland Port Authority (PHPA) is a statutory authority owned by the Western Australian Government. The PHPA has a charter to operate along commercial lines whose primary purpose is to facilitate trade through the port. The port is the key export centre for mines operating in the Pilbara with iron ore the main export commodity. It is Australia’s largest tonnage port with 150 Mt of cargo handled in the 2008/09 financial year and a forecast trade likely to exceed 300 Mt in 5 years subject to upgraded infrastructure.
In August 2009, PHPA awarded MOL stockpile and export capacity at the Utah Point ship loading facility. MOL has access to a minimum of 0.8 Mt of ship loading capacity at Utah Point until 2015 The Utah Point facility is operated by POAGS Bulk Logistics under agreement with the PHPA.
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 64
21 Interpretations and Conclusions
MOL owns the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project in the northwest of Western Australia. The iron mineralization is located entirely within granted mining leases and is located relatively close to roads, a major port and other infrastructure.
In the resource development programme MOL has undertaken several RC and diamond drill programs into the iron mineralisation and completed industry standard QA/QC programs to ensure the data is reliable and suitable for resource estimation. The drill density of the resource is adequate for the purpose and is reflected in the resource category classifications of Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource.
Iron mineralization is within an area of 2100 m by 330 m and to a vertical depth of approximately 150 m. The mineralisation has been subdivided into 5 discrete bodies which have been called Auton, Auton NE, Dalek, Gallifrey and Torchwood. Only limited drilling has been completed at Torchwood and it contains an inferred resource only. The most recent drill programs have limited the depth potential of mineralisation at Gallifrey and Auton and these ore bodies have been closed off. Moderate to low grade Fe ore has been found down a projected dip plane from Auton NE at a vertical depth of approximately 100m, the grades and strip ratios required to access this material would render it uneconomic and it has not been included in the resource and mineralisation at Auton NE has been effectively closed off. High grade massive hematite is found in the some of the deepest drill holes at Dalek, although the small size of the resource, its shape and strip ratio render this material uneconomic and the depth potential can be considered closed off.
Geological interpretation has been based upon down-hole logging and multi- element assaying combined with surface mapping. A lower grade of 50% Fe has been used to define the mineralisation boundaries. These mineralisation boundaries are typically sharp and well defined and marked by the increase in iron and the decrease in silica.
A total of 298 drill holes for approximately 21,382 m of drilling has been completed to define the Mineral Resource. The total Measured + Indicated + Inferred Resource is estimated at 5.5 million tonnes at an average grade 58.0% Fe, 1.2%
Al2O3, 3.4% LOI, 0.122% P, 67.7ppm S and 11.8% SiO2.The grades of Fe, Al2O3,
LOI, SiO2, P and S were estimated into 10 m north-south, 20 m east-west and 5 m vertical blocks with sub-cells of 5 m north-south, 2.5 m east-west and 1.25 m in the vertical by Ordinary Kriging. Uncertainty associated with this Mineral Resource estimate are identified and addressed in the following ways:
For personal use only use personal For The potential uncertainty associated with sampling method, sampling technique and sample preparation have been minimized by using appropriate sampling protocol design and implementation in accordance with current industry practice.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 65
The potential risks associated with laboratory analysis have been minimized by rigorous QA/QC programmes that has shown the assaying to be accurate, precise and “in control”.
The potential risks associated with the geological interpretation have been minimized by utilising downhole logs, multi-element assaying information and incorporating surface mapping into the geological model. Areas of uncertainly have had additional drilling to provide the information required.
The estimate has reduced risks of estimation error by adoption of Ordinary Kriging with optimal parameters to use the appropriate level of grade smoothing. The estimation methodology has produced a globally correct result as opposed to a precise local estimate.
The global risk in the grade estimate is reflected by the classification, which is based on an objective measure of the geostatistical quality of the estimate and subjective assessment of data density, geological confidence, and data quality. The intention by MOL was to update an iron Mineral Resource at its Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project taking into consideration additional drill data and depletion due to mining activity. Through various phases of drilling, geological interpretation and resource estimation this objective has been achieved.
This report has been prepared in conformity with the CIM Mineral Resource and
Mineral Reserve definitions referred to in NI 43-101. For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 66
22 Recommendations
Resource modelling has classified both indicated and inferred material in the block model, with the inferred material occurring only at the Torchwood Deposit. The current pit optimisations are based on previous Resource Estimates and much of the material classified as Indicated Resource in this update were not considered by those optimisation runs. It is recommended that MOL undertake a Reserve
recalculation to evaluate the potential for extensions to the current mine life. For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 67
23 References
Blake, T.S., and McNaughton, N.J., 1984, A geochronological framework for the Pilbara region, in Archaean and Proterozoic Basins of the Pilbara, Western Australia – Evolution and Mineralization Potential edited by J. R. Muhling, D.I Groves, and T.S. Blake: University of Western Australia, Geological Department and University Extension, Publication 9, 1–22.
Brandt, R.T., 1966, The Genesis of the Mount Goldsworthy iron ore deposits of northwest Australia, Economic Geology, 61: pp999-1009.
Morris, R. C., 1985, Genesis of iron ore in banded iron-formation by supergene- metamorphic processes – a conceptual model, in Handbook of Strata-Bound and Stratiform Ore Deposits Vol 13 (Ed: K.H. Wolf), pp73-235 (Elsevier; Amsterdam).
Nijman, W., Willigiers, B.J.A., Krikke, A., 1999, Tensile and compressive growth structures: relationships between sedimentation, deformation and granite intrusion in the Archaean Coppin Gap greenstone belt, Eastern Pilbara, Western Australia: Precambrian Research, 95, 277-302.
Podmore, D.C., 1990, Shay Gap-Sunrise Hill and Nimingarra iron ore deposits, in Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea (Ed: F. E. Hughes), pp137-140 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy; Melbourne).
Van Kranendonk, M. J., Hickman, A. H.,Williams, I. R., and Nijman, W., 2001, Archaean geology of the East Pilbara Granite–Greenstone Terrane, Western Australia — a field guide: Western Australia Geological Survey, Record 2001/9, 134p.
Waters, P.J., 1998, The Y2-3 and Y10 iron ore deposits Yarrie, in Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea (Ed: D.A., Berkman & D.H., Mackenzie), pp 371-374 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy; Melbourne).
Williams, I.R., 1999, Geology of the Muccan 1:100,000 Sheet: Western Australia
Geological Survey, 1:100,000 Geological Series Explanatory Notes. For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 68
24 Date and Signature Page
This Updated NI 43-101 Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 is dated 3 August 2012.
Ben Cairns, B.Sc., MAIG
Dated at West Perth, Australia this 3rd day of August 2012 For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 69
25 Additional Requirements for Technical Reports on Development Properties and Production Properties
25.1 Mining Operations
A decision to mine was made on the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Mine in May 2010. Total capital cost inclusive of pre-production development expenditure incurred on the mine was A$26.9 million.
Mining operations at the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Mine commenced in the second half of 2010.
Mining operations are carried out by contractor BGC Contracting Pty Ltd. Work commenced in October 2010 with the first activities associated with ore-body pre- strip, access roads and ramp development and mine infrastructure.
The mine operates at an annual production rate of 1 million tonnes of iron ore. Mining activities operate on day shift only focussed on drill and blast and ore haulage from three open pit deposits to the run of mine pad at the processing plant.
Processing operations also operate on a day shift only to produce an iron ore fines product of less than 10mm. The ore processing facilities consist of primary, secondary and tertiary crushers, screens, conveyor belts and a radial stacker which are on hire from mining services provider Rapid Crushing Pty Ltd, who also operate the plant. The equipment was installed and commissioned during November and December 2010. Ore is reclaimed from the run of mine pad by front end loaders and dumped into a feed hopper to the primary jaw crusher. The jaw crusher reduces the size of ore to a nominal 80% less than 150 mm. The primary jaw crusher product discharges onto a conveyor feeding a double-deck screen for separation. Oversized products are further crushed in secondary and tertiary cone crushers and join the primary jaw crusher product for re-screening. The bottom deck undersize (< 10 mm) Fines product is stockpile using a radial stacker.
Finished product is hauled from site using 115t road trains provided by road transport service provider Bullbucks. Haulage services operate 24 hours a day transporting the finished product approximately 200km to the Company’s stockpile and export facilities at the Utah Point multi-purpose bulk handling facility at Port Hedland.
The Resident Manager at the mine is responsible for operations on site and is an Moly Metals employee. The Resident Manager leads Moly Metal’s owner’s team that supervises mining, processing, stockpile management and overall
administration of minesite activities. The site is a “fly in fly out” site with the Moly For personal use only use personal For Metal’s owner’s team and contractors working various rosters.
BGC Contracting (BGC) provides their mining services pursuant to a 5 year mine operations contract. Moly Metals provides mining plans to BGC who are responsible for drill and blast and ore haulage in accordance with instructions from Moly Metals.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 70
Payments for mining services are made to BGC on a unit cost basis for total waste and ore mined and drill and blast costs as well as some fixed overhead costs. BGC are an unrelated company to MOL and were awarded the mining contract after a tender process. The contract terms are normal commercial terms for a contract of this kind.
Rapid Crushing (Rapid) provides plant operators responsible for the operation and maintenance of the processing facilities under the supervision of Moly Metals to ensure target shipping requirements are being met by crushing activities. Payments for crushing services are made monthly based on agreed contracted unit costs for ore tonnes crushed during the month plus a fixed cost recovery for plant. Rapid are an unrelated company to MOL and were awarded the processing contract after a tender process. The contract terms are normal commercial terms for a contract of this kind.
Finished product is stockpiled to be for loading into the haulage trucks for carriage transport to port. Bullbucks charge Moly Metals a unit cost per tonne of ore transported and discharged at port. Bullbucks are an unrelated company to MOL and were awarded the haulage contract after a tender process. The contract terms are normal commercial terms for a contract of this kind.
Moly Metals has entered into contracts for ore handling and stockpile management services with a stevedore at Utah Point and has signed an access agreement with Port Hedland Port Authority to utilize stockpile areas at Utah Point which expires in September 2015. Each contract is on arm’s length terms and conditions typical of a contract of the kind.
25.1.1 Production
Production statistics for the mine since operations commenced are shown below: Table 25.1 Production Statistics Period 12 months 6 months Total to ended ended ended date 31 Dec 31 Dec 30 June 2010 2011 2012 Ore mined ‘000 WMT 69 1,012 443 1,524 Ore crushed ‘000 WMT 64 1,070 525 1,659 Ore shipped (sold) ‘000 WMT 55 955 532 1,542 Cost per tonne of ore shipped (1) A$/T 85.0 68.0 64.5 67.4 Iron (Fe) Grade shipped 59.1% 58.5% 58.6% 58.5% Number of shipments 1 12 6 19 (1) Costs exclude freight, commissions and government royalties which are applied against gross revenue and corporate head office overhead.
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 71
The targeted finished product specification for fines produced at Spinifex Ridge is: Table 25.2 Product Specification Minimum Specification Typical Specification Fe Base Content >56.0% 59% Phosphorus <0.15% <0.14% Sulphur <0.03% <0.02% Silica <10.0% <8.5% Alumina <2.5% <2.0% Moisture 3-6% 4-6% Sizing 90% - 9.5mm 90% - 9.5mm
25.2 Marketing
MMA has entered into an offtake agreement with Hanlong Mining Investment Pty Ltd, MOL’s major shareholder, for 100% of the iron ore fines produced at Spinifex Ridge. Sales revenue earned is based upon pricing published by Platts and the Steel Index daily market publications for 58% and 62%, less agreed adjustments for impurity levels. Where the finished product delivered is inconsistent with the specifications described in Platts and the Steel Index such that the published index pricing is not the appropriate pricing mechanism, Moly Metals and Hanlong meet and agree on a substitute price by reference to the market at that time.
Table 25.3 Gross Sales Revenue Period 12 6 months Total to ended months ended date 31 Dec ended 30 June 2010 31 Dec 2012 2011 Gross sales revenue A$‘000 7,302 121,822 55,738 184,862 Sales price achieved A$/DMT 143.0 132.6 110.6 125.4
Net sales revenue is derived by deducting freight, sales commissions to Hanlong at 4% of the FOB price received for each cargo and state government royalties. Minerals within the Spinifex Ridge Project are held by the Crown. Effective 1 July 2012, the State of Western Australia levies a royalty of 6.5%, increasing to 7.5% from 1 July 2013, on iron ore fines revenues after deducting applicable shipping, sales and marketing costs.
25.3 Environmental Considerations
All environmental approvals required for the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project have been received, including;
A Mining Proposal was approved by the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) on 18th March 2010, with standard tenement conditions under the
For personal use only use personal For Mining Act (1978). All Unconditional Environmental Performance Bonds have been lodged. An amendment to the Mining Proposal has been submitted to the DMP to accommodate pit design changes in the Gallifrey Pit.
A Project Management Plan was approved by the DMP on 13th April 2010 satisfying the conditions of the Mine Safety and Inspection Act (1994).
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 72
A 5C License to Take Groundwater was received from the Department of Water (DoW) on 19th November 2008 under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act (1914) at an annual entitlement of 1,460,000 kL, sufficient for the requirements of the Iron Ore Project. Works Approvals required prior to construction of specific aspects of the project under the Environmental Protection Act (1986) were received on 8th March 2010. Licences and Registrations, required for the Crushing Plant and associated infrastructure under this legislation, are also in place.
25.4 Taxes
The main taxes relevant to MOL, and the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project, are Corporate Tax and Goods and Services Tax (GST). Other taxes such at customs duties and land taxes have limited impact at the corporate or project level.
25.4.1 Corporate Tax
Australian Corporate taxes are currently payable at the Company, not the project level. The current Federal Government has introduced a Mineral Resources Rent Tax effective 1 July 2012 to be applied to iron ore and coal projects that generate greater than A$75 million per annum (after certain deductions) applicable. At current mining levels and current iron ore prices, the tax is not expected to impact MOL in the foreseeable future.
The following assumptions have been applied when calculating the potential tax payable at the Company level:
30% corporate tax rate
Tax payable on a quarterly basis Project assets are fully depreciated over the life of mine (initially 5 years) unless the assets are specifically identified as having a shorter life under tax depreciation rates or have been identified as being immediately deductible.
In addition to the above, a number of factors will impact the actual timing of tax payable within the MOL consolidated tax group. The key items will be:
Carry forward tax losses and the ability to offset against MOL share of project profits: - As at 31 December 2011 the MOL group had in excess of A$140 million in carry forward tax losses
Other tax concessions such as R&D claims. For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 73
25.4.2 Goods and Services Tax
GST at the rate of 10% is levied by the Federal Government on purchases by individuals and companies of non-exempt goods and services. Businesses can claim back GST on most business inputs.
25.5 Royalties
Moly Metals makes pays a royalty to the Njamal Native Title group of $0.20/t of ore mined. Moly Metals also makes a royalty payment to Kallenia Mines Pty Ltd of 2 cents per tonne of ore mined. Minerals within the Spinifex Ridge Project are held by the Crown. From 1 July 2012, the State of Western Australia levies a royalty of 6.5% on iron ore fines after deducting applicable shipping, sales and marketing costs, increasing to 7.5% from 1 July 2013.
25.6 Operating and Capital Cost Estimates
25.6.1 Operating Cost
The following results show the financial performance for the mine through 30 June 2012. The results do not reflect the consolidated group corporate performance and financial results of MOL.
Table 25.4 Financial Performance Period 12 months 6 months Total to ended ended ended date 31 Dec 31 Dec 30 June 2010 2011 2012 Net sales revenue A$‘000 5,772 98,860 44,426 149,058 Total operating costs A$‘000 (5,490) (68,080) (35,968) (109,538)
Net earnings before interest and A$‘000 282 30,780 8,458 39,520 depreciation Depreciation, amortization and non- A$‘000 550 (1,950) (2,591) (3,991) cash adjustments Net profit / (loss) before tax A$‘000 832 28,830 5,265 35,529
Operating costs incurred at the mine to date are as follows:
Table 25.5 Operating Costs Period 12 months 6 months Total to ended ended ended date 31 Dec 31 Dec 30 June 2010 2011 2012 Mining/t ore mined A$/T 35.4 23.2 19.6 26.2 Processing /t ore crushed A$/T 8.6 6.9 7.1 7.0
Haulage cost/t ore hauled A$/T 21.0 21.5 21.4 21.5
Site administration/t ore mined A$/T 11.3 5.6 4.4 5.7 For personal use only use personal For Port/t ore shipped A$/T 10.4 10.3 10.6 10.4
Total cost/t ore shipped (1) A$/T 85.0 68.0 64.5 67.4
(1) Costs exclude freight, commissions and government royalties which are applied against gross revenue and corporate head office overhead.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 74
25.6.2 Capital cost
Total capital and pre-production costs for the mine was $26.9 million, consisting of the following items:
Table 25.6 Capital Cost A$’M Exploration 3.3
Pre development costs 4.8
Mining 1.4 Crushing 0.6
Water supply 3.7 Mine development 6.7 Pre-production 4.7 Air strip 1.7 26.9
25.7 Economic Analysis
Forecasts tabled in this report are derived from the Mineral Reserve detailed in the Technical Report dated 16 July 2010, updated for mining activities since the commencement of operations and economic parameters relevant as at the date of this report. As a result of the Mineral Resource estimated contained in this report, a revised Mineral Reserve estimate is being complied by MOL and will lead to a revision in the economic analysis.
The basis for the economic analysis shown below is the Traded Steel Index (TSI) spot price for 58% iron ore fines as at 30 June 2012. A 5% discount for contaminants was applied based on market experience. The analysis also reflects a 4% commission rate.
From 1 July 2012 royalties are payable to the state government of Western Australia at the rate of 6.5% of Fines revenue increasing to 7.5% from 1 July 2013. The Federal Government of Australia announced the introduction of a Mineral Resources Rent Tax (MRRT) applicable from 1 July 2012. MRRT is applicable to iron ore projects that generate profits of greater than A$75 million per annum. Given the level up to which this exemption applies, and other provisions in the proposed MRRT, the Company believes it is unlikely that any MRRT will be payable by the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project for the foreseeable future.
The average exchange rate derived from translating US$ revenue over the life of
the project at the rate provided by the forward curve at 30 June 2012 is A$0.97. For personal use only use personal For Revenue is calculated at being received in the quarter of shipment. 95% of revenue is contracted to be paid through letter of credit before the ship sales with the remaining amount, less commissions and adjustments, being settled after landing at the destination port based on final assays confirming quantity and quality.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 75
The basis for the financial model from 1 July 2012 is as follows:
Table 25.7 Basis for Financial Model
Item Unit Base Case Mining/processing rate Mt/a 1.1 Average Fe grade Fe% 58.8 Ore Tonnes Mined Mt 3.35 Mining cost A$/t 22.4 Crushing costs A$/t 8.2 Haulage costs A$/t 22.7 Port costs A$/t 9.1 Site administration & overhead A$/t 6.6 Total operating cost A$/t 69.0
Outcomes of the financial modelling are shown in the table below.
Table 25.8 Outcomes of Financial Modelling at Various Price Sensitivities Unit Commodity Spot Analyst Fines Price Forecast Flat Gross revenue US$/t 123.3 113.8 (after grade/impurity adjustment) Gross revenue A$/t 127.2 117.5 (after grade/impurity adjustment) Freight A$/t 15.5 15.5 Commissions A$/T 4.3 3.9 Royalties A$/t 8.3 7.6 Net revenue received A$/t 99.1 90.5 Net revenue A$M 379.0 346.1 Net pre-tax project cashflow A$M 130.4 97.6
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 76
The following table shows cashflow before tax per annum for each of the revenue pricing alternatives above: Table 25.9 Cashflow before tax Unit 6 Months to 2013 2014 2015 Total 31 Dec 12 Tonnes Shipped (including low Dry T 566,400 1,075,200 1,075,200 952,583 3,669,383 grade) Cashflow before tax: Commodity Analyst Price A$M 16.3 36.4 43.3 34.4 130.4 100% Spot Fines Price – Flat A$M 10.4 20.0 33.7 33.5 97.6 Notes Figures represent the calendar year cash flow before tax and includes CAPEX. For all the pricing scenarios the same discounts are assumed for impurities and general market conditions The commodity analyst pricing was provided by an independent group Spot 58% fines price is US$121.5/t as at 30 June 2012 and is taken from TSI.
25.8 Payback
Payback of capital has already occurred.
25.9 Mine Life
Remaining operating life for the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Mine based on the Mineral Reserve published in the July 20120 Technical Report and mining depletion to date and a processing rate of 1.1 million tonnes per annum is estimated to be approximately 3.3 years. This is expected to increase with the increase in Mineral Resource identified in this report.
The iron mineralisation at Spinifex Ridge occurs in discreet pods within the Banded Iron Formation and typically has some surface expression. There is expected to be limited opportunity to expand the resource further.
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 1
Appendices
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 1
Appendix 1: Certificates of Qualification For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 1
Clay Douglas Gordon Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd 36 Drew Road, Ardross, Western Australia 6153, AUSTRALIA Telephone: +61 0 427 491 680
Email:[email protected]
CERTIFICATE of Author
I, Clay Douglas Gordon , MSc, MAIG, AUSIMM do hereby certify that:
1. I am director and consulting geologist of:
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd. 36 Drew Road, Ardross, Western Australia, Australia 6153
2. I am a graduate from the New South Wales Institute of Technology, Sydney, Australia, with a Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Geology in 1987 and a graduate from Curtin University, Perth, Australia with a Master of Science degree in Mineral Economics in 2006. I have continually practiced the profession of geologist since 1987.
3. I am a member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Australian Institute of Geoscientists.
4. I have worked as a geologist for a total of 25 years since my graduation from university.
5. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 ("NI 43- 101") and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfil the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.
6. I am responsible for the preparation of section 15.4 and 19 of the technical report titled Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource NI 43-101 Technical Report and dated 31 st March 2012 (the "Technical Report") relating to the Spinifex Ridge Iron property. I visited the Spinifex Ridge Iron property most recently on 07/24/2009 for 1 day. I visited the site in 2005 related to an assessment of the molybdenum project.
7. I have had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. The nature of my prior involvement is related to previous estimates of the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project and the assessment of the routine QA/QC procedures employed by Moly Mines with
respect to the molybdenum resource on the same property. For personal use only use personal For
8. As of the date hereof, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 2
9. I am independent of the issuer applying all of the tests in section 1.5 of National Instrument 43- 101.
10. I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and have prepared the Technical Report in compliance with National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and in conformity with generally accepted Canadian mining industry practices.
11. I consent to the filing of the Technical Report with any stock exchange and other regulatory authority and any publication by them for regulatory purposes, including electronic publication in the public company files on their websites accessible by the public, of the Technical Report.
Dated this 3rd Day of August, 2012.
Clay Douglas Gordon , B.Sc., MSc, MAIG, AUSIMM
For personal use only use personal For NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 3
Benjamin James Cairns Moly Mines Limited PO Box 8215 Subiaco East, Western Australia 6008, Australia Telephone: +61 8 9429 3300 Fax:+61 8 9429 3399 Email:[email protected]
CERTIFICATE of Author
I, Benjamin James Cairns , BSc (Hons), MAIG do hereby certify that:
1. I am an employee of Moly Mines Limited:
Moly Mines Limited. PO Box 8215, Subiaco East, Western Australia, Australia 6008
2. I am a graduate from the Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology in 1997. I have continually practiced the profession of geologist since 1998.
3. I am a member of the The Australian Institute of Geoscientists.
4. I have worked as a geologist for a total of 14 years since my graduation from university.
5. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 ("NI 43-101") and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.
6. I am responsible for the preparation and authoring of this report technical report titled Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report and dated 25 June 2012 (the "Technical Report") relating to the Spinifex Ridge Iron property. I visit the Spinifex Ridge Iron property regularly in the course of my employment, most recently on the 28-29th May 2012.
7. I have had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. The nature of my prior involvement is related to the exploration and resource definition of both the Spinifex Ridge Molybdenum Project and the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project as course of my employment as Senior Geologist and Exploration
Manager with Moly Mines Limited since July 2005. For personal use only use personal For 8. As of the date hereof, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading. .
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 4
9. I am not independent of Moly Mines Limited as I am employed as Exploration Manager. .
10. I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and have prepared the Technical Report in compliance with National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and in conformity with generally accepted Canadian mining industry practices.
11. I consent to the filing of the Technical Report with any stock exchange and other regulatory authority and any publication by them for regulatory purposes, including electronic publication in the public company files on their websites accessible by the public, of the Technical Report.
Dated this 3rd Day of August, 2012.
______[Seal or Stamp of Signature of Qualified Person Qualified Person]
For personal use only use personal For
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 1
Appendix 2: Compilation Map For personal use only use personal For
Appendix 2 Compilation Map
7688500m Geology and Drill Holes
0100m
1 : 2000 Map Projection: MGA Zone 51 (GDA 94) )LOH
&RPSLOHG &RPSLOHGE\ %HQ&DLUQV 8SGDWHG &KHFNHGE\ %HQ&DLUQV 3ODQ1R 5HYLVLRQ1R $
7KLVPDSLVFRS\ULJKW RI0RO\0LQHV/WG
7688250m
7688000m
7687750m
7687500m
ROM MAP LEGEND Crusher Pads layer1 style1 Drilling Collars- Previous
Drill Collars used in Current Resource
Stream Water Body
Structures Fault Mapped Maintenance Fault Defined Workshop Crusher Fault Inferred Stockpile Access Track Contours Contours 2m Contours 10m
Tenement Boundaries
Minesite Infrastructure 7687250m Mine Earthworks and Roads
Geology Administration Building Andesite Banded Iron Formation Basalt
Basalt Shearedonly use personal For Black and White Banded Chert Chert Crustal Iron Enrichment Dolerite Felsic volcanics Grey Chert Granite Granodiorite Dyke Green Chert Grey Chert Hematite Conglomerate Laterite Lode style mineralised BIF Quartz Sandstone Shale Ultramafic
7687000m 197500m 197250m 197000m 196750m 196500m 196250m 196000m 195750m 195500m NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 1
Appendix 3: Drill Intersections For personal use only use personal For
Hole Prospect Easting Northing EOH depth Azimuth Dip From To Interval Fe SiO2 Al2O3 S P LOI Number GDA GDA (m) (m) (m) (m) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) SRC488 Auton 196690 7687744 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 1 44 43 60.37 6.91 2.45 0.0214 0.08 3.49 SRC488 Including 18 40 22 63.6 3.86 1.53 0.0154 0.09 3.15 SRC489 Auton 196690 7687730 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 0 50 50 59.36 6.13 2.92 0.0308 0.14 5.22 SRC489 Including 27 50 23 61.57 6.06 2.45 0.0150 0.1 3.02 SRC490 Auton 196690 7687718 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 0 50 50 58.5 7.22 2.5 0.0298 0.19 5.56 SRC490 Including 27 50 23 63.11 4.67 1.75 0.0129 0.12 2.87 SRC491 Auton 196684 7687737 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 0 50 50 56.95 6.59 3.83 0.0297 0.16 7.17 SRC491 Including 29 50 21 61.79 5.14 1.7 0.0181 0.13 4.28 SRC492 Auton 196684 7687724 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 0 50 50 57.73 8.86 2.57 0.0262 0.11 5.32 SRC492 Including 27 50 23 61.35 4.68 2.62 0.0210 0.14 4.35 SRC493 Auton 196677 7687744 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 0 43 43 57.34 9.45 2.29 0.0436 0.12 5.54 SRC494 Auton 196677 7687718 47 360 ‐60 Bulk 0 15 15 57.03 8.06 2.18 0.0400 0.11 7.39 SRC494 Bulk 25 47 22 61.4 8.37 0.82 0.0057 0.06 2.76 SRC495 Auton NE 196895 7687883 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 3 11 8 52.35 11.15 6.47 0.0253 0.11 5.97 SRC495 Bulk 20 50 30 62.81 4.69 1.64 0.0105 0.09 3.41 SRC496 Auton NE 196902 7687899 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 5 50 45 60.2 6.69 2.91 0.0139 0.1 3.5 SRC496 Including 22 50 28 66.25 2.69 1.05 0.0058 0.08 1.25 SRC497 Auton NE 196902 7687889 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 0 10 10 53.14 10.98 6.35 0.0354 0.07 5.51 SRC497 Bulk 16 50 34 62.71 5.4 2.2 0.0096 0.08 2.34 SRC498 Auton NE 196902 7687878 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 17 50 33 63.69 3.52 1.52 0.0068 0.1 3.5 SRC499 Auton NE 196908 7687904 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 0 50 50 60.2 6.58 2.93 0.0118 0.12 3.66 SRC499 Including 18 50 32 64.93 2.97 1.19 0.0058 0.13 2.55 SRC500 Auton NE 196909 7687892 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 5 50 45 60.47 6.06 2.65 0.0130 0.12 4.02 SRC500 Including 23 49 26 65.51 2.79 1.32 0.0057 0.1 1.87 SRC501 Auton NE 196909 7687882 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 0 50 50 61.73 4.96 2.16 0.0135 0.11 3.92 SRC501 Including 15 50 35 63.83 3.71 1.37 0.0077 0.12 3.19 SRC502 Auton NE 196908 7687871 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 15 50 35 62.79 4.71 1.08 0.0069 0.13 4 SRC503 Auton NE 196920 7687909 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 10 33 23 64.13 3.88 2.03 0.0048 0.09 2.07 SRC504 Auton NE 196920 7687888 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 8 46 38 58.72 7.21 2.52 0.0144 0.16 5.54 SRC504 Including 23 44 21 63.42 3.03 1.43 0.0057 0.18 4.28 SRC505 Torchwood 195920.51 7687740.66 60 220 ‐60 NSR SRC506 Torchwood 195922.74 7687739.84 78 195 ‐60 Bulk 32 40 8 54.51 21.35 0.14 0.0008 0.03 0.46 SRC506 Bulk 56 70 14 51.99 24.36 0.22 0.0006 0.05 0.9 SRC507 Torchwood 195939.25 7687747.05 106 180 ‐60 Bulk 37 96 59 56.64 18.19 0.28 0.0009 0.02 0.41 SRC508 Gallifrey 196435.84 7687797.75 60 135 ‐60 Bulk 32 50 18 61.51 5.73 0.51 0.0033 0.2 5.3 SRC509 Gallifrey 196426.3 7687807.85 90 135 ‐60 NSR SRC510 Gallifrey 196310 7687710 10 135 ‐60 NSR SRC511 Gallifrey 196334.27 7687729.38 106 135 ‐60 Bulk 18 85 67 59.98 9.01 0.52 0.0047 0.17 4.18 SRC512 Gallifrey 196333.77 7687706.29 94 135 ‐60 Bulk 1 86 85 59.55 9.98 0.54 0.0036 0.14 3.84 SRC512 Including 30 86 56 63.21 4.06 0.48 0.0034 0.16 4.6 SRC513 Gallifrey 196375.13 7687666.12 118 315 ‐65 Bulk 8 103 95 61.23 6.11 0.77 0.0037 0.16 5.09 SRC514 Gallifrey 196180.55 7687769.29 52 180 ‐60 NSR SRC515 Gallifrey 196186.36 7687771.14 52 115 ‐60 NSR SRC516 Gallifrey 196457.19 7687734.41 100 315 ‐60 NSR SRC517 Gallifrey 196423.49 7687701.6 160 315 ‐60 Bulk 94 102 8 54.47 19.85 0.36 0.0031 0.05 1.63 SRC518 Gallifrey 196390.16 7687706.29 70 315 ‐60 Bulk 48 70 22 61.05 9.17 0.49 0.0044 0.13 2.67 SRC518 Including 49 64 15 64.13 4.52 0.56 0.0041 0.14 2.83 SRC519 Gallifrey 196416.33 7687817.37 130 135 ‐60 Bulk 100 105 5 55.07 16 0.33 0.0010 0.26 4.31 SRC520 Gallifrey 196463.23 7687803.37 35 360 ‐90 Bulk 3 20 17 57.89 6.72 2.56 0.0091 0.24 7.04 SRC520 Including 11 17 6 62.33 4.04 0.6 0.0056 0.15 5.81 SRC521 Gallifrey 196473.05 7687788.93 70 315 ‐60 Bulk 12 24 12 60.21 6.01 0.74 0.0055 0.18 6.65 SRC522 Gallifrey 196492.65 7687705.55 28 315 ‐60 NSR SRC523 Gallifrey 196491.78 7687706.52 202 315 ‐60 Bulk 0 11 11 57.33 8.04 3.47 0.0144 0.15 5.63 SRC523 Bulk 171 175 4 53.43 22.65 0.13 0.0005 0.08 0.61 SRC524 Gallifrey 196453.47 7687666.27 200 315 ‐60 NSR SRC525 Auton 196700.010 7687815.140 174 180 ‐60 Bulk 0 8 8 53.62 14.25 1.97 0.1451 0.11 5.36 SRC525 Bulk 105 117 12 53.67 21.28 1.03 0.0069 0.03 0.66 SRC526 Auton 196740.060 7687792.940 180 180 ‐60 Bulk 7 11 4 52.12 21.88 1.47 0.0078 0.05 1.76 SRC526 Bulk 157 168 11 57.77 5.33 0.65 0.0044 0.13 10.36 SRC527 Auton 196610.760 7687769.300 150 160 ‐60 NSR SRC528 Auton 196645.730 7687784.680 150 160 ‐60 Bulk 71 108 37 59.78 7.17 2.33 0.0067 0.14 3.91 SRC529 Auton 196653.020 7687764.100 114 160 ‐60 Bulk 41 65 24 56.47 14.54 1.4 0.0044 0.08 2.47 SRC529 Including 53 64 11 60.43 6.75 1.85 0.0042 0.1 3.61 SRC530 Auton 196728.490 7687900.270 198 90 ‐60 Bulk 67 74 7 56.56 18.44 0.18 0.0036 0.01 0.22 SRC530 Bulk 119 124 5 54.34 21.89 0.1 0.0050 0.03 0.13 SRC531 Dalek 197467.260 7687669.820 142 0 ‐90 Bulk 5 18 13 53.53 14.27 1.81 0.0102 0.8 4.49 SRC531 Bulk 23 26 3 55.82 18.17 0.39 0.0047 0.09 1.17 SRC531 Bulk 69 134 65 62.4 9.92 0.23 0.0042 0.03 0.33 SRC531 Including 80 133 53 63.71 8.04 0.24 0.0042 0.03 0.3 SRC532 Gallifrey 196324.620 7687724.130 120 315 ‐60 NSR SRC533 Gallifrey 196343.690 7687740.310 108 315 ‐60 NSR SRC534 Auton 196704.190 7687901.440 205 90 ‐60 Bulk 124 133 9 53.56 22.8 0.19 0.0037 0.01 0.28 SRC534 Bulk 149 158 9 54.35 21.69 0.19 0.0021 0.02 0.26 SRC535 Gallifrey 196322.720 7687749.320 40 0 ‐90 Bulk 0 7 7 58.92 10.44 1.07 0.0034 0.14 3.81 SRC536 Auton 196859.910 7687804.310 120 180 ‐55 Bulk 32 41 9 56.42 15.46 0.8 0.0030 0.19 2.46 SRC536 Bulk 52 56 4 58.2 13.72 0.79 0.0108 0.1 1.62 SRC536 Bulk 71 81 10 54.07 21.57 0.3 0.0029 0.05 0.61 SRC537 Auton 196817.310 7687816.470 120 180 ‐60 Bulk 0 6 6 52.82 23.33 0.45 0.0022 0.01 0.48
For personal use only use personal For SRC537 Bulk 80 96 16 55.75 18.1 1.06 0.0030 0.05 0.78 SRC537 Bulk 110 115 5 59.74 9.96 2.53 0.0086 0.05 1.38 SRC538 Auton 196784.830 7687816.300 120 180 ‐60 NSR SRC539 Auton 196699.640 7687694.780 132 360 ‐60 Bulk 2 8 6 53.26 22.75 0.5 0.0028 0.02 0.47 SRC539 Bulk 47 54 7 59.55 9.64 0.64 0.0096 0.1 2.5 SRC540 Auton 196660.990 7687750.760 91 160 ‐60 Bulk 23 45 22 60.42 11.3 0.29 0.0030 0.07 1.74 SRC541 Auton 196759.430 7687694.440 90 360 ‐60 Bulk 9 18 9 52.37 21.1 2.44 0.0074 0.01 1.39 SRC542 Gallifrey 196298.390 7687752.230 40 0 ‐90 Bulk 0 27 27 61.47 6.35 1.2 0.0054 0.15 3.94 SRC543 Gallifrey 196323.250 7687759.290 40 0 ‐90 Bulk 0 39 39 63.47 3.35 1.02 0.0039 0.18 4.28 SRC544 Gallifrey 196349.630 7687763.270 40 0 ‐90 Bulk 0 11 11 61.3 4.55 2.02 0.0045 0.14 5.31 SRC545 Dalek 197498.430 7687650.760 36 180 ‐60 Bulk 0 22 22 65.7 2.88 0.67 0.0121 0.11 1.99 Hole Prospect Easting Northing EOH depth Azimuth Dip From To Interval Fe SiO2 Al2O3 S P LOI Number GDA GDA (m) (m) (m) (m) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) SRC545 Bulk 27 36 9 63.16 7.68 0.48 0.0058 0.07 1.23 SRC546 Dalek 197501.850 7687661.110 50 360 ‐60 Bulk 28 31 3 52.56 24.13 0.21 0.0103 0.04 0.29 SRC547 Dalek 197468.400 7687641.810 40 180 ‐60 Bulk 1 30 29 65.88 4.53 0.53 0.0040 0.04 0.47 SRC548 Dalek 197468.660 7687660.900 80 180 ‐60 Bulk 0 57 57 63.62 6.05 0.67 0.0018 0.43 1.16 SRC548 Including 19 56 37 67.92 2.13 0.24 0.0010 0.04 0.27 SRC549 Dalek 197471.500 7687655.380 60 360 ‐60 Bulk 1 30 29 56.62 15.58 0.45 0.0014 0.52 1.66 SRC549 Including 8 17 9 63.72 6.17 0.48 0.0013 0.2 1.59 SRC549 Bulk 50 57 7 52.61 20.38 1.07 0.0167 0.22 2.39 SRC550 Dalek 197476.110 7687649.980 98 360 ‐60 Bulk 1 73 72 64.87 5.54 0.34 0.0022 0.23 0.68 SRC550 Including 12 68 56 66.91 3.52 0.23 0.0020 0.05 0.31 SRC550 Bulk 76 96 20 60.19 11.15 0.73 0.0063 0.2 1.33 Notes: 1. Co-ordinate Datum is GDA94 Zone 51 2. Samples assayed using lithium metaborate fusion and XRF at ALSChemex in Perth 3. Intervals allow 2m internal dilution
5. SRC, SRCD & SRD prefixes denote RC, RC with diamond tail and diamond drill holes respectively For personal use only use personal For NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 1
Appendix 4: QA/QC Report MAT - 2009 For personal use only use personal For
SPINIFEX RIDGE IRON ORE PROJECT MARBLE BAR, WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
QAQC Report Relating to resource definition drilling conducted May 2008 to March 2009
Report Prepared for Moly Mines Limited
Report Prepared by
111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153
Author
Mr Clay Gordon MSc, BSc, MAusIMM, MAIG
For personal use only use personal For Director, Mining Assets Pty Ltd
30th June 2009
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report covers the quality control data available at the time of June 2009 resource estimate. It is based on the assessment of data collected by MOL and the various analytical laboratories and includes field duplicate, lab duplicates, blanks and standard reference material. Conclusions of the assessment include: • Analysis of field duplicate data indicates sampling and sub-sampling process are appropriate. • It is suggested that an alternate analytical process with a higher precision limit would be appropriate for sulphur. • Blank samples have values similar to those of the deposit, indicating the material is less than idea and an alternative should be investigated for future drilling. However, the values for Fe are consistently low and indicate the risk associated with smearing is low. • Data from umpire labs shows excellent repeatability indicating there is no significant relative bias at the primary lab.
• With the exception of sulphur, analysis of lab duplicate samples indicates appropriate precision. • Analysis of standard reference material indicates acceptable accuracy, however, precision is less than ideal for some elements. • Sieve analysis data shows that on average 91.8% of material passes 75 micron particle.
