FRONTIER PROJECT
Technical Assessment
Greenfields Exploration Ltd April 2018
gexpl.com
Cover image
A year 1791 map of Greenland (1). This is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art (1). This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or less (1). Based on Higgins (2010) (2), a similar image of the map has an inscription over the east-west coast channel that reads: “It is said that this strait was formerly passable but now choak’d up with ice”.
Commissioning & Reporting Entity
Greenfields Exploration Ltd (‘GExpl’), 14/197 St Georges Terrace, Perth, Western Australia, 6000. ABN50 619 328 442.
Authors:
Jonathan Bell (lead author), Managing Director of Greenfields Exploration Ltd MSc Mineral Economics, BSc Applied Geology, RG146 Accredited 1, Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists 2 (MAIG, #3116), Graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors 3 (GAICD), Associate of the Resources and Energy Law Association, Affiliate of the Stockbrokers Association of Australia (AfSAFAA) Ahmad Saleem (internal review), employee of Greenfields Exploration Ltd BSc (Hons) Geology, Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (MAIG, #6106)
Reviewers:
Mathew Longworth (internal review), Chairperson of Greenfields Exploration Ltd BSc Geology., Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (MAusIMM, #110783) Lindsay Dick (internal review), Director of Greenfields Exploration Ltd BSc Chemistry, LLB
Consent & Warranty:
GExpl prepared this Report and gave its consent to use this document for Public Reporting purposes. This Report meets the minimum requirements of the VALMIN Code (2015), which is the industry standard designed to fit with the Australian regulatory frameworks. GExpl warrants that it disclosed all relevant material, and to the best of its knowledge the information provided is accurate and true. GExpl has not provided any information that has is confidential and not to be disclosed. GExpl made reasonable efforts to verify the accuracy and relevance of the available data. GExpl endeavoured to ensure that opinions provided in this Report have reasonable grounds and to ensure that the Report is not misleading or deceptive.
© Greenfields Exploration Ltd, ABN50 619 328 442, 27/04/2018 Document information: Reporting standard/s JORC Code 2012, VALMIN Code 2015 Report date: 29 April 2018 Effective date 29 April 2018 Status: Published File: GExpl Technical Assessment_180429_Frontier
1http://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/find-a-document/regulatory-guides/rg-146-licensing-training-of-financial-product- advisers/ 2 https://www.aig.org.au/ 3 http://aicd.companydirectors.com.au/ Greenfields Exploration Ltd ABN: 50 619 328 442 Contact details & Registered address Online Level 14, 197 St Georges Terrace Gexpl.com Perth WA 6000 linkedin.com/company/Greenfields-exploration-pty-ltd/ P: 08 6270 6318 facebook.com/gexpl/ E: [email protected] Twitter: GreenfieldsExpl
FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Contents
1 Summary ______7 2 Introduction ______10 2.1 Scope of Work 10 2.2 Effective Date 10 2.3 Reporting Standards 10 2.4 Reliance on Other Experts 10 2.5 Information Sources 11 2.6 Site Visit 11 2.7 Report costs and Relationships 11 2.8 Qualifications and Experience 11 3 Project Description and Location ______12 3.1 Location and Tenure 12 3.2 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography 16 3.3 Mining industry 20 4 History ______23 5 Geological Setting and Mineralisation ______25 5.1 Regional Geology 25 5.2 Local Geology 28 5.3 Mineralisation and Deposit Type 35 6 Exploration ______58 7 Drilling ______62 8 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security ______63 9 Data Verification ______64 10 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing ______64 11 Mineral Resource Estimates ______65 12 Ore Reserve Estimates ______66 13 Mining Methods ______66 14 Recovery Methods ______67 15 Project Infrastructure ______68 16 Environmental Studies Permitting, and social/community Impact ______68 17 Market Studies and Contracts ______69 18 Capital and Operating Costs ______74 19 Economic Evaluations ______74 20 Other Relevant Data and Information ______74 21 Interpretations and Conclusions ______75 22 Recommendations ______75 23 References______77 24 Consent and Compliance Statement: Bell ______97 25 Appendix 1: JORC Table 1 ______99 26 Appendix 2: License Details ______104 27 Appendix 3: Supporting figures ______107 28 Appendix 4: Avannaa geochemical assay results ______119
Summary 3 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
29 Appendix 5: Ymer Ø drill data ______122
Tables Table 1: Licence details and estimated holding costs as of January 2018 15 Table 2: Mineral system criteria considered by GExpl 37 Table 3: Details of airborne geophysical surveys within the Wegener Halvø licence 60 Table 4: Collation of exploration discovery rates from various sources 74 Table 5: First-pass exploration budget 77 Table 6: Frontier SEL and EL details 104
Figures Figure 1: Geology and historical mineral occurrences 9 Figure 2: Frontier’s location 12 Figure 3: Licence map 15 Figure 4: GExpl peer offerings 16 Figure 5: Surface elevation model of Greenland 17 Figure 6: Island within the Eleonore South Licence, between Lyell Land and Scoresby land 18 Figure 7: Andree Land, in the north of the Eleonore North licence 18 Figure 8: Antarctic Havn within the Hesteskoen licence 18 Figure 9: Annual daylight at Ittoqqortoormiit 19 Figure 10: Annual temperatures and precipitation at Ittoqqortoormiit 19 Figure 11: Miners at the historical Blyklippen lead-zinc mine in eastern Greenland 21 Figure 12: Photo from the portal of the Black Angel in western Greenland 21 Figure 13: Adjacent projects and deposits 22 Figure 14: Lauge Koch’s expedition's ship the Gustav Holm on its way to Mesters Vig in 1949 24 Figure 15: Geology of Greenland 26 Figure 16: Caledonian and its southern extension, the Appalachian Orogeny 27 Figure 17: Greenland’s sub-ice heat flux and an interpretation of extensions to the JMFZ 28 Figure 18: Geology of central east Greenland 30 Figure 19: Lithostratigraphic column of the CFB 31 Figure 20: Outcrop of the evaporitic Foldvik group 31 Figure 21: EBS exposure as seen from Ymer Island 32 Figure 22: Lithostratigraphic column of the EBS 33 Figure 23: Schematic of the EBS 33 Figure 24: Macrostructure comparison of the Himalayas and central eastern Greenland 35 Figure 25: Opinion of mineral prospectivity 37 Figure 26: Metallogenic evolution of Greenland 39 Figure 27: Ages of Sediment-hosted deposits 40 Figure 28: USGS copper prospective tracts 41 Figure 29: Anomalous prospects in the Gauss Halvø licence 43 Figure 30: Photo of a mineralised clast in the conglomerate at the Ladderbjerg prospect 44 Figure 31: West Sernander Bjerg vein schematic 45 Figure 32: West Sernander Bjerg vein photo 45