For personal use only use personal For
Page 2 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 1. RESOURCE DATABASE SUMMARY ...... 5 2. QAQC SUMMARY ...... 5 3. FIELD DUPLICATES ...... 6 4. BLANKS ...... 9 5. UMPIRE LABORATORY ...... 10 6. LABORATORY DULPICATES ...... 13 7. COMPANY STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL ...... 16 7.1 GIOP-16 ...... 16 7.2 GIOP - 24 ...... 19 8. SIEVE ANALYSIS ...... 21 9. CONCLUSIONS ...... 22
List of Figures Figure 1: Drill hole location plan...... 5 Figure 2: Scatter plots: original v’s field duplicate...... 8 Figure 3: Histograms: original v’s field duplicate...... 9 Figure 4: Histograms: blank samples ...... 10 Figure 5: Scatter plots: original v’s umpire lab...... 12 Figure 6: Histograms: primary lab v’s umpire lab...... 13 Figure 7: Scatter plots: lab original v’s lab duplicate...... 15 Figure 8: Histograms: lab original v’s lab duplicate...... 16 Figure 9: Line plots: standard reference material, GIOP - 16 ...... 18 Figure 10: R Chart: SRM GIOP- 16...... 18 Figure 11: X-bar Chart: SRM GIOP- 16...... 19 Figure 12: Line plots: standard reference material GIOP- 24...... 20 Figure 13: R Chart: SRM GIOP- 24...... 20 Figure 14: X-bar Chart: SRM GIOP- 24...... 21
For personal use only use personal For
Page 3 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
List of Tables Table 1: Drill details...... 5 Table 2: Project data ...... 6 Table 3: QC data types ...... 6 Table 4: Bivariate statistics: original v’s field duplicate...... 7 Table 5: Univariate statistics: blank samples ...... 10 Table 6: Bivariate statistics: original v’s umpire lab...... 11 Table 7: Bivariate statistics: lab original v’s lab duplicate...... 14
For personal use only use personal For
Page 4 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
1. RESOURCE DATABASE SUMMARY The project drill database (supplied as 20090504_Fe_Drill_Resource.xls, dated 5th May 2009) comprises data from 162 RC and diamond holes (11,011metres). All holes were drilled by MOL. Drilling was carried out on variable orientations which were determined by the geometry and orientation of mineralisation as mapped on surface. Drill spacing also varied but is based around 40 metres by 40 metres and 20 metres by 25 centers. A total of 10,547 samples were collected at 1m intervals and submitted to ALSCHEMEX Laboratories for multi element XRF analysis.
Auton NE Galfrey
Dalek
Auton
Figure 1: Drill hole location plan.
RC Drilling RC Pre-collars Diamond Tails TOTAL
No. Holes Drill Metres No. Holes Drill Metres No. Holes Drill Metres No. Holes Drill Metres
155 9,831 7 488 7 692.3 162 11,011
Table 1: Drill details.
2. QAQC SUMMARY The quality control data assessed was supplied in file 20090513_Extract_Fe_QC_vers_2.xls on 11th June 2009. The measures employed by the Company include the submission of field duplicates, field blanks, external lab checks and standard reference material. These were
For personal use only use personal For supplemented by the laboratories usual internal checks (standards, duplicates, weights and % passing).
Page 5 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
The analysis and verification involved various statistical and charting techniques which are described below.
Sample
Hole Composite Total Drill Sample Analytical
Numbers Length Metres Type Date Lab Method
SRC211-234, 234A, 235- 244, 244A, 245-247, 250- Mulit- 252, 252A, 253, 253A, 254, June 2008 ALSCHE 1m 9,645m RC chip element 254A, 255-273, 275-276, to April 2009 MEX XRF 300-336, 336A, 337-338, 338A, 340-355, 387-413 580.3m RC pre-collar, RC chips 785.9m June 2008 Mulit- SRCD248, 249, 274 Generally and half LSCHE NQ2 to April 2009 element SRD102-107 1m diamond MEX diamond XRF core (total 1,366.2m)
Table 2: Project data
Duplicate field samples 163 Standard reference material 148 Blanks 80 Sample weights 7,495 Lab splits nil Sieve analysis 198 Lab duplicates 275 Other nil Repeat analysis nil
Table 3: QC data types
3. FIELD DUPLICATES Duplicate field samples are collected as a means to assess error in the sampling process up to and including the sub-sample splitting. Data for 163 pairs (original and duplicate split) were provided with all samples being analysed by XRF. Bivariate statistics for the important analytes are provided in the table below. Bivariate statistics show the distributions of the two data sets to be very similar. With respect to measures of central tendency, the paired data have virtually identical means and medians, however, some large differences are seen with the mode. Similarly, the main measures of spread (standard deviation, variance and coefficient of variation) are also identical, except for sulphur which is exhibiting some differences at the third decimal place.
Scatter plots show pairs tend to plot in a tight cloud around the 45º reference line, although For personal use only use personal For outliers do exist and reflect some lapses in precision. Regardless, all have very high correlation coefficients, with the exception sulphur, whose trend-line (and correlation coefficient) is strongly influenced by a small number of outliers.
Page 6 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
Histograms show the paired data have identical curves with respect to shape and magnitude.
F e % Al 2 O 3 % LOI % Orig Dup Difference Orig D up Difference Orig Dup Difference
Mean 46.2 46.2 0% 1.7 1.7 -2% 3.4 3.3 -2% Median 49.2 48.8 -1% 0.6 0.6 -2% 2.5 2.6 4% Mode 30.3 63.7 52% 0.2 0.2 -12% 0.2 1.0 81% Standard Deviation 15.3 15.3 0% 2.8 2.8 0% 3.2 3.1 -1% Sample Variance 233.8 234.1 0% 7.9 8.0 0% 10.0 9.8 -2% CV 0.3 0.3 0% 1.7 1.7 2% 0.9 0.9 1% Skewness -0.5 -0.5 0% 3.8 4.0 4% 0.8 0.8 3% R ange 65.1 64.5 -1% 21.2 21.7 2% 12.0 11.8 -2% Minimum 4.1 4.2 0% 0.0 0.0 0% -0.2 -0.1 -200% Max imum 69.2 68.7 -1% 21.2 21.7 2% 11.8 11.8 0% Sum 7533.6 7533.9 0% 276.5 270.7 -2% 550.0 538.3 -2% C ount 163 163 163 163 163 163
SiO 2 % P % S % Orig Dup Difference Orig D up Difference Orig Dup Difference
Mean 28.0 28.2 0% 0.085 0.085 0% 0.011 0.010 -11% Median 21.5 22.6 5% 0.054 0.057 5% 0.005 0.005 0% Mode 70.0 70.0 0% 0.025 0.034 26% 0.002 0.002 0% Standard Deviation 22.2 22.2 0% 0.085 0.085 1% 0.017 0.014 -24% Sample Variance 491.4 494.7 1% 0.007 0.007 1% 0.000 0.000 -55% CV 0.8 0.8 0% 1.0 1.0 0% 1.6 1.4 -12% Skewness 0.3 0.3 -5% 2.381 2.376 0% 4.139 3.609 -15% R ange 71.5 69.9 -2% 0.565 0.570 1% 0.132 0.103 -28% Minimum 0.3 0.8 60% 0.005 0.004 -25% 0.001 0.001 0% Max imum 71.8 70.7 -2% 0.570 0.574 1% 0.133 0.104 -28% Sum 4569.6 4589.3 0% 13.752 13.799 0% 1.519 1.420 -7% C ount 163 163 162 162 140 145
Table 4: Bivariate statistics: original v’s field duplicate. For personal use only use personal For
Page 7 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
80 30 Fe % Al2O3 % 25 60 20
40 15
10 Field Duplicate % Field Duplicate % 20 5 y = 0.9927x + 0.3388 y = 0.9865x - 0.0127 R² = 0.9844 R² = 0.9692 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Original % Original % 16 80 LOI % SiO2 %
12 60
8 40 Field Duplicate % Field Duplicate % 4 20 y = 0.9925x + 0.3321 y = 0.9526x + 0.088 R² = 0.9784 R² = 0.929 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 0 4 8 12 16 Original % Original % 0.6 0.140 P % S % 0.5 0.120
0.100 0.4 0.080 0.3 0.060 0.2 Field Duplicate % Field Duplicate % 0.040
0.1 0.020 y = 1.0036x - 1E-05 y = 0.6047x + 0.0035 R² = 0.997 R² = 0.5536 0 0.000 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 Original % Original %
Figure 2: Scatter plots: original v’s field duplicate. For personal use only use personal For
Page 8 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
18% 50% Histogram - Fe Histogram - Al2O3 16% 45% 14% 40% 35% 12% 30% 10% Orig 25% 8% 20% Frequency Dup Frequency Orig 6% 15% Dup 4% 10% 2% 5% 0% 0% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 More Bin Bin 35% Histogram - LOI 20% Histogram - SiO 18% 2 30% 16% 25% 14%
20% 12% 10% 15% 8% Orig Frequency Orig Frequency 6% Dup 10% Dup 4% 5% 2% 0% 0% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Bin Bin More 60% Histogram - P 50% Histogram - S 45% 50% 40% 35% 40% 30% 30% 25% 20% Frequency Orig Frequency Orig 20% 15% Dup Dup 10% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Bin Bin
Figure 3: Histograms: original v’s field duplicate.
In summary, the analysis shows excellent repeatability for the main analytes indicating the sampling and sub-sampling process is appropriate. However, to increase confidence with respect to sulphur, it is suggested that an alternate analytical process with a higher precision limit be considered.
4. BLANKS Univariate statistics for the blank data shows all analytes have ranges similar to those of the deposit, indicating the blank material is less than ideal for this purpose and an alternate sample medium should be investigated for future drilling. However, for Fe, the principal analyte of
interest, the values are consistently low and indicate the risk associated with smearing is low. For personal use only use personal For
Page 9 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
Fe % Al 2 O 3 % LOI % SiO 2 % P % S %
Mean 1.35 4.00 2.15 69.98 0.008 0.010 Median 0.77 3.77 0.71 70.00 0.009 0.003 Mode 0.55 0.11 -0.03 70.00 0.001 0.002 Standard Deviation 1.26 4.16 3.00 0.27 0.007 0.012 Sample Variance 1.60 17.34 8.99 0.07 0.000 0.000 CV 0.93 1.04 1.40 0.00 0.904 1.243 Skewness 2.07 0.49 1.14 -7.59 0.173 1.213 Range 6.76 10.46 8.40 3.00 0.024 0.043 Minimum 0.06 -0.01 -0.42 67.70 -0.001 0.001 Maximum 6.82 10.45 7.98 70.70 0.023 0.044 Sum 108.31 320.23 171.89 5598.40 0.632 0.706 Count 80 80 80 80 80 72
Table 5: Univariate statistics: blank samples
60% Histogram - Fe blank 50%
40%
30%
Frequency 20%
10%
0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fe %
Figure 4: Histograms: blank samples
5. UMPIRE LABORATORY A total of 305 samples were submitted to a second independent (umpire) lab in order to assess relative bias with respect to the primary lab (ALSCHEMEX Laboratories). Bivariate statistics for the important analytes are provided in the table below. With the exception of sulphur, the bivariate statistics show the distributions of the two data sets to be very similar. With respect to measures of central tendency, the paired data have virtually identical means and medians with differences generally in the order of only 1%. Similarly, the differences between the main measures of spread (standard deviation, variance
For personal use only use personal For and coefficient of variation) are also within a few percent. Sulphur is again showing some large percentage differences reflecting some error (in percentage terms) at these low grades.
Page 10 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
Fe % Al 2 O 3 % LOI % Orig Dup Difference Orig Dup Difference Orig Dup Difference
Mean 47.5 47.6 0% 1.9 1.9 0% 3.6 3.6 0% Median 50.6 50.9 1% 0.7 0.7 -1% 2.9 2.9 0% Mode 26.9 63.5 58% 0.1 0.1 0% 0.2 0.0 2200% Standard Deviation 14.9 14.9 0% 3.0 3.0 0% 3.2 3.1 0% Sample Variance 220.6 221.5 0% 8.7 8.8 1% 10.0 9.9 -1% CV 0.3 0.3 0% 1.5 1.5 0% 0.9 0.9 0% Skewness -0.6 -0.6 2% 2.7 2.7 0% 0.7 0.7 0% Range 65.1 64.9 0% 16.3 16.3 0% 12.1 11.7 -3% Minimum 3.3 3.3 -1% 0.0 0.1 20% -0.2 0.0 -2200% Maximum 68.4 68.2 0% 16.4 16.3 0% 11.9 11.7 -1% Sum 14477.1 14513.8 0% 586.3 585.1 0% 1106.8 1103.2 0% Count 305 305 305 305 305 305
SiO 2 % P % S % Orig Dup Difference Orig Dup Difference Orig Dup Difference
Mean 25.6 25.8 1% 0.091 0.091 1% 0.013 0.019 29% Median 18.4 18.5 1% 0.062 0.064 3% 0.005 0.009 44% Mode 70.0 2.5 -2746% 0.024 0.022 -10% 0.002 0.006 67% Standard Deviation 21.3 21.8 3% 0.093 0.092 -1% 0.033 0.047 30% Sample Variance 453.5 477.4 5% 0.009 0.008 -2% 0.001 0.002 51% CV 0.8 0.8 2% 1.0 1.0 -2% 2.5 2.5 0% Skewness 0.6 0.7 16% 4.299 4.236 -2% 11.083 9.956 -11% Range 70.4 90.1 22% 1.016 0.995 -2% 0.486 0.536 9% Minimum 0.8 0.8 6% -0.001 0.005 120% 0.001 0.005 80% Maximum 71.1 90.9 22% 1.015 1.000 -2% 0.487 0.541 10% Sum 7795.5 7860.7 1% 27.706 27.906 1% 3.640 2.637 -38% Count 305 305 305 305 274 140
Table 6: Bivariate statistics: original v’s umpire lab. For personal use only use personal For
Page 11 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
80 20 Fe % Al2O3 %
60 15
40 10 Umpire Lab % Umpire Lab %
20 5
y = 0.9886x + 0.8035 y = 1.0022x - 0.0081 R² = 0.9801 R² = 0.9992 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 0 5 10 15 20 Primary Lab % Primary Lab % 16 100 LOI % SiO2 % 80 12
60
8 40 Umpire Lab % Umpire Lab %
4 20 y = 0.9887x + 0.0294 y = 1.0218x - 0.3446 R² = 0.9862 R² = 0.9919 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 4 8 12 16 Primary Lab % Primary Lab % 0.6 0.600 P % S % 0.5 0.500
0.4 0.400
0.3 0.300
Umpire Lab % 0.2 Umpire Lab % 0.200
0.1 0.100 y = 0.9625x + 0.0046 y = 1.086x + 0.0016 R² = 0.9486 R² = 0.9948 0 0.000 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 Primary Lab % Primary Lab %
Figure 5: Scatter plots: original v’s umpire lab.
Scatter plots show the points plot in a tight cloud around the 45º reference line. The points for
SiO2 reflect an upper detection limit (of 70%) for the analytical technique used by the primary lab. All pairs have very high correlation coefficients. Histograms show the paired data has identical curves with respect to shape and magnitude, although the umpire data set for S is considerably smaller and does not appear to represent the full distribution (at lower grade ranges). In summary, the analysis shows excellent repeatability indicating there is no significant relative bias at the primary lab.
For personal use only use personal For
Page 12 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
20% 45% Histogram - Fe Histogram - Al2O3 18% 40% 16% 35% 14% 30% 12% Primary Lab 25% 10% Umpire LAb 20% 8% Frequency Frequency Primary Lab 15% 6% Umpire Lab 4% 10% 2% 5% 0% 0% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 More Bin % Bin %
35% 25% Histogram - LOI Histogram - SiO2 30% 20% 25% 15% 20%
15% 10% Primary Lab Frequency
Frequency Primary Lab Umpire Lab 10% Umpire Lab 5% 5%
0% 0% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Bin % Bin % More
45% Histogram - P 50% Histogram - S 40% 45% 40% 35% 35% 30% 30% 25% 25% 20% 20% Primary Lab Frequency Primary Lab Frequency 15% 15% Umpire Lab Umpire Lab 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Bin % Bin %
Figure 6: Histograms: primary lab v’s umpire lab.
6. LABORATORY DULPICATES A total of 342 samples were duplicated as part of the Labs internal quality control checks. Bivariate statistics for the important analytes are provided in the table below. Bivariate statistics show the distributions of the two data sets to be very similar. With respect to measures of central tendency, the paired data have virtually identical means and medians with maximum relative differences of only 3%. Sulphur is again the exception with a difference of 13% between the means and again reflects the precision issue at these low grades. Similarly, the main measures of spread (standard deviation, variance and coefficient of variation) are generally identical, with the exception of sulphur and LOI.
For personal use only use personal For Scatter plots are presented in figure 6. For each analyte the points plot in a tight cloud around the 45º reference line. The plot of LOI pairs shows an extreme (negative) outlier which has a large effect on the statistics and correlation coefficients. Removing this point increases the coefficient back in to the 90s.
Page 13 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
Histograms are presented below. All charts show that the paired data has identical curves with respect to shape and magnitude. In summary, with the exception of sulphur, the analysis shows excellent repeatability for the main analytes indicating appropriate precision in the labs analytical process.
Fe % Al 2 O 3 % LOI % Orig Dup Difference Orig Dup Difference Orig Dup Difference
Mean 43.2 43.2 0% 2.1 2.1 0% 3.8 3.7 -3% Median 43.3 43.2 0% 0.6 0.6 -2% 2.9 2.9 2% Mode 29.0 64.3 55% 0.1 0.2 64% 0.3 0.2 -37% Standard Deviation 17.0 17.0 0% 4.4 4.4 0% 3.3 4.6 28% Sample Variance 290.6 290.0 0% 19.0 19.0 0% 10.8 20.7 48% CV 0.4 0.4 0% 2.0 2.0 0% 0.9 1.2 30% Skewness -0.4 -0.4 1% 4.0 4.0 0% 0.8 -5.6 115% Range 68.2 68.2 0% 28.9 29.0 0% 13.3 66.7 80% Minimum 0.7 0.7 7% 0.0 0.0 0% -0.4 -54.0 99% Maximum 68.9 68.9 0% 28.9 29.0 0% 12.9 12.7 -2% Sum 11872.9 11873.5 0% 590.5 590.2 0% 1308.6 1269.1 -3% Count 275 275 275 275 342 342
SiO 2 % P % S % Orig Dup Difference Orig Dup Difference Orig Dup Difference
Mean 31.9 31.8 0% 0.078 0.078 1% 0.012 0.014 13% Median 33.8 33.9 0% 0.051 0.051 -1% 0.004 0.004 0% Mode 70.0 70.0 0% 0.016 0.016 0% 0.002 0.002 0% Standard Deviation 23.2 23.2 0% 0.079 0.079 0% 0.045 0.048 6% Sample Variance 536.8 536.3 0% 0.006 0.006 0% 0.002 0.002 11% CV 0.7 0.7 0% 1.0 1.0 -1% 3.7 3.4 -8% Skewness 0.1 0.1 1% 2.650 2.628 -1% 12.371 10.299 -20% Range 70.2 69.5 -1% 0.565 0.567 0% 0.645 0.632 -2% Minimum 0.5 0.5 4% 0.005 0.005 0% 0.001 0.001 0% Maximum 70.7 70.0 -1% 0.570 0.572 0% 0.646 0.633 -2% Sum 8760.7 8754.2 0% 21.159 21.282 1% 2.877 3.303 13% Count 275 275 272 272 236 236
Table 7: Bivariate statistics: lab original v’s lab duplicate. For personal use only use personal For
Page 14 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
80 20 Fe % Al2O3 %
60 15
40 10 Lab Dup Lab Dup % Lab Dup %
20 5 y = 1.0009x - 0.003 y = 0.9987x + 0.0568 R² = 0.9999 R² = 0.9994 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 0 5 10 15 20 Lab Orig % Lab Orig % 20 100 LOI % SiO2 % 80 0 0 4 8 12 16 60
-20
Lab Dup Lab Dup % 40 Lab Dup Lab Dup %
-40 20 y = 0.9838x - 0.0534 y = 0.9993x - 8E-05 R² = 0.5024 R² = 0.9995 0 -60 Lab Orig % 0 20 40 60 80 100 Lab Orig % 0.6 0.800 P % S % 0.5 0.600 0.4
0.3 0.400 Lab Dup Lab Dup % Lab Dup % 0.2 0.200 0.1 y = 0.9936x + 0.0009 y = 1.0018x + 0.0018 R² = 0.9877 R² = 0.8896 0 0.000 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 Lab Orig % Lab Orig %
Figure 7: Scatter plots: lab original v’s lab duplicate. For personal use only use personal For
Page 15 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
18% 50% Histogram - Fe Histogram - Al2O3 16% 45% 14% 40% 35% 12% 30% 10% Lab Orig 25% 8% 20% Frequency Lab Dup Frequency Lab Orig 6% 15% Lab Dup 4% 10% 2% 5% 0% 0% Bin 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Bin % Bin %
25% 25% Histogram - LOI Histogram - SiO2
20% 20%
15% 15%
10% Lab Orig 10% Frequency Frequency Lab Orig Lab Dup Lab Dup 5% 5%
0% 0% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Bin % Bin % More
60% Histogram - P 60% Histogram - S
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
Lab Orig Frequency Lab Orig Frequency 20% 20% Lab Dup Lab Dup 10% 10%
0% 0% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Bin % Bin %
Figure 8: Histograms: lab original v’s lab duplicate.
7. COMPANY STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL The company used 4 different standards during the drilling programmes submitting a total of 171 to the lab. Two of the 4 standards were not certified for the iron ore suite of elements, hence are not reported here. In summary the analysis indicates acceptable accuracy, however, precision is less than ideal for some elements.
7.1 GIOP-16
Data for Fe, Al2O3, LOI, SiO2 and P is presented below using line plots and for Fe, an R-chart
and X-bar chart and analysis are also presented. For personal use only use personal For With respect to the line plots, each has the assayed value (solid blue line) plotted against the average assay value (dashed blue), certified value of the standard (solid red) and upper and lower control limits (dashed red) being the +/- 2 standard deviations.
Page 16 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
For all plots, the average value (dashed blue) is very close to their respective certified values with differences less than 3% with the exception of phosphorous. In general, the points lie in reasonably tight bands, however, some do fall outside the control limits and all elements exhibit runs of consecutive points which plot consistently either above or below the average assay line suggesting periods of increased relative bias. Phosphorous exhibits a larger relative bias with the difference between the average assay value and the certified value greater than 20%. The chart also shows that points are plotting on a very narrow band of values suggesting the certified value is close to the precision limit of the assay technique. It is worth noting that the certified value of 0.02% P is an order of magnitude lower than the average value of P estimated in the deposit. Assays for sulphur were not provided for analysis. An R chart measures process variation by plotting the ranges of consecutive analyses (in this case n=2). The solid blue line represents the average range (RBAR), the blue dots represent the range values (R), and the dashed line the upper control limit (2 times the certified standard deviation). The chart (figure 9) shows all results plot close to and straddling the RBAR center line with only a small number being outside the upper control limit. Therefore, overall, the variation in the analytical process appears to be “in control”.
For personal use only use personal For
Page 17 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
20.4 GIOP-16: Fe%
20
19.6 Fe % 19.2
18.8
18.4 SXR23060 SXR24420 SXR26020 SXR27460 SXR28720 SXR32920 SXR25320 SXR29260 Fe% Avg Assay Cert. Value +2 std dev -2 std dev
30 14.0 GIOP-16: Al2O3% GIOP-16: LOI%
29.5 13.0 29
28.5 12.0 LOI % Al2O3 % Al2O3 28 11.0 27.5
27 10.0 SXR23060 SXR24420 SXR26020 SXR27460 SXR28720 SXR32920 SXR25320 SXR29260 SXR23060 SXR24420 SXR26020 SXR27460 SXR28720 SXR32920 SXR25320 SXR29260
Al2O3 % Avg assay Cert. Value +2 std dev -2 std dev LOI% Avg assay Cert. Value +2 std dev -2 std dev
31.0 GIOP-16: SiO2% GIOP-16: P%
0.022 30.0 LOI % LOI %
29.0 0.017
28.0 0.012 SXR23060 SXR24420 SXR26020 SXR27460 SXR28720 SXR32920 SXR25320 SXR29260 SXR23060 SXR24420 SXR26020 SXR27460 SXR28720 SXR32920 SXR25320 SXR29260 SiO2 Avg assay Cert. Value +2 std dev -2 std dev P% Avg assay Cert. Value +2 std dev -2 std dev Figure 9: Line plots: standard reference material, GIOP - 16
1.2 R Chart Standard GIOP 16 - Fe 1.0 (rec. val 19.4% Fe 95% CLs: +/-0.034%)
0.8
0.6 Range % 0.4
0.2
0.0 SXR23060 SXR24420 SXR26020 SXR27460 SXR28720 SXR32920 SXR25320 SXR29260
Centerline UCL Range
For personal use only use personal For Figure 10: R Chart: SRM GIOP- 16.
Page 18 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
An X-bar chart measures precision and accuracy of the analytical process. The solid red line is the certified value of the standard; the blue points are the means of consecutive assays (again n=2); the solid blue line is the average value of the means of consecutive pairs (X-Bar).
X-bar Chart Standard GIOP 16 - Fe (rec. val 19.4% Fe 95% CLs: +/-0.034%) 20.0
19.5 Grade %
19.0
18.5 SXR23060 SXR24420 SXR26020 SXR27460 SXR28720 SXR32920 SXR25320 SXR29260
X-bar Cert. Value +2 std dev - 2 std dev Mean
Figure 11: X-bar Chart: SRM GIOP- 16.
The chart shows the x-bar plotting very close to the certified value indicating negligible bias overall, however, there are runs of consecutive of values which plot above and below the x-bar indicating periods of higher relative bias. Most points plot within the 2 (certified) standard deviations indicating the process is centered and with reasonable precision.
7.2 GIOP - 24
With respect to the line plots, the Fe%, SiO2% and P% charts show, with few exceptions, assays plot within the +/- 2 standard deviations and with average values being very similar to the certified value. The chart for P% does, however, show the majority of points plot below the certified value reflecting a very minor but consistent relative bias (average value of 0.064% P% compared to the certified value of 0.066%).
Similar to the P% chart, the Al2O3% chart shows the average assay (28.68%) to be below the certified value (29.08%) with most points straddling the -2 standard deviations line indicating a consistent but minor relative bias. There are only a few outliers indicating acceptable precision. The chart for LOI% shows the average value of assays (1.97%) is very close to the certified value (1.90%) however, there a significant number of values that plot outside the +/- 2 standard deviations indicating less than ideal precision.
For personal use only use personal For
Page 19 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
67 GIOP-24: Fe%
66
65 Fe % 64
63
62 SXR29120 SXR23620 SXR24760 SXR26460 SXR28160 SXR33260 SXR34020 SL193075 Fe % Avg assays Cert. Value +2 Std Dev -2 Std Dev
0.8 3.0 GIOP-24: Al2O3% GIOP-24: LOI%
2.5 0.7
2.0 LOI % Al2O3 % Al2O3 0.6 1.5
0.5 1.0 SXR29120 SXR23620 SXR24760 SXR26460 SXR28160 SXR33260 SXR34020 SL193075 SXR29120 SXR23620 SXR24760 SXR26460 SXR28160 SXR33260 SXR34020 SL193075
Al2O3 % Avg assay Cert. Value +2 std dev -2 std dev LOI% Avg assay Cert. Value +2 std dev -2 std dev
3.0 0.075 GIOP-24: SiO2% GIOP-24: P%
2.8 0.070
2.6 0.065 LOI % LOI % 2.4
0.060 2.2
2.0 0.055 SXR29120 SXR23620 SXR24760 SXR26460 SXR28160 SXR33260 SXR34020 SL193075 SXR29120 SXR23620 SXR24760 SXR26460 SXR28160 SXR33260 SXR34020 SL193075 SiO2% Avg assay Cert. Value +2 std dev -2 std dev P% Avg assay Cert. Value +2 std dev -2 std dev Figure 12: Line plots: standard reference material GIOP- 24.
3.0 R Chart Standard GIOP 24 - Fe 2.5 (rec. val 64.4% Fe 95% CLs: +/-0.06%)
2.0
1.5 Range % 1.0
0.5
0.0 SXR23060 SXR24420 SXR26020 SXR27460 SXR28720 SXR32920 SXR25320 SXR29260
Centerline UCL Range
For personal use only use personal For Figure 13: R Chart: SRM GIOP- 24.
Page 20 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
The chart shows the center line to be above the majority of the points, the effect of two extreme outliers. Although the outliers have a marked effect on the chart it does not indicate a significant precision issue in this instance as the maximum outlier has a range of 2.6%, which is only 4% of the certified value. A number of values plot above the UCL however, overall, the variation in the analytical process appears to be “in control”. The chart below shows the x-bar plotting very close to the certified value indicating negligible bias overall. There are runs of consecutive of values which plot below the x-bar, but they plot within the control limits indicating risk associated with periods of higher relative bias is low. Apart from 2 outliers, all points plot within the within 2 (certified) standard deviations indicating the process is centered and with reasonable precision.
X-bar Chart Standard GIOP 24 - Fe 66.0 (rec. val 64.4% Fe 95% CLs: +/-0.06%)
65.0 Grade %
64.0
63.0 SXR23060 SXR24420 SXR26020 SXR27460 SXR28720 SXR32920 SXR25320 SXR29260
X-bar Cert. Value +2 std dev - 2 std dev Mean
Figure 14: X-bar Chart: SRM GIOP- 24.
8. SIEVE ANALYSIS Laboratory procedure has a target of 85% of all prepared sample material passing a 75micron particle size. Descriptive statistics of sieve analysis indicates on average this target is achieved with a mean of 91.8% however, the histogram shows the distribution of analyses to be negatively skewed with only a small percentage being below the targeted passing size.
For personal use only use personal For
Page 21 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 30th July 2009
PCT Passing 75um 30% Histogram
Mean 91.8 25% Median 91.9 Mode 94.0 20% Standard Deviation 3.7 15% Sample Variance 13.7
CV 0.0 Frequency 10% Skewness -0.8 Range 17.9 5% Minimum 80.2 0% Maximum 98.1 Sum 18093.8 0 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 More Count 197 Bin
9. CONCLUSIONS Conclusions of the assessment include: • Analysis of field duplicate data indicates sampling and sub-sampling process are appropriate. • For sulphur, it is suggested that an alternate analytical process with a higher precision limit would be appropriate. • Blank samples have values similar to those of the deposit, indicating the material is less than idea and an alternative should be investigated for future drilling. However, the values for Fe are consistently low and indicate the risk associated with smearing is low. • Data from the umpire labs shows excellent repeatability indicating there is no significant relative bias at the primary lab.
• With the exception of sulphur, analysis of lab duplicate samples indicates appropriate precision. • Analysis of standard reference material indicates acceptable accuracy, however, precision is less than ideal for some elements.
• Sieve analysis data shows that on average 91.8% of material passes 75 micron particle.
For personal use only use personal For
Page 22 of 22
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 1
Appendix 5: Updated QA/QC report completed by MAT
For personal use only use personal For
Spinifex Ridge – Iron Deposits.
March 2010 Resource Estimate
Report Prepared for Moly Mines Limited 46-50 Kings Park Road West Perth, WA, 6005
Report Prepared by
111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153
Author
Clay Gordon MSc, BSc, MAusIMM, MAIG Director, Mining Assets Pty Ltd
For personal use only use personal For
19th March 2010
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mining Assets Pty Ltd (“Mining Assets”) was contracted to complete a JORC compliant resource estimate based on historical and recent drilling data. This estimate supersedes the 2009 estimate having the benefit of additional infill drilling and improved geological understanding. The Spinifex Ridge Iron Project is located 140 km east-southeast of Port Hedland in the East Pilbara Shire and resides within the same group of mining tenements as MOL’s Spinifex Ridge Molybdenum / Copper Project. Regionally, the project is located within granite-greenstone terrane in the north of the Archaean Pilbara Craton of northern Western Australia. Locally, the iron deposits are located within the Nimingarra Iron Formation of the Gorge Creek Group and forms part of the Coppin Gap Greenstone Belt. Iron mineralisation occurs as bedded and detrital deposits. The database extract consists of 235 holes including an additional 57 infill holes completed since the 2009 estimate. Analysis of QAQC data pertaining to the new drilling suggests appropriate procedures have been used in the collection and management of the data, however, some issues were noted with respect to the precision of P and S analyses. Apart from the extra drill data, new information available for this estimate includes additional down-hole surveys for many historical holes and an increased bulk density data set. As a consequence of additional bulk density measurements the average values assigned to BID and DID mineralisation have decreased by 20% and 38% respectively. Interpretations were guided by mineralisation style and based on an (approximate) 50% Fe cut- off grade. Compared to the interpretations used for the 2009 resource estimate, the current interpretations differ in several areas, including the re-interpretation of Auton NE, increased volume of Auton Crustal, depth and strike extensions at Galifrey and the addition of the Torchwood prospect. A SURPAC™ block model was used to estimate the resource which was completed using ordinary kriging within BID and DID domains. Classification was guided by data density, geological confidence, estimation confidence and data quality with Indicated resources ultimately reflecting the drilled horizons. The total Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource is estimated at 7.64 million tonnes at an
average grade 58.2% Fe, 1.4% Al2O3, 4.1% LOI, 10.5% SiO2, 0.135% P and 91.0ppm S. This represents an increase of approximately 5% in tonnes from the 2009 estimate and is due to the increased volume of mineralisation (principally the addition of Torchwood, re-interpretation of Auton NE and extensions of Galifrey) offsetting tonnage losses due to reduced bulk density.
For personal use only use personal For
Page 2 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
W / Ç C ! [hL t { {h
5 L 5 L 5L5 L !"! ##$ " % $ $
. L 5 L " ! ! .L5 L % ! ! %!"! #&& % # "# $
{#$ Ç L #"' & & $ # $ L " #&$ % $" $# " '
D ) Ç "!%$! #& $ $ # ' #
Table 1: March 2010 estimation results.
Grade:Tonnage - Fe
70.0
> 65% Fe cut-off
65.0 > 60% Fe cut-off %
e
> 55% Fe cut-off F
60.0 >50% Fe cut-off
all blocks
55.0 - 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Million Tonnes
Figure 1: Grade-tonnage curve: Fe For personal use only use personal For
Page 3 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 6 1.1. Competent Persons and Responsibilities ...... 6 2. PREVIOUS ESTIMATES ...... 7 3. GEOLOGY AND MINERALISATION...... 7 4. DATA ...... 9 5. DATA VERIFICATION...... 10 5.1 Field Duplicates ...... 10 5.2 Blanks ...... 12 5.3 Umpire Laboratory ...... 14 5.4 Internal Laboratory Repeats ...... 16 5.5 Company Standard Reference Material ...... 19 5.5.1 GIOP-16 ...... 19 5.5.2 GIOP-24 ...... 21 6 RESOURCE ESTIMATION ...... 23 6.1 Drill Data ...... 23 6.2 Interpretation and Wireframing ...... 24 6.3 Composite Data ...... 25 6.4 Descriptive Statistics ...... 25 6.5 Top Cutting ...... 27 6.6 Geostatistical Analysis ...... 27 6.7 Block Model ...... 28 6.8 Estimation ...... 29 6.9 Validation ...... 31 6.10 Classification and Results ...... 35 APPENDIX 1: VARIOGRAPHY ...... 37
List of Figures
Figure 1: Grade-tonnage curve: Fe ...... 3 Figure 2: Project location plan ...... 6
For personal use only use personal For Figure 3: Project geology from Van Kranendonk et al., 2001...... 8 Figure 4: Location map of the Spinifex Ridge Iron Resources ...... 8 Figure 5: Scatter plots: original v’s field duplicate...... 11 Figure 6: Histograms: original v’s field duplicate...... 12
Page 4 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
Figure 7: Histograms: Blank samples...... 13 Figure 8: Scatter plots: original v’s umpire lab...... 15 Figure 9: Histograms: primary lab v’s umpire lab...... 16 Figure 10: Scatter plots: lab original v’s lab duplicate...... 18 Figure 11: Histograms: lab original v’s lab duplicate...... 18 Figure 12: Line plots: standard reference material, GIOP - 16 ...... 19 Figure 13: R Chart: SRM GIOP- 16...... 20 Figure 14: X-bar Chart: SRM GIOP- 16...... 20 Figure 15: Line plots: standard reference material GIOP- 24...... 21 Figure 16: R Chart: SRM GIOP- 24...... 22 Figure 17: X-bar Chart: SRM GIOP- 24...... 22 Figure 18: Drill hole location plan (2009 holes blue, new holes green)...... 23 Figure 19: Bedded iron deposits...... 24 Figure 20: Bedded and detrital iron deposits...... 24 Figure 21: Histogram – sample interval lengths...... 25 Figure 22 : Histograms: composite data ...... 26 Figure 23: Block model grade distribution: long-section, BID mineralisation ...... 31 Figure 24: Block model grade distribution: plan view, DID mineralisation ...... 31 Figure 25: Block model grade v’s drill grade – cross section 196 700N ...... 32 Figure 26: Block model validation: DID...... 33 Figure 27: Block model validation: BID...... 34 Figure 28: JORC classification: long-section view...... 35 Figure 29: Grade-tonnage curve: Fe ...... 36
List of Tables
Table 1: March 2010 estimation results...... 3 Table 2: Spinifex Ridge Iron Project – May 2009 resource estimate ...... 7 Table 3: Drill details...... 9 Table 4: Un-sampled 2010 RC holes...... 9 Table 5: Bivariate statistics: original v’s field duplicate...... 10 Table 6: Univariate statistics: blank samples ...... 13 Table 7: Bivariate statistics: original v’s umpire lab...... 14 Table 8: Bivariate statistics: lab original v’s lab duplicate...... 17 Table 9: Drill details...... 23 Table 10: Descriptive statistics: composite data ...... 25 Table 11: Summary of variography - DID ...... 27 Table 12: Summary of variography – BID ...... 28 Table 13: Block model attributes ...... 28 Table 14: Block model extents ...... 29 Table 15: Block model input files ...... 29 Table 16: Estimation search parameters - BID ...... 29 Table 17: Estimation search parameters - DID ...... 30 Table 18: ISBD ...... 30 For personal use only use personal For Table 19: Volume comparison: block model v’s wireframe ...... 32 Table 20: Grade comparison: block model v’s composite data ...... 32 Table 21: March 2010 estimation results...... 35
Page 5 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
1. INTRODUCTION The Spinifex Ridge Iron Project is located approximately 50 km northeast of the town of Marble Bar and 140 km east-southeast of the major port and regional town of Port Hedland in the East Pilbara Shire. The Iron Project resides on the same granted mining tenure as MOL’s Spinifex Ridge Molybdenum / Copper Project. This document reports the resource update completed by Mining Assets in February/March 2010 using recent infill and extension drilling completed since May 2009.
Figure 2: Project location plan
1.1. Com petent Persons and Responsibilities Ben Cairns of Moly Mines Ltd is responsible for all data collection, database management and geological interpretations.
For personal use only use personal For Clay Gordon, Principal of Mining Assets (MA) completed quality control / quality assurance analysis using extracted data provided by MOL, constructed wireframes based on grade parameters and geological interpretations provided by MOL and completed the estimation.
Page 6 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
Mr Cairns and Mr Gordon are Competent Persons as defined by the Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code) 2004 Edition.
2. PREVIOUS ESTIMATES The first estimate for the iron deposits was completed in May 2009 by Mining Assets P/L. Estimation was completed using ordinary kriging within grade and geology based domains and is reported in document MOL_Fe_Resource Estimate_June_2009_vers_1.1doc. Results of the May 2009 estimate are reported in the table below.
W / Ç C ! [ { t { *
5 L 5 L ! 5L5 L '' ! !! !"! #%$ " %% &" #%
. L 5 L .L5 L "' ! ! #!##! #' $ ' $%
{#$ Ç L % #"$ ' $ $ & $" L &$ #&&" " $"" &#' $'
D ) Ç "!"! #&% % $% ' $&
Table 2: Spinifex Ridge Iron Project – May 2009 resource estimate
3. GEOLOGY AND MINERALISATION The Spinifex Ridge Project is located within a granite-greenstone terrane in the north of the Archaean Pilbara Craton of northern Western Australia. The Pilbara granite-greenstone terrane is dominated by large domal granites intruding an older succession of greenstones consisting of metamorphosed basaltic, ultramafic and felsic volcaniclastic units. These units are commonly overlain and inter-bedded with clastic sediments consisting of cherts, siltstone, sandstone and minor banded iron formations (BIF). Locally, the Spinifex Ridge Iron deposits are located within the Nimingarra Iron Formation of the Gorge Creek Group and forms part of the Coppin Gap Greenstone Belt. Iron mineralisation at Spinifex Ridge can be described as either bedded or detrital deposits:
For personal use only use personal For 1. Bedded iron deposit - steeply dipping lensoid hematite (+-martite/geothite) deposits that are generally conformable to the jaspillitic dominated stratigraphy. Original banding of the jasper may be preserved however, is frequently destroyed by silica flooding forming breccia zones. Bedded deposits are the most economically significant at Spinifex Ridge.