iv 4 Summary FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 33: Anomalous prospects in the Wegener Halvø licence 46 Figure 34: Schematic of the stratigraphy and mineralisation in Wegener Halvø 46 Figure 35: Mineral occurrences and fault patterns on Wegener Halvø and Canning Land 47 Figure 36: Anomalous prospects in the Hesteskoen licence 49 Figure 37: Anomalous prospects in the Eleonore North and South licences 51 Figure 38: Stratigraphy of the uppermost part of the Argillaceous-Arenaceous Series of the Eleonore Bay Group, and the Quartzite Series and Multicoloured Series 55 Figure 39: Distribution of major copper-mineralised outcrops in the EBS 55 Figure 40: Anomalous prospects in the Ymer Ø licence 56 Figure 41: Scheelite mineralisation from South Margeries Dal 57 Figure 42: The North Margeries Dal tungsten prospect 57 Figure 43: Noa Dal prospect, looking east 57 Figure 44: Noa Dal lake, Looking east 57 Figure 45: Geochemical sampling map 59 Figure 46: Sampling of the Ladderbjerg prospect in 1980 59 Figure 47: Induced polarization survey in 1975 59 Figure 48: Historical airborne magnetic and electromagnetic survey areas 61 Figure 49: Magnetic and gravity data over the Jameson Land Basin 62 Figure 50: Diamond drilling at South Margeries Dal, circa 1983 63 Figure 51: Arctic sea routes 68 Figure 52: Copper prices, January 1960 through to 13 April 2018 70 Figure 53: Cobalt prices, January 1960 through to 28 February 2018 70 Figure 54: Nickel prices, January 1960 through to 28 February 2018 71 Figure 55: Lead prices, January 1960 through to 28 February 2018 71 Figure 56: Zinc prices, January 1960 through to 28 February 2018 72 Figure 57: Market volatility and Chinese manufacturing conditions 72 Figure 58: AUD-DKK exchange rate since the float of the AUD 73 Figure 59: AUD-USD exchange rate since the float of the AUD 73 Figure 60: Proposed expenditure relative to peers 77 Figure 61: Jan Mayan Fault Zone 107 Figure 62: Greenland’s grand canyon 108 Figure 63: Magnetic map of the Arctic 108 Figure 64: Gravity map of Greenland 109 Figure 65: Stratigraphic distribution of Permian-Triassic-aged rocks 110 Figure 66: Neoproterozoic-aged sedimentary basins of Fennoscandia, east Greenland and Svaldbard 111 Figure 67: Igneous activity of the North Atlantic Igneous Province 112 Figure 68: Comparison of the historical and current nomenclature for the Neoproterozoic-aged sediments 113 Figure 69: Extrapolation of the JMFZ using topographic data 114 Figure 70: Mineral occurrences in Greenland 115 Figure 71: Government hyperspectral and radiometric survey areas 116 Figure 72: Copper deposit type tonnes and grade 117 Figure 73: Cobalt deposit type tonnes and grade 117 Figure 74: Nickel sulphide type tonnes and grade 117 Figure 75: Ferro-tungsten price 118
Summary 5 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Common terms and abbreviations ° Degrees % Percentage Archean Archean Eon: 4,000 to 2,500 Ma ASIC Australian Securities and Investments Commission ASX Australian Securities Exchange AUD Australian dollar Currency AUD – Australian dollar, USD – United States dollar, DKK – Danish Krone Cretaceous Cretaceous period, 145 to 66 Ma EBS Eleonore Bay Supergroup EGB East Greenland Basin Cu – copper, Ni – nickel, Co – cobalt, Zn – zinc, Pb – lead, Ag – silver, Au – gold, Sb – Elements antimony, W - tungsten Eocene Eocene Eon: 56 to 33.9 Ma Eon The largest division of geologic time Era A subdivision of an Eon on the geological time scale GExpl Greenfields Exploration Ltd Means a “comprehensive technical and economic study of the selected development option for a mineral project that includes appropriately detailed assessments of applicable Modifying Factors together with any other relevant operational factors and detailed financial analysis that are necessary to demonstrate at the time of reporting that extraction is reasonably justified Feasibility Study (economically mineable). The results of the study may reasonably serve as the basis for a final decision by a proponent or financial institution to proceed with, or finance, the development of the project. The confidence level of the study will be higher than that of a Pre- Feasibility Study” (JORC, 2012) JORC Code Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves – The JORC Code – 2012 Edition JMFZ Jan Mayen Fault Zone Jurassic Jurassic period, 201.3 to 145 Ma Ltd Limited Ma Million years before present N/A Does not apply Neoproterozoic Neoproterozoic Era, 1,000 to 541 Ma Nordisk/Nordmine Nordisk Mineselskab Aktieselskab Measurement t – tonne, Mt – million tonnes, m – metre, km – kilometre, ppm – parts per million, g/t – grams units per tonne (same as ppm) Mesoproterozoic Mesoproterozoic Era, 1,600 Ma to 1,000 Ma Palaeoproterozoic Palaeoproterozoic Era, 2,500 Ma to 1,500 Ma PT Permian-Triassic periods, 298.8 Ma to 201.3 Ma Phanerozoic Phanerozoic Eon, less than 541 Ma Proterozoic Proterozoic Eon, 2,500 Ma to 541 Ma Pty Proprietary Pre-feasibility Means “a comprehensive study of a range of options for the technical and economic viability Study of a mineral project that has advanced to a stage where a preferred mining method, in the case of underground mining, or the pit configuration, in the case of an open pit, is established and an effective method of mineral processing is determined. It includes a financial analysis based on reasonable assumptions on the Modifying Factors and the evaluation of any other relevant factors which are sufficient for a Competent Person, acting reasonably, to determine if all or part of the Mineral Resources may be converted to an Ore Reserve at the time of reporting. A Pre-Feasibility Study is at a lower confidence level than a Feasibility Study” (JORC, 2012) Means “an order of magnitude technical and economic study of the potential viability of Mineral Resources. It includes appropriate assessments of realistically assumed Modifying Scoping Study Factors together with any other relevant operational factors that are necessary to demonstrate at the time of reporting that progress to a Pre-Feasibility Study can be reasonably justified” (JORC, 2012) Means the Australasian Code for Public Reporting of Technical Assessments and Valuations VALMIN Code of Mineral Assets – The VALMIN Code – 2015 Edition Tungsten trioxide, an intermediary product that results from the processing of tungsten- WO3 bearing rocks
iv 6 Summary FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
1 SUMMARY
Greenfields Exploration Ltd (‘GExpl’) prepared a Technical Assessment on its 100% owned Frontier Project (‘Frontier’, or ‘the Project’). GExpl is an unlisted public company domiciled in Western Australia, which at the time of publishing this document, does not have any subsidiary companies. This Technical Assessment (‘the Report’) has an Effective Date, and report date of 28 April 2018. In addition to the rest of this section, Appendix 1 contains a JORC Code table that summarises the Project.