Page 7 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
2. Detrital iron deposits - flat irregular shaped zones forming a near-surface blanket over bedded deposits. They consist predominantly of platy or fissile hematite and goethite, however can also occur as hematite rich conglomerates, pisolitic limonite nodules to sheets of chemically precipitated limonite. The surface extent of the deposits may cover several hundreds of square metres.
Figure 3: Project geology from Van Kranendonk et al., 2001.
For personal use only use personal For Figure 4: Location map of the Spinifex Ridge Iron Resources
Page 8 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
Iron mineralisation at Spinifex Ridge occurs in 6 distinct zones termed (from west to east) Torchwood (BID), Galifrey (BID & DID), Auton (BID & DID), Crustal (DID), Auton NE (BID) and Dalek (BID).
4. DATA Drilling completed since May 2009 and used to update the resource estimate is summarised in the table below.
RC Drilling Diamond Drilling TOTAL No. Holes Drill Metres No. Holes Drill Metres No. Holes Drill Metres
153 9,742 9 1,366 162 11,108 # 57 3,832 57 3,832 # 6 480 6 480 & ' 10 556 10 556 235 15,977
Table 3: Drill details.
{w/ C ' + {w/ ! { + {w/ { + {w/ { + {w/ { + {w/ { + {w/ { + {w/ { + {w/ { + {w/ { + {w/ { + {w/ { + {w/ { + {w/ { + {w/ { + {w/ { + {w/ ! { +
Table 4: Un-sampled 2010 RC holes.
In order to minimise assay costs and to reduce the turnaround time for samples going through
For personal use only use personal For the laboratory all assay intervals from drill holes completed after SRC301 (drill holes were completed in numerical sequence) were, after pulverisation, pre-screened using an Innovex hand held XRF tool. Only significant sample intervals with a screened value of greater than 40% Fe were sent to the primary laboratory for analysis.
Page 9 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
5. DATA VERIFICATION This section deals with the analysis of QAQC data for 2010 drilling only. Quality control measures employed by the Company include the submission of field duplicates, field blanks, external lab checks and standard reference material. These were supplemented by the laboratories usual internal repeat assays. Data for % passing was not presented for analysis. Assays reported as a negative i.e. being below detection limits, have been changed to a value equal to half the detection limits. In summary, the results of the analysis suggest appropriate procedures have been used in the collection and management of the data, however, some issues were noted with respect to the precision of P and S analyses.
5.1 Field Duplicates Duplicate field samples are collected as a means to assess error in the sampling process up to and including the sub-sample splitting. Data for 30 pairs (of original and duplicate field splits) were provided with all samples being analysed by XRF. Bivariate statistics and charts for the important analytes are provided below.
C !h [hL h 5 h 5 h 5 h 5 h 5 h 5 a ! { 9 ! ! a ! ! a { 5. ! ! { ë ! ! /ë ! ! {01 2 2 w & ! ! ! a # 2 a 3 # ! ! {# ! / #
t { {h h 5 h 5 h 5 h 5 h 5 h 5 a { 9 a a { 5. ! { ë ! /ë {01 w & ! a #
For personal use only use personal For a 3 # {# ! / # Table 5: Bivariate statistics: original v’s field duplicate.
Page 10 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
Bivariate statistics show the distributions of the two data sets to be very similar. With respect to measures of central tendency, the paired data have virtually identical means and medians, however, some large differences are seen with the mode. Similarly, the main measures of spread (standard deviation, variance and coefficient of variation) are also identical. Scatter plots are presented below. For each analyte the pairs tend to plot in a tight cloud around the 45º reference line with very few outliers, hence all have very high correlation coefficients. Histograms are presented below and demonstrates that the population is too small to represent the full distribution. Nonetheless, all charts show the paired data have identical curves with respect to shape, spread and central tendency.
! h. ë C ) 5 h. ë C ) 5
C 0 {h { t [hL 0 !h { t
C + 4 3 5 [hL + 4 3 2 ! ! h + 4 !3 5
- {h + 4 3 2 - w6 4 ! w6 4 ! w6 4 !! , w6 4 ,
5 5
C [hL {h ! h & & [ C [ [hL [ {h [ ! h ! h. , - h. , -
h. ë C ) 5 h. ë C ) 5 { { t t { t - -
1
,
,
+ 4 3 2 !! + 4 3 2
w6 4 ! ! w6 4
5 5
{ t & & [ { [ t h. , 1- h. , -
Figure 5: Scatter plots: original v’s field duplicate.
In summary, the analysis shows acceptable repeatability for the main analytes indicating the sampling and sub-sampling process is appropriate.
For personal use only use personal For
Page 11 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
I .1 C I .1 !h
!
2 2
C C h& h& 5# 5#
a .) .)
! I .1 [hL I .1 t
2
! 2
C h& h& C 5# 5# a .) .)
I .1 { 1 I .1 {h
2 2
C
C h& h& 5# 5#
! ! a ! a .) 1 .)
Figure 6: Histograms: original v’s field duplicate.
5.2 Blanks Univariate statistics for the blank data is presented below. The blank media utilised is a homogenous quartz sand (+ 0.5% ‘iron oxide’) certified for gold and base metals. Compared to the average composite values of the Spinifex iron deposit, the blank material is anomalous for
Al2O3, LOI, S and SiO2 and hence is not ideal (i.e. not the intend use by the manufacturer). However, values for Fe and P are consistently low as are most spread values (see CV), which suggests the risk associated with smearing is low.
For personal use only use personal For
Page 12 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
C ! h [hL t { {h a { 9 a a { 5. { ë /ë {01 2! 2 ! w & ! a # 2 a 3 # {# / # ! ! ! ! ! !
.& ! ! $ 0; !
Table 6: Univariate statistics: blank samples
I .1 . 5 C I .1 . 5 !h ! !
2
2 ! C
C ! a .) .)
I .1 . 5 [hL I .1 . 5 t !
! 2 2
C ! C
a a .) .)
! I .1 . 5 { 1 I .1 . 5 {h !
2 2
!
C ! C
For personal use only use personal For ! !
! ! ! a .) 1 .) a
Figure 7: Histograms: Blank samples.
Page 13 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
5.3 Um pire Laboratory A total of 79 samples were submitted to a second independent (umpire) lab in order to assess relative bias with respect to the primary lab (ALSCHEMEX Laboratories). Bivariate statistics for the important analytes are provided in the table below. Bivariate statistics suggest some differences in central tendency of paired data distributions, particularly S: Means are similar, however medians for Al2O3 and LOI differ (in percentage terms) as do the modes (all). For S, all measures differ significantly. With respect to spread, all pairs show only small differences with virtually identical CVs.
C !h [hL h 5 h 5 h 5 h 5 h 5 h 5 a { 9 a ! ! ! a ! { 5. ! !! { ë ! ! ! /ë ! ! {01 2! 2 ! ! w & ! ! a # 2 a 3 # ! ! !! {# ! ! / # !
t { {h h 5 h 5 h 5 h 5 h 5 h 5 a ! ! { 9 a ! a { 5. { ë ! ! ! /ë ! {01 ! 2! w & a # ! a 3 # !! {# / #
Table 7: Bivariate statistics: original v’s umpire lab.
For personal use only use personal For Scatter plots are presented below. For each analyte the points plot in a tight cloud around the 45º reference line, although the cloud for S is relative broad compared to the others. A small number of outliers exist in several data sets which impacts the otherwise high correlation coefficients.
Page 14 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
The chart for SiO2 reflects the upper detection limit (of 70%) for the analytical technique used by the primary lab. All pairs have very high correlation coefficients.
{ t t1 ë7 Ü 1 [ { t t1 ë7 Ü 1 [ ! C !h
[
[
+ 4 ! 3 5
1 w6 4
+ 4 3 5 1 Ü w6 4 Ü ! h C & & [ ! h [ C ! t1 [ t1 [
{ t t1 ë7 Ü 1 [ { t t1 ë7 Ü 1 [ [hL t
[ ! [
1 1 Ü
+ 4 ! 3 5 Ü + 4 ! 3 5 w6 4 ! w6 4 ! [hL t & & [ t
t1 [ t1 [
{ t t1 ë7 Ü 1 [ { t t1 ë7 Ü 1 [ { 1 {h !
[
[
+ 4 !3 5 1 1
Ü Ü w6 4 ! ! + 4 3 2 w6 4 ! { {h & & [ { [ {h ! t1 [ t1 [ Figure 8: Scatter plots: original v’s umpire lab.
Histograms are presented below. All charts show the paired data have similar distributions with respect to shape , spread and central tendency, with the differences seen in bivariate statistics difficult to identify.
For personal use only use personal For In summary, the analysis shows acceptable repeatability indicating there is no significant relative bias between the labs. The exception is sulphur which shows some differences at these low grades reflecting some issues of analytical precision at grades close to the detection limit. This issue was also recognised in previous analyses.
Page 15 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
The cause of outliers remains uncertain with sample labelling a common error.
I .1 C I .1 !h
2 2
C t + [ $ C t + [ $ Ü [ $ Ü [ $
.) .)
I .1 [hL I .1 t
2 2
t + [ $ t + [ $ C C Ü [ $ Ü [ $
! .) .)
I .1 { 1 I .1 {h
!
2 2
t + [ $ t + [ $
C C Ü [ $ Ü [ $
! ! a ! a .) 1 .) 1
Figure 9: Histograms: primary lab v’s umpire lab.
5.4 Internal Laboratory Repeats A total of 109 assays were duplicated as part of the Labs internal quality control checks. Bivariate
For personal use only use personal For statistics are tabled below. Bivariate statistics show the distributions of the two data sets to be very similar. With respect to measures of central tendency, the paired data have virtually identical means and medians.
Page 16 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
Sulphur is again the exception with a difference of 33% between the medians but only 6% differences between the means. Similarly, the main measures of spread (standard deviation, variance and coefficient of variation) are generally identical.
C !h [hL h w ! h w " h w ! h w " h w ! h w " a ! ! { 9 a a { 5. ! ! { ë ! /ë {01 2! 2! w & ! ! a # a 3 # ! ! ! {# !! ! / # ! ! ! !
t { {h h w ! h w " h w ! h w " h w ! h w " a ! ! { 9 ! a a { 5. ! ! ! { ë ! ! /ë {01 ! ! w & ! ! a # a 3 # {# / # ! ! ! ! ! ! Table 8: Bivariate statistics: lab original v’s lab duplicate.
Scatter plots are presented below. For each analyte the points plot in a tight cloud around the 45º reference line. The plot of S pairs shows increased dispersion yet the coefficient of variation is still high. Histograms are presented below. All charts show the paired data has identical curves with
For personal use only use personal For respect to shape and magnitude. In summary, the analysis shows good repeatability for the main analytes indicating appropriate precision in the labs analytical process.
Page 17 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
! { t [ w { t [ w
{h + 4 3 5 ! h + 4 3 2 ! - -
w6 4 ! w6 4 , ,
[hL + 4 3 5 C + 4 ! 3 5 ! w w w6 4 ! w6 4
C ! h {h [hL & & [ C [ ! h [ {h [ [hL ! h. , - h. , -
{ t [ w { t [ w
- + 4 ! 3 5 - 1
,
w6 4
,
w
w + 4 3 5 92 { w6 4 & [ { t [ t h. , 1- h. , - Figure 10: Scatter plots: lab original v’s lab duplicate.
I .1 C I .1 !h !
2
2
C !
C h& h& w w a .) .)
I .1 [hL I .1 t
2 2
C C h& h& w w a .) .)
I .1 { 1 I .1 {h !
2 2
C h& C h& w w
For personal use only use personal For ! !
.) 1 .) a
Figure 11: Histograms: lab original v’s lab duplicate.
Page 18 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
5.5 Com pany Standard Reference Material The company used 2 different standards during the drilling programmes submitting a total of 43 to the lab. In summary the analysis indicates acceptable accuracy for all standards except the low grade P std, however, precision is less than ideal for some elements.
5.5.1 GIOP-16
Data for Fe, Al2O3, LOI, SiO2, S and P is presented below using line plots and for Fe, an R-chart and X-bar chart and analysis are also presented. With respect to the line plots, each has the assayed value (solid blue line) plotted against the average assay value (blue line), certified value of the standard (solid red) and upper and lower control limits (dashed red) being the +/- 2 standard deviations.
DLht %9 C DLht %9 [hL
L h
[
C
! {ó {ów {ów {ów ! {ów {ó {ów {ów {ów ! {ów C !.& ! + . # 5 >. 2 >. [hL !.& ! + . # 5 >. 2 >.
DLht %9 !h DLht %9 t
h t !
!
{ó {ów {ów {ów ! {ów {ó {ów {ów {ów ! {ów ! h !.& ! + . # 5 >. 2 >. t !.& ! + . # 5 >. 2 >.
DLht %9 { 1 DLht %9 {h
1
h { {
{ó {ów {ów {ów ! {ów {ó {ów {ów {ów ! {ów
{ !.& ! + . # 5 >. 2 >. { !.& ! + . # 5 >. 2 >. For personal use only use personal For Figure 12: Line plots: standard reference material, GIOP - 16
For all plots, the average value (blue line) is very close to their respective certified values with differences less than 2% (see comments below regarding phosphorous), however, many points
Page 19 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
plot outside the control limits and all elements exhibit runs of consecutive points which plot consistently either above or below the average assay line suggesting periods of increased relative bias. Phosphorous exhibits a larger relative bias with the difference between the average assay value and the certified value greater than 20%. A bias of a similar magnitude was observed in previous analyses and may reflect precision limits of the assay technique.
0.8 R Chart Standard GIOP 16 - Fe (rec. val 19.4% Fe 95% CLs: +/-0.034%) 0.6 %
e 0.4 g n a R
0.2
0.0 SX45160 SXR35620 SXR36260 SXR36860 SXR39660
Centerline 2*Stdev Range
Figure 13: R Chart: SRM GIOP- 16.
21.0 X-Bar Chart Standard GIOP 16 - Fe (rec. val 19.4% Fe 95% CLs: +/-0.034%)
20.0 %
e g n a R 19.0
18.0 SX45160 SXR35620 SXR36260 SXR36860 SXR39660
Centerline +2*Stdev Mean -2*Stdev certified value
For personal use only use personal For Figure 14: X-bar Chart: SRM GIOP- 16.
An R chart measures process variation by plotting the ranges of consecutive analyses (in this case n=2). The solid blue line represents the average range (RBAR), the blue dots represent the
Page 20 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
range values (R), and the dashed line the upper control limit (2 times the certified standard deviation). The chart shows the majority of points plotting below the RBAR suggestion good process control however, several consecutive points plot above both the RBAR and upper control limit suggesting periods where analytical precision was lower than usual. An X-bar chart measures precision and accuracy of the analytical process. The solid red line is the certified value of the standard; the blue points are the means of consecutive assays (again n=2); the solid blue line is the average value of the means of consecutive pairs (X-Bar). The chart shows the x-bar plotting very close to the certified value indicating negligible bias overall, however, there are runs of consecutive of values which plot below the x-bar indicating periods of higher relative bias. Again, precision issues are reflected by the points plotting outside the control limits.
5.5.2 GIOP-24
Similarly to GIOP-16 all charts show the average assay value (blue line) is very close to their respective certified values with differences less than 2% (the exception being S which has a
DLht $9 C DLht $9 [hL
L
h C [ !
{ó {ów {ów {ów {ów! {ów! {ó {ów {ów {ów {ów! {ów! C !.& ! + . # 5 >. 2 >. [hL !.& ! + . # 5 >. 2 >.
! DLht $9 !h DLht $9 t
h t !
{ó {ów {ów {ów {ów! {ów! {ó {ów {ów {ów {ów! {ów! ! h !.& ! + . # 5 >. 2 >. t !.& ! + . # 5 >. 2 >.
DLht $9 { 1 DLht $9 {h
!
1
!
h { {
For personal use only use personal For
{ó {ów {ów {ów {ów! {ów! {ó {ów {ów {ów {ów! {ów! { !.& ! + . # 5 >. 2 >. {h !.& ! + . # 5 >. 2 >. Figure 15: Line plots: standard reference material GIOP- 24.
Page 21 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
difference of 7%), however, periods of relative bias are indicated by runs of consecutive values plotting on the same side the average line. Each chart shows a small number of values plotting outside the control limits however in general the process appears in control.
0.8 R Chart Standard GIOP 24 - Fe (rec. val 64.4% Fe 95% CLs: +/-0.06%) 0.6 %
e 0.4 g n a R
0.2
0.0 SX45120 SXR35460 SXR36320 SXR37020 SXR38160 SXR38620
Centerline 2*Stdev Range
Figure 16: R Chart: SRM GIOP- 24.
66.0 X-Bar Chart Standard GIOP 24 - Fe (rec. val 64.4% Fe 95% CLs: +/-0.06%)
65.0 %
e g n a R 64.0
63.0 SX45120 SXR35460 SXR36320 SXR37020 SXR38160 SXR38620
Centerline +2*Stdev Mean -2*Stdev certified value
Figure 17: X-bar Chart: SRM GIOP- 24.
The R chart shows the points to be straddling the blue centreline with only 1 outlier, suggesting For personal use only use personal For acceptable process control.
Page 22 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
The X-bar chart below shows the x-bar plotting very close to the certified value indicating negligible bias overall. All points, bar one) plot within the control limits suggestion acceptable control, and with alternate points straddling the centreline suggestion no relative bias issues.
6 RESOURCE ESTIMATION 6.1 Drill Data Since the last resource estimate in 2009, 57 resource holes have been completed along with a series of geotechnical and metallurgical holes. Details are tabulated below. Note, not all holes were provided in the db extract to MiningAssets (refer to section 4). Drilling was carried out on variable orientations which were determined by the geometry of mineralisation as mapped on surface. Drill spacing also varied but is based around 40 metres by 40 metres and 20 metres by 25 centers.
Crustal Auton NE Galfrey
Dalek Auton Torchwood
Figure 18: Drill hole location plan (2009 holes blue, new holes green).
RC Drilling Diamond Drilling TOTAL No. Holes Drill Metres No. Holes Drill Metres No. Holes Drill Metres
153 9,742 9 1,366 162 11,108 # 57 3,832 57 3,832 # 6 480 6 480 & ' 10 556 10 556 235 15,977
Table 9: Drill details. For personal use only use personal For The database extract includes a total of 12,128 samples collected at 1m intervals and submitted to ALSCHEMEX Laboratories for multi element XRF analysis.
Page 23 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
The geochemical and geological data was presented to MiningAssets in the form of an Excel spreadsheet which was validated by MiningAssets prior to importing into an Access database for use in Surpac.
6.2 Interpretation and W irefram ing Interpretations of major structures and mineralised envelopes were completed by MOL geologists and provided to MiningAssets in the form of dxf string files. Interpretations were guided by mineralisation style (bedded iron and detrital iron) using a 50% Fe cut-off grade according to drill sample assays. Wireframing was completed by MiningAssets. Compared to the interpretations used for the 2009 resource estimate, the current interpretations differ in several areas: • Complete re-interpretation of Auton NE • Enlarged area for Auton Crustal • Depth and strike extensions at Galifrey • Addition of Torchwood prospect, and • All strings re-snapped to account for new down-hole survey data
Auton NE
Galifrey Torchwood Dalek
Auton
Figure 19: Bedded iron deposits.
Auton NE Crustal Galifrey
Auton For personal use only use personal For
Figure 20: Bedded and detrital iron deposits.
Page 24 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
6.3 Com posite Data 99.1% of samples were collected at a length of 1m, hence this was adopted as the composite length for assays with a minimum tolerance 0.75m. Composite files within each of the wireframes were visually checked against the drill holes for completeness. Negative LOI values zeroed in the Surpac compositing process were re-set to their original values.
I .1 {1 L ;
!
2
C
! a . , . : 1-
Figure 21: Histogram – sample interval lengths.
6.4 Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics and histograms are shown below for the composites data from the two mineralisation styles/domains - bedded and detrital iron deposits (BID and DID respectively).
C ! h [hL t { {h 5L5 .L5 5L5 .L5 5L5 .L5 5L5 .L5 5L5 .L5 5L5 .L5 a $ ! a % $ ! a &% ! {! 5' ! ! ! { ë ! ! ! /ë ! ! ! {*+ $,, 2! 2 ! ! ! w $ ! a $ ! 2 2! a - ! ! ! ! ! { ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! /& $!
For personal use only use personal For Table 10: Descriptive statistics: composite data
Page 25 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
Fe: Both the DID and BID have near normal distributions however, statistics and histograms demonstrate slightly different central tendency with means & medians of (approximately) 56% Fe 60% Fe (respectively); very low values of spread e.g. CVs of 0.1; small negatively skewed tail of lower values.
Al2O3: the two mineralisation styles have different distributions in all respects with BID mineralisation having lower mean but higher spread and skewness.
C I .1 !h I .1 .L5 .L5 5L5
2 2
5L5 C C
! a .) .)
[hL I .1 t I .1
.L5 .L5 5L5 5L5
2 2
C C
! ! a a .) .)
! { I .1 {h I .1
.L5 .L5
5L5 5L5
2 2
C C
! ! a .) 1 .) Figure 22 : Histograms: composite data LOI: some similarities in curves but statistics show BID to have reasonably lower mean but higher spread and skewness. P: similar shaped and centered curves, however, statistics show’s BID to have significantly
For personal use only use personal For increased skewness and spread. S: markedly differing curves and statistics in all aspects
Page 26 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
SiO2: similar shape and centered curves however statistics show reasonable differences in all measures.
6.5 Top Cutting Due to the relatively low values of spread and lack of extreme values, top-cutting was not considered necessary for all elements except sulphur. During estimation it was noted that a small number of very high outliers were affecting results hence these values were cut to 3150ppm which equates to the 99.9%ile.
6.6 Geostatistical Analysis All variography was completed by Ray Varley of Geological Resource Management using
GeoAccess geostatistical software. Variography was run for Fe%, Al2O3%, LOI%, SiO2%, P% and Sppm using the 1m composites with the aim of determining the directions of maximum continuity and the orthogonal directions to define the search for each variable. Directional variograms were constructed and modelled with spherical models to determine the kriging parameters. Due to the small size of individual mineralised 3dms/zones, data for each mineralisation style combined and assessed collectively.
a = { 1 a = a 5L5 51 Direction 0° to 090° 0° to 000° -90°to 000°
Nugget 0.2
Fe C1/C2 0.4/0.4 R1/R2 21.4/55 20/57.8 7.1/14 Nugget 0.13
Al2O3 C1/C2 0.37/0.5 R1/R2 51.1/96.5 52.1/68.4 7.1/14.3 Nugget 0.11 LOI C1 0.89 R1 88.4 59.95 32.3 Nugget 0.13
SiO2 C1 0.87 R1 50.32 56.95 10.13 Nugget 0.26 P C1 0.74 R1 90 45.5 19.66 Nugget 0.08 S C1 0.92 R1 32.06 36.53 11.27
Table 11: Summary of variography - DID
For personal use only use personal For
Page 27 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
Major Semi-Major Minor BID Domain Direction 0° to 090° 0° to 000° -90°to 000°
Nugget 0.13 Fe C1/C2 0.29/0.58 R1/R2 58.14/112.67 20.56/64.26 7.19/25.16 Nugget 0.13 Al2O3 C1 0.87 R1 46.83 42.0 15.02 Nugget 0.06 LOI C1/C2 0.32/0.62 R1/R2 33.69/113.57 32.52/51.07 15.02/60.43 Nugget 0.15 SiO2 C1 0.85 R1 125.45 46.12 22.0 Nugget 0.08 P C1 0.92 R1 121.82 66.12 31.64 Nugget 0.25 S C1 0.75 R1 71.05 44.27 31.93
Table 12: Summary of variography – BID
6.7 Block Model A SURPAC™ block model was used to estimate the resource with the parent block size being based on half the closest drill spacing in the X and Y i.e. 10m north-south, 20m east-west and 5m vertical. To improve the volume resolution these blocks were sub-celled to 5 metres north- south, 2.5 metres east-west and 1.25 m in the vertical.
! 5 ! 5
nearest_distance Distance to nearest sample kv Kriging variance avgerage_distance Average distance to samples Deposit name Auton, Galifrey, Torchwood, Dalek Fe Estimated Fe % grade pass Interpolation pass the block was estimated
Al2O3 Estimated Al2O3 % grade JORC_class JORC classification, waste, air LOI Estimated LOI % grade isbd Insitu bulk density
SiO2 Estimated SiO2 % grade material _type Waste, mineralised or air P Estimated P % grade number_comps Number of samples used for block grade interpolation
S Estimated S ppm grade Mineralisation_type BID, DID or nil For personal use only use personal For Table 13: Block model attributes
Page 28 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
Y X Z Minimum (Origin ) 7 687 100.5 195 500.5 1 000.5 Maximum 7 688 400.5 197 800.5 1 400.5 Block Size (Sub-blocks) 10 m (5 m) 20 m (2.5 m) 5 m (1.25 m)
Table 14: Block model extents
C b1 5 C b1 5
all_bid.dtm/str 0. 5% Fe 3DMs for BID Mol_fe_march_2010mdl Surpac block model All_did.dtm/str 0.5 % Fe 3DMs for DID comps_bid.str 1 m comps for BID Topo_feb_2010.dtm/str Topographic surface comps_did.str 1 m comps for DID MOL_Fe_db_17_feb_2010.mdb/ddb Access & Surpac Database
Table 15: Block model input files
6.8 Estim ation The search neighbourhood was optimised by assessing the impact of changing key parameters (minimum & maximum composites and maximum search distance) on measures such as slope of regression, block count and % negative weights.
.L5 51 C .L5 51 ? !h b b 3 b 3 b @ # @ # $ & A A A $ & A A A A í A í A í A í A í A í #& A A A #& A A A 2 @ 2 @
.L5 51 [hL .L5 51 ? {h b b 3 b 3 b @ # @ # $ & A A A $ & A A A A í A í A í A í A í A í #& A A A #& A A A 2 @ 2 @ .L5 51 t .L5 51 ? { b b 3 b 3 b @ # @ # $ & A A A $ & A A A A í A í A í A í A í A í #& A A A #& A A A
For personal use only use personal For 2 @ 2 @
Table 16: Estimation search parameters - BID
Page 29 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
5L5 51 C 5L5 51 ? !h b b 3 b 3 b @ # @ # $ & A $ & A A í A í #& A #& A 2 @ 2 @
5L5 51 [hL 5L5 51 ? {h b b 3 b 3 b @ # @ # $ & A $ & A A í A í #& A #& A 2 @ 2 @ 5L5 51 t 5L5 51 ? { b b 3 b 3 b ! @ # @ # $ & A $ & A A í A í #& A #& A 2 @ 2 @
Table 17: Estimation search parameters - DID
Estimation was completed using ordinary kriging with an ellipsoid search and parameters as summarised in the table above. BID and DID wireframe objects were estimated collectively as two distinct domains, ie individual wireframe objects were not estimated separately. Only the composites within each domain were used to estimate the domain i.e. hard boundaries. The BID domain was estimated in three passes with progressively larger radii and ratios. 69% of BID blocks were filled in the first pass and 16% in pass 2. The DID domain was estimated in a single pass. The bulk density data base was significantly increased since the 2009 estimate. Average values for each domain were calculated and assigned directly. These values are lower than used previously by 22%, 20% and 38% for waste, BID and DID respectively.
í .L5 5L5
For personal use only use personal For L{.5
Table 18: ISBD
Page 30 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
Figure 23: Block model grade distribution: long-section, BID mineralisation
Figure 24: Block model grade distribution: plan view, DID mineralisation
6.9 Validation The validation process involved: • Qualitative assessment of grade (ranges) as represented in the block model versus those of the input data (drill hole grades), and • Quantitative assessment of average block model grades versus in-put grades on a global and drill cross-section basis. Each drill section was reviewed on screen comparing the grade ranges of blocks with the underlying drill assays and taking into account an expected amount of smoothing in the estimation process. An example is provided in the figure below. The review demonstrated a reasonable amount of smoothing between drill holes while the blocks immediately adjacent to drill holes reflect a closer correlation. Grade control drilling will allow improved
representation of internal grade trends. For personal use only use personal For
Page 31 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
Figure 25: Block model grade v’s drill grade – cross section 196 700N
A fundamental check for any block model is to compare the total volume and grade of block model estimate with the wireframe volume and average grade of the input composite data. With respect to volume, differences are very low with both domains reporting differences of less than 1%.
5a ; .a ; 51 1 1 )** 5L5 ! ! # .L5 %
Table 19: Volume comparison: block model v’s wireframe
The table below presents block model and composite grades for each domain and shows excellent correlation with differences generally less than 10%.
5L5
C ! h [hL t { {h .a ;.a .a ;.a .a ;.a .a ;.a .a ;.a .a ;.a
.L5
C ! h [hL t { {h .a ;.a .a ;.a .a ;.a .a ;.a .a ;.a .a ;.a !!
Table 20: Grade comparison: block model v’s composite data
For personal use only use personal For The following figures present similar data and allow comparisons to be made on a more local basis by plotting data on 50m increments along strike. The line chart shows the block model grades follow the trends of the composite data closely, generally tracking a marginally flatter path through the grade peaks and troughs reflecting the smoothing achieved in the interpolation.
Page 32 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
Block Model Validation - Detrital Iron by Easting
70 30
65
60 20 % %
2 e O i F 55 S
50 10
45
40 0 195975 196225 196475 196725 196975
BM_Fe comps_Fe BM_SiO2 comps_Sio2
Block Model Validation - Detrital Iron Objects by Easting
10 350
300 0
8 0 0 , % 1 * 3 250 s O e 2 l n A n
6 o & t
I 200 M O B L
&
150 s
4 p m o C
100 f o
2 o N 50
0 0 195975 196225 196475 196725 196975
BM tonnes*1000 Number comps BM_LOI comps_LOI BM_Al2O3 comps_Al2O3
Block Model Validation - Detrital Iron by Easting
0.5 450
0.5 400
0.4 350
0.4 300 % 0.3 P 250 m
0.3 p p
200 S 0.2 150 0.2
100 0.1
0.1 50
0.0 0 195975 196225 196475 196725 196975
BM_P comps_P BM_S comps_S_cut For personal use only use personal For
Figure 26: Block model validation: DID.
Page 33 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
Block Model Validation - Bedded Iron by Easting
70 30
65
60 20 % %
2 e O i F 55 S
50 10
45
40 0 195825 196075 196325 196575 196825 197075 197325
BM_Fe comps_Fe BM_SiO2 comps_Sio2
Block Model Validation - Bedded Iron by Easting
10 900
800
8 700 % 3 O 2
l 600 A 6 &
I 500 O L 400 4 300
2 200 100
0 0 195825 196075 196325 196575 196825 197075 197325
BM tonnes*1,000 Number comps BM_LOI comps_LOI BM_Al2O3 comps_Al2O3
Block Model Validation - Bedded Iron Objects by Easting
0.5
0.5 160
0.4
0.4 120 % 0.3 P m
0.3 p p
80 S 0.2
0.2
40 0.1
0.1
0.0 0 195825 196075 196325 196575 196825 197075 197325
BM_P comps_P BM_S comps_S_cut For personal use only use personal For
Figure 27: Block model validation: BID.
Page 34 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
6.10 Classification and Results The process of classification was guided by data density, geological confidence, estimation confidence and data quality. Despite high confidence with respect to data quality, geological interpretations and data density, however confidence in the estimation (as measured by the slope of regression and differences between some modelled grades and input grades) was the limiting factor in the classification of the resource. The figure below shows the blocks classified as Indicated are restricted to the drilled horizons with the remaining blocks in sparsely drilled areas classified as Inferred.
Figure 28: JORC classification: long-section view.
The total Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource is estimated at 7.64 million tonnes at an
average grade 58.2% Fe, 1.4% Al2O3, 4.1% LOI, 10.5% SiO2, 0.135% P and 91.0ppm S. This resource estimate does not include internal dilution, hence, consideration of additional mining induced dilution is suggested, particularly on domain/object boundaries.
W / Ç C ! [hL t { {h
5 L 5 L 5L5 L !"! ##$ " % $ $
. L 5 L " ! ! .L5 L % ! ! %!"! #&& % # "# $
{#$ Ç L #"' & & $ # $
L " #&$ % $" $# " ' For personal use only use personal For D ) Ç "!%$! #& $ $ # ' #
Table 21: March 2010 estimation results.
Page 35 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
The grade:tonnage curves for the resource are provided below at various Fe cut-offs. Note: while these curves accurately reflect the distribution of grade within the model, care is required before interpreting mineable quantities and grades at elevated cut-offs as the curves can not reflect grade continuity.
Grade:Tonnage - Fe
70.0
> 65% Fe cut-off
65.0 > 60% Fe cut-off %
e
> 55% Fe cut-off F
60.0 >50% Fe cut-off
all blocks
55.0 - 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Million Tonnes Figure 29: Grade-tonnage curve: Fe
For personal use only use personal For
Page 36 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
APPENDIX 1: VARIOGRAPHY
Detrital
did_1mcomps Fe Downhole Normal Variogram
did_1mcomps Fe Horizontal Normal Variogram Bearing 90 Dip 0
For personal use only use personal For
did_1mcomps Fe Vertical Normal Variogram Bearing 0 Dip 0
Page 37 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
did_1mcomps Fe Orthogonal Normal Variogram
did_1mcomps Al2O3 Downhole Normal Variogram
did_1mcomps Al2O3 Horizontal Normal Variogram Bearing 90 Dip 0 For personal use only use personal For
Page 38 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
did_1mcomps Al2O3 Vertical Normal Variogram Bearing 0 Dip 0
did_1mcomps Al2O3 Orthogonal Normal Variogram
did_1mcomps LOI Downhole Normal Variogram For personal use only use personal For
Page 39 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
did_1mcomps LOI Horizontal Normal Variogram Bearing 90 Dip 0
did_1mcomps LOI Vertical Normal Variogram Bearing 0 Dip 0
did_1mcomps LOI Orthogonal Normal Variogram For personal use only use personal For
Page 40 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
did_1mcomps P Downhole Normal Variogram
did_1mcomps P Horizontal Normal Variogram Bearing 90 Dip 0
did_1mcomps P Vertical Normal Variogram Bearing 0 Dip 0 For personal use only use personal For
Page 41 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
did_1mcomps P Orthogonal Normal Variogram
did_1mcomps S Downhole Normal Variogram
did_1mcomps S Horizontal Normal Variogram Bearing 90 Dip 0 For personal use only use personal For
Page 42 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
did_1mcomps S Vertical Normal Variogram Bearing 0 Dip 0
did_1mcomps S Orthogonal Normal Variogram
did_1mcomps SiO2 Downhole Normal Variogram For personal use only use personal For
Page 43 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
did_1mcomps SiO2 Horizontal Normal Variogram Bearing 90 Dip 0
did_1mcomps SiO2 Vertical Normal Variogram Bearing 0 Dip 0
did_1mcomps SiO2 Orthogonal Normal Variogram
For personal use only use personal For
BID
Page 44 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
bid_1mcomps Fe Downhole Normal Variogram
bid_1mcomps Fe Horizontal Normal Variogram Bearing 90 Dip 0
bid_1mcomps Fe Vertical Normal Variogram Bearing 0 Dip 0 For personal use only use personal For
Page 45 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
bid_1mcomps Fe Orthogonal Normal Variogram
bid_1mcomps Al2O3 Downhole Normal Variogram
bid_1mcomps Al2O3 Horizontal Normal Variogram Bearing 90 Dip 0 For personal use only use personal For
Page 46 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
bid_1mcomps Al2O3 Vertical Normal Variogram Bearing 0 Dip 0
bid_1mcomps Al2O3 Orthogonal Normal Variogram
bid_1mcomps LOI Downhole Normal Variogram For personal use only use personal For
Page 47 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
bid_1mcomps LOI Horizontal Normal Variogram Bearing 90 Dip 0
bid_1mcomps LOI Vertical Normal Variogram Bearing 0 Dip 0
bid_1mcomps LOI Orthogonal Normal Variogram For personal use only use personal For
Page 48 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
bid_1mcomps P Downhole Log Variogram
bid_1mcomps P Horizontal Log Variogram Bearing 90 Dip 0
bid_1mcomps P Vertical Log Variogram Bearing 0 Dip 0 For personal use only use personal For
Page 49 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
bid_1mcomps P Orthogonal Log Variogram
bid_1mcomps S Downhole Log Variogram
bid_1mcomps S Horizontal Log Variogram Bearing 90 Dip 0 For personal use only use personal For
Page 50 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
bid_1mcomps S Vertical Log Variogram Bearing 0 Dip 0
bid_1mcomps S Orthogonal Log Variogram
bid_1mcomps SiO2 Downhole Normal Variogram For personal use only use personal For
Page 51 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate 19th March 2010
bid_1mcomps SiO2 Horizontal Normal Variogram Bearing 90 Dip 0
bid_1mcomps SiO2 Vertical Normal Variogram Bearing 0 Dip 0
bid_1mcomps SiO2 Orthogonal Normal Variogram
For personal use only use personal For
Page 52 of 52
Mining Assets Pty Ltd 111 The Esplanade Mt Pleasant, Western Australia, 6153 p: (08) 9315 5717 f: (08) 9315 1519 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net www.Mining Assets.net
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 1
Appendix 6: 2012 Updated QA/QCReport Advance Geological Consulting
For personal use only use personal For
Quality Control Report
Project: Spinifex Ridge Fe Sampling Programme: Infill RC Drilling Date: June 2012
Document Clay Gordon, Advance Date 8 June 2012 Owner Geological Consulting P/L Ben Cairns, Review Reviewed By Exploration Manager Date Document Document For personal use only use personal For SRQC - 006 location: Number:
Project: QC Report Spinifex Ridge Fe Sampling Programme: RC Drilling 2012 Document Number: SRQC – 006
Table of Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3
2 DRILL PROGRAMME ...... 4
3 2012 INFILL DRILLING V PRE-2012 DRILLING ...... 4
4 BLANKS ...... 6
5 FIELD DUPLICATES ...... 6
6 LAB DUPLICATES ...... 6
7 UMPIRE REPEATS ...... 9
8 STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL ...... 10
List of Figures
Figure 1 : Histograms: 2012 V pre-2012...... 5 Figure 2 : Line Charts: Blanks Data...... 6 Figure 3 : Scatter Plots: Field Duplicates...... 7 Figure 4 : Scatter Plot: Lab Duplicates...... 8 Figure 5 : Scatter Plots: Umpire Lab...... 9 Figure 6 : Line Charts: SRMs ORE-401, 402, 403...... 11 Figure 7 : Line Charts: SRMs ORE-404, 405, 406...... 12
List of Tables
Table 1: Drill details...... 4 Table 2: QC data...... 4 Table 3: Bivariate Statistics – 2012 V pre-2012...... 5 Table 4: Bivariate Statistics – Field Duplicates...... 7 Table 5: Bivariate Statistics – Lab Duplicates...... 8 Table 6: Bivariate Statistics – Umpire Lab...... 9
For personal use only use personal For
Project: QC Report Spinifex Ridge Fe Sampling Programme: RC Drilling 2012 Document Number: SRQC – 006
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report covers the infill RC drilling programme completed during 2012 at the Spinifex Ridge Fe deposits. Conclusions are: 1. Analysis of duplicate field splits shows excellent repeatability on a pair and population basis indicating the current procedures are acceptable. 2. Duplicate samples generated by the lab show excellent repeatability on a pair and population basis indicating lab procedures are acceptable. 3. Analyses returned from the umpire lab show excellent repeatability and indicate there is no relative bias at the primary lab. 4. Blanks used for checking for contamination in the lab are inconclusive. 5. Assessment of SRM data suggests some issues of precision in the analytical process. 6. Assessment of SRM data suggests on the whole, only minor accuracy issues in the
analytical process. For personal use only use personal For
3 of 12
Project: QC Report Spinifex Ridge Fe Sampling Programme: RC Drilling 2012 Document Number: SRQC – 006
2 Drill Programme
2012 drill data added to the master database for the May 2012 Spinifex Ridge iron ore resource update is summarised in tables 1 to 3 below.
RC Drilling Diamond Drilling TOTAL No. Holes Drill No. Holes Drill No. Holes Drill Date Metres Metres Metres 2009 153 9,742 9 1,366 162 11,108 2010 57 3,832 57 3,832 2010 6 480 6 480 2010 10 556 10 556 2011 Auton & 17 847 17 847 Auton NE 2011 Galifrey 17 1,577 17 1,577 2011 Torchwood 3 244 3 244 2012 infill (SRC525 26 2,738 26 2738 to SRC550) Total 298 21,382 Table 1: Drill details.
Totals 26 Holes 2,738 samples Sample type 1m RC composites Protocol document number xx Analysis technique ME-ICP61s & ME-XRF05 Protocol document number xx Duplicate field samples 57 See document SRQA-007 Blanks 20 Protocol description - 1 in 20 Lab splits nil See document SRQA-006 Lab Duplicates 88 Repeat analysis Nil Standards 66 Protocol description - 1 in 20 Sample Weights Nil Protocol description - 1 in 20 Sieve analysis nil See document SRQA-00XX Umpire lab 122 Table 2: QC data.
3 2012 Infill Drilling v pre-2012 Drilling Descriptive statistics are presented below in order to compare the new 2012 subset with the pre- 2012 data. However, due to the generally very low values of the data (except for Fe and SiO2), comparing this data on a percentage basis is not ideal, as even very small absolute differences appear larger when expressed as a percentage. Histograms are therefore also provided as a more suitable tool in this instance to assess the data sets, which in all cases show the 2012 subset being contained with the pre-2012 maximum and minimum range and with similarly
shaped curves and central tendency. For personal use only use personal For
4 of 12
Project: QC Report Spinifex Ridge Fe Sampling Programme: RC Drilling 2012 Document Number: SRQC – 006
Figure 1 : Histograms: 2012 V pre-2012.
Fe% Al O % LOI% 2 3 Pre-2012 2012 % diff Pre-2012 2012 % diff Pre-2012 2012 % diff
Mean 59.39 60.73 2% 1.30 0.85 -34% 3.75 1.98 -47% Median 61.30 62.12 1% 0.79 0.42 -47% 3.13 0.90 -71% Mode 62.90 68.44 9% 0.25 0.27 8% 0.46 0.32 -30% Stdev 7.54 6.82 -10% 1.60 1.23 -23% 2.91 2.08 -28% Var 56.90 46.54 -18% 2.57 1.51 -41% 8.44 4.34 -49% CV 0.13 0.11 -12% 1.24 1.44 17% 0.78 1.05 35% Skewness -2.21 -1.35 -39% 3.95 4.10 4% 0.73 1.25 72% Range 65.48 40.86 -38% 25.31 9.99 -61% 14.85 11.59 -22% Minimum 5.72 28.36 396% 0.05 0.11 120% 0.00 0.03 - Maximum 71.20 69.22 -3% 25.36 10.10 -60% 14.85 11.62 -22% Sum 209958 32367 -85% 4580 453 -90% 13197 1058 -92% Count 3535 533 -85% 3535 533 -85% 3521 533 -85% P% S ppm SiO % 2 Pre-2012 2012 % diff Pre-2012 2012 % diff Pre-2012 2012 % diff
Mean 0.13 0.20 60% 88.64 43.46 -51% 9.39 9.55 2% Median 0.10 0.06 -37% 50.00 30.00 -40% 5.35 7.06 32% Mode 0.05 0.04 -12% 20.00 10.00 -50% 1.64 22.00 1241% Stdev 0.19 0.48 158% 300.48 55.07 -82% 10.48 8.94 -15% Var 0.04 0.23 565% 90285.26 3032.17 -97% 109.75 79.94 -27% CV 1.48 2.37 61% 3.39 1.27 -63% 1.12 0.94 -16% Skewness 18.49 5.01 -73% 33.65 7.16 -79% 2.41 1.72 -29% Range 4.99 4.21 -16% 13340.00 820.00 -94% 80.66 54.43 -33% For personal use only use personal For Minimum 0.01 0.01 72% 10.00 10.00 0% 0.31 0.37 18% Maximum 5.00 4.22 -16% 13350.00 830.00 -94% 80.97 54.80 -32% Sum 444 109 -76% 278675 23164 -92% 33178 5091 -85% Count 3493 533 -85% 3144 533 -83% 3535 533 -85%
Table 3: Bivariate Statistics – 2012 V pre-2012.
5 of 12
Project: QC Report Spinifex Ridge Fe Sampling Programme: RC Drilling 2012 Document Number: SRQC – 006
4 Blanks
The blank media utilised (OREAS 22b) is a homogenous quartz sand with approximately 0.5% ‘iron oxide’ added. It is certified for gold and base metals not Fe ores, hence is not strictly suitable to the suite of elements assessed here.
High assay values for SiO2 are as expected and not particularly useful in assessing contamination. Assays for Fe% are also as expected reflecting the value of added Fe, which suggests low risk of systematic contamination. Assays for P and S are often below detection with the average value well below the deposit average and with little risk attributable to contamination.
Values for Al2O3 are also consistent suggesting low risk attributable to random contamination. However, the average value (0.12%) is at a level of approximately 10% of the deposit average although well below the scheduling cut-off. Nonetheless, closer assessment may be warranted.
Figure 2 : Line Charts: Blanks Data.
5 Field Duplicates
Bivariate statistics are shown below. Values for central tendency and spread have only small differences indicating the field duplicate samples and original splits have similar distributions. However, it is worth noting that these differences albeit small, are larger than seen in previous assessments.. Similarly, the scatter plots also show excellent correlations hence, the current protocols for splitting of RC samples at the rig can be deemed to be appropriate.
6 Lab Duplicates
Apart from LOI assays, bivariate statistics below show identical distributions for the lab duplicate samples compared to the original splits. Note however, that the data set for duplicate LOI is
For personal use only use personal For significantly smaller, hence accurate comparison is not possible. Scatter plots also show excellent correlations hence, the current lab protocols can be deemed to be appropriate.
6 of 12
Project: QC Report Spinifex Ridge Fe Sampling Programme: RC Drilling 2012 Document Number: SRQC – 006
Figure 3 : Scatter Plots: Field Duplicates.
Fe% Al O % LOI% 2 3 Orig Dup Orig/Dup Orig Dup Orig/Dup Orig Dup Orig/Dup
Mean 41.4 41.2 100% 0.59 0.62 95% 1.54 1.60 96% Median 38.0 36.4 104% 0.26 0.26 100% 0.55 0.52 106% Mode - - - 0.17 0.17 100% 0.18 0.30 60% Stdev 14.8 14.9 99% 0.79 0.87 91% 1.94 1.98 98% Var 219.2 222.0 99% 0.62 0.75 83% 3.78 3.90 97% CV 0.4 0.4 99% 1.34 1.40 96% 1.26 1.24 102% Skewness 0.3 0.3 98% 2.28 2.52 90% 1.86 1.76 106% Range 52.8 57.1 92% 3.69 3.88 95% 8.00 7.80 103% Minimum 16.2 11.6 140% 0.03 0.04 75% 0.03 0.06 50% Maximum 69.0 68.7 100% 3.72 3.92 95% 8.03 7.86 102% Sum 2359.9 2350.1 100% 33.63 35.44 95% 87.89 91.18 96% Count 57.0 57.0 57.00 57.00 57.00 57.00
P% S % SiO % 2 Orig Dup Orig/Dup Orig Dup Orig/Dup Orig Dup Orig/Dup
Mean 0.057 0.057 100% 0.005 0.004 113% 38.3 38.4 100% Median 0.046 0.044 105% 0.003 0.003 100% 43.4 44.0 99% Mode 0.021 0.045 47% 0.002 0.003 67% 52.3 49.2 106% Stdev 0.049 0.050 99% 0.007 0.005 137% 21.9 22.2 99% Var 0.002 0.002 98% 0.000 0.000 188% 480.3 490.8 98% CV 0.864 0.870 99% 1.441 1.187 121% 0.6 0.6 99% Skewness 1.660 1.722 96% 4.376 3.796 115% -0.3 -0.3 96% Range 0.223 0.223 100% 0.044 0.031 143% 73.8 79.2 93% Minimum 0.006 0.006 100% 0.001 0.001 100% 0.7 0.9 78% Maximum 0.229 0.229 100% 0.044 0.031 142% 74.5 80.1 93% Sum 3.261 3.274 100% 0.258 0.229 113% 2181.6 2190.2 100% Count 57.000 57.000 57.000 57.000 57.0 57.0
For personal use only use personal For Table 4: Bivariate Statistics – Field Duplicates.
7 of 12
Project: QC Report Spinifex Ridge Fe Sampling Programme: RC Drilling 2012 Document Number: SRQC – 006
Figure 4 : Scatter Plot: Lab Duplicates.
Fe% Al O % LOI% 2 3 Orig Dup Orig/Dup Orig Dup Orig/Dup Orig Dup Orig/Dup
Mean 35.2 35.3 100% 0.84 0.84 100% 1.74 1.29 136% Median 34.7 34.7 100% 0.26 0.26 100% 0.82 0.97 84% Mode - 22.2 - 0.18 0.08 - 0.16 0.31 - Stdev 13.4 13.4 100% 1.80 1.81 100% 2.11 1.28 165% Var 178.7 179.0 100% 3.26 3.26 100% 4.44 1.64 271% CV 0.4 0.4 100% 2.1 2.1 100% 1.2 1.0 121% Skewness 0.3 0.3 101% 5.05 5.06 100% 1.79 1.21 148% Range 57.3 57.4 100% 13.50 13.51 100% 10.56 4.00 264% Minimum 6.9 6.9 100% 0.05 0.04 125% 0.06 0.14 43% Maximum 64.2 64.2 100% 13.55 13.55 100% 10.62 4.14 257% Sum 3101.9 3106.1 100% 74.18 74.16 100% 153.46 17.99 853% Count 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 14.0
P% S ppm SiO % 2 Orig/Du Orig/Du Orig/Du Orig Dup Orig Dup Orig Dup p p p Mean 0.060 0.060 100% 0.005 0.005 104% 46.6 46.5 100% Median 0.037 0.036 - 0.002 0.003 - 48.0 47.8 - Mode 0.021 0.021 100% 0.001 0.001 100% 64.8 17.7 366% Stdev 0.064 0.064 100% 0.008 0.008 100% 20.0 20.1 100% Var 0.004 0.004 101% 0.000 0.000 101% 401.4 403.5 99% CV 1.1 1.1 100% 1.7 1.7 97% 0.4 0.4 100% Skewness 2.732 2.735 100% 4.407 4.508 98% -0.3 -0.3 103% Range 0.422 0.421 100% 0.054 0.054 100% 86.0 86.1 100% Minimum 0.004 0.004 100% 0.001 0.001 100% 3.6 3.6 101% Maximum 0.426 0.425 100% 0.054 0.054 100% 89.6 89.7 100% Sum 5.269 5.261 100% 0.414 0.400 104% 4098.4 4096.2 100% Count 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 For personal use only use personal For Table 5: Bivariate Statistics – Lab Duplicates.
8 of 12
Project: QC Report Spinifex Ridge Fe Sampling Programme: RC Drilling 2012 Document Number: SRQC – 006
7 Umpire Repeats
Scatter plots and bivariate statistics below show identical distributions, hence, it can be concluded that there is no significant relative bias with the primary lab. Note the smaller umpire lab dataset for S does not allow accurate assessment.
Fe% Al O % LOI% 2 3 Orig Ump Orig/Ump Orig Ump Orig/Dup Orig Ump Orig/Dup
Mean 37.9 38.5 99% 0.87 0.87 100% 1.15 1.22 94% Median 35.3 35.8 99% 0.23 0.23 100% 0.43 0.45 95% Mode 57.4 41.5 138% 0.10 0.08 125% 0.17 2.03 8% Stdev 14.0 14.1 99% 2.53 2.53 100% 1.65 1.73 95% Var 195.9 200.2 98% 6.39 6.42 100% 2.73 3.00 91% CV 0.4 0.4 100% 2.9 2.9 100% 1.4 1.4 101% Skewness 0.4 0.4 105% 5.76 5.76 100% 2.61 2.40 109% Range 59.9 59.3 101% 18.51 18.38 101% 8.00 8.01 100% Minimum 9.3 9.6 97% 0.04 0.02 200% 0.06 0.02 286% Maximum 69.2 68.9 100% 18.55 18.40 101% 8.06 8.03 100% Sum 4626.6 4695.4 99% 105.60 105.77 100% 140.29 149.07 94% Count 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0
P% S % SiO % 2 Orig Ump Orig/Ump Orig Ump Orig/Dup Orig Ump Orig/Dup
Mean 0.052 0.056 93% 0.007 0.032 22% 43.4 42.5 102% Median 0.025 0.030 85% 0.003 0.010 25% 47.1 46.4 102% Mode 0.015 0.014 107% 0.001 0.006 17% 53.6 40.2 133% Stdev 0.075 0.075 100% 0.022 0.048 45% 20.3 20.6 99% Var 0.006 0.006 100% 0.000 0.002 20% 412.4 423.4 97% CV 1.4 1.3 107% 3.0 1.5 200% 0.5 0.5 97% Skewness 3.470 3.283 106% 7.718 2.153 358% -0.4 -0.4 103% Range 0.448 0.442 101% 0.211 0.160 132% 85.4 85.3 100% Minimum 0.003 0.005 60% 0.001 0.005 20% 0.4 0.4 98% Maximum 0.451 0.447 101% 0.212 0.165 128% 85.8 85.7 100% Sum 6.357 6.803 93% 0.870 0.857 102% 5290.3 5183.4 102% Count 122.0 122.0 122.0 27.0 122.0 122.0
Table 6: Bivariate Statistics – Umpire Lab.
For personal use only use personal For
Figure 5 : Scatter Plots: Umpire Lab.
9 of 12
Project: QC Report Spinifex Ridge Fe Sampling Programme: RC Drilling 2012 Document Number: SRQC – 006
8 Standard Reference Material
Analyses for six SRM were provided for assessment. The six SRM provide a good range of assays to test the laboratory, however the trade-off is only a relatively few number of values for each SRM to check performance over time. Control charts are not provided in this instance with the qualitative analysis constrained to the line charts below. With respect to accuracy, the average assays are generally close to the certified value, with only a few instances where outliers result in the average value sitting outside the control limits (for
example ORE402 – SiO2 & Fe, ORE405 – SiO2). However, other more common but relatively minor instances which indicate issues of accuracy, include runs of successive assays at value
higher or lower than the certified value, for example ORE401 – Fe, S, ORE402 – S, Al2O3,
ORE403 – P, ORE405 – Fe, P, SiO2 & ORE406 – Fe, P, Al2O3. Many outliers and other issues are noted which suggests precision is not up to the high standard set in previous assessments. This includes: ORE – 401:
assays drifting with time (Fe, Al2O3) ORE – 402: consistent outliers suggests probable mislabelling of SRM (SXR45220) regular outliers SXR43260
assays drifting with time (Al2O3) ORE – 403:
regular outliers (SiO2) regular outliers SXR43860 ORE – 404:
regular outliers (SiO2) several outliers SXR45020 ORE – 405: several outliers SXR43820 ORE – 406:
outliers (SiO2)
For personal use only use personal For
10 of 12
Project: QC Report Spinifex Ridge Fe Sampling Programme: RC Drilling 2012 Document Number: SRQC – 006
Figure 6 : Line Charts: SRMs ORE-401, 402, 403.
For personal use only use personal For
11 of 12
Project: QC Report Spinifex Ridge Fe Sampling Programme: RC Drilling 2012 Document Number: SRQC – 006
Figure 7 : Line Charts: SRMs ORE-404, 405, 406. For personal use only use personal For
12 of 12 NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 1
Appendix 7: Certification of Standards;
ORES401
ORES402
ORES403
ORES404
ORES405
ORES406 For personal use only use personal For
OREAS Reference Materials ABN 28006859856 6-8 Gatwick Rd · Bayswater North · Vic 3153 · Australia 61 3 9729 0333 61 3 9761 7878 [email protected] www.ore.com.au
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS FOR
HEMATITE ORE REFERENCE MATERIAL OREAS 401
Table 1. Fusion XRF - Certified Values, SDs, 95% Confidence and Tolerance Limits for OREAS 401 Certified 95% Confidence Limits 95% Tolerance Limits Constituent (wt.%) 1SD Value Low High Low High Fusion XRF Iron, Fe (wt.%) 45.63 0.257 45.53 45.74 45.43 45.83
Aluminium Oxide, Al2O3 (wt.%) 2.36 0.030 2.34 2.37 2.33 2.39 Calcium Oxide, CaO (wt.%) 0.094 0.006 0.091 0.097 0.090 0.098
Chromium Oxide, Cr2O3 (ppm) 107 18 95 118 IND IND Magnesium Oxide, MgO (wt.%) 0.061 0.013 0.053 0.070 IND IND Phosphorus, P (wt.%) 0.105 0.003 0.104 0.107 0.104 0.107
Potassium Oxide, K2O (wt.%) 0.010 0.001 0.010 0.011 IND IND
Silicon Dioxide, SiO2 (wt.%) 24.88 0.148 24.83 24.93 24.73 25.03 Sulphur, S (wt.%) 0.022 0.002 0.021 0.023 0.021 0.023
Titanium Oxide, TiO2 (wt.%) 0.247 0.009 0.242 0.251 0.241 0.253 Thermogravimetry at 1000° C
Loss On Ignition, LOI (wt.%) 6.71 0.156 6.63 6.80 6.68 6.75 For personal use only use personal For Note: intervals may appear asymmetric due to rounding.
JULY2012-887-401
Table 2. Indicative Values for OREAS 401 Constituent Unit Value Constituent Unit Value Constituent Unit Value
Infrared Combustion S wt.% 0.020 Fusion XRF
As ppm 10.9 Na2O wt.% 0.016 Zn ppm 21.1 Cl ppm 32.8 Ni ppm 28.9 Zr ppm 74 Cu ppm 18.3 Pb ppm 11.2 MnO wt.% 0.007 V ppm 32.2
INTRODUCTION
OREAS reference materials are intended to provide a low cost method of evaluating and improving the quality of analysis of geological samples. To the geologist they provide a means of implementing quality control in analytical data sets generated in exploration from the grass roots level through to prospect evaluation, and in grade control at mining operations. To the analyst they provide an effective means of calibrating analytical equipment, assessing new techniques and routinely monitoring in-house procedures.
SOURCE MATERIALS
Reference material OREAS 401 is one of a suite of six CRMs sourced from hematite iron ore samples from the Spinifex Ridge deposit owned by Moly Mines Limited. Areas of enriched iron occur within the banded iron formation of the Gorge Creek Group located approximately 170km east of Port Hedland in Western Australia.
COMMINUTION AND HOMOGENISATION PROCEDURES
The material constituting OREAS 401 was prepared in the following manner:
drying to constant mass at 105°C; crushing and multi stage milling; homogenisation; packaging in 10g units into laminated foil pouches and in 1kg units into plastic jars.
ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
For personal use only use personal For Seventeen commercial analytical laboratories participated in the program to characterise the elements reported in Table 1 via lithium borate fusion with x-ray fluorescence for the standard iron ore suite including Fe, P, SiO2, Al2O3, CaO, MgO, MnO, S, TiO2, K2O, Na2O and LOI at 1000°C via thermogravimetry. Two laboratories used infra-red combustion furnace to determine sulphur and this data was not included with the XRF data but an indicative value for sulphur via IR combustion is presented (see Table 2). Table 2 shows
1
indicative values for a number of elements where data was insufficient for certification (further explained in ‘Statistical Analysis’). All analytes were requested to be reported on a dry basis without the addition of sodium nitrate to the flux and iron content to be determined by direct measurement XRF, not by closure to 100%, or any other assumed total.
For the round robin program ten 500g test units were taken at predetermined intervals during the bagging stage, immediately following final blending, and are considered representative of the entire batch. The six samples received by each laboratory were obtained by taking two 25g scoop splits from each of three separate 500g test units. This format enabled nested ANOVA treatment of the results to evaluate homogeneity. Results, together with uncorrected means, medians, standard deviations, relative standard deviations and percent deviation of lab means from the corrected mean of means (PDM3) are presented in the certification data file for this CRM (Datapack for OREAS 401.xlsx).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Certified Values, Standard Deviations, Confidence and Tolerance Limits have been determined for each analytical method following removal of individual and laboratory outliers (see Tables 1). Certified Values are the mean of means after outlier filtering. The 95% Confidence Limit is a measure of the reliability of the certified value, i.e. the narrower the Confidence Interval the greater the certainty in the Certified Value. It should not be used as a control limit for laboratory performance. Indicative values (Table 2) are provided where i) the number of laboratories reporting a particular analyte is insufficient (< 5) to support certification; ii) interlaboratory consensus is poor; or iii) a significant proportion of results are outlying or reported as less than detection limits.
Standard Deviation values (1SDs) are reported in Table 1 and provide an indication of a level of performance that might reasonably be expected from a laboratory being monitored by this CRM in a QA/QC program. They take into account errors attributable to measurement uncertainty and CRM variability. For an effective CRM the contribution of the latter should be negligible in comparison to measurement errors. The Standard Deviation values include all sources of measurement uncertainty: between-lab variance, within-run variance (precision errors) and CRM variability. The SD for each analyte’s certified value is calculated from the same filtered data set used to determine the certified value, i.e. after removal of all individual, lab dataset (batch) and 3SD outliers (single iteration). These outliers can only be removed after the absolute homogeneity of the CRM has been independently established, i.e. the outliers must be confidently deemed to be analytical rather than arising from inhomogeneity of the CRM. The standard deviation is then calculated for each analyte from the pooled accepted analyses generated from the certification program.
Performance Gates in Table 3 are calculated for two and three standard deviations. As a guide these intervals may be regarded as warning or rejection for multiple 2SD outliers, or rejection for individual 3SD outliers in QC monitoring, although their precise application should be at the discretion of the QC manager concerned. A second method utilises a 5% For personal use only use personal For window calculated directly from the certified value. Standard deviation is also shown in relative percent for one, two and three relative standard deviations (1RSD, 2RSD and 3RSD) to facilitate an appreciation of the magnitude of these numbers and a comparison with the 5% window. Caution should be exercised when concentration levels approach lower limits of detection of the analytical methods employed as performance gates
2
calculated from standard deviations tend to be excessively wide whereas those determined by the 5% method are too narrow.
Table 3. Performance Gates for OREAS 401
Absolute Standard Deviations Relative Standard Deviations 5% window Certified Constituent Value 2SD 2SD 3SD 3SD 1SD 1RSD 2RSD 3RSD Low High Low High Low High Fusion XRF
Al2O3, wt.% 2.36 0.030 2.30 2.42 2.27 2.45 1.29% 2.58% 3.87% 2.24 2.48
CaO, wt.% 0.094 0.006 0.083 0.105 0.078 0.111 5.85% 11.71% 17.56% 0.089 0.099
Cr2O3, ppm 107 18 70 143 52 162 17.21% 34.42% 51.64% 101 112
Fe, wt.% 45.63 0.257 45.12 46.15 44.86 46.40 0.56% 1.13% 1.69% 43.35 47.91
K2O, wt.% 0.010 0.001 0.008 0.013 0.007 0.014 10.97% 21.94% 32.92% 0.010 0.011
MgO, wt.% 0.061 0.013 0.035 0.087 0.022 0.100 21.17% 42.34% 63.51% 0.058 0.064
P, wt.% 0.105 0.003 0.100 0.111 0.097 0.113 2.53% 5.05% 7.58% 0.100 0.111
S, wt.% 0.022 0.002 0.018 0.025 0.016 0.027 8.28% 16.55% 24.83% 0.021 0.023
SiO2, wt.% 24.88 0.148 24.59 25.18 24.44 25.32 0.59% 1.19% 1.78% 23.64 26.13
TiO2, wt.% 0.247 0.009 0.228 0.266 0.219 0.275 3.78% 7.55% 11.33% 0.235 0.259
Thermogravimetry at 1000° C
LOI, wt.% 6.71 0.156 6.40 7.03 6.25 7.18 2.32% 4.64% 6.96% 6.38 7.05 Note: intervals may appear asymmetric due to rounding
Tolerance Limits (ISO Guide 3207) were determined using an analysis of precision errors method and are considered a conservative estimate of true homogeneity. The meaning of tolerance limits may be illustrated for iron (Fe), where 99% of the time (1-α=0.99) at least 95% of subsamples (ρ=0.95) will have concentrations lying between 45.43 and 45.83 wt.%. Put more precisely, this means that if the same number of subsamples were taken and analysed in the same manner repeatedly, 99% of the tolerance intervals so constructed would cover at least 95% of the total population, and 1% of the tolerance intervals would cover less than 95% of the total population (IS0 Guide 35).
ANOVA Treatment of all results was undertaken to evaluate the homogeneity of certified analytes in OREAS 401. All labs participated in the ANOVA study where each received paired samples of three different, non-adjacent, sampling units. For example, the ten samples that any one of the eight participating labs could have received is:
Sample 1 (from sampling interval 1) Sample 2 (from sampling interval 4) Sample 3 (from sampling interval 7) Sample 4 (from sampling interval 1)
For personal use only use personal For Sample 5 (from sampling interval 4) Sample 6 (from sampling interval 7)
For the purpose of the ANOVA investigation these intervals were considered test units where the aim was to test whether between-unit variance was greater than within-unit variance. This approach permitted an assessment of homogeneity across the entire batch of OREAS 401. The test was performed using the following parameters: 3
Significance Level α = P (type I error) = 0.05 Null Hypothesis, H0: Between-unit variance is no greater than within-unit variance (reject H0 if p-value < 0.05) Alternative Hypothesis, H1: Between-unit variance is greater than within-unit variance
p-values are a measure of probability whereby values less than 0.05 indicate a greater than 95% probability that the observed differences in within-unit and between-unit variances are real. Each dataset was filtered for both individual and laboratory outliers prior to calculation of p-values. This process derived the p-values as shown in Table 4 and indicate no evidence that between-unit variance is greater than within-unit variance. Conclusion: do not reject H0. Note that ANOVA is not an absolute measure of homogeneity. Rather, it establishes that the analytes are uniformly distributed throughout OREAS 401 and that the variance between two subsamples from the same unit is identical to the variance from two subsamples taken from any two separate units.
Table 4. Results of ANOVA Treatment showing p-values for all Certified Values of OREAS 401
Constituent p-value
Fusion XRF Iron, Fe (wt.%) 0.982
Aluminium Oxide, Al2O3 (wt.%) 0.709 Calcium Oxide, CaO (wt.%) NA
Chromium Oxide, Cr2O3 (ppm) 0.999 Magnesium Oxide, MgO (wt.%) 0.422 Phosphorus, P (wt.%) 0.988
Potassium Oxide, K2O (wt.%) NA
Silicon Dioxide, SiO2 (wt.%) 0.984 Sulphur, S (wt.%) 0.330
Titanium Oxide, TiO2 (wt.%) 0.757 Thermogravimetry at 1000° C Loss On Ignition, LOI (wt.%) 0.992 NA=Not Applicable due to results being close to LLD
Based on the statistical analysis of the results of the interlaboratory certification program it can be concluded that OREAS 401 is fit-for-purpose as a certified reference material (see ‘Intended Use’ below).
PREPARER AND SUPPLIER OF THE REFERENCE MATERIAL
Reference material OREAS 401 has been prepared, certified and is supplied by:
For personal use only use personal For ORE Research & Exploration Pty Ltd Tel: +613-9729 0333 6-8 Gatwick Road Fax: +613-9761 7878 Bayswater North VIC 3153 Web: www.ore.com.au AUSTRALIA Email: [email protected]
It is available in 10g units in single-use laminated foil pouches and in 1kg units in plastic jars.
4
PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES
Acme Analytical Laboratories, Vancouver, BC, Canada Activation Laboratories, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada ALS, Brisbane, QLD, Australia ALS, Callao, Lima, Peru ALS, Perth, WA, Australia ALS, Vancouver, BC, Canada BV Amdel, Adelaide, SA, Australia BV Amdel, Cardiff, NSW, Australia BV Ultra Trace, Perth, WA, Australia Intertek Genalysis, Perth, WA, Australia OMAC Laboratories, Loughrea, County Galway, Ireland Rio Tinto Cape Lambert Operations, Wickham, WA, Australia SGS, Lakefield, Ontario, Canada SGS, Booysens, Gauteng, South Africa SGS, Perth, WA, Australia SGS, Vespasiano, MG, Brazil UIS, Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa
INTENDED USE
OREAS 401 is intended for the following uses:
for the monitoring of laboratory performance in the analysis of analytes reported in Table 1 in geological samples for the verification of analytical methods for analytes reported in Table 1 for the calibration of instruments used in the determination of the concentration of analytes reported in Table 1
STABILITY AND STORAGE INSTRUCTIONS
OREAS 401 is an oxidised reference material and is stable in the laminated foil pouches. Under normal conditions of storage it has a shelf life beyond ten years.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CORRECT USE OF THE REFERENCE MATERIAL
The certified values for lithium borate fusion XRF and for LOI are on a dry basis. This requires the removal of hygroscopic moisture by drying in air to constant mass at 105°C. If the reference material is not dried prior to analysis, the certified values should be corrected to the
moisture-bearing basis. For personal use only use personal For
HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS
Fine powders pose a risk to eyes and lungs and therefore standard precautions such as the use of safety glasses and dust masks are advised.
5
LEGAL NOTICE
Ore Research & Exploration Pty Ltd has prepared and statistically evaluated the property values of this reference material to the best of its ability. The Purchaser by receipt hereof releases and indemnifies Ore Research & Exploration Pty Ltd from and against all liability and costs arising from the use of this material and information.
CERTIFYING OFFICER
Craig Hamlyn (B.Sc. Hons - Geology), Technical Manager – (ORE P/L)
REFERENCES
ISO Guide 35 (2006), Certification of reference materials - General and statistical principals. ISO Guide 3207 (1975), Statistical interpretation of data - Determination of a statistical tolerance interval. ISO 9516-1:2003: Iron Ores - Determination of various elements by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry - Part 1: Comprehensive procedure.
For personal use only use personal For
6
OREAS Reference Materials ABN 28006859856 6-8 Gatwick Rd · Bayswater North · Vic 3153 · Australia 61 3 9729 0333 61 3 9761 7878 [email protected] www.ore.com.au
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS FOR
HEMATITE ORE REFERENCE MATERIAL OREAS 402
Table 1. Fusion XRF - Certified Values, SDs, 95% Confidence and Tolerance Limits for OREAS 402 Certified 95% Confidence Limits 95% Tolerance Limits Constituent (wt.%) 1SD Value Low High Low High Fusion XRF Iron, Fe (wt.%) 48.41 0.298 48.30 48.51 48.10 48.71
Aluminium Oxide, Al2O3 (wt.%) 2.49 0.038 2.47 2.51 2.47 2.51 Calcium Oxide, CaO (wt.%) 0.090 0.002 0.089 0.091 0.085 0.095
Chromium Oxide, Cr2O3 (ppm) 109 16 96 122 IND IND Magnesium Oxide, MgO (wt.%) 0.072 0.014 0.064 0.080 IND IND Phosphorus, P (wt.%) 0.119 0.002 0.119 0.120 0.118 0.121
Potassium Oxide, K2O (wt.%) 0.010 0.001 0.010 0.010 IND IND
Silicon Dioxide, SiO2 (wt.%) 19.77 0.170 19.72 19.81 19.61 19.92 Sulphur, S (wt.%) 0.024 0.002 0.023 0.026 0.023 0.025
Titanium Oxide, TiO2 (wt.%) 0.288 0.008 0.284 0.292 0.283 0.294 Thermogravimetry at 1000° C
Loss On Ignition, LOI (wt.%) 7.64 0.088 7.59 7.69 7.57 7.70 For personal use only use personal For Note: intervals may appear asymmetric due to rounding.
JULY2012-887-402
Table 2. Indicative Values for OREAS 402 Constituent Unit Value Constituent Unit Value Constituent Unit Value
Infrared Combustion S wt.% 0.037 Fusion XRF
As ppm 11.4 Na2O wt.% 0.016 Zn ppm 19.3 Cl ppm 34.3 Ni ppm 14.8 Zr ppm 83 Cu ppm 17.7 Pb ppm 9.00 MnO wt.% 0.007 V ppm 35.1
INTRODUCTION
OREAS reference materials are intended to provide a low cost method of evaluating and improving the quality of analysis of geological samples. To the geologist they provide a means of implementing quality control in analytical data sets generated in exploration from the grass roots level through to prospect evaluation, and in grade control at mining operations. To the analyst they provide an effective means of calibrating analytical equipment, assessing new techniques and routinely monitoring in-house procedures.
SOURCE MATERIALS
Reference material OREAS 402 is one of a suite of six CRMs sourced from hematite iron ore samples from the Spinifex Ridge deposit owned by Moly Mines Limited. Areas of enriched iron occur within the banded iron formation of the Gorge Creek Group located approximately 170km east of Port Hedland in Western Australia.
COMMINUTION AND HOMOGENISATION PROCEDURES
The material constituting OREAS 402 was prepared in the following manner:
drying to constant mass at 105°C; crushing and multi stage milling; homogenisation; packaging in 10g units into laminated foil pouches and in 1kg units into plastic jars.
ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
For personal use only use personal For Seventeen commercial analytical laboratories participated in the program to characterise the elements reported in Table 1 via lithium borate fusion with x-ray fluorescence for the standard iron ore suite including Fe, P, SiO2, Al2O3, CaO, MgO, MnO, S, TiO2, K2O, Na2O and LOI at 1000°C via thermogravimetry. Two laboratories used infra-red combustion furnace to determine sulphur and this data was not included with the XRF data but an indicative value for sulphur via IR combustion is presented (see Table 2). Table 2 shows
1
indicative values for a number of elements where data was insufficient for certification (further explained in ‘Statistical Analysis’). All analytes were requested to be reported on a dry basis without the addition of sodium nitrate to the flux and iron content to be determined by direct measurement XRF, not by closure to 100%, or any other assumed total.
For the round robin program ten 500g test units were taken at predetermined intervals during the bagging stage, immediately following final blending, and are considered representative of the entire batch. The six samples received by each laboratory were obtained by taking two 25g scoop splits from each of three separate 500g test units. This format enabled nested ANOVA treatment of the results to evaluate homogeneity. Results, together with uncorrected means, medians, standard deviations, relative standard deviations and percent deviation of lab means from the corrected mean of means (PDM3) are presented in the certification data file for this CRM (Datapack for OREAS 402.xlsx).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Certified Values, Standard Deviations, Confidence and Tolerance Limits have been determined for each analytical method following removal of individual and laboratory outliers (see Tables 1). Certified Values are the mean of means after outlier filtering. The 95% Confidence Limit is a measure of the reliability of the certified value, i.e. the narrower the Confidence Interval the greater the certainty in the Certified Value. It should not be used as a control limit for laboratory performance. Indicative values (Table 2) are provided where i) the number of laboratories reporting a particular analyte is insufficient (< 5) to support certification; ii) interlaboratory consensus is poor; or iii) a significant proportion of results are outlying or reported as less than detection limits.
Standard Deviation values (1SDs) are reported in Table 1 and provide an indication of a level of performance that might reasonably be expected from a laboratory being monitored by this CRM in a QA/QC program. They take into account errors attributable to measurement uncertainty and CRM variability. For an effective CRM the contribution of the latter should be negligible in comparison to measurement errors. The Standard Deviation values include all sources of measurement uncertainty: between-lab variance, within-run variance (precision errors) and CRM variability. The SD for each analyte’s certified value is calculated from the same filtered data set used to determine the certified value, i.e. after removal of all individual, lab dataset (batch) and 3SD outliers (single iteration). These outliers can only be removed after the absolute homogeneity of the CRM has been independently established, i.e. the outliers must be confidently deemed to be analytical rather than arising from inhomogeneity of the CRM. The standard deviation is then calculated for each analyte from the pooled accepted analyses generated from the certification program.
Performance Gates in Table 3 are calculated for two and three standard deviations. As a guide these intervals may be regarded as warning or rejection for multiple 2SD outliers, or rejection for individual 3SD outliers in QC monitoring, although their precise application should be at the discretion of the QC manager concerned. A second method utilises a 5% For personal use only use personal For window calculated directly from the certified value. Standard deviation is also shown in relative percent for one, two and three relative standard deviations (1RSD, 2RSD and 3RSD) to facilitate an appreciation of the magnitude of these numbers and a comparison with the 5% window. Caution should be exercised when concentration levels approach lower limits of detection of the analytical methods employed as performance gates
2
calculated from standard deviations tend to be excessively wide whereas those determined by the 5% method are too narrow.
Table 3. Performance Gates for OREAS 402
Absolute Standard Deviations Relative Standard Deviations 5% window Certified Constituent Value 2SD 2SD 3SD 3SD 1SD 1RSD 2RSD 3RSD Low High Low High Low High Fusion XRF
Al2O3, wt.% 2.49 0.038 2.41 2.57 2.38 2.61 1.53% 3.06% 4.59% 2.37 2.62
CaO, wt.% 0.090 0.002 0.086 0.094 0.084 0.097 2.25% 4.49% 6.74% 0.086 0.095
Cr2O3, ppm 109 16 77 141 61 157 14.80% 29.60% 44.40% 104 114
Fe, wt.% 48.41 0.298 47.81 49.00 47.51 49.30 0.61% 1.23% 1.84% 45.99 50.83
K2O, wt.% 0.010 0.001 0.009 0.011 0.008 0.012 5.40% 10.80% 16.21% 0.010 0.011
MgO, wt.% 0.072 0.014 0.044 0.100 0.029 0.114 19.67% 39.35% 59.02% 0.068 0.075
P, wt.% 0.119 0.002 0.116 0.123 0.114 0.125 1.56% 3.11% 4.67% 0.113 0.125
S, wt.% 0.024 0.002 0.021 0.028 0.019 0.030 7.40% 14.81% 22.21% 0.023 0.026
SiO2, wt.% 19.77 0.170 19.43 20.11 19.26 20.28 0.86% 1.72% 2.58% 18.78 20.75
TiO2, wt.% 0.288 0.008 0.272 0.305 0.264 0.313 2.87% 5.75% 8.62% 0.274 0.303
Thermogravimetry at 1000° C
LOI, wt.% 7.64 0.088 7.46 7.81 7.37 7.90 1.15% 2.31% 3.46% 7.25 8.02 Note: intervals may appear asymmetric due to rounding
Tolerance Limits (ISO Guide 3207) were determined using an analysis of precision errors method and are considered a conservative estimate of true homogeneity. The meaning of tolerance limits may be illustrated for iron (Fe), where 99% of the time (1-α=0.99) at least 95% of subsamples (ρ=0.95) will have concentrations lying between 48.10 and 48.71 wt.%. Put more precisely, this means that if the same number of subsamples were taken and analysed in the same manner repeatedly, 99% of the tolerance intervals so constructed would cover at least 95% of the total population, and 1% of the tolerance intervals would cover less than 95% of the total population (IS0 Guide 35).
ANOVA Treatment of all results was undertaken to evaluate the homogeneity of certified analytes in OREAS 402. All labs participated in the ANOVA study where each received paired samples of three different, non-adjacent, sampling units. For example, the ten samples that any one of the eight participating labs could have received is:
Sample 1 (from sampling interval 1) Sample 2 (from sampling interval 4) Sample 3 (from sampling interval 7) Sample 4 (from sampling interval 1)
For personal use only use personal For Sample 5 (from sampling interval 4) Sample 6 (from sampling interval 7)
For the purpose of the ANOVA investigation these intervals were considered test units where the aim was to test whether between-unit variance was greater than within-unit variance. This approach permitted an assessment of homogeneity across the entire batch of OREAS 402. The test was performed using the following parameters: 3
Significance Level α = P (type I error) = 0.05 Null Hypothesis, H0: Between-unit variance is no greater than within-unit variance (reject H0 if p-value < 0.05) Alternative Hypothesis, H1: Between-unit variance is greater than within-unit variance
p-values are a measure of probability whereby values less than 0.05 indicate a greater than 95% probability that the observed differences in within-unit and between-unit variances are real. Each dataset was filtered for both individual and laboratory outliers prior to calculation of p-values. This process derived the p-values as shown in Table 4 and of note is the failure of SiO2. The p-values for the other analytes are not significant and indicate no evidence that between-unit variance is greater than within-unit variance. An anomalous p-value can be derived from chance and considering none of the other analytes support this heterogeneity we can conclude that the Null Hypothesis is retained.
Note that ANOVA is not an absolute measure of homogeneity. Rather, it establishes that the analytes are uniformly distributed throughout OREAS 402 and that the variance between two subsamples from the same unit is identical to the variance from two subsamples taken from any two separate units.
Table 4. Results of ANOVA Treatment showing p-values for all Certified Values of OREAS 402
Constituent p-value
Fusion XRF Iron, Fe (wt.%) 0.779
Aluminium Oxide, Al2O3 (wt.%) 0.947 Calcium Oxide, CaO (wt.%) NA
Chromium Oxide, Cr2O3 (ppm) 0.555 Magnesium Oxide, MgO (wt.%) 0.964 Phosphorus, P (wt.%) 0.972
Potassium Oxide, K2O (wt.%) NA
Silicon Dioxide, SiO2 (wt.%) 0.0001 Sulphur, S (wt.%) 0.599
Titanium Oxide, TiO2 (wt.%) 0.436 Thermogravimetry at 1000° C Loss On Ignition, LOI (wt.%) 0.651 NA=Not Applicable due to results being close to LLD
Based on the statistical analysis of the results of the interlaboratory certification program it can be concluded that OREAS 402 is fit-for-purpose as a certified reference material (see ‘Intended Use’ below).