Frontier centres approximately 300 km north-northwest of Ittoqqortoormiit in central-eastern Greenland. The Project is in an Arctic tundra region that, aside from military outposts, is unpopulated. The 12,975 km2 project contains numerous fjords that provide deep-water access throughout most of the area. Greenland’s nascent mining sector has competitive merits in the form of:
• a politically stable, safe government that is eager to attract investment in mineral exploration and mining;
• low levels of perceived corruption, high levels of human development and freedom;
• low mineral royalty rates;
• no costs in the form of mineral rents, rates or a need to establish a local subsidiary during the exploration phase;
• direct access to European and North American markets, and potentially Asian markets via the northwest passage; and
• low levels of competition, with large tracts of the country having no mineral licences.
GExpl understands that Frontier is geologically unique because of:
• a juxtaposition of two sedimentary basins of ages belonging to the great copper mineralising events; in such settings, the period of basin formation and development is generally considered an important criterion in determining a basin’s copper prospectivity;
• these basins being underlain by a subduction zone. Such subduction zones are associated with creating long-lived mineralisation events by generating heat and fluids;
• a large fault in the earth’s crust, the Jan Mayen Fault Zone (‘JMFZ’), intersecting the subduction zone at a sub-perpendicular angle. Such structural features in the Earth’s crust play a key role in providing a means for deep sources of metal-rich fluids to migrate to the surface where they can form deposits; and
• the region had a mantle-plume pass nearby, creating further opportunity for heat and fluid injection, as well as remobilise metals already within the basins.
The points above are often considered to be favourable features for forming mineral deposits in sedimentary basins. Furthermore, the presence of evaporitic, cupriferous sediments underneath mantle plume basalts makes it analogous to one of the greatest mineral occurrences on Earth, Noril’sk-Talnakh. To the best of GExpl’s knowledge, there are few, if any, other places on Earth where these favourable sediment-hosted copper and conduit nickel features can be observed in one location let alone in an untapped, ‘safe’, pro-mining, ‘western’ jurisdiction.
Summary 7 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
The theoretical prospectivity of Frontier is supported by empirical evidence. Frontier contains extensive sediment-hosted occurrences of copper, as well as, lead, cobalt, zinc, tungsten and antimony (respectively Cu, Pb, Co, Zn, W, and Sb). The broader region is also known to contain molybdenum bearing, and potentially tin-bearing, felsic intrusions
There are two main sedimentary basins in Frontier, both of which contain copper mineralisation:
• East Greenland Basin – is a direct extension of the Zechstein sedimentation event present in northern Europe. Sedimentary sequences associated with the Zechstein basin are known to contain world-class copper deposits in Poland and Germany. The EGB is known to contain several occurrences of copper and lead, with the peak rock-chip samples grading 15.3% Cu, 0.15% Co, and 6.1% Pb. These occurrences are likely an analogous extension of the famous European Kupferschiefer deposits; and
• Eleonore Bay Basin – which contains sediments of a similar age to those that host the famous copper deposits in the African Copperbelt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (‘DRC’) and Zambia. Empirically, the Eleonore Bay Basin is known to contain widespread copper anomalism extending - over more than 275-line kilometres (‘km’) with peak rock-chip grades of 6.4% Cu.
Between the two basins are Devonian aged sediments that are known to contain high-grade Zn-Pb, high-grade W-Sb, and polymetallic Cu-Au-Ag-Pb-Zn veins. The sediments throughout Frontier are known to contain magmatic intrusions with a very diverse range of chemical compositions. In the north-eastern part of the Project, flood basalts cover some of the sediments.
Regional scale exploration work is mostly restricted to mapping and geochemical rock-chip sampling that was carried out in the 1970s and early 1980s. The bulk of Frontier has never been subject to any regional scale geophysical exploration program, including any government surveys.
Despite the numerous anomalies within Frontier (Figure 1), only one drill-hole has been attempted to test the copper potential. In 1976, a 21 m deep drill-hole was planned. However the rig broke down after having completed only 1.4 m of drilling. The core obtained from this hole (H1) returned a grade of 1.44% Cu from surface and was never followed up. Drilling also occurred at Ymer Ø, targeting small, high grade occurrences of tungsten that are of secondary priority to GExpl and are not considered material to the understanding of Frontier’s copper, and nickel potential.
The Project does not contain any mineral estimates that meet the minimum reporting criteria of the JORC Code. There are historical tungsten occurrences which in 2008, one such occurrence was subjected to limited metallurgical test work. The results indicated that a simple gravity separation circuit may be sufficient to beneficiate the tungsten mineralisation to a concentrate of saleable quality.