PREPARER AND SUPPLIER OF THE REFERENCE MATERIAL
For personal use only use personal For Reference material OREAS 402 has been prepared, certified and is supplied by:
ORE Research & Exploration Pty Ltd Tel: +613-9729 0333 6-8 Gatwick Road Fax: +613-9761 7878 Bayswater North VIC 3153 Web: www.ore.com.au AUSTRALIA Email: [email protected]
4
It is available in 10g units in single-use laminated foil pouches and in 1kg units in plastic jars.
PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES
Acme Analytical Laboratories, Vancouver, BC, Canada Activation Laboratories, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada ALS, Brisbane, QLD, Australia ALS, Callao, Lima, Peru ALS, Perth, WA, Australia ALS, Vancouver, BC, Canada BV Amdel, Adelaide, SA, Australia BV Amdel, Cardiff, NSW, Australia BV Ultra Trace, Perth, WA, Australia Intertek Genalysis, Perth, WA, Australia OMAC Laboratories, Loughrea, County Galway, Ireland Rio Tinto Cape Lambert Operations, Wickham, WA, Australia SGS, Lakefield, Ontario, Canada SGS, Booysens, Gauteng, South Africa SGS, Perth, WA, Australia SGS, Vespasiano, MG, Brazil UIS, Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa
INTENDED USE
OREAS 402 is intended for the following uses:
for the monitoring of laboratory performance in the analysis of analytes reported in Table 1 in geological samples for the verification of analytical methods for analytes reported in Table 1 for the calibration of instruments used in the determination of the concentration of analytes reported in Table 1
STABILITY AND STORAGE INSTRUCTIONS
OREAS 402 is an oxidised reference material and is stable in the laminated foil pouches. Under normal conditions of storage it has a shelf life beyond ten years.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CORRECT USE OF THE REFERENCE MATERIAL
For personal use only use personal For The certified values for lithium borate fusion XRF and for LOI are on a dry basis. This requires the removal of hygroscopic moisture by drying in air to constant mass at 105°C. If the reference material is not dried prior to analysis, the certified values should be corrected to the moisture-bearing basis.
5
HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS
Fine powders pose a risk to eyes and lungs and therefore standard precautions such as the use of safety glasses and dust masks are advised.
LEGAL NOTICE
Ore Research & Exploration Pty Ltd has prepared and statistically evaluated the property values of this reference material to the best of its ability. The Purchaser by receipt hereof releases and indemnifies Ore Research & Exploration Pty Ltd from and against all liability and costs arising from the use of this material and information.
CERTIFYING OFFICER
Craig Hamlyn (B.Sc. Hons - Geology), Technical Manager – (ORE P/L)
REFERENCES
ISO Guide 35 (2006), Certification of reference materials - General and statistical principals. ISO Guide 3207 (1975), Statistical interpretation of data - Determination of a statistical tolerance interval. ISO 9516-1:2003: Iron Ores - Determination of various elements by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry - Part 1: Comprehensive procedure.
For personal use only use personal For
6
OREAS Reference Materials ABN 28006859856 6-8 Gatwick Rd · Bayswater North · Vic 3153 · Australia 61 3 9729 0333 61 3 9761 7878 [email protected] www.ore.com.au
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS FOR
HEMATITE ORE REFERENCE MATERIAL OREAS 403
Table 1. Fusion XRF - Certified Values, SDs, 95% Confidence and Tolerance Limits for OREAS 403 Certified 95% Confidence Limits 95% Tolerance Limits Constituent (wt.%) 1SD Value Low High Low High Fusion XRF Iron, Fe (wt.%) 52.31 0.310 52.19 52.43 52.09 52.52
Aluminium Oxide, Al2O3 (wt.%) 2.63 0.032 2.62 2.64 2.61 2.66 Calcium Oxide, CaO (wt.%) 0.106 0.005 0.104 0.108 0.103 0.109
Chromium Oxide, Cr2O3 (ppm) 109 15 98 120 IND IND Magnesium Oxide, MgO (wt.%) 0.077 0.015 0.068 0.086 IND IND Phosphorus, P (wt.%) 0.123 0.002 0.122 0.124 0.121 0.124
Potassium Oxide, K2O (wt.%) 0.011 0.002 0.010 0.011 IND IND
Silicon Dioxide, SiO2 (wt.%) 13.67 0.099 13.63 13.71 13.57 13.77 Sulphur, S (wt.%) 0.026 0.002 0.024 0.027 0.024 0.027
Titanium Oxide, TiO2 (wt.%) 0.289 0.009 0.284 0.293 0.282 0.295 Vanadium, V (ppm) 34.5 6.9 29.5 39.5 IND IND
Thermogravimetry at 1000° C For personal use only use personal For Loss On Ignition, LOI (wt.%) 8.00 0.154 7.91 8.09 7.97 8.03 Note: intervals may appear asymmetric due to rounding.
JULY2012-887-403
Table 2. Indicative Values for OREAS 403 Constituent Unit Value Constituent Unit Value Constituent Unit Value
Infrared Combustion S wt.% 0.035 Fusion XRF As ppm 13.7 MnO wt.% 0.007 Pb ppm 18.4
Cl ppm 36.6 Na2O wt.% 0.015 Zn ppm 19.7 Cu ppm 16.4 Ni ppm 19.8 Zr ppm 85
INTRODUCTION
OREAS reference materials are intended to provide a low cost method of evaluating and improving the quality of analysis of geological samples. To the geologist they provide a means of implementing quality control in analytical data sets generated in exploration from the grass roots level through to prospect evaluation, and in grade control at mining operations. To the analyst they provide an effective means of calibrating analytical equipment, assessing new techniques and routinely monitoring in-house procedures.
SOURCE MATERIALS
Reference material OREAS 403 is one of a suite of six CRMs sourced from hematite iron ore samples from the Spinifex Ridge deposit owned by Moly Mines Limited. Areas of enriched iron occur within the banded iron formation of the Gorge Creek Group located approximately 170km east of Port Hedland in Western Australia.
COMMINUTION AND HOMOGENISATION PROCEDURES
The material constituting OREAS 403 was prepared in the following manner:
drying to constant mass at 105°C; crushing and multi stage milling; homogenisation; packaging in 10g units into laminated foil pouches and in 1kg units into plastic jars.
ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
Seventeen commercial analytical laboratories participated in the program to characterise For personal use only use personal For the elements reported in Table 1 via lithium borate fusion with x-ray fluorescence for the standard iron ore suite including Fe, P, SiO2, Al2O3, CaO, MgO, MnO, S, TiO2, K2O, Na2O and LOI at 1000°C via thermogravimetry. Two laboratories used infra-red combustion furnace to determine sulphur and this data was not included with the XRF data but an indicative value for sulphur via IR combustion is presented (see Table 2). Table 2 shows indicative values for a number of elements where data was insufficient for certification (further
1
explained in ‘Statistical Analysis’). All analytes were requested to be reported on a dry basis without the addition of sodium nitrate to the flux and iron content to be determined by direct measurement XRF, not by closure to 100%, or any other assumed total.
For the round robin program ten 500g test units were taken at predetermined intervals during the bagging stage, immediately following final blending, and are considered representative of the entire batch. The six samples received by each laboratory were obtained by taking two 25g scoop splits from each of three separate 500g test units. This format enabled nested ANOVA treatment of the results to evaluate homogeneity. Results, together with uncorrected means, medians, standard deviations, relative standard deviations and percent deviation of lab means from the corrected mean of means (PDM3) are presented in the certification data file for this CRM (Datapack for OREAS 403.xlsx).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Certified Values, Standard Deviations, Confidence and Tolerance Limits have been determined for each analytical method following removal of individual and laboratory outliers (see Tables 1). Certified Values are the mean of means after outlier filtering. The 95% Confidence Limit is a measure of the reliability of the certified value, i.e. the narrower the Confidence Interval the greater the certainty in the Certified Value. It should not be used as a control limit for laboratory performance. Indicative values (Table 2) are provided where i) the number of laboratories reporting a particular analyte is insufficient (< 5) to support certification; ii) interlaboratory consensus is poor; or iii) a significant proportion of results are outlying or reported as less than detection limits.
Standard Deviation values (1SDs) are reported in Table 1 and provide an indication of a level of performance that might reasonably be expected from a laboratory being monitored by this CRM in a QA/QC program. They take into account errors attributable to measurement uncertainty and CRM variability. For an effective CRM the contribution of the latter should be negligible in comparison to measurement errors. The Standard Deviation values include all sources of measurement uncertainty: between-lab variance, within-run variance (precision errors) and CRM variability. The SD for each analyte’s certified value is calculated from the same filtered data set used to determine the certified value, i.e. after removal of all individual, lab dataset (batch) and 3SD outliers (single iteration). These outliers can only be removed after the absolute homogeneity of the CRM has been independently established, i.e. the outliers must be confidently deemed to be analytical rather than arising from inhomogeneity of the CRM. The standard deviation is then calculated for each analyte from the pooled accepted analyses generated from the certification program.
Performance Gates in Table 3 are calculated for two and three standard deviations. As a guide these intervals may be regarded as warning or rejection for multiple 2SD outliers, or rejection for individual 3SD outliers in QC monitoring, although their precise application should be at the discretion of the QC manager concerned. A second method utilises a 5% window calculated directly from the certified value. Standard deviation is also shown in For personal use only use personal For relative percent for one, two and three relative standard deviations (1RSD, 2RSD and 3RSD) to facilitate an appreciation of the magnitude of these numbers and a comparison with the 5% window. Caution should be exercised when concentration levels approach lower limits of detection of the analytical methods employed as performance gates calculated from standard deviations tend to be excessively wide whereas those determined by the 5% method are too narrow.
2
Table 3. Performance Gates for OREAS 403
Absolute Standard Deviations Relative Standard Deviations 5% window Certified Constituent Value 2SD 2SD 3SD 3SD 1SD 1RSD 2RSD 3RSD Low High Low High Low High Fusion XRF
Al2O3, wt.% 2.63 0.032 2.57 2.69 2.54 2.73 1.21% 2.42% 3.63% 2.50 2.76
CaO, wt.% 0.106 0.005 0.095 0.117 0.090 0.122 5.12% 10.24% 15.36% 0.101 0.111
Cr2O3, ppm 109 15 80 138 65 153 13.35% 26.70% 40.05% 104 114
Fe, wt.% 52.31 0.310 51.69 52.93 51.38 53.24 0.59% 1.19% 1.78% 49.69 54.92
K2O, wt.% 0.011 0.002 0.008 0.014 0.006 0.015 14.15% 28.31% 42.46% 0.010 0.011
MgO, wt.% 0.077 0.015 0.046 0.108 0.031 0.123 20.11% 40.22% 60.33% 0.073 0.081
P, wt.% 0.123 0.002 0.118 0.127 0.116 0.130 1.88% 3.76% 5.64% 0.116 0.129
S, wt.% 0.026 0.002 0.022 0.029 0.021 0.030 6.43% 12.87% 19.30% 0.024 0.027
SiO2, wt.% 13.67 0.099 13.47 13.87 13.37 13.97 0.72% 1.44% 2.16% 12.99 14.35
TiO2, wt.% 0.289 0.009 0.270 0.307 0.261 0.316 3.19% 6.38% 9.57% 0.274 0.303
V, ppm 34.5 6.9 20.6 48.4 13.6 55.3 20.15% 40.30% 60.45% 32.8 36.2
Thermogravimetry at 1000° C
LOI, wt.% 8.00 0.154 7.70 8.31 7.54 8.46 1.92% 3.84% 5.76% 7.60 8.40 Note: intervals may appear asymmetric due to rounding
Tolerance Limits (ISO Guide 3207) were determined using an analysis of precision errors method and are considered a conservative estimate of true homogeneity. The meaning of tolerance limits may be illustrated for iron (Fe), where 99% of the time (1-α=0.99) at least 95% of subsamples (ρ=0.95) will have concentrations lying between 52.09 and 52.52 wt.%. Put more precisely, this means that if the same number of subsamples were taken and analysed in the same manner repeatedly, 99% of the tolerance intervals so constructed would cover at least 95% of the total population, and 1% of the tolerance intervals would cover less than 95% of the total population (IS0 Guide 35).
ANOVA Treatment of all results was undertaken to evaluate the homogeneity of certified analytes in OREAS 403. All labs participated in the ANOVA study where each received paired samples of three different, non-adjacent, sampling units. For example, the ten samples that any one of the eight participating labs could have received is:
Sample 1 (from sampling interval 1) Sample 2 (from sampling interval 4) Sample 3 (from sampling interval 7) Sample 4 (from sampling interval 1) Sample 5 (from sampling interval 4) Sample 6 (from sampling interval 7) For personal use only use personal For For the purpose of the ANOVA investigation these intervals were considered test units where the aim was to test whether between-unit variance was greater than within-unit variance. This approach permitted an assessment of homogeneity across the entire batch of OREAS 403. The test was performed using the following parameters:
3
Significance Level α = P (type I error) = 0.05 Null Hypothesis, H0: Between-unit variance is no greater than within-unit variance (reject H0 if p-value < 0.05) Alternative Hypothesis, H1: Between-unit variance is greater than within-unit variance
p-values are a measure of probability whereby values less than 0.05 indicate a greater than 95% probability that the observed differences in within-unit and between-unit variances are real. Each dataset was filtered for both individual and laboratory outliers prior to calculation of p-values. This process derived the p-values as shown in Table 4 and indicate no evidence that between-unit variance is greater than within-unit variance. Conclusion: do not reject H0. Note that ANOVA is not an absolute measure of homogeneity. Rather, it establishes that the analytes are uniformly distributed throughout OREAS 403 and that the variance between two subsamples from the same unit is identical to the variance from two subsamples taken from any two separate units.
Table 4. Results of ANOVA Treatment showing p-values for all Certified Values of OREAS 403
Constituent p-value
Fusion XRF Iron, Fe (wt.%) 0.763
Aluminium Oxide, Al2O3 (wt.%) 0.931 Calcium Oxide, CaO (wt.%) 1.000
Chromium Oxide, Cr2O3 (ppm) 0.686 Magnesium Oxide, MgO (wt.%) NA Phosphorus, P (wt.%) 0.551
Potassium Oxide, K2O (wt.%) NA
Silicon Dioxide, SiO2 (wt.%) 0.273 Sulphur, S (wt.%) 0.724
Titanium Oxide, TiO2 (wt.%) 0.518 Vanadium, V (ppm) 0.706 Thermogravimetry at 1000° C Loss On Ignition, LOI (wt.%) 0.993 NA=Not Applicable due to results being close to LLD
Based on the statistical analysis of the results of the interlaboratory certification program it can be concluded that OREAS 403 is fit-for-purpose as a certified reference material (see ‘Intended Use’ below).
PREPARER AND SUPPLIER OF THE REFERENCE MATERIAL
Reference material OREAS 403 has been prepared, certified and is supplied by:
For personal use only use personal For ORE Research & Exploration Pty Ltd Tel: +613-9729 0333 6-8 Gatwick Road Fax: +613-9761 7878 Bayswater North VIC 3153 Web: www.ore.com.au AUSTRALIA Email: [email protected]
It is available in 10g units in single-use laminated foil pouches and in 1kg units in plastic jars.
4
PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES
Acme Analytical Laboratories, Vancouver, BC, Canada Activation Laboratories, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada ALS, Brisbane, QLD, Australia ALS, Callao, Lima, Peru ALS, Perth, WA, Australia ALS, Vancouver, BC, Canada BV Amdel, Adelaide, SA, Australia BV Amdel, Cardiff, NSW, Australia BV Ultra Trace, Perth, WA, Australia Intertek Genalysis, Perth, WA, Australia OMAC Laboratories, Loughrea, County Galway, Ireland Rio Tinto Cape Lambert Operations, Wickham, WA, Australia SGS, Lakefield, Ontario, Canada SGS, Booysens, Gauteng, South Africa SGS, Perth, WA, Australia SGS, Vespasiano, MG, Brazil UIS, Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa
INTENDED USE
OREAS 403 is intended for the following uses:
for the monitoring of laboratory performance in the analysis of analytes reported in Table 1 in geological samples for the verification of analytical methods for analytes reported in Table 1 for the calibration of instruments used in the determination of the concentration of analytes reported in Table 1
STABILITY AND STORAGE INSTRUCTIONS
OREAS 403 is an oxidised reference material and is stable in the laminated foil pouches. Under normal conditions of storage it has a shelf life beyond ten years.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CORRECT USE OF THE REFERENCE MATERIAL
The certified values for lithium borate fusion XRF and for LOI are on a dry basis. This requires the removal of hygroscopic moisture by drying in air to constant mass at 105°C. If the reference material is not dried prior to analysis, the certified values should be corrected to the
moisture-bearing basis. For personal use only use personal For
HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS
Fine powders pose a risk to eyes and lungs and therefore standard precautions such as the use of safety glasses and dust masks are advised.
5
LEGAL NOTICE
Ore Research & Exploration Pty Ltd has prepared and statistically evaluated the property values of this reference material to the best of its ability. The Purchaser by receipt hereof releases and indemnifies Ore Research & Exploration Pty Ltd from and against all liability and costs arising from the use of this material and information.
CERTIFYING OFFICER
Craig Hamlyn (B.Sc. Hons - Geology), Technical Manager – (ORE P/L)
REFERENCES
ISO Guide 35 (2006), Certification of reference materials - General and statistical principals. ISO Guide 3207 (1975), Statistical interpretation of data - Determination of a statistical tolerance interval. ISO 9516-1:2003: Iron Ores - Determination of various elements by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry - Part 1: Comprehensive procedure.
For personal use only use personal For
6
OREAS Reference Materials ABN 28006859856 6-8 Gatwick Rd · Bayswater North · Vic 3153 · Australia 61 3 9729 0333 61 3 9761 7878 [email protected] www.ore.com.au
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS FOR
HEMATITE ORE REFERENCE MATERIAL OREAS 404
Table 1. Fusion XRF - Certified Values, SDs, 95% Confidence and Tolerance Limits for OREAS 404 Certified 95% Confidence Limits 95% Tolerance Limits Constituent (wt.%) 1SD Value Low High Low High Fusion XRF Iron, Fe (wt.%) 55.14 0.208 55.07 55.22 54.91 55.37
Aluminium Oxide, Al2O3 (wt.%) 2.97 0.038 2.95 2.98 2.94 2.99 Calcium Oxide, CaO (wt.%) 0.102 0.004 0.100 0.103 0.098 0.105
Chromium Oxide, Cr2O3 (ppm) 124 21 108 141 IND IND Phosphorus, P (wt.%) 0.151 0.003 0.150 0.152 0.149 0.153
Silicon Dioxide, SiO2 (wt.%) 7.88 0.054 7.86 7.90 7.83 7.94 Sulphur, S (wt.%) 0.032 0.002 0.030 0.033 0.030 0.033
Titanium Oxide, TiO2 (wt.%) 0.385 0.010 0.380 0.390 0.380 0.390 Thermogravimetry at 1000° C Loss On Ignition, LOI (wt.%) 9.40 0.123 9.33 9.46 9.35 9.44
Note: intervals may appear asymmetric due to rounding. For personal use only use personal For
JULY2012-887-404
Table 2. Indicative Values for OREAS 404 Constituent Unit Value Constituent Unit Value Constituent Unit Value
Infrared Combustion S wt.% 0.043 Fusion XRF As ppm 17.6 MgO wt.% 0.074 Sr ppm 23.6 Ba ppm 31.2 MnO wt.% 0.007 V ppm 42.2
Cl ppm 37.9 Na2O wt.% 0.014 Zn ppm 18.1 Cu ppm 17.6 Ni ppm 30.6 Zr ppm 107
K2O wt.% 0.008 Pb ppm 6.11
INTRODUCTION
OREAS reference materials are intended to provide a low cost method of evaluating and improving the quality of analysis of geological samples. To the geologist they provide a means of implementing quality control in analytical data sets generated in exploration from the grass roots level through to prospect evaluation, and in grade control at mining operations. To the analyst they provide an effective means of calibrating analytical equipment, assessing new techniques and routinely monitoring in-house procedures.
SOURCE MATERIALS
Reference material OREAS 404 is one of a suite of six CRMs sourced from hematite iron ore samples from the Spinifex Ridge deposit owned by Moly Mines Limited. Areas of enriched iron occur within the banded iron formation of the Gorge Creek Group located approximately 170km east of Port Hedland in Western Australia.
COMMINUTION AND HOMOGENISATION PROCEDURES
The material constituting OREAS 404 was prepared in the following manner:
drying to constant mass at 105°C; crushing and multi stage milling; homogenisation; packaging in 10g units into laminated foil pouches and in 1kg units into plastic jars.
ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
For personal use only use personal For Seventeen commercial analytical laboratories participated in the program to characterise the elements reported in Table 1 via lithium borate fusion with x-ray fluorescence for the standard iron ore suite including Fe, P, SiO2, Al2O3, CaO, MgO, MnO, S, TiO2, K2O, Na2O and LOI at 1000°C via thermogravimetry. Two laboratories used infra-red combustion furnace to determine sulphur and this data was not included with the XRF data but an indicative value for sulphur via IR combustion is presented (see Table 2). Table 2 shows 1
indicative values for a number of elements where data was insufficient for certification (further explained in ‘Statistical Analysis’). All analytes were requested to be reported on a dry basis without the addition of sodium nitrate to the flux and iron content to be determined by direct measurement XRF, not by closure to 100%, or any other assumed total.
For the round robin program ten 500g test units were taken at predetermined intervals during the bagging stage, immediately following final blending, and are considered representative of the entire batch. The six samples received by each laboratory were obtained by taking two 25g scoop splits from each of three separate 500g test units. This format enabled nested ANOVA treatment of the results to evaluate homogeneity. Results, together with uncorrected means, medians, standard deviations, relative standard deviations and percent deviation of lab means from the corrected mean of means (PDM3) are presented in the certification data file for this CRM (Datapack for OREAS 404.xlsx).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Certified Values, Standard Deviations, Confidence and Tolerance Limits have been determined for each analytical method following removal of individual and laboratory outliers (see Tables 1). Certified Values are the mean of means after outlier filtering. The 95% Confidence Limit is a measure of the reliability of the certified value, i.e. the narrower the Confidence Interval the greater the certainty in the Certified Value. It should not be used as a control limit for laboratory performance. Indicative values (Table 2) are provided where i) the number of laboratories reporting a particular analyte is insufficient (< 5) to support certification; ii) interlaboratory consensus is poor; or iii) a significant proportion of results are outlying or reported as less than detection limits.
Standard Deviation values (1SDs) are reported in Table 1 and provide an indication of a level of performance that might reasonably be expected from a laboratory being monitored by this CRM in a QA/QC program. They take into account errors attributable to measurement uncertainty and CRM variability. For an effective CRM the contribution of the latter should be negligible in comparison to measurement errors. The Standard Deviation values include all sources of measurement uncertainty: between-lab variance, within-run variance (precision errors) and CRM variability. The SD for each analyte’s certified value is calculated from the same filtered data set used to determine the certified value, i.e. after removal of all individual, lab dataset (batch) and 3SD outliers (single iteration). These outliers can only be removed after the absolute homogeneity of the CRM has been independently established, i.e. the outliers must be confidently deemed to be analytical rather than arising from inhomogeneity of the CRM. The standard deviation is then calculated for each analyte from the pooled accepted analyses generated from the certification program.
Performance Gates in Table 3 are calculated for two and three standard deviations. As a guide these intervals may be regarded as warning or rejection for multiple 2SD outliers, or rejection for individual 3SD outliers in QC monitoring, although their precise application should be at the discretion of the QC manager concerned. A second method utilises a 5%
For personal use only use personal For window calculated directly from the certified value. Standard deviation is also shown in relative percent for one, two and three relative standard deviations (1RSD, 2RSD and 3RSD) to facilitate an appreciation of the magnitude of these numbers and a comparison with the 5% window. Caution should be exercised when concentration levels approach lower limits of detection of the analytical methods employed as performance gates calculated from standard deviations tend to be excessively wide whereas those determined by the 5% method are too narrow. 2
Table 3. Performance Gates for OREAS 404
Absolute Standard Deviations Relative Standard Deviations 5% window Certified Constituent Value 2SD 2SD 3SD 3SD 1SD 1RSD 2RSD 3RSD Low High Low High Low High Fusion XRF
Al2O3, wt.% 2.97 0.038 2.89 3.04 2.85 3.08 1.27% 2.53% 3.80% 2.82 3.12
CaO, wt.% 0.102 0.004 0.094 0.110 0.090 0.113 3.82% 7.63% 11.45% 0.097 0.107
Cr2O3, ppm 124 21 83 165 62 186 16.57% 33.15% 49.72% 118 130
Fe, wt.% 55.14 0.208 54.73 55.56 54.52 55.77 0.38% 0.75% 1.13% 52.39 57.90
P, wt.% 0.151 0.003 0.145 0.157 0.143 0.159 1.87% 3.74% 5.60% 0.143 0.159
S, wt.% 0.032 0.002 0.027 0.036 0.025 0.039 7.06% 14.13% 21.19% 0.030 0.033
SiO2, wt.% 7.88 0.054 7.78 7.99 7.72 8.04 0.68% 1.37% 2.05% 7.49 8.28
TiO2, wt.% 0.385 0.010 0.365 0.405 0.355 0.415 2.59% 5.17% 7.76% 0.366 0.404
Thermogravimetry at 1000° C
LOI, wt.% 9.40 0.123 9.15 9.64 9.03 9.76 1.31% 2.61% 3.92% 8.93 9.86 Note: intervals may appear asymmetric due to rounding
Tolerance Limits (ISO Guide 3207) were determined using an analysis of precision errors method and are considered a conservative estimate of true homogeneity. The meaning of tolerance limits may be illustrated for iron (Fe), where 99% of the time (1-α=0.99) at least 95% of subsamples (ρ=0.95) will have concentrations lying between 54.91 and 55.37 wt.%. Put more precisely, this means that if the same number of subsamples were taken and analysed in the same manner repeatedly, 99% of the tolerance intervals so constructed would cover at least 95% of the total population, and 1% of the tolerance intervals would cover less than 95% of the total population (IS0 Guide 35).
ANOVA Treatment of all results was undertaken to evaluate the homogeneity of certified analytes in OREAS 404. All labs participated in the ANOVA study where each received paired samples of three different, non-adjacent, sampling units. For example, the ten samples that any one of the eight participating labs could have received is:
Sample 1 (from sampling interval 1) Sample 2 (from sampling interval 4) Sample 3 (from sampling interval 7) Sample 4 (from sampling interval 1) Sample 5 (from sampling interval 4) Sample 6 (from sampling interval 7)
For the purpose of the ANOVA investigation these intervals were considered test units where the aim was to test whether between-unit variance was greater than within-unit variance. This approach permitted an assessment of homogeneity across the entire batch For personal use only use personal For of OREAS 404. The test was performed using the following parameters:
Significance Level α = P (type I error) = 0.05 Null Hypothesis, H0: Between-unit variance is no greater than within-unit variance (reject H0 if p-value < 0.05)
3
Alternative Hypothesis, H1: Between-unit variance is greater than within-unit variance
p-values are a measure of probability whereby values less than 0.05 indicate a greater than 95% probability that the observed differences in within-unit and between-unit variances are real. Each dataset was filtered for both individual and laboratory outliers prior to calculation of p-values. This process derived the p-values as shown in Table 4 and indicate no evidence that between-unit variance is greater than within-unit variance. Conclusion: do not reject H0. Note that ANOVA is not an absolute measure of homogeneity. Rather, it establishes that the analytes are uniformly distributed throughout OREAS 404 and that the variance between two subsamples from the same unit is identical to the variance from two subsamples taken from any two separate units.
Table 4. Results of ANOVA Treatment showing p-values for all Certified Values of OREAS 404
Constituent p-value
Fusion XRF Iron, Fe (wt.%) 0.866
Aluminium Oxide, Al2O3 (wt.%) 0.691 Calcium Oxide, CaO (wt.%) 0.989
Chromium Oxide, Cr2O3 (ppm) 1.000 Phosphorus, P (wt.%) 0.896
Silicon Dioxide, SiO2 (wt.%) 0.207 Sulphur, S (wt.%) 0.865
Titanium Oxide, TiO2 (wt.%) 0.938 Thermogravimetry at 1000° C Loss On Ignition, LOI (wt.%) 0.803 NA=Not Applicable due to results being close to LLD
Based on the statistical analysis of the results of the interlaboratory certification program it can be concluded that OREAS 404 is fit-for-purpose as a certified reference material (see ‘Intended Use’ below).
PREPARER AND SUPPLIER OF THE REFERENCE MATERIAL
Reference material OREAS 404 has been prepared, certified and is supplied by:
ORE Research & Exploration Pty Ltd Tel: +613-9729 0333 6-8 Gatwick Road Fax: +613-9761 7878 Bayswater North VIC 3153 Web: www.ore.com.au AUSTRALIA Email: [email protected]
It is available in 10g units in single-use laminated foil pouches and in 1kg units in plastic jars.
For personal use only use personal For
PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES
Acme Analytical Laboratories, Vancouver, BC, Canada Activation Laboratories, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada
4
ALS, Brisbane, QLD, Australia ALS, Callao, Lima, Peru ALS, Perth, WA, Australia ALS, Vancouver, BC, Canada BV Amdel, Adelaide, SA, Australia BV Amdel, Cardiff, NSW, Australia BV Ultra Trace, Perth, WA, Australia Intertek Genalysis, Perth, WA, Australia OMAC Laboratories, Loughrea, County Galway, Ireland Rio Tinto Cape Lambert Operations, Wickham, WA, Australia SGS, Lakefield, Ontario, Canada SGS, Booysens, Gauteng, South Africa SGS, Perth, WA, Australia SGS, Vespasiano, MG, Brazil UIS, Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa
INTENDED USE
OREAS 404 is intended for the following uses:
for the monitoring of laboratory performance in the analysis of analytes reported in Table 1 in geological samples for the verification of analytical methods for analytes reported in Table 1 for the calibration of instruments used in the determination of the concentration of analytes reported in Table 1
STABILITY AND STORAGE INSTRUCTIONS
OREAS 404 is an oxidised reference material and is stable in the laminated foil pouches. Under normal conditions of storage it has a shelf life beyond ten years.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CORRECT USE OF THE REFERENCE MATERIAL
The certified values for lithium borate fusion XRF and for LOI are on a dry basis. This requires the removal of hygroscopic moisture by drying in air to constant mass at 105°C. If the reference material is not dried prior to analysis, the certified values should be corrected to the moisture-bearing basis.
HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS
For personal use only use personal For Fine powders pose a risk to eyes and lungs and therefore standard precautions such as the use of safety glasses and dust masks are advised.
5
LEGAL NOTICE
Ore Research & Exploration Pty Ltd has prepared and statistically evaluated the property values of this reference material to the best of its ability. The Purchaser by receipt hereof releases and indemnifies Ore Research & Exploration Pty Ltd from and against all liability and costs arising from the use of this material and information.
CERTIFYING OFFICER
Craig Hamlyn (B.Sc. Hons - Geology), Technical Manager – (ORE P/L)
REFERENCES
ISO Guide 35 (2006), Certification of reference materials - General and statistical principals. ISO Guide 3207 (1975), Statistical interpretation of data - Determination of a statistical tolerance interval. ISO 9516-1:2003: Iron Ores - Determination of various elements by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry - Part 1: Comprehensive procedure.
For personal use only use personal For
6
OREAS Reference Materials ABN 28006859856 6-8 Gatwick Rd · Bayswater North · Vic 3153 · Australia 61 3 9729 0333 61 3 9761 7878 [email protected] www.ore.com.au
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS FOR
HEMATITE ORE REFERENCE MATERIAL OREAS 405
Table 1. Fusion XRF - Certified Values, SDs, 95% Confidence and Tolerance Limits for OREAS 405 Certified 95% Confidence Limits 95% Tolerance Limits Constituent (wt.%) 1SD Value Low High Low High Fusion XRF Iron, Fe (wt.%) 58.02 0.297 57.89 58.16 57.86 58.18
Aluminium Oxide, Al2O3 (wt.%) 2.26 0.042 2.24 2.28 2.24 2.28 Calcium Oxide, CaO (wt.%) 0.196 0.006 0.194 0.199 0.192 0.201
Chromium Oxide, Cr2O3 (ppm) 102 13 97 107 IND IND Manganese Oxide, MnO (wt.%) 0.030 0.002 0.029 0.030 0.027 0.032 Phosphorus, P (wt.%) 0.111 0.002 0.110 0.112 0.109 0.113
Potassium Oxide, K2O (wt.%) 0.020 0.001 0.019 0.020 IND IND
Silicon Dioxide, SiO2 (wt.%) 8.37 0.062 8.35 8.40 8.33 8.42 Sulphur, S (wt.%) 0.018 0.002 0.017 0.019 IND IND
Titanium Oxide, TiO2 (wt.%) 0.214 0.007 0.211 0.217 0.210 0.218 Thermogravimetry at 1000° C
Loss On Ignition, LOI (wt.%) 5.61 0.095 5.56 5.66 5.56 5.67 For personal use only use personal For Note: intervals may appear asymmetric due to rounding.
JULY2012-887-405
Table 2. Indicative Values for OREAS 405 Constituent Unit Value Constituent Unit Value Constituent Unit Value
Infrared Combustion S wt.% 0.030 Fusion XRF As ppm 10.1 MgO wt.% 0.062 V ppm 28.9
Ba ppm 33.5 Na2O wt.% 0.014 Zn ppm 17.4 Cl ppm 49.1 Ni ppm 39.2 Zr ppm 67 Co ppm 7.50 Pb ppm 15.4 Cu ppm 19.9 Sr ppm 21.5
INTRODUCTION
OREAS reference materials are intended to provide a low cost method of evaluating and improving the quality of analysis of geological samples. To the geologist they provide a means of implementing quality control in analytical data sets generated in exploration from the grass roots level through to prospect evaluation, and in grade control at mining operations. To the analyst they provide an effective means of calibrating analytical equipment, assessing new techniques and routinely monitoring in-house procedures.
SOURCE MATERIALS
Reference material OREAS 405 is one of a suite of six CRMs sourced from hematite iron ore samples from the Spinifex Ridge deposit owned by Moly Mines Limited. Areas of enriched iron occur within the banded iron formation of the Gorge Creek Group located approximately 170km east of Port Hedland in Western Australia.
COMMINUTION AND HOMOGENISATION PROCEDURES
The material constituting OREAS 405 was prepared in the following manner:
drying to constant mass at 105°C; crushing and multi stage milling; homogenisation; packaging in 10g units into laminated foil pouches and in 1kg units into plastic jars.
For personal use only use personal For ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
Seventeen commercial analytical laboratories participated in the program to characterise the elements reported in Table 1 via lithium borate fusion with x-ray fluorescence for the standard iron ore suite including Fe, P, SiO2, Al2O3, CaO, MgO, MnO, S, TiO2, K2O, Na2O and LOI at 1000°C via thermogravimetry. Two laboratories used infra-red combustion furnace to determine sulphur and this data was not included with the XRF data but an
1
indicative value for sulphur via IR combustion is presented (see Table 2). Table 2 shows indicative values for a number of elements where data was insufficient for certification (further explained in ‘Statistical Analysis’). All analytes were requested to be reported on a dry basis without the addition of sodium nitrate to the flux and iron content to be determined by direct measurement XRF, not by closure to 100%, or any other assumed total.
For the round robin program ten 500g test units were taken at predetermined intervals during the bagging stage, immediately following final blending, and are considered representative of the entire batch. The six samples received by each laboratory were obtained by taking two 25g scoop splits from each of three separate 500g test units. This format enabled nested ANOVA treatment of the results to evaluate homogeneity. Results, together with uncorrected means, medians, standard deviations, relative standard deviations and percent deviation of lab means from the corrected mean of means (PDM3) are presented in the certification data file for this CRM (Datapack for OREAS 405.xlsx).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Certified Values, Standard Deviations, Confidence and Tolerance Limits have been determined for each analytical method following removal of individual and laboratory outliers (see Tables 1). Certified Values are the mean of means after outlier filtering. The 95% Confidence Limit is a measure of the reliability of the certified value, i.e. the narrower the Confidence Interval the greater the certainty in the Certified Value. It should not be used as a control limit for laboratory performance. Indicative values (Table 2) are provided where i) the number of laboratories reporting a particular analyte is insufficient (< 5) to support certification; ii) interlaboratory consensus is poor; or iii) a significant proportion of results are outlying or reported as less than detection limits.
Standard Deviation values (1SDs) are reported in Table 1 and provide an indication of a level of performance that might reasonably be expected from a laboratory being monitored by this CRM in a QA/QC program. They take into account errors attributable to measurement uncertainty and CRM variability. For an effective CRM the contribution of the latter should be negligible in comparison to measurement errors. The Standard Deviation values include all sources of measurement uncertainty: between-lab variance, within-run variance (precision errors) and CRM variability. The SD for each analyte’s certified value is calculated from the same filtered data set used to determine the certified value, i.e. after removal of all individual, lab dataset (batch) and 3SD outliers (single iteration). These outliers can only be removed after the absolute homogeneity of the CRM has been independently established, i.e. the outliers must be confidently deemed to be analytical rather than arising from inhomogeneity of the CRM. The standard deviation is then calculated for each analyte from the pooled accepted analyses generated from the certification program.
Performance Gates in Table 3 are calculated for two and three standard deviations. As a guide these intervals may be regarded as warning or rejection for multiple 2SD outliers, or rejection for individual 3SD outliers in QC monitoring, although their precise application For personal use only use personal For should be at the discretion of the QC manager concerned. A second method utilises a 5% window calculated directly from the certified value. Standard deviation is also shown in relative percent for one, two and three relative standard deviations (1RSD, 2RSD and 3RSD) to facilitate an appreciation of the magnitude of these numbers and a comparison with the 5% window. Caution should be exercised when concentration levels approach lower limits of detection of the analytical methods employed as performance gates
2
calculated from standard deviations tend to be excessively wide whereas those determined by the 5% method are too narrow.
Table 3. Performance Gates for OREAS 405
Absolute Standard Deviations Relative Standard Deviations 5% window Certified Constituent Value 2SD 2SD 3SD 3SD 1SD 1RSD 2RSD 3RSD Low High Low High Low High Fusion XRF
Al2O3, wt.% 2.26 0.042 2.18 2.34 2.13 2.39 1.86% 3.73% 5.59% 2.15 2.37
CaO, wt.% 0.196 0.006 0.184 0.209 0.177 0.216 3.24% 6.47% 9.71% 0.187 0.206
Cr2O3, ppm 102 13 75 129 62 142 13.16% 26.33% 39.49% 97 107
Fe, wt.% 58.02 0.297 57.43 58.62 57.13 58.91 0.51% 1.03% 1.54% 55.12 60.92
K2O, wt.% 0.020 0.001 0.018 0.022 0.017 0.023 5.31% 10.61% 15.92% 0.019 0.021
MnO, wt.% 0.030 0.002 0.026 0.033 0.025 0.034 5.48% 10.97% 16.45% 0.028 0.031
P, wt.% 0.111 0.002 0.106 0.116 0.104 0.119 2.23% 4.45% 6.68% 0.106 0.117
S, wt.% 0.018 0.002 0.015 0.021 0.013 0.023 9.26% 18.52% 27.78% 0.017 0.019
SiO2, wt.% 8.37 0.062 8.25 8.50 8.19 8.56 0.75% 1.49% 2.24% 7.96 8.79
TiO2, wt.% 0.214 0.007 0.200 0.228 0.194 0.234 3.17% 6.35% 9.52% 0.203 0.225
Thermogravimetry at 1000° C
LOI, wt.% 5.61 0.095 5.42 5.80 5.33 5.89 1.69% 3.37% 5.06% 5.33 5.89 Note: intervals may appear asymmetric due to rounding
Tolerance Limits (ISO Guide 3207) were determined using an analysis of precision errors method and are considered a conservative estimate of true homogeneity. The meaning of tolerance limits may be illustrated for iron (Fe), where 99% of the time (1-α=0.99) at least 95% of subsamples (ρ=0.95) will have concentrations lying between 57.86 and 58.18 wt.%. Put more precisely, this means that if the same number of subsamples were taken and analysed in the same manner repeatedly, 99% of the tolerance intervals so constructed would cover at least 95% of the total population, and 1% of the tolerance intervals would cover less than 95% of the total population (IS0 Guide 35).
ANOVA Treatment of all results was undertaken to evaluate the homogeneity of certified analytes in OREAS 405. All labs participated in the ANOVA study where each received paired samples of three different, non-adjacent, sampling units. For example, the ten samples that any one of the eight participating labs could have received is:
Sample 1 (from sampling interval 1) Sample 2 (from sampling interval 4) Sample 3 (from sampling interval 7) Sample 4 (from sampling interval 1)
For personal use only use personal For Sample 5 (from sampling interval 4) Sample 6 (from sampling interval 7)
For the purpose of the ANOVA investigation these intervals were considered test units where the aim was to test whether between-unit variance was greater than within-unit variance. This approach permitted an assessment of homogeneity across the entire batch of OREAS 405. The test was performed using the following parameters: 3
Significance Level α = P (type I error) = 0.05 Null Hypothesis, H0: Between-unit variance is no greater than within-unit variance (reject H0 if p-value < 0.05) Alternative Hypothesis, H1: Between-unit variance is greater than within-unit variance
p-values are a measure of probability whereby values less than 0.05 indicate a greater than 95% probability that the observed differences in within-unit and between-unit variances are real. Each dataset was filtered for both individual and laboratory outliers prior to calculation of p-values. This process derived the p-values as shown in Table 4 and indicate no evidence that between-unit variance is greater than within-unit variance. Conclusion: do not reject H0. Note that ANOVA is not an absolute measure of homogeneity. Rather, it establishes that the analytes are uniformly distributed throughout OREAS 405 and that the variance between two subsamples from the same unit is identical to the variance from two subsamples taken from any two separate units.
Table 4. Results of ANOVA Treatment showing p-values for all Certified Values of OREAS 405
Constituent p-value
Fusion XRF Iron, Fe (wt.%) 0.888
Aluminium Oxide, Al2O3 (wt.%) 0.999 Calcium Oxide, CaO (wt.%) 0.959
Chromium Oxide, Cr2O3 (ppm) 0.875 Manganese Oxide, MnO (wt.%) NA Phosphorus, P (wt.%) 0.818
Potassium Oxide, K2O (wt.%) NA
Silicon Dioxide, SiO2 (wt.%) 0.998 Sulphur, S (wt.%) 0.595
Titanium Oxide, TiO2 (wt.%) 0.734 Thermogravimetry at 1000° C Loss On Ignition, LOI (wt.%) 0.556 NA=Not Applicable due to results being close to LLD
Based on the statistical analysis of the results of the interlaboratory certification program it can be concluded that OREAS 405 is fit-for-purpose as a certified reference material (see ‘Intended Use’ below).
PREPARER AND SUPPLIER OF THE REFERENCE MATERIAL
Reference material OREAS 405 has been prepared, certified and is supplied by:
For personal use only use personal For ORE Research & Exploration Pty Ltd Tel: +613-9729 0333 6-8 Gatwick Road Fax: +613-9761 7878 Bayswater North VIC 3153 Web: www.ore.com.au AUSTRALIA Email: [email protected]
It is available in 10g units in single-use laminated foil pouches and in 1kg units in plastic jars.
4
PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES
Acme Analytical Laboratories, Vancouver, BC, Canada Activation Laboratories, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada ALS, Brisbane, QLD, Australia ALS, Callao, Lima, Peru ALS, Perth, WA, Australia ALS, Vancouver, BC, Canada BV Amdel, Adelaide, SA, Australia BV Amdel, Cardiff, NSW, Australia BV Ultra Trace, Perth, WA, Australia Intertek Genalysis, Perth, WA, Australia OMAC Laboratories, Loughrea, County Galway, Ireland Rio Tinto Cape Lambert Operations, Wickham, WA, Australia SGS, Lakefield, Ontario, Canada SGS, Booysens, Gauteng, South Africa SGS, Perth, WA, Australia SGS, Vespasiano, MG, Brazil UIS, Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa
INTENDED USE
OREAS 405 is intended for the following uses:
for the monitoring of laboratory performance in the analysis of analytes reported in Table 1 in geological samples for the verification of analytical methods for analytes reported in Table 1 for the calibration of instruments used in the determination of the concentration of analytes reported in Table 1
STABILITY AND STORAGE INSTRUCTIONS
OREAS 405 is an oxidised reference material and is stable in the laminated foil pouches. Under normal conditions of storage it has a shelf life beyond ten years.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CORRECT USE OF THE REFERENCE MATERIAL
The certified values for lithium borate fusion XRF and for LOI are on a dry basis. This requires the removal of hygroscopic moisture by drying in air to constant mass at 105°C. If the reference material is not dried prior to analysis, the certified values should be corrected to the
moisture-bearing basis. For personal use only use personal For
HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS
Fine powders pose a risk to eyes and lungs and therefore standard precautions such as the use of safety glasses and dust masks are advised.
5
LEGAL NOTICE
Ore Research & Exploration Pty Ltd has prepared and statistically evaluated the property values of this reference material to the best of its ability. The Purchaser by receipt hereof releases and indemnifies Ore Research & Exploration Pty Ltd from and against all liability and costs arising from the use of this material and information.
CERTIFYING OFFICER
Craig Hamlyn (B.Sc. Hons - Geology), Technical Manager – (ORE P/L)
REFERENCES
ISO Guide 35 (2006), Certification of reference materials - General and statistical principals. ISO Guide 3207 (1975), Statistical interpretation of data - Determination of a statistical tolerance interval. ISO 9516-1:2003: Iron Ores - Determination of various elements by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry - Part 1: Comprehensive procedure.
For personal use only use personal For
6
OREAS Reference Materials ABN 28006859856 6-8 Gatwick Rd · Bayswater North · Vic 3153 · Australia 61 3 9729 0333 61 3 9761 7878 [email protected] www.ore.com.au
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS FOR
HEMATITE ORE REFERENCE MATERIAL OREAS 406
Table 1. Fusion XRF - Certified Values, SDs, 95% Confidence and Tolerance Limits for OREAS 406 Certified 95% Confidence Limits 95% Tolerance Limits Constituent (wt.%) 1SD Value Low High Low High Fusion XRF Iron, Fe (wt.%) 61.44 0.296 61.32 61.56 61.19 61.69
Aluminium Oxide, Al2O3 (wt.%) 1.14 0.020 1.13 1.14 1.12 1.15 Calcium Oxide, CaO (wt.%) 0.157 0.007 0.154 0.160 0.152 0.162 Manganese Oxide, MnO (wt.%) 0.039 0.002 0.038 0.040 0.037 0.041 Phosphorus, P (wt.%) 0.085 0.003 0.084 0.087 0.084 0.087
Potassium Oxide, K2O (wt.%) 0.019 0.003 0.018 0.020 IND IND
Silicon Dioxide, SiO2 (wt.%) 7.96 0.066 7.93 7.99 7.92 8.00
Titanium Oxide, TiO2 (wt.%) 0.047 0.006 0.044 0.050 0.044 0.050 Thermogravimetry at 1000° C Loss On Ignition, LOI (wt.%) 2.69 0.071 2.65 2.73 2.66 2.73
Note: intervals may appear asymmetric due to rounding; IND = indeterminate due to results close to LLD For personal use only use personal For
JULY2012-887-406
Table 2. Indicative Values for OREAS 406 Constituent Unit Value Constituent Unit Value Constituent Unit Value
Fusion XRF As ppm 10.4 Cu ppm 18.6 S wt.% 0.006 Ba ppm 37.4 MgO wt.% 0.037 V ppm 11.4
Cl ppm 58 Na2O wt.% 0.017 Zn ppm 17.4 Co ppm 9.11 Ni ppm 58 Zr ppm 29.3
Cr2O3 ppm 62 Pb ppm 19.6
INTRODUCTION
OREAS reference materials are intended to provide a low cost method of evaluating and improving the quality of analysis of geological samples. To the geologist they provide a means of implementing quality control in analytical data sets generated in exploration from the grass roots level through to prospect evaluation, and in grade control at mining operations. To the analyst they provide an effective means of calibrating analytical equipment, assessing new techniques and routinely monitoring in-house procedures.
SOURCE MATERIALS
Reference material OREAS 406 is one of a suite of six CRMs sourced from hematite iron ore samples from the Spinifex Ridge deposit owned by Moly Mines Limited. Areas of enriched iron occur within the banded iron formation of the Gorge Creek Group located approximately 170km east of Port Hedland in Western Australia.
COMMINUTION AND HOMOGENISATION PROCEDURES
The material constituting OREAS 406 was prepared in the following manner:
drying to constant mass at 105°C; crushing and multi stage milling; homogenisation; packaging in 10g units into laminated foil pouches and in 1kg units into plastic jars.
ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
Seventeen commercial analytical laboratories participated in the program to characterise For personal use only use personal For the elements reported in Table 1 via lithium borate fusion with x-ray fluorescence for the standard iron ore suite including Fe, P, SiO2, Al2O3, CaO, MgO, MnO, S, TiO2, K2O, Na2O and LOI at 1000°C via thermogravimetry. Table 2 shows indicative values for a number of elements where data was insufficient for certification (further explained in ‘Statistical Analysis’). All analytes were requested to be reported on a dry basis without the addition of
1
sodium nitrate to the flux and iron content to be determined by direct measurement XRF, not by closure to 100%, or any other assumed total.
For the round robin program ten 500g test units were taken at predetermined intervals during the bagging stage, immediately following final blending, and are considered representative of the entire batch. The six samples received by each laboratory were obtained by taking two 25g scoop splits from each of three separate 500g test units. This format enabled nested ANOVA treatment of the results to evaluate homogeneity.
Results, together with uncorrected means, medians, standard deviations, relative standard deviations and percent deviation of lab means from the corrected mean of means (PDM3) are presented in the certification data file for this CRM (Datapack for OREAS 406.xlsx).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Certified Values, Standard Deviations, Confidence and Tolerance Limits have been determined for each analytical method following removal of individual and laboratory outliers (see Tables 1). Certified Values are the mean of means after outlier filtering. The 95% Confidence Limit is a measure of the reliability of the certified value, i.e. the narrower the Confidence Interval the greater the certainty in the Certified Value. It should not be used as a control limit for laboratory performance. Indicative values (Table 2) are provided where i) the number of laboratories reporting a particular analyte is insufficient (< 5) to support certification; ii) interlaboratory consensus is poor; or iii) a significant proportion of results are outlying or reported as less than detection limits.
Standard Deviation values (1SDs) are reported in Table 1 and provide an indication of a level of performance that might reasonably be expected from a laboratory being monitored by this CRM in a QA/QC program. They take into account errors attributable to measurement uncertainty and CRM variability. For an effective CRM the contribution of the latter should be negligible in comparison to measurement errors. The Standard Deviation values include all sources of measurement uncertainty: between-lab variance, within-run variance (precision errors) and CRM variability. The SD for each analyte’s certified value is calculated from the same filtered data set used to determine the certified value, i.e. after removal of all individual, lab dataset (batch) and 3SD outliers (single iteration). These outliers can only be removed after the absolute homogeneity of the CRM has been independently established, i.e. the outliers must be confidently deemed to be analytical rather than arising from inhomogeneity of the CRM. The standard deviation is then calculated for each analyte from the pooled accepted analyses generated from the certification program.
Performance Gates in Table 3 are calculated for two and three standard deviations. As a guide these intervals may be regarded as warning or rejection for multiple 2SD outliers, or rejection for individual 3SD outliers in QC monitoring, although their precise application should be at the discretion of the QC manager concerned. A second method utilises a 5% For personal use only use personal For window calculated directly from the certified value. Standard deviation is also shown in relative percent for one, two and three relative standard deviations (1RSD, 2RSD and 3RSD) to facilitate an appreciation of the magnitude of these numbers and a comparison with the 5% window. Caution should be exercised when concentration levels approach lower limits of detection of the analytical methods employed as performance gates
2
calculated from standard deviations tend to be excessively wide whereas those determined by the 5% method are too narrow.
Table 3. Performance Gates for OREAS 406
Absolute Standard Deviations Relative Standard Deviations 5% window Certified Constituent Value 2SD 2SD 3SD 3SD 1SD 1RSD 2RSD 3RSD Low High Low High Low High Fusion XRF
Al2O3, wt.% 1.14 0.020 1.10 1.18 1.08 1.20 1.77% 3.53% 5.30% 1.08 1.19
CaO, wt.% 0.157 0.007 0.144 0.170 0.137 0.176 4.17% 8.34% 12.51% 0.149 0.165
Fe, wt.% 61.44 0.296 60.85 62.03 60.55 62.33 0.48% 0.96% 1.45% 58.37 64.51
K2O, wt.% 0.019 0.003 0.013 0.024 0.010 0.027 15.82% 31.64% 47.46% 0.018 0.019
MnO, wt.% 0.039 0.002 0.035 0.042 0.033 0.044 4.87% 9.73% 14.60% 0.037 0.041
P, wt.% 0.085 0.003 0.080 0.091 0.077 0.093 3.12% 6.24% 9.37% 0.081 0.090
SiO2, wt.% 7.96 0.066 7.83 8.09 7.76 8.16 0.83% 1.66% 2.49% 7.56 8.36
TiO2, wt.% 0.047 0.006 0.036 0.058 0.030 0.064 11.91% 23.83% 35.74% 0.044 0.049
Thermogravimetry at 1000° C
LOI, wt.% 2.69 0.071 2.55 2.84 2.48 2.91 2.64% 5.29% 7.93% 2.56 2.83 Note: intervals may appear asymmetric due to rounding
Tolerance Limits (ISO Guide 3207) were determined using an analysis of precision errors method and are considered a conservative estimate of true homogeneity. The meaning of tolerance limits may be illustrated for iron (Fe), where 99% of the time (1-α=0.99) at least 95% of subsamples (ρ=0.95) will have concentrations lying between 61.19 and 61.69 wt.%. Put more precisely, this means that if the same number of subsamples were taken and analysed in the same manner repeatedly, 99% of the tolerance intervals so constructed would cover at least 95% of the total population, and 1% of the tolerance intervals would cover less than 95% of the total population (IS0 Guide 35).
ANOVA Treatment of all results was undertaken to evaluate the homogeneity of certified analytes in OREAS 406. All labs participated in the ANOVA study where each received paired samples of three different, non-adjacent, sampling units. For example, the ten samples that any one of the eight participating labs could have received is:
Sample 1 (from sampling interval 1) Sample 2 (from sampling interval 4) Sample 3 (from sampling interval 7) Sample 4 (from sampling interval 1) Sample 5 (from sampling interval 4)
For personal use only use personal For Sample 6 (from sampling interval 7)
For the purpose of the ANOVA investigation these intervals were considered test units where the aim was to test whether between-unit variance was greater than within-unit variance. This approach permitted an assessment of homogeneity across the entire batch of OREAS 406. The test was performed using the following parameters:
3
Significance Level α = P (type I error) = 0.05 Null Hypothesis, H0: Between-unit variance is no greater than within-unit variance (reject H0 if p-value < 0.05) Alternative Hypothesis, H1: Between-unit variance is greater than within-unit variance
p-values are a measure of probability whereby values less than 0.05 indicate a greater than 95% probability that the observed differences in within-unit and between-unit variances are real. Each dataset was filtered for both individual and laboratory outliers prior to calculation of p-values. This process derived the p-values as shown in Table 4 and indicate no evidence that between-unit variance is greater than within-unit variance. Conclusion: do not reject H0. Note that ANOVA is not an absolute measure of homogeneity. Rather, it establishes that the analytes are uniformly distributed throughout OREAS 406 and that the variance between two subsamples from the same unit is identical to the variance from two subsamples taken from any two separate units.
Table 4. Results of ANOVA Treatment showing p-values for all Certified Values of OREAS 406
Constituent p-value
Fusion XRF Iron, Fe (wt.%) 0.405
Aluminium Oxide, Al2O3 (wt.%) 0.939 Calcium Oxide, CaO (wt.%) 0.741 Manganese Oxide, MnO (wt.%) 0.992 Phosphorus, P (wt.%) 0.422
Potassium Oxide, K2O (wt.%) NA
Silicon Dioxide, SiO2 (wt.%) 0.994
Titanium Oxide, TiO2 (wt.%) NA Thermogravimetry at 1000° C Loss On Ignition, LOI (wt.%) 0.991 NA=Not Applicable due to results being close to LLD
Based on the statistical analysis of the results of the interlaboratory certification program it can be concluded that OREAS 406 is fit-for-purpose as a certified reference material (see ‘Intended Use’ below).
PREPARER AND SUPPLIER OF THE REFERENCE MATERIAL
Reference material OREAS 406 has been prepared, certified and is supplied by:
ORE Research & Exploration Pty Ltd Tel: +613-9729 0333 6-8 Gatwick Road Fax: +613-9761 7878 Bayswater North VIC 3153 Web: www.ore.com.au
For personal use only use personal For AUSTRALIA Email: [email protected]
It is available in 10g units in single-use laminated foil pouches and in 1kg units in plastic jars.
4
PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES
Acme Analytical Laboratories, Vancouver, BC, Canada Activation Laboratories, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada ALS, Brisbane, QLD, Australia ALS, Callao, Lima, Peru ALS, Perth, WA, Australia ALS, Vancouver, BC, Canada BV Amdel, Adelaide, SA, Australia BV Amdel, Cardiff, NSW, Australia BV Ultra Trace, Perth, WA, Australia Intertek Genalysis, Perth, WA, Australia OMAC Laboratories, Loughrea, County Galway, Ireland Rio Tinto Cape Lambert Operations, Wickham, WA, Australia SGS, Lakefield, Ontario, Canada SGS, Booysens, Gauteng, South Africa SGS, Perth, WA, Australia SGS, Vespasiano, MG, Brazil UIS, Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa
INTENDED USE
OREAS 406 is intended for the following uses:
for the monitoring of laboratory performance in the analysis of analytes reported in Table 1 in geological samples for the verification of analytical methods for analytes reported in Table 1 for the calibration of instruments used in the determination of the concentration of analytes reported in Table 1
STABILITY AND STORAGE INSTRUCTIONS
OREAS 406 is an oxidised reference material and is stable in the laminated foil pouches. Under normal conditions of storage it has a shelf life beyond ten years.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CORRECT USE OF THE REFERENCE MATERIAL
The certified values for lithium borate fusion XRF and for LOI are on a dry basis. This requires the removal of hygroscopic moisture by drying in air to constant mass at 105°C. If the reference material is not dried prior to analysis, the certified values should be corrected to the
moisture-bearing basis. For personal use only use personal For
HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS
Fine powders pose a risk to eyes and lungs and therefore standard precautions such as the use of safety glasses and dust masks are advised.
5
LEGAL NOTICE
Ore Research & Exploration Pty Ltd has prepared and statistically evaluated the property values of this reference material to the best of its ability. The Purchaser by receipt hereof releases and indemnifies Ore Research & Exploration Pty Ltd from and against all liability and costs arising from the use of this material and information.
CERTIFYING OFFICER
Craig Hamlyn (B.Sc. Hons - Geology), Technical Manager – (ORE P/L)
REFERENCES
ISO Guide 35 (2006), Certification of reference materials - General and statistical principals. ISO Guide 3207 (1975), Statistical interpretation of data - Determination of a statistical tolerance interval. ISO 9516-1:2003: Iron Ores - Determination of various elements by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry - Part 1: Comprehensive procedure.
For personal use only use personal For
6
NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 1
Appendix 8: Bulk Density Determinations For personal use only use personal For
PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC219 2 0.66 SRFe SRC219 3 2.65 SRFe SRC219 4 2.45 SRFe SRC219 5 2.77 SRFe SRC219 6 2.8 SRFe SRC219 7 2.66 SRFe SRC219 8 3.04 SRFe SRC219 9 3.03 SRFe SRC219 10 2.25 SRFe SRC219 11 2.02 SRFe SRC219 12 2.11 SRFe SRC219 13 2.45 SRFe SRC219 14 2.56 SRFe SRC219 15 1.67 SRFe SRC219 16 1.63 SRFe SRC219 17 1.2 SRFe SRC219 18 1.6 SRFe SRC219 19 1.89 SRFe SRC219 20 1.22 SRFe SRC219 21 1.8 SRFe SRC219 22 2.4 SRFe SRC219 23 2.8 SRFe SRC219 24 2.39 SRFe SRC219 25 2.8 SRFe SRC219 25.1 2.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC219 25.2 2.82 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC219 25.3 3.36 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC219 25.4 2.54 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC246 2 0.42 SRFe SRC246 3 1.88 SRFe SRC246 4 2.21 SRFe SRC246 5 2.1 SRFe SRC246 6 2.3 SRFe SRC246 7 2.56 SRFe SRC246 8 2.31 SRFe SRC246 9 2.94 SRFe SRC246 10 2.8 SRFe SRC246 11 0.96 For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC246 12 1.14 SRFe SRC246 13 1.75 SRFe SRC246 14 1.88 SRFe SRC246 15 1.96 SRFe SRC246 16 1.7 PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC246 17 1.88 SRFe SRC246 18 2.08 SRFe SRC246 19 2.2 SRFe SRC246 20 2.4 SRFe SRC246 21 2.44 SRFe SRC246 22 2.87 SRFe SRC246 23 2.99 SRFe SRC246 24 2.93 SRFe SRC246 25 3.51 SRFe SRC246 26 3.56 SRFe SRC246 27 3.65 SRFe SRC246 28 4.21 SRFe SRC246 29 3.8 SRFe SRC246 30 4.32 SRFe SRC246 31 4.36 SRFe SRC246 32 3.51 SRFe SRC246 33 3.59 SRFe SRC246 34 3.92 SRFe SRC246 35 3.95 SRFe SRC246 36 3.68 SRFe SRC246 37 3.46 SRFe SRC246 38 2.48 SRFe SRC246 39 2.4 SRFe SRC246 40 3.09 SRFe SRC246 41 2.85 SRFe SRC246 42 3.33 SRFe SRC246 43 3.87 SRFe SRC246 44 3.49 SRFe SRC246 45 2.71 SRFe SRC246 46 2.36 SRFe SRC246 47 2.26 SRFe SRC246 48 3.35 SRFe SRC246 49 2.55 SRFe SRC246 50 2.18 SRFe SRC246 51 2.74 SRFe SRC246 52 3.3 SRFe SRC246 53 3.28 SRFe SRC246 54 2.96 For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC246 55 2.97 SRFe SRC246 56 3.53 SRFe SRC246 57 2.44 SRFe SRC246 58 2.48 SRFe SRC246 59 2.65 PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC246 60 2.57 SRFe SRC246 61 2.7 SRFe SRC246 62 2.77 SRFe SRC246 63 2.96 SRFe SRC246 64 3.17 SRFe SRC246 65 3.02 SRFe SRC246 66 2.73 SRFe SRC246 67 2.6 SRFe SRC246 68 2.51 SRFe SRC246 69 2.38 SRFe SRC246 70 2.35 SRFe SRC246 71 2.63 SRFe SRC246 72 2.31 SRFe SRC246 73 2.53 SRFe SRC246 74 1.8 SRFe SRC246 75 1.85 SRFe SRC246 76 2.05 SRFe SRC246 77 2.92 SRFe SRC246 78 3.34 SRFe SRC246 79 3.7 SRFe SRC246 80 2.74 SRFe SRC246 81 2.53 SRFe SRC246 82 2.49 SRFe SRC246 83 2.62 SRFe SRC246 84 2.46 SRFe SRC246 85 2.53 SRFe SRC246 86 2.24 SRFe SRC246 87 2.34 SRFe SRC246 88 2.46 SRFe SRC246 89 2.84 SRFe SRC246 90 2.79 SRFe SRC246 91 2.46 SRFe SRC246 92 2.05 SRFe SRC246 93 2.13 SRFe SRC246 94 2.35 SRFe SRC246 95 2.27 SRFe SRC246 96 2.28 SRFe SRC246 97 2.28 For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC246 98 1.93 SRFe SRC246 99 2 SRFe SRC246 100 2.51 SRFe SRC246 101 2.28 SRFe SRC246 102 2.29 PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC246 103 2.47 SRFe SRC246 104 2.51 SRFe SRC246 105 2.61 SRFe SRC246 106 2.64 SRFe SRC246 107 2.54 SRFe SRC246 108 2.08 SRFe SRC246 109 1.95 SRFe SRC246 110 2.11 SRFe SRC246 111 2.07 SRFe SRC246 112 2.26 SRFe SRC246 113 2.33 SRFe SRC246 114 2.64 SRFe SRC246 115 2.23 SRFe SRC246 116 1.86 SRFe SRC246 117 2.09 SRFe SRC246 118 1.82 SRFe SRC246 118.1 1.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC246 118.2 1.89 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC246 118.3 1.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC246 118.4 1.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC246 118.5 1.73 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC246 118.6 1.38 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC246 118.7 0.89 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC246 118.8 0.48 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC246 118.9 0.37 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC252A 2 0.65 SRFe SRC252A 3 2.21 SRFe SRC252A 4 2.41 SRFe SRC252A 5 1.31 SRFe SRC252A 6 1.57 SRFe SRC252A 7 1.79 SRFe SRC252A 8 2.09 SRFe SRC252A 9 2.01 SRFe SRC252A 10 1.81 SRFe SRC252A 11 0.85 SRFe SRC252A 12 1.31 SRFe SRC252A 13 2.34 SRFe SRC252A 14 1.1 For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC252A 15 1.03 SRFe SRC252A 16 1.01 SRFe SRC252A 17 1.22 SRFe SRC252A 18 1.18 SRFe SRC252A 18.1 1.25 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC301 2 0.76 SRFe SRC301 3 1.23 SRFe SRC301 4 1.48 SRFe SRC301 5 2.03 SRFe SRC301 6 1.98 SRFe SRC301 7 1.86 SRFe SRC301 8 2.61 SRFe SRC301 9 2.96 SRFe SRC301 10 2.42 SRFe SRC301 11 2.7 SRFe SRC301 12 3.17 SRFe SRC301 13 2.81 SRFe SRC301 14 2.62 SRFe SRC301 15 2.66 SRFe SRC301 16 3.57 SRFe SRC301 17 3.22 SRFe SRC301 18 2.96 SRFe SRC301 19 3.15 SRFe SRC301 20 3.04 SRFe SRC301 21 3.35 SRFe SRC301 22 3.1 SRFe SRC301 23 2.84 SRFe SRC301 24 3.1 SRFe SRC301 25 3.1 SRFe SRC301 26 2.75 SRFe SRC301 27 2.98 SRFe SRC301 28 3.39 SRFe SRC301 29 3.13 SRFe SRC301 30 1.13 SRFe SRC301 31 2.36 SRFe SRC301 32 3.42 SRFe SRC301 33 3.24 SRFe SRC301 34 3.41 SRFe SRC301 35 3.9 SRFe SRC301 36 2.94 SRFe SRC301 37 2.71 SRFe SRC301 38 2.77 SRFe SRC301 39 2.7 For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC301 40 2.9 SRFe SRC301 41 2.81 SRFe SRC301 42 3.18 SRFe SRC301 43 1.88 SRFe SRC301 44 3.26 PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC301 45 3.25 SRFe SRC301 46 2.89 SRFe SRC301 47 3.29 SRFe SRC301 48 3.82 SRFe SRC301 49 3.32 SRFe SRC301 50 3.12 SRFe SRC301 51 2.75 SRFe SRC301 52 3.48 SRFe SRC301 53 2.75 SRFe SRC301 54 3.59 SRFe SRC301 55 3.74 SRFe SRC301 56 3.86 SRFe SRC301 57 3.95 SRFe SRC301 58 3.95 SRFe SRC301 59 4.1 SRFe SRC301 60 3.53 SRFe SRC301 61 3.52 SRFe SRC301 62 3.59 SRFe SRC301 63 3.81 SRFe SRC301 64 3.93 SRFe SRC301 65 4.23 SRFe SRC301 66 4.32 SRFe SRC301 67 4.57 SRFe SRC301 68 4.1 SRFe SRC301 69 4.26 SRFe SRC301 70 4.25 SRFe SRC301 71 3.91 SRFe SRC301 72 3.58 SRFe SRC301 73 3.62 SRFe SRC301 74 3.28 SRFe SRC301 75 3.28 SRFe SRC301 76 3.42 SRFe SRC301 77 3.55 SRFe SRC301 78 3.5 SRFe SRC301 79 3.99 SRFe SRC301 80 4.11 SRFe SRC301 81 3.75 SRFe SRC301 82 3.58 For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC301 83 3.57 SRFe SRC301 84 4.07 SRFe SRC301 85 3.85 SRFe SRC301 86 3.6 SRFe SRC301 87 4.04 PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC301 88 3.74 SRFe SRC301 89 3.91 SRFe SRC301 90 4.17 SRFe SRC301 91 4.22 SRFe SRC301 92 3.46 SRFe SRC301 93 1.07 SRFe SRC301 94 1.64 SRFe SRC301 94.1 2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC301 94.2 1.68 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC301 94.3 1.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC301 94.4 0.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 2 0.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 3 1.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 4 1.23 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 5 2.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 6 3.32 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 7 2.99 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 8 2.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 9 2.73 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 10 3.07 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 11 3.24 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 12 3.29 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 13 3.1 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 14 3.19 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 15 3.17 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 16 2.88 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 17 3.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 18 3.19 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 19 2.7 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 20 2.41 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 21 2.68 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 22 2.44 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 23 2.63 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 24 2.42 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 25 2.58 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 26 2.6 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 27 2.96 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC318 28 3.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 29 2.79 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 30 2.88 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 31 2.81 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 32 2.79 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC318 33 2.76 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 34 2.78 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 35 2.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 36 2.46 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 37 2.26 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 38 2.29 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 39 2.31 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 40 1.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 41 2.39 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 42 2.58 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 43 2.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 44 2.17 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 45 1.92 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 46 2.42 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 47 2.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 48 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 49 1.53 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 50 1.88 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 51 1.44 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 52 2.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 53 2.64 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 54 2.59 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 55 2.15 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 56 1.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 56.1 2.55 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 56.2 2.17 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 56.3 1.86 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 56.4 1.76 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 56.5 1.73 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC318 56.6 1.22 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 2 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 3 1.27 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 4 1.92 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 5 2.22 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 6 2.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 7 2.43 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 8 2.83 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC320 9 2.45 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 10 2.44 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 11 2.65 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 12 2.5 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 13 2.73 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC320 14 2.78 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 15 3.48 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 16 3.33 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 17 2.52 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 18 2.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 19 2.19 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 20 2.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 21 2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 22 2.04 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 23 1.98 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 24 2.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 25 2.18 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 26 2.32 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 27 2.47 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 28 2.33 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 29 1.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 30 2.36 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 31 2.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 32 2.4 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 33 2.44 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 34 2.43 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 35 2.48 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 36 2.07 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 37 1.76 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 38 2.17 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 39 1.68 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 40 2.16 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 41 2.29 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 42 2.29 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 43 2.22 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 44 2.51 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 45 2.47 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 46 2.47 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 47 2.6 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 48 2.58 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 49 2.65 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 50 2.48 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 51 2.15 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC320 52 1.39 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 53 1.73 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 54 1.96 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 55 2.99 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 56 2.39 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC320 57 1.98 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 58 1.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 59 2.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 60 2.67 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 61 2.48 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 62 2.6 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 63 3.05 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 64 2.72 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 65 2.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 66 2.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 67 2.26 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 68 2.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 69 3.15 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 70 2.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 71 2.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 72 2.92 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 73 2.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 74 2.92 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 75 2.92 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 76 2.66 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 76.1 2.15 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 76.2 1.51 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC320 76.3 0.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 2 1.59 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 3 1.82 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 4 1.21 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 5 2.6 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 6 3.05 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 7 3.26 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 8 3.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 9 3.12 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 10 2.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 11 3.23 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 12 3.52 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 13 3.42 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 14 3.52 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 15 3.38 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC323 16 3.38 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 17 3.24 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 18 3.24 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 19 3.4 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 20 3.33 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC323 21 3.47 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 22 3.46 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 23 3.32 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 24 3.07 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 25 3.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 26 3.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 27 3.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 28 3.05 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 29 3.37 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 30 3.3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 31 3.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 32 2.91 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 33 3.05 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 34 2.8 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 35 2.77 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 36 2.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 37 2.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 38 2.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 39 3.05 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 40 2.43 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 41 2.42 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 42 2.18 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 43 2.45 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 44 2.49 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 45 2.54 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 46 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 47 3.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 48 2.41 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 49 2.49 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 50 2.32 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 51 3.07 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 52 3.04 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 53 3.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 54 3.39 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 55 2.92 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 56 2.78 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 57 1.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 58 1.25 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC323 59 1.18 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 60 2.39 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 61 2.56 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 62 2.68 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 63 2.31 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC323 63.1 2.58 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 63.2 2.56 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 63.3 2.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 63.4 1.56 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC323 63.5 0.56 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 2 1.85 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 3 1.47 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 4 1.21 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 5 2.37 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 6 2.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 7 2.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 8 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 9 2.53 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 10 3.04 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 11 2.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 12 2.66 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 13 2.55 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 14 2.6 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 15 2.43 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 16 2.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 17 2.89 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 18 2.6 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 19 2.7 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 20 2.37 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 21 2.7 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 22 2.47 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 23 2.66 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 24 2.86 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 25 2.07 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 26 2.24 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 27 2.42 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 28 2.29 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 29 2.23 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 30 2.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 31 2.91 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 32 2.75 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 33 2.33 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC333 34 2.57 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 35 2.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 36 2.75 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 37 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 38 2.88 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC333 39 2.07 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 40 1.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 41 2.22 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 42 2.36 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 43 2.4 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 44 2.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 45 2.34 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 46 2.23 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 47 2.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 48 2.57 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 49 2.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 50 2.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 51 2.59 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 52 2.39 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 53 2.43 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 54 1.75 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 55 0.7 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 56 2.21 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 57 2.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 58 2.19 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 59 2.27 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 60 2.07 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 60.1 1.56 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 60.2 1.54 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 60.3 1.81 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 60.4 1.75 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC333 60.5 0.72 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 2 0.78 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 3 1.27 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 4 1.38 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 5 1.11 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 6 1.29 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 7 1.96 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 8 2.44 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 9 2.27 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 10 2.72 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 11 2.29 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC339 12 2.4 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 13 2.31 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 14 2.92 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 15 3.22 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 16 2.9 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC339 17 2.66 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 18 3.22 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 19 2.75 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 20 3.12 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 21 3.05 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 22 2.43 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 23 2.05 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 24 2.37 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 25 2.73 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 26 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 27 2.47 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 28 2.4 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 29 2.51 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 30 2.3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 31 2.76 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 32 3.14 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 33 2.81 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 34 2.26 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 35 1.97 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 36 2.24 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 37 1.78 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 38 1.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 39 1.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 40 2.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 41 2.18 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 42 2.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 43 2.57 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 44 2.4 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 45 2.21 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 46 2.1 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 47 2.32 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 48 2.49 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 49 2.75 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 50 2.32 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 51 2.45 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 52 2.04 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 53 2.31 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 54 1.96 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC339 55 2.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 56 1.96 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 57 1.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 58 2.11 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 59 2.85 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC339 60 3.11 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 61 3.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 62 2.35 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 63 2.35 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 64 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 65 3.02 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 66 2.83 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 67 2.12 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 68 2.63 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 69 2.7 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 70 2.92 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 71 2.32 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 72 2.73 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 73 2.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 74 2.75 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 75 2.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 76 2.49 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 77 2.96 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 77.1 2.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 77.2 3.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 77.3 2.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 77.4 2.78 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 77.5 3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 77.6 2.88 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 77.7 2.67 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 77.8 1.64 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC339 77.9 0.86 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 2 0.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 3 0.89 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 4 0.97 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 5 0.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 6 1.63 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 7 2.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 8 2.77 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 9 2.59 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 10 2.56 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 11 2.51 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC341 12 2.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 13 1.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 14 2.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 15 2.39 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 16 2.09 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC341 17 2.45 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 18 2.12 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 19 2.5 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 20 3.11 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 21 2.37 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 22 2.54 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 23 2.6 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 24 2.82 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 25 3.1 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 26 3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 27 2.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 28 2.97 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 29 3.12 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 30 3.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 31 2.81 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 32 2.99 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 33 2.91 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 34 2.88 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 35 2.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 36 2.85 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 37 2.58 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 38 2.58 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 39 2.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 40 2.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 41 2.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 42 2.34 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 43 2.6 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 44 2.72 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 45 2.7 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 46 2.64 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 47 2.56 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 48 2.8 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 49 2.63 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 50 2.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 51 2.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 52 2.63 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 53 2.52 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 54 2.77 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC341 55 2.39 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 56 3.11 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 57 3.18 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 58 3.36 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 59 3.26 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC341 60 3.58 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 61 3.72 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 62 3.73 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 63 3.78 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 64 3.63 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 65 3.75 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 66 3.67 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 67 3.47 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 68 2.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 69 2.67 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 70 2.48 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 71 2.73 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 72 2.63 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 73 2.57 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 74 2.72 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 75 2.98 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 76 3.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 77 2.32 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 78 2.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC341 78.1 0.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 2 1.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 3 1.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 4 0.88 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 5 0.85 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 6 0.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 7 1.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 8 1.54 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 9 1.59 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 10 1.56 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 11 1.5 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 12 1.42 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 13 1.31 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 14 1.42 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 15 1.45 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 16 1.47 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 17 1.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 18 1.73 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC355 19 1.79 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 20 1.53 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 21 1.45 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 22 1.43 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 23 1.53 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC355 24 1.54 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 25 1.65 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 26 1.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 27 1.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 28 1.78 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 29 1.46 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 30 1.53 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 31 1.46 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 32 1.31 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 33 1.34 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 34 1.32 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 35 1.86 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 36 1.66 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 37 2.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 38 2.58 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 39 2.77 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 40 2.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 41 2.85 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 42 2.63 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 43 2.5 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 44 2.88 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 45 2.77 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 46 2.58 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 47 2.82 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 48 2.6 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 49 2.68 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 50 2.65 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 51 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 52 2.46 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 53 2.86 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 54 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 55 2.39 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 56 2.48 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 57 2.47 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 58 2.58 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 59 2.53 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 60 2.58 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 61 2.95 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC355 62 3.16 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 63 3.07 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 64 2.83 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 65 2.99 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 66 2.65 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC355 67 2.72 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 68 2.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 69 2.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 70 3.02 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 71 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 72 3.31 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 73 4.42 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 74 4.16 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 75 2.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 76 1.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 77 2.4 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 78 3.88 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 79 1.04 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 80 3.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 81 4.36 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 82 4.37 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 83 4.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 84 4.22 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 85 3.72 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 86 3.57 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 87 3.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 88 3.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 89 4.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 90 3.99 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 91 3.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 92 3.3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 93 1.79 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 94 3.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 95 3.77 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 96 3.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 97 2.4 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 98 3.5 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 99 3.97 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 100 3.85 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 101 4.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 102 4.32 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 103 3.73 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 104 3.97 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC355 105 4.24 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 106 3.85 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 107 3.7 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 108 3.73 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 109 3.85 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC355 110 3.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 111 3.92 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 112 3.34 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 113 4.04 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 114 3.8 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 115 3.3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 116 3.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 117 3.37 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 118 3.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 119 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 120 3.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 121 4.46 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 122 3.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 123 3.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 124 3.17 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 125 2.98 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 126 3.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 127 3.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 128 3.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 129 2.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 130 2.82 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 131 2.64 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 132 2.78 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 132.1 2.7 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 132.2 2.99 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC355 132.3 2.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 2 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 3 0.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 4 1.49 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 5 1.31 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 6 1.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 7 3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 8 2.8 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 9 3.58 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 10 3.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 11 3.14 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 12 3.04 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC389 13 3.22 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 14 3.11 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 15 2.98 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 16 3.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 17 2.81 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC389 18 2.89 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 19 2.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 20 2.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 21 2.76 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 22 2.54 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 23 2.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 24 2.79 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 25 2.59 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 26 2.72 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 27 2.79 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 28 2.8 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 29 2.68 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 30 2.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 31 2.85 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 32 2.97 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 33 2.97 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 34 2.91 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 35 2.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 36 3.19 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 37 3.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 38 2.91 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 39 2.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 40 2.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 41 3.18 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 42 2.66 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 43 2.77 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 44 3.12 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 45 3.32 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 46 3.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 47 3.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 48 3.1 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 49 3.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 50 3.45 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 51 3.11 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 52 3.45 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 53 3.42 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 54 3.48 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 55 3.44 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC389 56 3.79 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 57 3.67 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 58 3.53 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 59 3.82 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 60 3.84 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC389 61 3.8 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 62 3.64 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 63 3.