GExpl considers central eastern Greenland to have the potential to be a major new mineral province, that is fortunate enough to be located within an unpopulated region of a pro-mining, safe, and low mineral-taxing country. GExpl is the dominant licence holder in the region and this can be regarded as a ‘first-mover’ opportunity.
iv 8 Summary FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 1: Geology and historical mineral occurrences
Source: X-plore GeoConsulting Pty Ltd (3) based on data provided by GExpl, and Government maps
Summary 9 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Scope of Work
Greenfield’s has prepared a Technical Assessment of Frontier. This report collates and summarises the previous work that was carried out on the Project. The purpose of the Report is to inform potential investors in GExpl about the technical merits of Frontier. The Report does not cover the GExpl business model, nor does it constitute investment advice.
2.2 Effective Date
The Effective Date of this Report is 28 April 2018. The outcomes of this Report reflect the prevailing conditions and circumstances that are relevant as at the Effective Date. GExpl cautions the reader that changes in market conditions and new technical information could result in a rapid change in the merit of the Frontier project. GExpl advises the reader to make an investigation as to whether there are any systematic (e.g. macroeconomic) or non-systematic (i.e. project specific) changes after the Effective Date that may materially affect the project’s risk and value parameters.
2.3 Reporting Standards
This Report aligns with the criteria set out in the:
• The Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves – the ‘JORC Code’ (4);
• The Australasian Code for Public Reporting of Technical Assessments and Valuations of Mineral Assets – the ‘VALMIN Code’ (5); and
• Australian Securities and Investment Commission’s (‘ASIC’) regulatory guidelines Rg111, Rg112 and Rg170 (6) (7) (8).
While the Report is written in the context of the Australian reporting requirements for unlisted companies, the format also aligns with that outlined in the Canadian National Instrument 43-101 (‘NI43-101’) (9)); and requirements of Chapter 5 of the Listing Rules of the Australian Securities Exchange (‘ASX’) (10).
2.4 Reliance on Other Experts
GExpl has not relied on third parties in preparing this Report. However, the Technical Assessment is based entirely on third-party reports and data, much of which is available in the public domain. To help bring together the understanding of this information, GExpl drew upon the expert opinion of Dr Jon Hronsky of Western Mining Services LLC 4 and insights gained from the Greenland Ministry of Mineral Resources5 (‘MMR’), and the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (‘GEUS’)6.
4 wesminllc.com 5 govmin.gl/about-bmp 6 geus.dk
iv 10 Introduction FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
2.5 Information Sources
In preparing this Report, GExpl undertook a review of information available in the public domain, as well as proprietary information. GExpl confirms that:
• full, accurate, and true disclosure of all material information in its possession has been made available; • the integrity and accuracy of the conclusion and recommendation is not compromised by the available information or lack thereof; and • the Report does not contain commercially sensitive or confidential information.
A list containing the reference details of 361 citations is presented at the end of this Report. These citations draw from a larger reference library of more than 500 articles that are largely peer-reviewed academic sources or sourced from authoritative institutions.
2.6 Site Visit
There has been no site visit to Frontier. The licences were granted in December when light conditions were poor (a maximum of 3 hours and 45 minutes of civil twilight, and no daylight) (11), temperatures are below freezing (12), and snow covers much of the ground. While it was physically possible to travel to the site before the grant of licences, it is not legally possible to take mineral specimens (13). Hence, it was not deemed practical to undertake a site visit to the Project. GExpl intends to visit Frontier during the ‘field season’ between June and September 2018.
2.7 Report costs and Relationships
The cost of this Report is not contingent on its conclusions or success of Frontier as it was internally generated and paid for by GExpl and was not subject to a third party commercial contract. The principal author of this Report, Mr Jonathan Bell, is the founding director of GExpl and at the time of writing, a substantial shareholder. The secondary contributors to this Report, Mr Mathew Longworth , Mr Lindsay Dick, and Mr Ahmad Saleem are also company insiders and shareholders.
2.8 Qualifications and Experience
The person responsible for preparing and taking responsibility for this Technical Assessment is Mr Jonathan A. Bell who
• holds a Bachelor of Science in Applied Geology, a Master’s degree in Mineral Economics, and is a Graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, a member of the Resources and Energy Law Association, and an Affiliate of the Stockbrokers Association of Australia;
• meets the JORC Code and VALMIN Code criteria to be considered as a Competent Person, and Specialist respectively;
• has over 17 years of continuous experience in the mining industry across a wide range of commodities, and more than a decade of experiences as a consultant specialising in mineral asset evaluation, valuation, and pricing;
• is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (‘AIG’) (membership number 3116); and
• agreed to take responsibility for this Report. Mr Bell’s consent and sign-off are presented in Section 24 on page 97.
Introduction 11 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
3.1 Location and Tenure
Frontier sits just inside the high-Arctic in the Sermersooq municipality of eastern Greenland and spans approximately 300 km between 71.25°N and 74.25°N, and 130 km between 26°W and 21°W (Figure 2) (14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19). GExpl identifies the nearest township as Ittoqqortoormiit, which was previously known as Scoresbysund and is about 100 km south-southeast of Frontier’s boundary.
Figure 2: Frontier’s location
Source: Generated by GExpl in Google Earth using shapefiles supplied by the Government of Greenland
Greenland, known as ‘Kalaallit Nunaat’ (20) in Greenlandic, is the largest island on Earth and covers 2.17M km2 (21), of which 81% is permanently covered by ice (21). For comparison, Western Australia covers 2.65 M km2 and is 17% larger than Greenland. The country has a population of 55,877 inhabitants of which 32% live in the capital city Nuuk. Approximately 88% of Greenlanders identify as Inuit (21). Due to the majority Inuit population, there are no indigenous local stake-holder considerations like those within Australia and Canada. The median age of a Greenlander is 33.9 years (21), which is slightly younger than the typical 38-year-old Australian (22). Approximately three- quarters of Greenlandic households use hunting for at least a portion of their food (23).
Greenland is a semi-autonomous, overseas country within the kingdom of Denmark (24). Greenland gained home-rule in 1979 (24), and in 2009 Denmark passed the Act on Greenland Self-Government (Act 473) which gave Greenland greater autonomy (25). Act 473 gave Greenland the right to self elect a government and parliament (26), although Denmark retains control over items like defence, currency, policing and the courts (27). The Self-Government Act gives unique nation-building opportunity to indigenous people within the framework of Western institutionalism (20). In addition to indigenous empowerment, Greenland7 has other favourable metrics (through Denmark) such as being the world’s least corrupt country (28), 5th on the Human Development Index (29), and 8th on the Human Freedom Index (30). Greenland is has a national election on 24 April 2018 (31), and most candidates
7 Not all data sources separate Denmark and Greenland
iv 12 Project Description and Location FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
were pro-independence with at least one campaigning for English to become the official second language (32).
All minerals and hydrocarbons belong to Greenland (‘Government of Greenland’, or ‘the Government’), which is a constituent country within the Kingdom of Denmark (21). The Government issues licenses to explore for, and exploit minerals, which enacts through the:
• Mineral Resources Act (13); and
• regulations concerning application procedures and standard terms for mineral exploration and prospecting (33).
The licences are administered by the Mineral Licensing and Safety Authority (‘MLSA’), which is a department within the MMR (34). The pertinent details of all Greenlandic licences are regularly updated and published on the government website (35). The mineral licences convey rights over all minerals, except for radionuclides, hydrocarbons and hydropower (33), which require separate applications. Mineral licences are broadly categorised into those that permit exploration activity, and those that permit mining8. The exploration licences divide into four graticular classifications:
• Small Scale Exploration and Exploitation Licences. These licences cover only 1 km2 and may only be held by Greenlandic residents that have resided permanently and in full tax liability to Greenland for the recent five years. Each person may hold a maximum of five such licences. These licences can convey either exclusive or non-exclusive rights, but as they convey extraction rights, they cannot convert to a Mining Licence (36);
• Prospecting Licences that may be valid for up to five years. Such licences are suited to reconnaissance work and have low holding costs. However, they are non-exclusive, and third parties may lodge overlapping Exploration Licences (33);
• Exploration Licences (‘EL’) that are initially valid for five years, but may be renewed for an additional five years, and then additional three-year periods after that. ELs can convert to an Exploitation License. There is no mandatory area reduction requirement; however voluntary reductions are encouraged through annual increases in the minimum expenditure requirements (33); and
• Special Exploration Licences (‘SEL’) that are valid for three years with reduced, non- escalating expenditure requirements. After a three-year term, an SEL may convert in part or whole, into a conventional Exploration License. It is possible for a SEL to convert to a Mining Licence. SEL’s must cover more than 1,000 km2 and can only apply in remote northern and eastern Greenland (33). SELs are intended to promote exploration in frontier terranes.
Mining Licences convey exclusive extraction rights for 30 years and can renew for a further 20 years. For comparison, a Western Australian Mining Lease is valid for 21 years and is renewable after that (37).
The majority of Frontier is within the boundaries of the North East Greenland National Park, which covers about 972,000 km2 (38) (~45% of Greenland) and has an Arctic Desert climate and ice-cap (38). The park is somewhat of a misnomer in that it does not meet the IUCN9 criteria for a National Park (protection category (II) (38). The Government of Greenland permits exploration and mining within this area (38), and there is recent precedent (39) demonstrating the support for this policy. The
8 Officially extraction rights are referred to as ‘exploitation’ but for ease of language, this Report uses the term ‘Mining’ to describe such rights.
9 International Union for Conservation of Nature
Project Description and Location 13 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Government is actively investing its own money into exploring within its bounds (40), highlighting the Government’s focus on modern nation-building within the framework of Western institutionalism as a unique means of indigenous self-government (20).
Frontier comprises five SELs and one EL, which collectively cover 14,988km 2 but due to the excise of fjords, is officially recorded as 12,975 km 2 (Figure 3, Table 1, Appendix 1) (14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19). To give a sense of the Project’s scale, GExpl calculates that Frontier has an area approximately equivalent to 5% of Norway or New Zealand, 10% of England, 90% of Northern Ireland ; or about five times the size of Hong Kong and eighteen times larger than Singapore. GExpl calculates that relative to peer companies, Frontier is about 28 times larger than the median initial public offering (‘IPO’) on the Australian Securities Exchange (‘ASX’) (Figure 4). Similarly, Kreuzer et al. (2007) (41) finds that the median number of projects10 offered on the ASX is five, and the median aggregate area 1,167 km 2 or ~233 km2 per project (55 times smaller than Frontier).
The requirement of holding SELs and ELs is that exploration is carried out to a minimum expenditure amount. The Standard Terms (33) describe no rents, rates or other non-value generating financial requirements for exploration related licences. The Standard Terms state that the minimum expenditure for an SEL is 500 Danish Krone (‘DKK’) per square kilometre. For comparison, ELs have an escalating holding cost of DKK1,000/km2 in years 1-2, DKK,5000/km2 in years 3-5, and DKK10,000/km2 in years 6-10 (33). The total expenditure requirement for each EL must be at least DKK100,000, DKK200,000, and DKK400,000 in each of the preceding time increments. These holding costs must be inflated against the Danish consumer price index as measured at January 1992 (i.e. 63.7, (42)). For example, if costs were incurred in January 2018 (Index reading is 101.0), the inflator would be 1.5 9 (i.e. 101.0). 63.7
GExpl estimates an annual holding cost for Frontier is ~AUD2.2 million (‘M’). This estimate uses a January 2018 consumer price index reading and a DKK to Australian Dollar (‘AUD’) exchange rate of 4.75 (42) (43). By comparison, GExpl calculates that the holding cost for a similarly sized project in Western Australia (37) would be in the order of AUD4.7 M, more than twice that of Frontier.
As Frontier was established through a Government application process, it is free of third-party royalties, back-in provisions or any other rights that may affect the ownership or technical value of the Project. Similarly, there are no environmental or social liabilities in connection with the Project.