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 64 3.22 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 65 2.91 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 66 2.96 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 67 2.97 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 68 2.77 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 69 2.86 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 70 2.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 71 2.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 72 2.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 73 2.77 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 74 2.32 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 75 2.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 76 2.3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 77 2.13 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 78 2.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 79 2.42 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 80 2.83 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 81 2.54 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 82 2.55 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 83 2.23 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 84 2.21 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 85 2.53 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 86 2.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 87 1.96 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 88 2.21 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 89 2.52 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 90 2.3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 91 2.58 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 92 2.55 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 93 2.64 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 94 2.76 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 95 2.72 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 96 2.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 97 2.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 98 2.45 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC389 98.1 2.55 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC389 98.2 1.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 2 0.91 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 3 1.12 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC392 4 1.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 5 1 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 6 1.48 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 7 2.15 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 8 3.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 9 3.18 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 10 3.49 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 11 3.67 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 12 3.4 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 13 3.52 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 14 3.55 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 15 3.36 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 16 3.11 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 17 2.5 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 18 2.59 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 19 2.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 20 2.48 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 21 2.53 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 22 2.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 23 2.42 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 24 2.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 25 2.59 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 26 2.38 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 27 2.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 28 2.53 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 29 2.54 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 30 2.66 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 31 2.36 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 32 2.42 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 33 2.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 34 2.55 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 35 2.66 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 36 2.72 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 37 3.25 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 38 3.44 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 39 3.31 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 40 3.13 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 41 3.28 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC392 42 3.5 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 43 3.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 44 3.79 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 45 3.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 46 3.82 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC392 47 3.89 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 48 3.7 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 49 3.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 50 3.55 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 51 3.5 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 52 3.83 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 53 3.49 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 54 3.6 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 55 3.59 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 56 3.65 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 57 3.73 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 58 3.47 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 59 3.18 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 60 3.38 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 61 3.57 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 62 3.49 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 63 3.35 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 64 3.36 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 65 3.44 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 66 3.18 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 67 3.7 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 68 3.67 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 69 3.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 70 3.18 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 71 2.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 72 2.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 73 3.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 74 2.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 75 3.55 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 76 3.53 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 77 3.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 78 2.8 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 79 2.83 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 80 2.6 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 81 2.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 82 2.88 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 83 2.81 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 84 2.26 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC392 85 2.46 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 86 2.41 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 87 2.38 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 88 2.82 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 89 2.92 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC392 90 2.81 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 91 2.77 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 92 2.57 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 93 2.79 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 94 2.54 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 95 2.42 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 95.1 2.35 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 95.2 2.43 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 95.3 2.55 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 95.4 2.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 95.5 2.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC392 95.6 1.32 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 2 1 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 3 1 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 4 0.96 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 5 0.99 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 6 0.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 7 1.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 8 2.07 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 9 2.13 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 10 2.12 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 11 2.25 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 12 2.27 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 13 2.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 14 2.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 15 2.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 16 1.99 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 17 1.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 18 1.77 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 19 1.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 20 1.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 21 1.77 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 22 2.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 23 2.1 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 24 2.25 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 25 1.86 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 26 1.71 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC395 27 2.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 28 2.02 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 29 2.13 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 30 2.42 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 31 2.28 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC395 32 3.11 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 33 2.43 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 34 2.66 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 35 2.55 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 36 2.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 37 2.16 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 38 2.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 39 2.13 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 40 1.77 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 41 1.85 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 42 2.51 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 43 2.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 44 2.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 45 2.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 46 2.42 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 47 2.15 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 48 2.1 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 49 1.96 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 50 2.3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 51 2.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 52 2.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 53 2.17 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 54 2.33 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 55 2.4 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 56 2.38 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 57 2.22 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 58 2.11 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 59 2.36 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 60 3.36 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 61 3.35 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 62 2.86 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 63 2.97 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 64 2.67 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 65 2.41 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 66 2.78 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 67 3.05 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 68 2.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 69 2.75 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC395 70 2.64 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 71 2.86 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 72 3.04 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 73 2.16 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 74 2.1 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC395 75 1.6 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 76 2.38 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 77 1.98 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 78 1.86 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 79 2.15 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 80 1.55 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 81 1.8 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 82 1.83 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 83 2.05 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 84 2.11 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 85 2.19 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 86 2.35 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 87 2.44 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 88 2.36 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 89 1.81 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 90 1.89 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 91 1.65 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 92 2.36 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 93 2.58 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 94 2.25 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 95 2.25 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 96 2.22 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 97 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 98 2.11 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 99 2.02 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 100 2.14 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 101 2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 102 2.04 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 103 2.14 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 104 2.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 105 2.52 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 106 2.82 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC395 106.1 1.41 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 2 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 3 1.6 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 4 1.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 5 1.43 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC403 6 1.63 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 7 1.7 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 8 1.21 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 9 0.89 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 10 0.78 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC403 11 1.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 12 0.76 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 13 1.53 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 14 1.54 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 15 1 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 16 2.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 17 1.22 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 18 1.27 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 19 2.67 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 20 2.51 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 21 2.32 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 22 2.39 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 23 2.43 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 24 2.33 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 25 2.42 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 26 2.65 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 27 2.44 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 28 2.79 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 29 2.57 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 30 2.48 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 31 2.67 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 32 2.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 33 2.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 34 2.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 35 2.41 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 36 2.41 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 37 2.18 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 38 2.55 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 39 2.16 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 40 2.18 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 41 2.04 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 42 1.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 43 1.99 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 44 1.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 45 1.81 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 46 2.48 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 47 1.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 48 1.87 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC403 49 2.24 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 50 2.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 51 2.97 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 52 2.91 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 53 3.06 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC403 54 2.7 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 55 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 56 2.88 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 57 2.92 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 58 3.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 59 2.96 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 60 2.82 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 61 2.64 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 62 2.54 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 63 2.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 64 2.72 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 65 2.83 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 66 2.78 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 67 2.55 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 68 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 69 3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 70 2.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 71 2.72 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 72 2.99 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 73 2.97 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 74 2.89 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 75 2.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 76 2.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 77 2.82 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 78 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 79 2.76 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 79.1 1.16 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC403 79.2 1.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 2 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 3 0.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 4 1.56 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 5 1.5 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 6 1.85 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 7 2.52 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 8 2.85 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 9 2.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 10 2.81 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC413 11 2.63 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 12 2.55 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 13 2.56 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 14 2.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 15 2.37 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC413 16 2.18 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 17 2.35 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 18 2.23 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 19 1.41 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 20 2.19 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 21 2.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 22 1.7 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 23 2.11 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 24 1.25 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 25 1.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 26 1.79 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 27 2.34 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 28 2.35 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 29 2.27 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 30 2.14 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 31 1.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 32 2.53 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 33 2.24 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 34 2.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 35 2.21 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 36 2.43 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 37 2.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 38 2.05 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 39 2.07 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 40 1.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 41 1.59 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 42 1.25 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 43 1.6 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 44 2.41 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 45 2.33 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 46 2.21 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 47 2.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 48 2.88 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 49 2.5 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 50 2.59 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 51 2.64 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 52 2.35 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 53 2.22 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC413 54 2.4 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 55 2.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 56 2.73 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 57 3.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC413 58 2.62 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC413 58.1 1.36 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 2 0.64 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 3 1.6 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 4 1.56 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 5 1.32 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 6 1.77 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 7 1.64 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 8 1.33 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 9 1.17 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 10 2.96 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 11 2.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 12 3.11 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 13 2.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 14 2.92 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 15 2.99 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 16 2.88 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 17 2.79 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 18 2.8 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 19 2.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 20 2.66 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 21 3.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 22 3.1 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 23 3.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 24 2.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 25 3.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 26 2.91 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 27 2.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 28 2.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 29 2.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 30 2.8 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 31 2.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 32 3.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 33 3.15 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 34 3.05 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 35 3.12 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 36 3.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 37 3.02 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC444 38 3.04 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 39 2.3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 40 1.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 41 2.37 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 42 2.16 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC444 43 2.24 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 44 2.46 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 45 2.63 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 46 2.66 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 47 2.85 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 48 3.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 49 3.1 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 50 2.57 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 51 2.63 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 52 2.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 53 2.92 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 54 2.89 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 55 2.81 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 56 2.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 57 2.47 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 58 2.83 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 59 2.63 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 60 3.02 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 61 2.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 62 2.83 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 63 2.85 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 64 2.78 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 65 2.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 66 2.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 67 2.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 68 3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 69 3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 70 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 71 2.99 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 72 2.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 73 2.3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 74 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 75 2.41 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 76 2.34 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 77 2.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 78 2.75 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 79 2.86 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 80 3.08 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC444 81 2.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 82 2.8 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 83 2.89 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 84 2.97 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 85 2.93 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC444 86 3.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 87 3.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 88 3.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 89 3.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 90 3.22 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 91 3.19 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 92 3.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 93 3.11 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 94 2.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 95 3.07 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 96 3.13 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 97 3.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 98 3.12 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 99 2.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 100 2.81 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 101 2.79 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 102 2.86 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 103 2.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 104 2.59 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 105 2.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 106 2.72 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 107 2.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 108 2.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 109 2.35 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 110 2.59 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 111 3.15 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 112 2.76 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 113 2.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 114 2.77 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 115 2.78 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 116 2.83 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 117 2.33 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 118 2.76 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 119 2.71 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 120 2.88 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 121 2.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 122 2.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 123 1.89 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC444 124 2.82 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 125 2.35 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 126 2.3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 127 2.47 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 128 2.77 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC444 129 2.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 130 2.88 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 131 2.79 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 132 2.99 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 133 3.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 134 3.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 135 3.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 136 3.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 137 2.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 138 3.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 139 3.39 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 140 3.19 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 141 3.25 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 142 3.46 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 143 3.05 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 144 3.27 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 145 3.23 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 146 3.3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 147 3.04 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 148 2.93 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 149 3.1 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 150 3.14 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 151 3.15 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 152 3.19 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 153 3.18 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 154 3.96 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 155 3.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 156 3.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 157 3.19 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 158 3.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 159 3.02 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 160 3.4 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 161 3.4 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 162 3.13 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 163 3.12 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 164 2.85 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 165 2.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 166 3.29 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRC444 167 3.35 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 168 3.05 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 169 2.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 170 3.15 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 171 3.44 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRC444 172 4.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 173 3.4 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 174 3.8 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 175 3.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 176 3.88 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 177 3.31 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 178 3.89 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 179 3.59 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 180 3.7 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 181 3.86 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 182 3.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 183 3.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 184 3.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 185 3.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 186 3.14 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 187 3.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 188 2.99 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 189 2.99 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 190 2.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 191 2.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 192 2.8 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 193 2.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 194 2.76 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 195 2.63 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 196 2.64 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 197 2.77 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 198 2.6 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 199 2.72 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 200 2.89 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 201 2.88 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 202 2.65 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 203 3.33 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 203.1 3.85 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRC444 203.2 3.77 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 2 0.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 3 2.36 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 4 3.82 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRD108 5 3.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 6 3.49 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 7 3.12 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 8 3.21 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 9 2.86 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRD108 10 2.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 11 2.81 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 12 2.46 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 13 3.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 14 1.35 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 15 1.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 16 1.58 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 16.1 0.81 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 16.2 1.31 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 16.3 1.81 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 16.4 1.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD108 16.5 1.17 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 2 1.34 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 3 2.91 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 4 2.53 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 5 2.46 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 6 2.39 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 7 3.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 8 2.43 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 9 2.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 10 2.13 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 11 2.26 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 12 2.63 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 13 3.15 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 14 2.76 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 15 3.18 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 16 3.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 17 3.21 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 18 3.43 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 19 3.32 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 20 3.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 21 2.95 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 22 3.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 23 2.94 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 24 2.48 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 25 2.68 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 26 2.65 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRD109 27 2.74 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 28 3.29 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 29 3.23 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 30 3.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 31 2.54 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRD109 32 3.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 33 3.16 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 34 2.63 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 35 2.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 36 2.8 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 37 2.31 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 38 2.92 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 39 3.75 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 40 3.3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 41 2.82 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 42 2.98 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 43 2.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 44 2.96 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 45 2.55 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 46 2.56 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 47 3.26 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 48 3.37 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 48.1 2.82 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 48.2 2.53 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 48.3 2.37 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 48.4 2.62 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 48.5 2.75 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 48.6 2.1 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD109 48.7 0.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 2 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 3 1.46 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 4 2.67 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 5 2.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 6 2.98 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 7 2.54 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 8 2.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 9 2.83 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 10 2.86 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 11 3.1 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 12 3.05 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 13 2.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 14 3.07 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRD110 15 3.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 16 2.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 17 3.21 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 18 3.34 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 19 2.9 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRD110 20 3.34 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 21 3.16 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 22 3.13 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 23 3.31 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 24 3.33 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 25 2.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 26 3.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 27 3.16 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 28 3.21 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 29 3.27 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 30 3.23 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 31 3.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 32 3.26 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 33 3.1 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 34 2.87 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 35 2.92 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 36 3.19 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 37 2.78 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 38 2.28 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 39 2.3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 40 2.57 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 41 2.61 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD110 42 2.57 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 1 0.01 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 2 1.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 3 3.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 4 2.84 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 5 3.2 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 6 2.78 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 7 3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 8 3.19 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 9 3.57 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 10 3.26 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 11 3.4 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 12 3.66 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 13 3.17 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 14 2.89 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 15 2.94 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For SRFe SRD111 16 3.45 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 17 3.03 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 18 3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 19 2.96 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 20 2.98 10cm data composited to 1m PROJECT SITE_ID AT_DEPTH Density_g/cc Comments SRFe SRD111 21 3.07 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 22 3.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 23 3.08 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 24 3 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 25 2.91 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 26 2.69 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 27 2.85 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 28 2.78 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 29 2.91 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 30 2.9 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 31 2.89 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 32 3.22 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 33 3.07 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 34 2.99 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 35 3.06 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 36 3.09 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 37 3.19 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 38 3.12 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 39 3.23 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 40 3.25 10cm data composited to 1m SRFe SRD111 41 3.26 10cm data composited to 1m
SRFe SRD111 42 2.95 10cm data composited to 1m For personal use only use personal For NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 1
Appendix 9: Coffey Mining ISBD Review For personal use only use personal For
Coffey Mining ABN 52 065 481 209 1162 Hay Street, West Perth WA 6005 Australia, PO Box 1671, West Perth WA 6872 Australia T (+61) (8) 9324 8800 F (+61) (8) 9324 8877 coffey.com
Memorandum
Date: 11 December 2011
Company: BGC Contracting Pty Ltd
Attention: Mulu Desta
Copy:
From: Gary Bungard
Subject: Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project - Density Assessment
1 INTRODUCTION
Coffey Mining Pty Ltd (Coffey) has undertaken a desk top review of material density calculations and test work performed on insitu material obtained from the Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project (SRIOP). The following items were covered as part of this review:
. A review of insitu density data available for each deposit and material type; including
Down hole geophysical density measurements (gamma gamma survey);
Laboratory determined density values undertaken on drill core and grab samples obtained from bench faces;
Reconciliation results obtained from mining production data;
. Data analysis to assess the correlation between geophysical and laboratory samples for each deposit and material type;
. A review of the loose density dataset(s) available for each pit and material type;
Reconciliation results obtained from mining production data;
. Data analysis to access the correlation between insitu and loose material for each deposit and material type; and
. Assess the requirement for additional test work to determine representative material
density values. For personal use only use personal For
Z:\MMA\29.0 Geology and Exploration\03 Geology\BIF Investigation\ISBD data\CMWPr_924AA_Spinifex_Ridge_Density_Assessment_12Dec2011.docx
This memorandum contains CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION which may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and which is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named. If you are not the intended recipient of this facsimile, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this facsimile is strictly prohibited. If you received this memorandum in error,
please notify us immediately by telephone and destroy the original. Coffey Mining Pty Ltd
1.1 Site Location
The SRIOP, owned by Moly Mines Limited, is located approximately 170kms east southeast of Port Hedland in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. The project consists of four iron ore deposits:
. Auton;
. Auton North East;
. Dalek; and
. Gallifrey.
BGC Contracting Pty Ltd (BGC) are contracted to Moly Mines to provide load and haulage operations at SRIOP.
2 DATA SOURCES
Raw data and information was obtained from BGC and Moly Mines.
The following datasets were provided by Moly Mines:
. Down hole geophysical database (gamma gamma survey results);
. Laboratory test results for insitu samples (drill core);
. Reconciliation calculations on mining production data; and
. Geological descriptions of the material types and project geology.
The following data was provided by BGC;
. Laboratory test results for grab samples obtained from pit bench faces.
3 DEFINITION OF TECHNICALTERMS
A number of technical phrases and terms are used throughout this document, the context within which these terms are used are defined below for the benefit of the reader:
. Insitu Density – The large scale density, assessed within an insitu (undisturbed) material. Includes the naturally occurring pore spaces and voids within the material, regardless of whether these are air or water filled.
. Loose Density – The large scale density assessed within a disturbed material. Includes the artificial spaces within the material that have been created as a result of disturbance
For personal use only use personal For (blasting or mining).
. Laboratory Uncompacted Bulk Density – The laboratory assessed bulk density with minimal compaction, i.e. in ‘loose’ form.
Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project – MINEWPER00924AA Page 2 Density Assessment – 11 December 2011 Coffey Mining Pty Ltd
. Lithological Unit – A unique material type, which can be either insitu or loose i.e. as part of a stockpile.
. Geophysical Density Measurements – Density measurements undertaken using down hole gamma-gamma surveying.
4 DATA ANALYSIS
A statistical analysis was undertaken on each of the datasets to facilitate an assessment of the results and correlation between datasets. The results of the statistical analysis undertaken on each dataset are presented in the following sections.
4.1 Insitu Density
The insitu density of ore and waste materials at the SRIOP deposits was determined by down hole geophysical (gamma gamma) surveys. The density values obtained using the down hole geophysical measurements have been verified by comparative laboratory density test work undertaken on selected drill core samples.
4.1.1 Geophysical Density Database
The down hole geophysical dataset contains in excess of 50,000 records from the four deposit areas. Each measurement has been assigned a material type, either ‘DID’, ‘BID’ or ‘Waste’, as inferred from the resource block model. Histograms of the complete dataset of geophysical measurements for each deposit and material type are presented in Appendix A.
The histograms presented in Appendix A for each deposit and material type are mostly normally distributed. The normal distributions are slightly skewed due to a subpopulation of lower density measurements (0 - 2.2t/m³); generally this subpopulation represents measurements undertaken within the uppermost benches and lower density vuggy zones.
The geophysical database includes a significant number of anomalously low density values (<2t/m³). These anomalous measurements are interpreted as being due to the vuggy nature (natural voids) of the insitu material and the limited sampling size of the geophysical technique. An example of the vuggy nature of the insitu material is shown in Figure 1 below.
These low measurements due to natural voids are part of the rock mass and need to be included within the representative insitu bulk density. However there are zones of low density measurements particularly within the upper 40m where the measurements appear to be artificially lower than reality; this is probably due to caving of vuggy material from around the borehole, artificially increasing the void volume. The geophysical measurements do not appear to have any corrections applied to compensate for this effect.
For personal use only use personal For
Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project – MINEWPER00924AA Page 3 Density Assessment – 11 December 2011 Coffey Mining Pty Ltd
Figure 1 Drill Core Displaying Vuggy Nature
A few anomalously high measurements (>5.2t/m³) are recorded for Auton and Dalek, within waste material, these were recorded within a limited section of one bore hole and appear to be artificial, possibly due to instrument error.
Coffey have provided a range of censoring limits to the geophysical datasets to reduce or remove the influence of anomalously high and low values due to void caving and instrument error. The censoring limits applied are as follows:
. Upper limit of 5.2t/m³;
. Lower limits ranging between 0.6t/m³ and 2.4t/m³ at 0.2t/m³ intervals.
Tables of density values calculated for each bench, deposit and material type are presented in Appendix B.
The raw statistics for each deposit, ore and waste material have been summarised below in Table 1. Material densities calculated for ore and waste have been provided for comparison at censoring values of 2.0t/m³ and 5.2t/m³; i.e. only density values between 2.0t/m³ and 5.2t/m³ were included in the calculations. Censored mean density values are significantly higher than
the uncensored mean density values. For personal use only use personal For
Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project – MINEWPER00924AA Page 4 Density Assessment – 11 December 2011 Coffey Mining Pty Ltd
Table 1 Geophysical Insitu Density Data Statistics Summary
Global Auton totals / Statistic Auton Dalek Gallifrey North East weighted means Mean 2.66 3.07 3.34 2.74 2.84 Std Dev 0.85 0.61 0.92 0.67 COV 0.32 0.19 0.28 0.25 Min 0.31 0.58 0.48 0.46 All data Max 4.78 4.47 5.14 4.41 # Samples 9743 7803 1411 7070 26,027 Ore Modal 2.6-2.8 2.8-3 3.6-3.8 3.0-3.2 Class Censored Mean 2.99 3.16 3.55 2.94 3.06 (lower cutoff = Std Dev 0.6 0.48 0.66 0.45 2, upper COV 0.2 0.15 0.19 0.15 cutoff = 5.2) # Samples 7724 7408 1275 6098 22,505
Mean 2.38 2.41 2.81 2.69 2.52 Std Dev 0.71 0.58 1.34 0.48 COV 0.3 0.24 0.48 0.18 Min 0.22 0.51 0.5 0.63 All data Max 5.82 4.27 9.91 4.17 # Samples 7629 6726 1914 6980 23,249 Waste Modal 2.8-3 2.4-2.6 2.8-3.0 2.8-3.0 Class Censored Mean 2.74 2.63 3.16 2.79 2.76 (lower cutoff = Std Dev 0.41 0.36 0.63 0.32 2, upper COV 0.15 0.14 0.2 0.11 cutoff = 5.2) # Samples 5508 5403 1349 6372 18,632
Further domaining of the density data by material type was not possible or practical for operational requirements.
The following points are noted from the down hole density tables presented in Appendix B:
. Significant down hole variations are displayed within the Auton and Dalek datasets in particular, these appear to be due to insitu lithological variations and the small dataset in the case of Dalek;
. Down hole density values at Auton North East and Gallifrey are reasonably consistent from a depth of 10m to greater than 100m;
. Each deposit displays an increase in density with down hole depth, within both ore and waste materials;
. A minimum censoring cutoff needs to be selected that increases the mean density of zones where void caving is believed to be an issue but does not significantly increase the mean density in the more competent zones of the borehole. Censoring values will need For personal use only use personal For to be selected that both Moly Mines and BGC are in agreement with.
Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project – MINEWPER00924AA Page 5 Density Assessment – 11 December 2011 Coffey Mining Pty Ltd
4.1.2 Insitu Density Laboratory Test Work
Laboratory test work was undertaken on 336 drill core samples by Amdel Laboratories. The water immersion method was utilised whereby each sample was weighed by suspension in air and suspension in water. The samples were wrapped in plastic to prevent water absorption into the sample.
The samples were selected randomly from available sections of competent drill core. Sample selection tends to be biased towards the more competent and therefore denser samples. These laboratory results allow an indirect comparison and potentially calibration of the geophysical density measurements obtained from the same downhole depth. Note that, the laboratory test work is undertaken on the core obtained from the drill hole and so does not provide a direct comparison with the geophysical measurements which are obtained from the material around the perimeter of the drill hole. Albeit the material densities are generally expected to be homogenous between the drill core and surrounding rock mass at any particular down hole depth.
A comparison of the density values obtained through laboratory test work and geophysical measurements is presented below in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Geophysical Density Versus Plastic Wrap Density
The comparison of geophysical density measurements and laboratory density measurements show significant variation between individual results, this variation is likely to be due to the
For personal use only use personal For following reasons:
. The measurements are not undertaken on the exact same samples as discussed above;
Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project – MINEWPER00924AA Page 6 Density Assessment – 11 December 2011 Coffey Mining Pty Ltd
. Anomalous results caused by the vuggy nature of the material and the variation caused by the different sampling size of the two methods; and
. Possible inaccuracies or poor calibration of the geophysical method.
The overall trend is approximately a one to one relationship. This suggests that provided a large number of geophysical measurements are obtained and anomalous readings are censored, a reasonable measurement of the overall insitu density can be obtained.
Amdel Laboratories also undertook a series of density checks on 42 of the samples tested using the plastic wrap method. The check samples were coated with wax and measured again using the water immersion method. A comparison of the two sets of results is presented below in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Laboratory Check Test Work
The results presented above show a good correlation between the original and check test work completed by Amdel Laboratory. This provides a reasonable level of confidence in the original laboratory results obtained using the plastic wrap method.
4.1.3 Reconciliation of Production Data
Three months of production data has been provided as tabulated below in Table 3. Truck weight measurements have been summarised in Table 2. Coffey has made the following For personal use only use personal For assumptions;
. Ore volumes and waste volumes presented accurately represent the insitu (undisturbed) mining block volume; and
Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project – MINEWPER00924AA Page 7 Density Assessment – 11 December 2011 Coffey Mining Pty Ltd
. The truck count is accurate and truck loading is consistent with loading for which truck weights were obtained.
Coffey has applied a unique truck weight factor to the ore and waste materials separately, rather than an average material factor, as was applied in the original spreadsheet.
Table 2 Truck Weight
Mean weight Material type # trucks weighed COV (tonnes) Ore 21 0.06 99.2 Waste 25 0.06 92.1
Table 3 Density Reconciliation
No. of No. of Ore Waste Weight Weight Insitu SG Insitu SG- Month Ore Waste Volume Volume Ore Waste - Ore Waste Trucks Trucks Nov-10 16,442 43,273 608 1,370 60,337 126,150 3.7 2.9 Dec-10 11,928 70,166 426 1,966 42,275 181,029 3.5 2.6 Jan-11 27,305 86,999 816 2,660 80,978 244,933 3.0 2.8 Weighted Mean 3.30 2.75
Truck Volume Factors and Density Back Calculation
The following observations are noted from the reconciliation data provided above.
. Truck volume factors (Volume/No of trucks) vary considerably. The monthly truck volume factor for ore varies between 27.0 – 33.5m³ per truck, the monthly truck volume factor for waste varies between 31.5 – 35.7m³ per truck. This indicates that either:
Truck loading practises have been inconsistent; and/or
Volume figures do not reflect the amount of material moved.
. Despite the issues noted above the reconciled insitu density values are within the ranges predicted by the insitu geophysical density measurements;
. There is significant variation between the density values determined for each month’s production figures. Coffey suggest that this density variation may be accounted for by changes in mining location and lithological variations, particularly if low density clay rich zones are mined.
Reconciliation Loose Density
For personal use only use personal For Approximate loose density values have been back calculated from the truck weight data by assuming a truck volume of 35m³. The calculations are presented below in Table 4.
Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project – MINEWPER00924AA Page 8 Density Assessment – 11 December 2011 Coffey Mining Pty Ltd
Table 4 Loose Density Calculations
Truck Volume Mean Weight Mean Density Material type 3 3 (m ) (tonnes) (t/m ) Ore 35 99.20 2.83 Waste 35 92.10 2.63
The back calculated loose density values indicate bulking factors of 8% and 5% for ore and waste respectively, using the insitu density values calculated for ore and waste in Table 1.
4.2 Grab Samples
Density measurements were assessed by laboratory test work undertaken on grab samples obtained from the dig face.
4.2.1 Laboratory Test Work
A total of 20 grab samples were acquired from the dig face at Auton and Gallifrey Pits and submitted to SGS Laboratory for Specific gravity testing using the water immersion method (AS1141.6.1 standards). The samples were selected by Molymines geological personnel to be representative of ore and waste materials. The samples were described as solid individual rocks, although no further details were available of the material description. The following specific gravity test results were reported:
. Dry particle density;
. Saturated surface dry particle density;
. Mean water absorption; and
. Apparent particle density.
The dry particle density is considered to be the most applicable density value. The dry particle density results are presented in Table 5 and Figure 4 below.
Table 5 Dry Particle Density Test Results
Mean Dry particle Material type Deposit # Samples COV density Auton 3.77 3 0.23 Ore Gallifrey 3.73 6 0.05 3.74 9 0.13
Auton 3.05 6 0.2
For personal use only use personal For Waste Gallifrey 3.44 5 0.09 3.23 11 0.16
Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project – MINEWPER00924AA Page 9 Density Assessment – 11 December 2011 Coffey Mining Pty Ltd
Figure 4 Loose Dry Particle Density Test Results
The following observations are made:
. There is reasonable consistency between the test results reported for both the ore and waste materials;
. The density values reported for all of the samples are high relative to the expected density values obtained from insitu geophysical measurements, insitu laboratory testing and reconciliation back calculations;
. The density results obtained from the grab samples should be considered as an upper range of the insitu bulk density. The bulk insitu density would typically be less when measured at the larger scale due to the increased influence of defects and larger voids within the rock mass.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The density measurement data from geophysical measurements, laboratory test work undertaken on core and grab samples and production reconciliation data has been assessed. The geophysical measurements are considered to provide a reasonable indication of the insitu bulk density when censoring is applied to remove anomalously low and high values.
Density values for a range of censoring limits have been provided in Appendix B, by bench for each deposit and material type. The tables allow a comparison of the density values obtained
For personal use only use personal For using a range of minimum cutoffs.
Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project – MINEWPER00924AA Page 10 Density Assessment – 11 December 2011 Coffey Mining Pty Ltd
Selection of an appropriate minimum cutoff value will need to be undertaken in consultation with Moly Mines and BGC. The minimum cutoff selected should apply a significant increase to the lower competency zones where void caving is believed to be an issue and insignificant increases to benches that consist of more competent or less vuggy material that is less susceptible to caving.
A method of undertaking geophysical measurements that allows compensation of vugginess has been described in Chatfield. M, et al (2009). Gamma gamma density measurements were undertaken at short and long range and a correction factor applied to account for vugginess and caving. Moly Mines may wish to consider if similar methods could be applied to future down hole gamma gamma surveys at Spinifex Ridge.
6 CLOSURE
Thank you for the opportunity to present this report, we look forward to discussing the findings presented in this memorandum with you.
For and on behalf of Coffey Mining Pty Ltd
This is a scanned signature held on file by Coffey Mining. The person and signatory consents to its use only for the purpose of this document. Gary Bungard Senior Geotechnical Engineer
For personal use only use personal For
Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project – MINEWPER00924AA Page 11 Density Assessment – 11 December 2011 Coffey Mining Pty Ltd
7 REFERENCES
Chatfield. M, Trofimczyk. K, Harney. D, Kachigunda. T. Downhole wireline density verses drill th core density measurements in porous and vuggy rocks. 11 SAGA Biennial Technical meeting and exhibition Swaziland, 16-18 September 2009, pages 188-195.