10 Most projects in an offering are not contiguous like the Frontier
iv 14 Project Description and Location FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 3: Licence map
Source: Generated by Greenfields in Google Earth using shapefiles supplied by the Government of Greenland
Table 1: Licence details and estimated holding costs as of January 2018 Licence name ID Expires Area (km2) Holding cost (DKK) Holding cost (AUD) Eleonore North 2018-01 1-Jan-21 4,850 3,844,976 809,469 Eleonore South 2018-02 1-Jan-21 1,830 1,450,785 305,428 Gauss Halvø 2018-03 1-Jan-21 2,433 1,928,830 406,070 Hesteskoen 2018-04 1-Jan-21 1,637 1,297,779 273,217 Wegener Halvø 2018-05 1-Jan-21 2,155 1,708,438 359,671 Ymer Ø 2018-19 1-Jan-23 70 269,545 56,746
Project Description and Location 15 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Figure 4: GExpl peer offerings
ASX IPO CY2017/2018 Histogram 25
20
15
10 FREQUENCY
5 Frontier
0
BIN (KM2) Compiled by Greenfields Exploration Ltd using public domain data on ASX Prospectus documetns between January 2017 and April 2018 Source: Generated by GExpl based on a range of publicly available prospectus documents
3.2 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
The nearest township to Frontier is Ittoqqortoormiit (70°31 N, 22°00’ W), which has a population of approximately 450 and was settled in the year 1924 (44) (38). There are no civilian settlements to the north of Ittoqqortoormiit, and the next nearest township in Greenland is Tasiilaq some 850 km to the south. Iceland’s capital city, Reykjavik, at 710 km is closer to Ittoqqortoomiit than Tasiilaq (45). The local township is commonly described as one of the most isolated settlements on Earth (46), and has an economy dominated by subsistence hunting (38). Military dogs-sledge patrol (47; 2) and scientific outposts (~20 to 30 people) (38) exist to the north of Frontier. While central and north-east Greenland is known to have once had indigenous settlements (2), GExpl is unaware of any historical, or cultural sites of significance in its project area.
International direct access to Greenland is primarily via flights from Denmark, and in the summer, Iceland (44). Alternative access to Greenland is via ship (44). Air access to Frontier is possible via Nerlerit Inaat Airport (48) (previously known as Constable Point). The nearest public airport is at Ittoqqortoomiit, which is being upgraded and set for completion by the end of 2018 (49). With permission from the Danish authorities, it is possible to fly to the Mestervig airstrip 11 (50) located with the Hesteskoen licence. Mestervig can accommodate heavy lift aeroplanes like the Lockheed C-130 Hercules (51). Several airstrips in the Frontier region can support the nimble and common de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter aeroplanes (52).
11 7Located at 2°14'7.78"N and 23°55'6.95"W
iv 16 Project Description and Location FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
By sea, access to and within Frontier is possible via the Kong Oscar and Kaiser Franz Joseph fjords (51) (52). However, based on data published by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, access is seasonal and generally constrained to the summer months with the area being ice-free from July to October (53) (52) (51). With the extent and thickness of the sea ice being in decline (54), seaborne access is likely to improve. Since 1980, the rate of change in the sea ice around Greenland is 13.3% per annum (55).
Hydropower accounts for approximately 70% of Greenland’s electricity. Five hydroelectric operations supply Nuuk, Tasiilaq, Narsaq and Quarartot, Sisimut and IIulisat (55). The Government is actively promoting cheap, renewable, clean energy to the aluminium, steel, copper, chemical and datacentre industries (55).
The physiography of Frontier is dominated by two major northwest-southeast systems, the King Oscar and Kaiser Franz Joseph fjords (51). The coastal areas are of moderate relief, ranging from sea level to around 500 m above sea level (‘ASL’); and the inland area is of high relief (the Stauning Alps), with elevations ranging up to 2000 m ASL (51). Figure 5 shows the topography of Greenland, with Frontier highlighted in green. The highest peaks in the Frontier region are Berzelius Bjerg with a topographic prominence of 1,535 m, Svedenborg Bjerg at 1,730 m, and Blaskbjerg at 1,575 m (56). Figure 6 shows the typical topography at Ymer Ø (in Danish, Ø means island), which is in the middle of Frontier (licence 2018/19).
Figure 5: Surface elevation model of Greenland
Source: European Space Agency (57)
Project Description and Location 17 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Figure 6: Island12 within the Eleonore South Figure 7: Andree Land, in the north of the Licence, between Lyell Land Eleonore North licence and Scoresby land
Source: This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed Source: This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC under CC BY-SA (58) BY-SA (59) Figure 8: Antarctic Havn13 within the Hesteskoen licence
Source: This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA (60)
There are several geological and logistical service companies located in Greenland and Iceland. Also, there are service providers in Denmark that have Greenland experience. Through a mining school in Nuuk (61), the Government is fostering in-country capabilities (62). Furthermore, while GEUS is a Danish Government organisation, it provides consulting services to the private sector. Greenland also neighbours Canada which has a mature and sophisticated mining and services sector. Consequently, there is good access to skills and labour for exploration activities carried out in Greenland.
Frontier lies just inside the demarcation of the high-arctic (63), and the Atlantic Ocean moderates its climate (64). At such latitudes, daylight is a significant environmental factor. At Ittoqqortoormiit, there is 24-hour light from around mid-May through to the end of July (11)(Figure 9). The driest month is June, with about an average of 12.4 mm of precipitation (12), July is the warmest with average temperatures ranging from 3° to 7°C (12)(Figure 10). East Greenland occasionally experiences dangerous, sudden and intense katabatic winds known as Piteraq (65).
12 Location: 72° 28′ 0″ N, 24° 41′ 49″ W 13 Location: 72° 28′ 0″ N, 24° 41′ 49″ W
iv 18 Project Description and Location FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 9: Annual daylight at Ittoqqortoormiit
Source: Timeanddate.com (11)
Figure 10: Annual temperatures and precipitation at Ittoqqortoormiit
Source: Timeanddate.com (12)
The high ground within Frontier has no vegetation, aside from lichen. The low-ground and valleys are largely underlain by permafrost but support dwarf vegetation, grasses and mosses that supports wildlife such as musk-ox, hare, lemmings, geese, terns, and gulls (66) (67) (68). Predators in the region include stoates and foxes (69), and bears which are usually constrained to coastal and low- land areas largely to the east of the Frontier licences (70) (71). Portions of the Hesteskoen and Wegener Halvø Licences (2018/04 and 2018/05) contain areas that are classified as for local bird colonies (72), where exploration is permitted provided there is no disturbance, but mining is unlikely to be permitted (73). Like much of the high-arctic, mammals are widely and thinly dispersed (74).
Project Description and Location 19 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
3.3 Mining industry
3.3.1 Prior and current activity
Globally significant deposits
Greenland has a long history of mining, since 1780 (75), but overall activities have been relatively limited to date. Greenland’s nascent mining industry has recently entered a development phase. Historical mining has occurred for gold (‘Au’) (76), zinc-lead (‘Zn-Pb’) (77) (78) (Figure 11), copper (79), aluminium (‘Al’) (80), coal (75), graphite (81), and olivine (24). The most significant base-metal mine was focussed on the Black Angel deposit which produced 13.6 million tonnes (‘Mt’) of material with a grade of 12.3% Zn, 4.0% Pb and 29 grams per tonne silver (82). The Black Angel mine is notable for its location in the side of a mountain (Figure 12). Historically, there have been economic evaluations carried out on deposits of molybdenum (83), iron-ore (24; 84), tungsten (85), and copper (86).
There is one active commercial mining operation in southwest Greenland, which mines rubies and sapphires (87). However, there are significant pre-mining projects that are either in advanced stages of evaluation or being brought into production and include:
• rare-earths/uranium in south-western Greenland. The Kvanefjeld advanced permitting (88) project, located in one of the “most unique geological environments on the planet” and when in production, may be among the world’s largest rare-earth mines. Kvanefjeld has a net present value (‘NPV’) of USD1,500 M14 and an internal rate of return (‘IRR’) of 43% (89). The NPV gives a sense of the scale of the risk-adjusted cash flow while the IRR indicates its quality. Based on GExpl’s experience, the Kvanefjeld NPV and IRR combination are highly favourable and internationally significant.
• zinc-lead in north Greenland. The Citronen Fjord project is one of the largest and highest grade undeveloped zinc-lead deposits in the world. The Citronen project is fully permitted and in a construction financing stage (90). The Citronen mine is estimated to have an NPV of USD909 M and an IRR of 35%15 (91); which in GExpl’s experience, is like Kvanefjeld and a financially attractive combination.
• titanium in north-western Greenland. The Dundas project contains one of the highest- grade ilmenite mineral sands deposits in the world (92). With an initial mineral estimate made in mid-2017 (93), the project is being fast-tracked with permitting, and a maiden economic study planned for mid-2018 (94). The owner states that “with a simple processing route and highly strategic location that could see the project be in the lowest quartile production costs, we have great confidence in its commercial potential” (94). The owner also speculates that the current 23.6 Mt Mineral Resource could, with future exploration, expand to beyond a billion tonnes (95).
• anorthosite in southwestern Greenland. The White Mountain mine is under construction (as of December 2017 (96)) and is estimated to have a mine life of at least 100 years (97). The White Mountain anorthosite is the largest on Earth, with only the moon known to contain a larger anorthosite deposit (98).
14 After tax and discounted at a rate of 10% per annum, in real terms 15 After tax and discounted at a rate of 8% per annum, in nominal terms
iv 20 Project Description and Location FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
In addition to the deposits above, the world-famous Skaergaard deposit - owned by Platina Resources Ltd - is one of the world’s largest undeveloped gold deposits, and the largest palladium deposit outside of Africa and Russia (99).
Given the number, the scale and the quality of the deposits currently being evaluated, Greenland’s mining sector may undergo substantial grown in the foreseeable future. GExpl opines that such growth in the sector may improve access to local skilled labour, and services that may eas e the future development of other deposits.
Figure 11: Miners at the historical Blyklippen lead- Figure 12: Photo from the portal of the zinc mine in eastern Greenland Black Angel in western Greenland
Source: GEUS (2005) (100) Source: GEUS (2003) (82)
3.3.2 Adjacent projects
Demonstrable mineral fertility
Frontier fully encapsulates two projects owned by third parties with Hesteskoen (licence 2018/04) fully encapsulating:
1. The Malmbjerg molybdenum deposit owned by Greenland Resources Inc (35) (101). The deposit was discovered in 1954 (102) and is an unusual Climax-type porphyry that is described as world-class (103). The deposit is estimated to contain a total of 364 million tonnes (‘Mt) grading 0.096% Mo (104). The project was subjected to open pit Feasibility Studies (83) by the Polish mining company KGHM Polska Miedź before being relinquished in 2017; and
2. The historical and depleted Blyklippen lead-zinc deposit which is owned by Ironbark Zinc Ltd (35) (105). The vein hosted deposit (106) was also discovered in 1954 (102) and mined between 1956 and 1962 using selective underground mining methods. The mine produced 544,600 t of high-grade material grading 9.9% Zn and 9.3% Pb (107).
Aside from Greenland Resources Inc and Ironbark Zinc Ltd, there are three other licence holders in the region (Figure 13). China-Nordic Mining Company owns a conventional exploration licence (35) over the historic Devondal copper prospect, which is flanked by Greenfield’s Wegener Halvø licence. CGRG Ltd’s Kap Parry project (35) across the fjord from Wegener Halvø, is being explored for rare- earth element and iron-titanium mineralisation (35) (108). Between the Wegener and Gauss Halvø licences, there is an SEL application (35) by a party that GExpl has not been able to identify16. Based on GExpl’s understanding of the geology, the unidentified applicant is likely to be targeting sediment- hosted copper-lead(±cobalt) mineralisation.