For personal use only use personal For
Spinifex Ridge Iron Ore Project – MINEWPER00924AA Page 12 Density Assessment – 11 December 2011
Appendix A
Geophysical Density Measurement Distributions by Deposit and Material Type
For personal use only use personal For
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix A - Geophysical Density Measurement Distributions by Deposit and Material Type
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix A - Geophysical Density Measurement Distributions by Deposit and Material Type
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix A - Geophysical Density Measurement Distributions by Deposit and Material Type
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix A - Geophysical Density Measurement Distributions by Deposit and Material Type
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix A - Geophysical Density Measurement Distributions by Deposit and Material Type
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix A - Geophysical Density Measurement Distributions by Deposit and Material Type
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix A - Geophysical Density Measurement Distributions by Deposit and Material Type
Appendix B
Density Measurements by Bench, Pit and Material Type
For personal use only use personal For
ANE BID Density by Bench using Range of Censoring Cutoff Values
Bench top RL 1320 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 Bench bottom RL 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 No censoring N/A 3.45 2.94 3.08 3.05 3.09 3.18 3.29 2.96 2.84 3.00 N/A >0.6 & <5.2 N/A 3.45 2.94 3.08 3.05 3.09 3.18 3.29 2.96 2.84 3.00 N/A >0.8 & <5.2 N/A 3.45 2.97 3.08 3.06 3.09 3.18 3.29 2.96 2.84 3.00 N/A >1.0 & <5.2 N/A 3.45 3.03 3.08 3.06 3.10 3.18 3.30 2.97 2.84 3.00 N/A >1.2 & <5.2 N/A 3.45 3.05 3.09 3.06 3.10 3.18 3.30 2.98 2.84 3.00 N/A >1.4 & <5.2 N/A 3.45 3.07 3.10 3.07 3.11 3.19 3.30 2.99 2.86 3.00 N/A Censoring range >1.6 & <5.2 N/A 3.45 3.08 3.13 3.07 3.13 3.19 3.30 3.02 2.89 3.00 N/A >1.8 & <5.2 N/A 3.45 3.09 3.14 3.08 3.15 3.20 3.30 3.05 2.94 3.00 N/A >2.0 & <5.2 N/A 3.45 3.09 3.14 3.10 3.18 3.21 3.31 3.10 2.99 3.00 N/A >2.2 & <5.2 N/A 3.45 3.10 3.16 3.12 3.20 3.23 3.31 3.17 3.08 3.10 N/A >2.4 & <5.2 N/A 3.45 3.13 3.18 3.15 3.25 3.26 3.34 3.23 3.22 3.10 N/A
# No measurement data were available for benches populated with N/A *Fields highlighted yellow were calculated from a limited dataset (<100 measurements)
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix B – Density Measurements by Bench, Pit and Material Type
ANE DID Density by Bench using Range of Censoring Cutoff Values
Bench top RL 1320 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 Bench bottom RL 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 No censoring N/A 2.18 2.57 2.78 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >0.6 & <5.2 N/A 2.18 2.57 2.78 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >0.8 & <5.2 N/A 2.22 2.60 2.78 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >1.0 & <5.2 N/A 2.53 2.81 2.78 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >1.2 & <5.2 N/A 2.91 2.90 2.78 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >1.4 & <5.2 N/A 3.11 2.93 2.78 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Censoring range >1.6 & <5.2 N/A 3.30 2.94 2.78 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >1.8 & <5.2 N/A 3.39 2.94 2.79 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >2.0 & <5.2 N/A 3.45 2.96 2.82 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >2.2 & <5.2 N/A 3.45 2.98 2.85 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >2.4 & <5.2 N/A 3.48 3.03 2.89 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
# No measurement data were available for benches populated with N/A *Fields highlighted yellow were calculated from a limited dataset (<100 measurements)
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix B – Density Measurements by Bench, Pit and Material Type
ANE ORE (BID & DID) Density by Bench using Range of Censoring Cutoff Values
Bench top RL 1320 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 Bench bottom RL 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 No censoring N/A 2.46 2.85 3.05 3.05 3.09 3.18 3.29 2.96 2.84 3.00 N/A >0.6 & <5.2 N/A 2.96 2.85 3.05 3.05 3.09 3.18 3.29 2.96 2.84 3.00 N/A >0.8 & <5.2 N/A 2.96 2.88 3.05 3.06 3.09 3.18 3.29 2.96 2.84 3.00 N/A >1.0 & <5.2 N/A 2.97 2.98 3.05 3.06 3.10 3.18 3.30 2.97 2.84 3.00 N/A >1.2 & <5.2 N/A 2.98 3.02 3.06 3.06 3.10 3.18 3.30 2.98 2.84 3.00 N/A >1.4 & <5.2 N/A 2.99 3.04 3.08 3.07 3.11 3.19 3.30 2.99 2.86 3.00 N/A Censoring range >1.6 & <5.2 N/A 3.02 3.05 3.10 3.07 3.13 3.19 3.30 3.02 2.89 3.00 N/A >1.8 & <5.2 N/A 3.05 3.06 3.11 3.08 3.15 3.20 3.30 3.05 2.94 3.00 N/A >2.0 & <5.2 N/A 3.10 3.06 3.12 3.10 3.18 3.21 3.31 3.10 2.99 3.00 N/A >2.2 & <5.2 N/A 3.17 3.07 3.13 3.12 3.20 3.23 3.31 3.17 3.08 3.10 N/A >2.4 & <5.2 N/A 3.23 3.1 3.16 3.15 3.25 3.26 3.34 3.23 3.22 3.10 N/A # No measurement data were available for benches populated with N/A *Fields highlighted yellow were calculated from a limited dataset (<100 measurements)
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix B – Density Measurements by Bench, Pit and Material Type
ANE Waste Density by Bench using Range of Censoring Cutoff Values
Bench top RL 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 Bench bottom RL 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 No censoring 1.72 2.13 2.19 2.45 2.55 2.65 2.60 2.59 2.38 2.51 2.53 2.83 >0.6 & <5.2 1.72 2.13 2.19 2.45 2.55 2.65 2.60 2.59 2.38 2.51 2.53 2.83 >0.8 & <5.2 1.77 2.15 2.22 2.46 2.55 2.65 2.60 2.60 2.38 2.51 2.53 2.83 >1.0 & <5.2 1.95 2.27 2.25 2.46 2.55 2.66 2.61 2.61 2.38 2.51 2.54 2.83 >1.2 & <5.2 2.12 2.38 2.27 2.46 2.55 2.67 2.61 2.63 2.39 2.52 2.55 2.83 >1.4 & <5.2 2.31 2.43 2.28 2.47 2.55 2.67 2.63 2.65 2.41 2.53 2.56 2.83 Censoring range >1.6 & <5.2 2.52 2.44 2.30 2.49 2.55 2.67 2.65 2.67 2.43 2.54 2.57 2.88 >1.8 & <5.2 2.58 2.46 2.34 2.52 2.57 2.70 2.68 2.70 2.47 2.58 2.60 2.88 >2.0 & <5.2 2.65 2.53 2.44 2.59 2.61 2.74 2.73 2.74 2.55 2.65 2.63 2.88 >2.2 & <5.2 2.71 2.63 2.58 2.68 2.68 2.79 2.78 2.81 2.70 2.72 2.68 2.88 >2.4 & <5.2 2.77 2.73 2.68 2.74 2.74 2.85 2.86 2.89 2.86 2.83 2.75 2.90
*Fields highlighted yellow were calculated from a limited dataset (<100 measurements)
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix B – Density Measurements by Bench, Pit and Material Type
Auton BID Density by Bench using Range of Censoring Cutoff Values
Bench top RL 1320 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 Bench bottom RL 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 No censoring 3.02 2.89 2.84 2.77 2.54 2.65 3.15 3.37 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >0.6 & <5.2 3.02 2.89 2.84 2.77 2.54 2.66 3.15 3.37 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >0.8 & <5.2 3.02 2.96 2.84 2.77 2.56 2.69 3.15 3.37 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >1.0 & <5.2 3.02 3.01 2.84 2.78 2.59 2.70 3.15 3.38 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >1.2 & <5.2 3.02 3.09 2.84 2.79 2.62 2.72 3.16 3.38 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >1.4 & <5.2 3.02 3.11 2.85 2.81 2.67 2.74 3.17 3.38 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A Censoring range >1.6 & <5.2 3.02 3.13 2.86 2.84 2.71 2.79 3.19 3.41 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >1.8 & <5.2 3.02 3.14 2.88 2.89 2.77 2.84 3.20 3.44 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >2.0 & <5.2 3.02 3.17 2.93 2.94 2.85 2.92 3.23 3.46 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >2.2 & <5.2 3.16 3.21 2.99 3.03 2.93 3.03 3.27 3.50 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >2.4 & <5.2 3.33 3.29 3.08 3.16 3.02 3.16 3.33 3.52 3.62 3.60 3.44 N/A *Fields highlighted yellow were calculated from a limited dataset (<100 measurements) # No measurement data were available for benches populated with N/A
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix B – Density Measurements by Bench, Pit and Material Type
Auton DID Density by Bench using Range of Censoring Cutoff Values
Bench top RL 1320 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 Bench bottom RL 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 No censoring 2.09 2.35 2.53 3.28 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >0.6 & <5.2 2.10 2.36 2.56 3.28 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >0.8 & <5.2 2.18 2.41 2.65 3.28 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >1.0 & <5.2 2.28 2.46 2.75 3.28 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >1.2 & <5.2 2.40 2.51 2.81 3.28 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >1.4 & <5.2 2.50 2.57 2.86 3.30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Censoring range >1.6 & <5.2 2.61 2.63 2.90 3.32 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >1.8 & <5.2 2.72 2.69 2.96 3.35 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >2.0 & <5.2 2.79 2.76 3.02 3.43 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >2.2 & <5.2 2.90 2.84 3.07 3.49 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >2.4 & <5.2 3.01 2.94 3.17 3.52 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Fields highlighted yellow were calculated from a limited dataset (<100 measurements) # No measurement data were available for benches populated with N/A
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix B – Density Measurements by Bench, Pit and Material Type
Auton Ore (BID& DID) Density by Bench using Range of Censoring Cutoff Values
Bench top RL 1320 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 Bench bottom RL 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 No censoring 2.10 2.46 2.72 2.81 2.54 2.65 3.15 3.37 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >0.6 & <5.2 2.10 2.46 2.73 2.81 2.54 2.66 3.15 3.37 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >0.8 & <5.2 2.19 2.52 2.76 2.81 2.56 2.69 3.15 3.37 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >1.0 & <5.2 2.29 2.57 2.81 2.82 2.59 2.7 3.15 3.38 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >1.2 & <5.2 2.41 2.63 2.83 2.83 2.62 2.72 3.16 3.38 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >1.4 & <5.2 2.5 2.68 2.86 2.85 2.67 2.74 3.17 3.38 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A Censoring range >1.6 & <5.2 2.62 2.73 2.88 2.88 2.71 2.79 3.19 3.41 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >1.8 & <5.2 2.73 2.78 2.91 2.92 2.77 2.84 3.2 3.44 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >2.0 & <5.2 2.79 2.86 2.96 2.98 2.85 2.92 3.23 3.46 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >2.2 & <5.2 2.9 2.93 3.02 3.07 2.93 3.03 3.27 3.50 3.61 3.60 3.44 N/A >2.4 & <5.2 3.02 3.03 3.12 3.19 3.02 3.16 3.33 3.52 3.62 3.60 3.44 N/A # No measurement data were available for benches populated with N/A *Fields highlighted yellow were calculated from a limited dataset (<100 measurements)
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix B – Density Measurements by Bench, Pit and Material Type
Auton Waste Density by Bench using Range of Censoring Cutoff Values
Bench top RL 1320 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 Bench bottom RL 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 1180 No censoring 1.63 1.90 2.18 2.29 2.66 2.71 2.81 2.65 2.47 2.47 2.17 2.36 1.85 N/A >0.6 & <5.2 1.63 1.90 2.20 2.31 2.66 2.72 2.81 2.65 2.47 2.47 2.18 2.36 1.85 N/A >0.8 & <5.2 1.64 1.97 2.23 2.34 2.67 2.73 2.81 2.65 2.47 2.47 2.18 2.36 1.90 N/A >1.0 & <5.2 1.74 2.08 2.26 2.36 2.68 2.74 2.81 2.65 2.47 2.47 2.18 2.36 1.90 N/A >1.2 & <5.2 2.0 2.2 2.31 2.40 2.69 2.75 2.81 2.65 2.47 2.47 2.19 2.36 1.90 N/A
Censoring >1.4 & <5.2 2.11 2.38 2.38 2.48 2.71 2.76 2.82 2.66 2.48 2.48 2.19 2.36 1.90 N/A range >1.6 & <5.2 2.25 2.56 2.45 2.54 2.73 2.78 2.84 2.66 2.50 2.50 2.22 2.37 1.93 N/A >1.8 & <5.2 2.34 2.72 2.55 2.62 2.77 2.80 2.85 2.71 2.52 2.53 2.29 2.39 1.98 N/A >2.0 & <5.2 2.46 2.84 2.66 2.75 2.83 2.83 2.87 2.76 2.57 2.59 2.42 2.44 2.15 N/A >2.2 & <5.2 2.59 2.93 2.76 2.84 2.90 2.88 2.90 2.83 2.66 2.64 2.55 2.55 2.28 N/A >2.4 & <5.2 2.71 3.00 2.84 2.95 2.98 2.93 2.96 2.93 2.76 2.73 2.67 2.75 N/A N/A # No measurement data were available for benches populated with N/A *Fields highlighted yellow were calculated from a limited dataset (<100 measurements)
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix B – Density Measurements by Bench, Pit and Material Type
Dalek BID Density by Bench using Range of Censoring Cutoff Values
Bench top RL 1320 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 Bench bottom RL 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 1180 No censoring 2.57 2.57 3.47 3.15 3.85 4.16 2.95 3.91 3.30 3.86 3.71 N/A >0.6 & <5.2 2.57 2.57 3.47 3.15 3.85 4.16 2.98 3.91 3.35 3.86 3.71 N/A >0.8 & <5.2 2.57 2.63 3.47 3.21 3.85 4.16 3.01 3.91 3.35 3.86 3.71 N/A >1.0 & <5.2 2.57 2.77 3.47 3.23 3.85 4.16 3.26 3.91 3.40 3.86 3.71 N/A >1.2 & <5.2 2.60 2.83 3.48 3.27 3.85 4.16 3.29 3.91 3.40 3.86 3.71 N/A >1.4 & <5.2 2.63 2.86 3.48 3.33 3.85 4.16 3.40 3.93 3.40 3.86 3.71 N/A Censoring range >1.6 & <5.2 2.71 2.89 3.48 3.35 3.85 4.16 3.50 3.95 3.41 3.86 3.71 N/A >1.8 & <5.2 2.78 2.92 3.52 3.37 3.85 4.16 3.54 3.95 3.43 3.86 3.71 N/A >2.0 & <5.2 2.91 2.96 3.54 3.38 3.85 4.16 3.83 3.97 3.49 3.86 3.71 N/A >2.2 & <5.2 2.99 2.99 3.59 3.38 3.85 4.16 3.91 3.99 3.54 3.86 3.71 N/A >2.4 & <5.2 3.11 3.05 3.64 3.38 3.85 4.16 3.99 4.01 3.63 3.86 3.71 N/A # No measurement data were available for benches populated with N/A *Fields highlighted yellow were calculated from a limited dataset (<100 measurements)
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix B – Density Measurements by Bench, Pit and Material Type
Dalek Waste Density by Bench using Range of Censoring Cutoff Values
Bench top RL 1320 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 Bench bottom RL 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 1180 No censoring 0.97 2.11 1.28 2.32 2.25 3.95 3.34 3.21 3.27 N/A N/A N/A 3.46 2.92 >0.6 & <5.2 0.97 2.11 1.28 2.32 2.20 3.07 3.34 3.21 3.27 N/A N/A N/A 3.46 2.92 >0.8 & <5.2 1.06 2.11 1.34 2.32 2.23 3.07 3.34 3.21 3.32 N/A N/A N/A 3.46 2.92 >1.0 & <5.2 1.22 2.11 1.49 2.32 2.28 3.07 3.34 3.21 3.42 N/A N/A N/A 3.46 2.92 >1.2 & <5.2 1.41 2.17 1.53 2.32 2.33 3.09 3.34 3.21 3.45 N/A N/A N/A 3.46 2.92 3.21 Censoring >1.4 & <5.2 1.53 2.24 1.56 2.41 2.43 3.11 3.34 3.51 N/A N/A N/A 3.46 2.92 range >1.6 & <5.2 1.64 2.28 1.69 2.69 2.67 3.13 3.34 3.21 3.54 N/A N/A N/A 3.46 2.92 >1.8 & <5.2 N/A 2.35 1.87 2.83 2.86 3.16 3.34 3.21 3.57 N/A N/A N/A 3.46 2.92 >2.0 & <5.2 N/A 2.50 N/A 2.89 2.90 3.17 3.34 3.21 3.62 N/A N/A N/A 3.46 2.92 >2.2 & <5.2 N/A 2.77 N/A 2.91 2.94 3.18 3.35 3.21 3.62 N/A N/A N/A 3.46 2.93 >2.4 & <5.2 N/A 2.83 N/A 2.95 2.99 3.21 3.44 3.25 3.64 N/A N/A N/A 3.46 2.94
*Field highlighted orange included a large number of anomalously high measurements # No measurement data were available for benches populated with N/A *Fields highlighted yellow were calculated from a limited dataset (<100 measurements)
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix B – Density Measurements by Bench, Pit and Material Type
Gallifrey BID Density by Bench using Range of Censoring Cutoff Values
Bench top RL 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 1180 1160 1150 Bench bottom RL 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 1180 1160 1150 1140 No censoring 2.16 2.80 2.85 2.71 2.58 2.82 3.17 3.05 2.27 N/A 2.74 3.15 N/A 3.35 3.73 >0.6 & <5.2 2.16 2.80 2.85 2.73 2.58 2.83 3.18 3.05 2.27 N/A 2.74 3.15 N/A 3.35 3.73 >0.8 & <5.2 2.16 2.80 2.86 2.74 2.58 2.84 3.18 3.05 2.34 N/A 2.74 3.15 N/A 3.35 3.73 >1.0 & <5.2 2.23 2.82 2.87 2.76 2.60 2.87 3.18 3.05 2.38 N/A 2.74 3.15 N/A 3.35 3.73 >1.2 & <5.2 2.42 2.86 2.88 2.78 2.62 2.93 3.18 3.05 2.42 N/A 2.74 3.15 N/A 3.35 3.73 3.05 3.35 3.73 Censoring >1.4 & <5.2 2.57 2.90 2.91 2.80 2.65 2.97 3.18 2.45 N/A 2.74 3.19 N/A range >1.6 & <5.2 2.73 2.94 2.92 2.83 2.68 2.99 3.19 3.05 2.53 N/A 2.76 3.30 N/A 3.35 3.73 >1.8 & <5.2 2.85 2.95 2.96 2.86 2.71 3.03 3.19 3.05 2.56 N/A 2.78 3.30 N/A 3.35 3.73 >2.0 & <5.2 2.94 2.97 2.98 2.89 2.76 3.07 3.20 3.08 2.63 N/A 2.80 3.30 N/A 3.35 3.73 >2.2 & <5.2 3.03 3.00 3.02 2.94 2.83 3.11 3.22 3.09 2.69 N/A 2.85 3.30 N/A 3.35 3.73 >2.4 & <5.2 3.04 3.05 3.08 3.00 2.90 3.15 3.25 3.11 2.79 N/A 2.93 3.33 N/A 3.36 3.73 # No measurement data were available for benches populated with N/A *Fields highlighted yellow were calculated from a limited dataset (<100 measurements)
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix B – Density Measurements by Bench, Pit and Material Type
Gallifrey DID Density by Bench using Range of Censoring Cutoff Values
Bench top RL 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 Bench bottom RL 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 No censoring 2.46 2.46 2.41 2.04 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >0.6 & <5.2 2.47 2.47 2.43 2.04 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >0.8 & <5.2 2.47 2.47 2.45 2.04 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >1.0 & <5.2 2.48 2.48 2.49 2.14 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >1.2 & <5.2 2.54 2.54 2.51 2.14 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >1.4 & <5.2 2.58 2.58 2.53 2.19 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Censoring range >1.6 & <5.2 2.63 2.63 2.58 2.28 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >1.8 & <5.2 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.46 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >2.0 & <5.2 2.73 2.73 2.70 2.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >2.2 & <5.2 2.86 2.86 2.78 2.65 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A >2.4 & <5.2 2.99 2.99 2.87 2.83 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A # No measurement data were available for benches populated with N/A *Fields highlighted yellow were calculated from a limited dataset (<100 measurements)
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix B – Density Measurements by Bench, Pit and Material Type
Gallifrey Ore (BID & DID) Density by Bench using Range of Censoring Cutoff Values
Bench top RL 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 1180 1160 1150 Bench bottom RL 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 1180 1160 1150 1140 No censoring 1.98 2.35 2.75 2.82 2.71 2.58 2.82 3.17 3.05 2.27 N/A 2.74 3.15 N/A 3.35 3.73 2.16 1.98 2.35 2.75 2.83 2.58 2.83 3.18 3.05 2.27 N/A 2.74 3.15 N/A 3.35 3.73
2.16 1.98 2.35 2.76 2.83 2.58 2.84 3.18 3.05 2.34 N/A 2.74 3.15 N/A 3.35 3.73
2.23 2.05 2.39 2.77 2.85 2.60 2.87 3.18 3.05 2.38 N/A 2.74 3.15 N/A 3.35 3.73
2.42 2.26 2.50 2.81 2.86 2.62 2.93 3.18 3.05 2.42 N/A 2.74 3.15 N/A 3.35 3.73
2.57 2.50 2.58 2.85 2.89 2.65 2.97 3.18 3.05 2.45 N/A 2.74 3.19 N/A 3.35 3.73 Censoring range 2.73 2.70 2.66 2.89 2.90 2.68 2.99 3.19 3.05 2.53 N/A 2.76 3.30 N/A 3.35 3.73
2.85 2.84 2.71 2.91 2.94 2.71 3.03 3.19 3.05 2.56 N/A 2.78 3.30 N/A 3.35 3.73
2.94 2.97 2.79 2.94 2.97 2.76 3.07 3.20 3.08 2.63 N/A 2.80 3.30 N/A 3.35 3.73
3.03 3.09 2.91 2.98 3.02 2.83 3.11 3.22 3.09 2.69 N/A 2.85 3.30 N/A 3.35 3.73
3.04 3.18 3.01 3.03 3.08 2.90 3.15 3.25 3.11 2.79 N/A 2.93 3.33 N/A 3.36 3.73
# No measurement data were available for benches populated with N/A *Fields highlighted yellow were calculated from a limited dataset (<100 measurements)
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix B – Density Measurements by Bench, Pit and Material Type
Gallifrey Waste Density by Bench using Range of Censoring Cutoff Values
Bench top RL 1310 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 1180 1170 1160 1150 1140 1130 1120 Bench bottom RL 1300 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 1180 1170 1160 1150 1140 1130 1120 1110
No censoring 1.51 2.23 2.27 2.65 2.69 2.74 2.71 2.73 2.73 2.84 2.85 2.66 2.97 2.85 3.28 2.98 N/A 2.89 2.82 N/A >0.6 & <5.2 1.51 2.23 2.27 2.65 2.69 2.74 2.71 2.73 2.73 2.84 2.85 2.66 2.97 2.85 3.28 2.98 N/A 2.89 2.82 N/A >0.8 & <5.2 1.51 2.27 2.28 2.65 2.69 2.75 2.71 2.73 2.73 2.84 2.85 2.66 2.97 2.85 3.28 2.98 N/A 2.89 2.82 N/A
>1.0 & <5.2 1.51 2.3 2.34 2.65 2.69 2.75 2.71 2.73 2.73 2.84 2.85 2.66 2.97 2.85 3.28 2.98 N/A 2.89 2.82 N/A >1.2 & <5.2 1.57 2.58 2.43 2.66 2.69 2.75 2.71 2.73 2.73 2.84 2.85 2.66 2.99 2.90 3.28 2.98 N/A 2.89 2.82 N/A 1.64 2.83 2.50 2.67 2.70 2.75 2.72 2.73 2.73 2.84 2.85 2.67 3.00 3.01 3.28 2.98 N/A 2.89 2.82 N/A Censorin >1.4 & <5.2 g range >1.6 & <5.2 1.71 2.91 2.53 2.67 2.71 2.76 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.84 2.85 2.68 3.02 3.07 3.28 2.98 N/A 2.89 2.82 N/A >1.8 & <5.2 1.88 2.91 2.61 2.69 2.72 2.77 2.76 2.75 2.77 2.84 2.88 2.71 3.04 3.09 3.28 2.98 N/A 2.89 2.82 N/A >2.0 & <5.2 N/A 2.91 2.70 2.71 2.74 2.79 2.77 2.77 2.80 2.84 2.90 2.74 3.05 3.12 3.28 2.98 N/A 2.89 2.82 N/A
>2.2 & <5.2 N/A 2.91 2.79 2.76 2.76 2.81 2.81 2.80 2.83 2.84 2.92 2.80 3.07 3.16 3.28 2.98 N/A 2.89 2.82 N/A
>2.4 & <5.2 N/A 2.91 2.84 2.82 2.81 2.86 2.85 2.87 2.88 2.87 2.96 2.85 3.09 3.16 3.28 3.01 N/A 2.90 2.83 N/A # No measurement data were available for benches populated with N/A *Fields highlighted yellow were calculated from a limited dataset (<100 measurements)
For personal use only use personal For
Appendix B – Density Measurements by Bench, Pit and Material Type NI 43-101 Updated Technical Report Spinifex Ridge Iron Resource June 25th 2012 Page 1
Appendix 10: Resource Report – Advance Geological Consulting For personal use only use personal For
Spinifex Ridge – Iron Deposits.
BID Resource Update May 2012.
Report Prepared for Moly Mines Limited 46-50 Kings Park Road West Perth, WA, 6005
Report Prepared by
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd
36 Drew Rd, Ardross, Western Australia, 6153
Author
Clay Gordon MSc, BSc, MAusIMM, MAIG
For personal use only use personal For
22 nd June 2012
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate ADVANCE May 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd (“Advance”) was contracted to update the iron ore resource estimate for Spinifex Ridge following recent drilling of the BID deposits. This estimate supersedes the February 2010 estimate with all BID deposits (apart from Auton NE) being updated. Auton NE and DID deposits remain unchanged. Therefore, this report is an addendum to, and should be read in conjunction with, reports entitled MOL_Fe_March_2010_final_19_03_10.pdf contained within an NI-43-101 Technical Report dated July 16 th 2010 and available for download through www.sedar.com . Drilling completed since the 2010 estimate includes 63 infill holes drilled at Galifrey, Auton, Dalek and Torchwood. This updated estimate was completed by ordinary kriging using similar parameters as used in the 2010 estimate. The total depleted Mineral Resource as at 31 st March 2012 is estimated at 5.5 million tonnes at
an average grade 58.0% Fe, 1.2% Al2O3, 3.4% LOI, 0.122% P, 67.7ppm S and 11.8% SiO 2. Taking into account 1.74 million tonnes of material shipped and in mine stocks as at March 31 st 2012 the 2012 estimate represents a decrease in total resource tonnes from the 2010 mineral resource of 7% but an overall increase of tonnes in the indicated category of 54%. These variations are due to mining depletion, increased insitu bulk density (ISBD) values, plus improved definition of the depth extent to mineralisation.
JORC Tonnes Fe % Al 2O3 % LOI % P % S ppm SiO 2 % DID Inferred ------Indicated 335,000 53.1 2.4 5.2 0.153 159.7 16.1 sub-total 335,000 53.1 2.4 5.2 0.153 159.7 16.1
BID Inferred 954,000 51.1 1.3 1.1 0.060 32.0 24.2 Indicated 4,213,000 60.0 1.1 3.8 0.133 68.5 8.7 sub-total 5,167,000 58.4 1.1 3.3 0.119 61.8 11.5
Sub Total Inferred 954,000 51 .1 1.3 1.1 0.06 0 32.0 24.2 Indicated 4,548,000 59.5 1.2 3.9 0.134 75.2 9.2
Total 5,502,000 58.0 1.2 3.4 0.122 67.7 11.8
Table 1: May 2012 Estimation Results.
For personal use only use personal For
Page 2 of 16
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd 36 Drew Rd, Ardross WA, 6153 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate ADVANCE May 2012
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 1. DATA ...... 4 2. QAQC ...... 4 3. RESOURCE ESTIMATION ...... 5 2.1 Interpretation and Wireframing ...... 5 2.2 Composites ...... 6 2.3 Descriptive Statistics ...... 6 2.4 Top Cutting ...... 8 2.5 Geostatistical Analysis ...... 8 2.6 Block Model ...... 9 2.7 Estimation ...... 10 2.8 Validation ...... 11 4. CLASSIFICATION AND RESULTS ...... 14 Appendix 1. Ore Reserve Vs Production Reconciliation, March 31st ...... 15
List of Figures
Figure 1 : Drill hole Location Plan - pre-2012 drilling (blue) and 2012 drilling (red) ...... 4 Figure 2 : Auton Wireframes - Long Section View ...... 5 Figure 3 : Galifrey Wireframes - Long Section View ...... 5 Figure 4 : Dalek Wireframes - Plan View ...... 6 Figure 5 : Histograms: Pre-2012 & 2012 composite data ...... 8 Figure 6: BID Blocks - Long Section View (2010 top, 2012 bottom) ...... 11 Figure 7: Galifrey Block model grade v’s drill grade ...... 11 Figure 8: Block model validation: BID...... 13
List of Tables
Table 1: May 2012 Estimation Results...... 2 Table 2: Drill details ...... 4 Table 3: Descriptive statistics: Pre-2012 V 2012 Data ...... 7 Table 4: Summary of 2010 Variography – BID ...... 9 Table 5: Block model attributes ...... 9 Table 6: Block model extents ...... 9 Table 7: Estimation search parameters – BID, all elements ...... 10 Table 8: Block model input files ...... 10
For personal use only use personal For Table 9: ISBD ...... 10 Table 10: BID Volume Comparison: Wireframe V Block Model ...... 12 Table 11: BID Grade comparison: BM v’s composite data ...... 12 Table 12: May 2012 Estimation Results...... 14 Table 13: Ore Reserve Vs Production Reconciliation, March 31st...... 16
Page 3 of 16
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd 36 Drew Rd, Ardross WA, 6153 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate ADVANCE May 2012
1. DATA
The September 2011 drill database has been updated with 2012 infill drilling. Drill data included in the current Spinifex Ridge iron ore database is summarised in table 1 below.
Date RC Drilling Diamond Drilling TOTAL 2009 153 9,742 9 1,366 162 11,108 2010 57 3,832 57 3,832 2010 6 480 6 480 2010 10 556 10 556 2011 Auton & Auton NE 17 847 17 847 2011 Galifrey 17 1,577 17 1,577 2011 Torchwood 3 244 3 244 2012 infill (SRC525 to SRC550) 26 2,738 26 2,738 Total 298 21 ,382 Table 2: Drill details .
Figure 1 : Drill hole Location Plan - pre-2010 drilling (green), 2011 (blue) and 2012 drilling (red)
1. QAQC
This section summarises the findings from two reports relating to the analysis of QAQC data collected during the 2011 and 2012 drill programme s (SRQC-005 Quality Control Report_January 2012.doc and SRQC-006 Quality Control Report_June 2012.doc). Conclusions include:
• Analysis of duplicate field splits shows excellent repeatability on a pair and population basis indicating the current procedures are acceptable.
• Duplicate samples generated by the lab show excellent repeatability on a pair and population basis indicating lab procedures are acceptable.
• Analyses returned from the umpire lab show excellent repeatability and indicate there is no relative
bias at the primary lab. For personal use only use personal For • Blanks used for checking for contamination in the lab are inconclusive.
• Assessment of SRM data suggests some issues of precision in the analytical process.
• Assessment of SRM data suggests on the whole, only minor accuracy issues in the analytical process.
Page 4 of 16
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd 36 Drew Rd, Ardross WA, 6153 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate ADVANCE May 2012
2. RESOURCE ESTIMATION
2.1 Interpretation and Wireframing Interpretations in plan (Dalek only) and cross-section (Galifrey, Auton and Dalek) were provided by B. Cairns (MOL). Each plan and section showed all drilling and interpreted outlines and notations where the previous interpretation had changed as a result of the new drill holes.
Where possible the existing 2010 wireframes were amended to incorporate the changes. At Galifrey and Auton, the principal change was to the depth of economic mineralisation (+50% Fe).
At Dalek, a new 3DM was built to incorporate the new interpretation of fault bounded, folded structures hosting mineralisation. This interpretation also identified a discrete area of high P mineralisation which was domained separately (all_BID.dtm, object 9).
The topographic surface DTM was updated with the mine survey as of 31 st March 2012.
Figure 2 : Auton Wireframes - Long Section View
Figure 3 : Galifrey Wireframes - Long Section View
For personal use only use personal For
Page 5 of 16
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd 36 Drew Rd, Ardross WA, 6153 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate ADVANCE May 2012
Figure 4 : Dalek Wireframes - Plan View
2.2 Composites Approximately 99% of the samples included in the resource estimate were collected at 1m intervals and as with the previous estimate a composite length of 1m was adopted with a minimum tolerance 0.75m. Composites within the new wireframe were visually checked against the drill holes for completeness. As mining has not progressed to a significant depth, it was decided that the 3DMs not be trimmed to the new surface before extracting the composites, thereby allowing all blocks to be informed by all the data. This decision should be re-assessed in future estimates as mining advances to greater depths.
2.3 Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics are presented below in order to compare the new 2012 subset with the pre-
2012 data. However, due to the generally very low values of the data (except for Fe and SiO 2), comparing this data on a percentage basis is not ideal as even very small absolute differences are large when expressed as a percentage. Histograms are also provided as a more suitable tool to assess the data sets, which in all cases show the 2012 subset being contained with the pre-2012 maximum and minimum range and with similarly shaped curves and central tendency.
For personal use only use personal For
Page 6 of 16
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd 36 Drew Rd, Ardross WA, 6153 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate ADVANCE May 2012
Fe% Al O % LOI% 2 3 Pre-2012 2012 % diff Pre-2012 2012 % diff Pre-2012 2012 % diff
Mean 59.39 60.73 2% 1.30 0.85 -34% 3.75 1.98 -47% Median 61.30 62.12 1% 0.79 0.42 -47% 3.13 0.90 -71% Mode 62.90 68.44 9% 0.25 0.27 8% 0.46 0.32 -30% Stdev 7.54 6.82 -10% 1.60 1.23 -23% 2.91 2.08 -28% Var 56.90 46.54 -18% 2.57 1.51 -41% 8.44 4.34 -49% CV 0.13 0.11 -12% 1.24 1.44 17% 0.78 1.05 35% Skewness -2.21 -1.35 -39% 3.95 4.10 4% 0.73 1.25 72% Range 65.48 40.86 -38% 25.31 9.99 -61% 14.85 11.59 -22% Minimum 5.72 28.36 396% 0.05 0.11 120% 0.00 0.03 - Maximum 71.20 69.22 -3% 25.36 10.10 -60% 14.85 11.62 -22% Sum 209958 32367 -85% 4580 453 -90% 13197 1058 -92% Count 3535 533 -85% 3535 533 -85% 3521 533 -85%
P% S ppm SiO % 2 Pre-2012 2012 % diff Pre-2012 2012 % diff Pre-2012 2012 % diff
Mean 0.13 0.20 60% 88.64 43.46 -51% 9.39 9.55 2% Median 0.10 0.06 -37% 50.00 30.00 -40% 5.35 7.06 32% Mode 0.05 0.04 -12% 20.00 10.00 -50% 1.64 22.00 1241% Stdev 0.19 0.48 158% 300.48 55.07 -82% 10.48 8.94 -15% Var 0.04 0.23 565% 90285.26 3032.17 -97% 109.75 79.94 -27% CV 1.48 2.37 61% 3.39 1.27 -63% 1.12 0.94 -16% Skewness 18.49 5.01 -73% 33.65 7.16 -79% 2.41 1.72 -29% Range 4.99 4.21 -16% 13340.00 820.00 -94% 80.66 54.43 -33% Minimum 0.01 0.01 72% 10.00 10.00 0% 0.31 0.37 18% Maximum 5.00 4.22 -16% 13350.00 830.00 -94% 80.97 54.80 -32% Sum 444 109 -76% 278675 23164 -92% 33178 5091 -85% Count 3493 533 -85% 3144 533 -83% 3535 533 -85%
Table 3: Descriptive statistics: Pre-2012 V 2012 Data
For personal use only use personal For
Page 7 of 16
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd 36 Drew Rd, Ardross WA, 6153 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate ADVANCE May 2012
Figure 5 : Histograms: Pre-2012 & 2012 composite data
2.4 Top Cutting The previous strategy of not cutting the data was maintained in this update.
2.5 Geostatistical Analysis Based on the positive outcome of a recent reconciliation of the 2010 Ore Reserve to Grade Control estimates (see appendix) certain parameters and inputs including variography has not been changed for this estimate. However, it is suggested to review this approach for subsequent estimate.
For personal use only use personal For
Page 8 of 16
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd 36 Drew Rd, Ardross WA, 6153 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate ADVANCE May 2012
Major Semi-Major Minor BID Domain Direction 0° to 090° 0° to 000° -90°to 000° Nugget 0.13 Fe C1/C2 0.29/0.58 R1/R2 58.14/112.67 20.56/64.26 7.19/25.16 Nugget 0.13 C1 0.87
Al 2O3 R1 46.83 42.0 15.02 Nugget 0.06 C1/C2 0.32/0.62 LOI R1/R2 33.69/113.57 32.52/51.07 15.02/60.43 Nugget 0.15 C1 0.85 SiO 2 R1 125.45 46.12 22.0 Nugget 0.08 C1 0.92 P R1 121.82 66.12 31.64 Nugget 0.25 C1 0.75 S R1 71.05 44.27 31.93
Table 4: Summary of 2010 Variography – BID
2.6 Block Model The February 2010 SURPAC™ block model was copied for this resource update hence extents, blocks size and attributers remain unchanged.
Attribute Description Attribute DeDescription nearest_distance Distance to nearest sample kv Kriging variance avgerage_distance Average distance to samples Deposit name Auton, Auton NE, Crustal, Galifrey, Fe Estimated Fe % grade pass InterpolationTorchwood & pass Dalek the, block was estimated Al 2O3 Estimated Al 2O3 % grade JORC_class JORC classification, waste, air LOI Estimated LOI % grade isbd In-situ bulk density
SiO 2 Estimated SiO 2 % grade material _type Waste, mineralised or air P Estimated P % grade number_comps Number of samples used for block S Estimated S ppm grade Mineralisation_type BID,grade DID interpolation
Total Sum of Fe , Al 2O3, LOI, SiO 2, P, S Table 5: Block model attributes
Y X Z
For personal use only use personal For Minimum (Origin ) 7 687 100.5 195 500.5 1 000.5 Maximum 7 688 400.5 197 800.5 1 400.5 Block Size (Sub -blocks) 10 m (5 m) 20 m (2.5 m) 5 m (1.25 m)
Table 6: Block model extents
Page 9 of 16
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd 36 Drew Rd, Ardross WA, 6153 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate ADVANCE May 2012
2.7 Estimation The search parameters differed slightly from previous estimates with max distance for pass 1 and min and max number of composites being kept constant across all the elements. In the previous estimate these parameters had been determined and applied for each element during a search optimisation exercise conducted for the February 2010 model. In this estimate the parameter values previously used for Fe were used for all elements, being: max distance of 30m for pass 1 (distances for pass 2 & 3 were already standardised across all elements), a minimum of 5 composites and maximum of 10.
BID – all elements pass 1 pass 2 pass 3 min. No. comps 5 5 5 max. No. comps 10 10 10 major radius (m) 30 50 100 bearing 90° 90° 90° dip 0° W 0° W 0° W plunge 0° 0° 0° semi-major factor 1 1 1 minor factor 3 2 1
Table 7: Estimation search parameters – BID, all elements
File Name Description File Name Description all_BID.dtm/str 50% Fe 3DMs for BID mol_fe_may_2011.mdl Surpac block model topo_may_2012.dtm/str Topographic surface all_comps_bid_low_p.str 1 m comps for low P domains MOL_Fe_db_April_2012.md 1 m comps for high P domain Access & Surpac Database comps9.str b/ddb (object 9)
Table 8: Block model input files
A new figure for the in-situ bulk density of the BID ore was supplied by MOL based on the recent, independent re-assessment of the ISBD data undertaken by Coffey Mining in 2011. The value increased from 2.9 to of 3.06 t/m 3 for BID but remained unchanged for DID and waste material.
Waste BID DID
ISBD 2.5 t/m3 3.06 t/m3 2.2 t/m3
For personal use only use personal For Table 9: ISBD
Page 10 of 16
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd 36 Drew Rd, Ardross WA, 6153 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate ADVANCE May 2012
Figure 6: BID Blocks - Long Section View (2010 top, 2012 bottom)
2.8 Validation The validation process involved:
• Qualitative assessment of grade (ranges) as represented in the block model versus those of the input data (drill hole grades), and
• Quantitative assessment of average block model grades versus in-put grades on a global and drill cross-section basis.
Figure 7: Galifrey Block model grade v’s drill grade
For personal use only use personal For
Page 11 of 16
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd 36 Drew Rd, Ardross WA, 6153 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate ADVANCE May 2012
Each drill section was reviewed on screen comparing the grade ranges of blocks with the underlying drill assays and taking into account an expected amount of smoothing in the estimation process. An example is provided in Figure 7 above. The review demonstrated a reasonable amount of smoothing between drill holes while the blocks immediately adjacent to drill holes reflect a closer correlation.
Table 10 below compares the volume of wireframes with the block model for the BID deposits and shows excellent correlation with only small differences.
3DM vol. BM vol. Deposit (m 3) (m 3) % Diff. Torchwood 312,165 311,750 -0.1% Galifrey 350,044 323,547 -7.6% Auton 436,459 407,281 -6.7% Dalek 225,397 225,891 0.2% Auton NE 419,950 419,984 0.0% BID 1,744,015 1,688,453 -3.19%
Table 10: BID Volume Comparison: Wireframe V Block Model
Table 11 below compares the average grades from the block model and input composites for
BID mineralisation. Very small differences are seen for Fe, Al 2O3 and LOI with larger differences
for P, S and SiO 2 although the range of values typically fall within limits of marketable or blendable material and not considered significant.
Fe % Al 2O3 % LOI % comp BM % Diff. comp BM % Diff. comp BM % Diff. Total BID 59.6 58.4 -2.0% 1.24 1.1 -11.3% 3.52 3.3 -7.1% P % S ppm SiO2 % comp BM % Diff. comp BM % Diff. comp BM % Diff. Total BID 0.14 0.119 -15.0% 75.79 61.8 -18.5% 9.41 11.5 22.2%
Table 11: BID Grade comparison: BM v’s composite data
The following figures allow grade comparisons on a local basis by presenting grade data on 50m increments along strike. The line chart shows the block model grades follow the trends of the composite data closely, tracking a marginally flatter path through the grade peaks and troughs
reflecting the smoothing achieved in the interpolation. For personal use only use personal For
Page 12 of 16
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd 36 Drew Rd, Ardross WA, 6153 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate ADVANCE May 2012
Figure 8: Block model validation: BID.
For personal use only use personal For
Page 13 of 16
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd 36 Drew Rd, Ardross WA, 6153 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate ADVANCE May 2012
3. CLASSIFICATION AND RESULTS
Classification remains largely unchanged, however the significantly reduced extrapolation beyond the drilling and between wide spaced drilling has removed most of the zones previously classified as Inferred Mineral Resources. As a result, all BID mineralisation at Gallifrey, Auton and Dalek is now classified as Indicated Mineral Resource with only the BID at Torchwood remaining as an Inferred Resource.. The total Indicated Mineral Resource is estimated at 5.5 million tonnes at an average grade
58.0% Fe, 1.2% Al 2O3, 3.4% LOI, 0.122% P, 67.7ppm S and 11.8% SiO 2.
JORC Tonnes Fe % Al 2O3 % LOI % P % S ppm SiO 2 % DID Inferred ------Indicated 335,000 53.1 2.4 5.2 0.153 159.7 16.1 sub-total 335,000 53.1 2.4 5.2 0.153 159.7 16.1
BID Inferred 954,000 51.1 1.3 1.1 0.060 32.0 24.2 Indicated 4,213,000 60.0 1.1 3.8 0.133 68.5 8.7 sub-total 5,167,000 58.4 1.1 3.3 0.119 61.8 11.5
Sub Total Inferred 954,000 51.1 1.3 1.1 0.06 0 32.0 24.2 Indicated 4,548,000 59.5 1.2 3.9 0.134 75.2 9.2
Total 5,502,000 58.0 1.2 3.4 0.122 67.7 11.8
Table 12: May 2012 Estimation Results.
For personal use only use personal For
Page 14 of 16
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd 36 Drew Rd, Ardross WA, 6153 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate ADVANCE May 2012
Appendix 1. Ore Reserve Vs Production Reconciliation, March 31st
This section was supplied by B Cairns (MOL).
The performance of the resource block model is monitored against mine production on a monthly basis in an internal company report. The monthly reporting approximates shipping frequency at Spinifex Ridge and the report compares the block model grades to mine grades from both the shipment being built and a cumulative comparison of production to date.
At a mining cut off grade of 40% there is a good correlation between the block model tonnes and grade and the actual tonnes and grade that are being seen at the mine. The greatest variation noted is for phosphorous but this will be influenced by the fact that at such low levels a small absolute difference can represent a large percentage difference. Variation between block model and mined tonnes may reflect an under call in the ISBD values used in the original resource estimate, supported in part by observations made during the first year of production. An independent review of the ISBD values used at Spinifex Ridge was undertaken by Coffey Mining late in 2011 and as a result of this a new ISBD of 3.06 was applied in calculating load and haul tonnes from the BCM’s mined in April 2012. A review of this change will be made mid 2012.
Project to date March 2012 reconciliation
Block Model Depletion Tonnes Fe Al 2O3 SiO 2 PS Probable Gallifrey 703,403 59.50 1.99 6.84 0.161 Dalek 6,253 52.60 1.58 10.95 3.347 COG 40% Fe Auton 903,858 55.80 2.82 10.14 0.112 Total 1,613,514 57.40 2.45 8.70 0.146 -
Probable Gallifrey 680,463 59.90 1.86 6.53 0.155 Dalek 5,664 53.10 1.63 11.08 3.380 COG 50% Fe Auton 871,647 56.00 2.83 9.80 0.112 (A) Total 1,557,774 57.69 2.40 8.38 0.143 -
Probable Gallifrey 606,047 60.90 1.58 5.72 0.148 Dalek 453 55.60 1.33 10.35 2.609 COG 55% Fe Auton 509,548 58.20 2.39 7.53 0.10 Total 1,116,048 59.67 1.95 6.55 0.127 -
Ore Shipped (B) Total 1,270,878 58.51 2.23 8.39 0.12
Stockpiles ROM Stockpiles ROM-1 ------ROM-2 10,815 61.81 1.88 7.20 0.062 0.006 (C) Total ROM 10,815 61.81 1.88 7.20 0.06 0.01
Crusher Stockpiles SPA-11 19,981 51.89 2.84 14.70 0.173 0.015 SPB-12 12,605 61.84 2.23 6.78 0.054 0.005 SPC-10 3,388 52.18 3.00 16.70 0.064 0.019 (C) Total Stockpiles 35,974 55.40 2.64 12.12 0.12 0.01
Port Stockpiles Utah Point 25,558 53.36 2.67 14.15 0.137 0.014 BB Yard "BB01" ------BB Yard "BB02" 16,724 52.08 3.14 16.67 0.067 0.021
BB Yard "BB03" ------For personal use only use personal For (C) Total Port 42,282 52.85 2.85 15.14 0.11 0.02
Low Grade Stockpiles LG 244,233 54.66 2.89 10.88 0.160 0.010 BS01 19,348 55.00 3.81 10.65 0.080 0.020 BS02 117,130 56.93 2.34 9.73 0.162 0.011 BS-03 (D) Total Low Grade 380,711 55.38 2.77 10.51 0.16 0.01 Block Model at 40% Fe Cut Off compared to total ore mined. Page 15 of 16
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd 36 Drew Rd, Ardross WA, 6153 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net
Moly Mines Limited Spinifex Iron Ore Resource Estimate ADVANCE May 2012
(D) Total Low Grade 380,711 55.38 2.77 10.51 0.16 0.01 Block Model at 40% Fe Cut Off compared to total ore mined. (B) + (C) + (D) Ship & Stockpiles Plus LG 1,740,659 57.65 2.37 9.09 0.13 0.003 (A) Block Model (40% Fe) 1,613,514 57.40 2.45 8.70 0.15 - (B) + (C) + (D) - (A) Ship & Stockpiles plus LG Vs Mined (40% Fe) 127,145 60.78 1.29 13.96 -0.08 0.04 (100% = Block model) 107.9% 100.4% 96.5% 104.4% 88.5% Block Model at 50% Fe Cut Off compared to total ore mined. (B) + (C) + (D) Ship & Stockpiles Plus LG 1,740,659 57.65 2.37 9.09 0.13 0.003 (A) Block Model (50% Fe) 1,557,774 57.69 2.40 8.38 0.14 - (B) + (C) + (D) - (A) Ship & Stockpiles plus LG Vs Mined (50% Fe) 182,885 57.26 2.08 15.15 0.01 0.03 (100% = Block model) 111.7% 99.9% 98.6% 108.5% 90.5% Block Model at 50% Fe Cut Off compared to total ore in current shipping plan. (B) + (C) Ship & Stockpiles 1,359,948 58.28 2.26 8.69 0.12 0.001 (A) Block Model (50% Fe) 1,557,774 57.69 2.40 8.38 0.14 - (B) + (C) + (D) - (A) Ship & Stockpiles plus LG Vs Mined (50% Fe)- 197,826 53.64 3.40 6.23 0.29- 0.01 (100% = Block model) 87.3% 101.0% 94.0% 103.7% 85.2% Block Model at 55% Fe Cut Off compared to total ore in current shipping plan. (B) + (C) + (D) Ship & Stockpiles Plus LG 1,359,948 58.28 2.26 8.69 0.12 0.001 Block Model (55% Fe) 1,116,048 59.67 1.95 6.55 0.13 - (B) + (C) + (D) - (A) Ship & Stockpiles plus LG Vs Mined (50% Fe) 243,900 51.96 3.66 18.48 0.10 0.00 (100% = Block model) 121.9% 97.7% 115.7% 132.7% 95.6%
Table 13: Ore Reserve Vs Production Reconciliation, March 31st.
For personal use only use personal For
Page 16 of 16
Advance Geological Consulting Pty Ltd 36 Drew Rd, Ardross WA, 6153 m: 0427 491 680 e: clay.gordon@Mining Assets.net