16 The MLSA does not disclose the name of licence applicants, only once granted are the identities revealed.
Project Description and Location 21 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Figure 13: Adjacent projects and deposits
Source: GExpl using Google Earth and licence shapes published by the Government of Greenland
3.3.3 Importance to Greenland
Nation building
Greenland considers mineral and petroleum extraction as a means of achieving financial independence from Denmark, and a means to ultimately become a country in its own right (24). Presently, the Greenland economy is highly dependent on support from Denmark to the tune of USD613 M /year, or about one-third of the gross domestic product (109). Worryingly, Greenland’s economy is projected to become steadily more unbalanced in coming decades with annual budget deficits of more than 5% of GDP even with support from Denmark (99). Consequently, the Government has strongly promoted and implemented favourable policies designed to entice investment in its mineral and petroleum potential (26). The Government agencies make regular visits to industry trade shows and conferences in the major mining investment communities (110). To reduce administrative expense and complexity, Greenland allows foreign companies to hold exploration licences without the need to establish a local subsidiary company (111), and publishes and accepts forms in English (112). While many countries claim to be pro-business, the Government of Greenland has backed it up with actions such as:
• increasing the number of public geologists from one to ten over the span of a decade (113);
• overturning a uranium mining ban to enable the development of a single deposit (114);
• permitting a mine in the world’s largest national park (39) (115);
• waiving all expenditure commitments for licences in years 6-11, for the year 2017 (116);
• running a national mineral hunt, known as Ujarassiorit, which incentivises Greenlanders to discover and report new and interesting mineral occurrences (117);
• committing its funds to generating pre-competitive, publicly available data in central eastern Greenland (118) (40); and
iv 22 Project Description and Location FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
• starting a mining school (61).
Given the tangible steps that the Government has taken to attract and establish a mining industry, GExpl considers Greenland a safe investment destination of exploration and mining activity.
3.3.4 Taxation and mineral royalties
Highly competitive
Greenland’s corporate tax rate for exploration and mining companies is 30%17 (119), which is the same as Australia’s headline corporate tax rate (120). Tax losses incurred by exploration companies can be carried forward indefinitely (121). Personal tax in Greenland is relatively simple and applies a flat-rate tax on labour, and certain capital income (122). The flat individual income tax a person working on exploration or mining projects incurs is 35% (123), as opposed to the 42% on individuals working outside of the mineral sector (123). This lower tax rate for individuals working in mining and exploration is an incentive to grow a domestic capacity in these areas.
For copper, mineral royalties in Greenland are better than those imposed in Western Australia. The Greenland mineral royalty rate (excluding hydrocarbons, radionuclides and gemstones) is 2.5% on the value of the mine product (‘ad valorem’), from which corporate income and dividend taxes can be deducted (124). In comparison, Western Australia imposes an ad valorem royalty on copper concentrates of 5.0% (125), from which there are no deductible items. While the effective rates of tax will be dependent on individual mine circumstances, in simple terms Greenland’s mineral royalties are less than half of those in Western Australia. On this basis along with the positive actions described in section 3.3.3, GExpl considers that the financial attractiveness of exploring and mining in Greenland is substantially better than what is commonly perceived (126), and a suitable incentive for it to explore in this jurisdiction
4 HISTORY
Mineral exploration in central-eastern Greenland dates to 1822 when William Scoresby studied the rocks around Scoresby Sund (127). Due to the difficulties associated with its remoteness and climate, the region wasn’t subject to systematic exploration programs until the twentieth century (128). It is the Danish Arctic explorer Lauge Koch (Figure 14) who is credited with undertaking the first systematic exploration campaigns between 1926 and 1958 (128; 129). The Lauge Koch expeditions were primarily focussed between 72° to 76°N (starting around the southern extent of Frontier to about 250 km further north of its boundary). It was Lauge Koch who gave the name Eleonore to the sediments he observed (127). As a result of a three-year expedition by Koch between 1931 to 1934, eastern Greenland was topographically mapped for the first time on a scale of 1: 250,000 (2). The Koch expeditions continued until 1958, primarily with a geological focus, until there as an abrupt halt in permitting (2). The first geological map of the area 72°N to 76°N was published by John Haller in 1971 at a scale of 1:250,000 (127). Between 1984 and 2001, a series of five geological maps of eastern Greenland were published at a scale of 1: 500,000 (127). Relative to the mapping history of Western Australia, GExpl notes that the history of eastern Greenland is very recent and highlights the low level of knowledge about this area.
While exploration for minerals occurred since 1822, it was not until 1907 that the search for potentially economic mineral deposits yielded any results. In 1907, copper-bearing minerals18 were discovered in Fleming Fjord and Pingal Dal (107) (both in GExpl’s Wegener Halvø licence). It was the Lauge Koch expeditions that discovered the Blyklippen zinc-lead deposit19 in 1945 (100; 107), and the
17 For non-exploration or mining companies, the corporate tax rate is 31.8% (119) 18 Chalcocite, cuprite and malachite 19 Owned by Ironbark Zinc Ltd and surrounded by GExpl Hesteskoen licence.
History 23 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Malmbjerg molybdenum deposit20 in 1954 (102; 107). During this time there were also discoveries of lead and zinc at Alplefjord (107) and Noa Dal (130) (GExpl’s Eleonore South and Ymer Ø licences). The company Nordisk Mineselskab A/G (‘Nordisk’ or in some literature ‘Nordmine’) was established21 in 1952 to mine Blyklippen. Between then and 1984 Nordisk explored a 100,000 km2 area22 under a 50 year exclusive license between 70°N to 74° 30’ N (131), and was successful in discovering a large number of mineral occurrences (132; 107). Sediment-hosted copper was discovered in the early 1970s in the Eleonore North, and South licenses and subject to cursory investigation by Nordisk (133). Concurrently during the 1970s, tungsten, antimony and gold were discovered in the Ymer Ø license and evaluated by Nordisk (134).
Figure 14: Lauge Koch’s expedition's ship the Gustav Holm on its way to Mesters Vig in 1949
Source: GEUS (2005) (100)
Modern exploration history within Frontier is limited:
• Aside from a 6-day helicopter-borne reconnaissance program in 2011, the copper potential of the Eleonore North and South licences has not been explored since 1975 (133). Prior to this the 6,680 km2 licence area was subject to reconnaissance mapping, a small ground based geophysical survey (135), one drill hole focussed on copper and another on tungsten 23. In 1992 Pasminco in partnership with NunaOil A/S which collected 137 stream sediment samples from known anomalies (136).
• The Ymer Ø licence, and a small portion of the Eleonore North licence were subject to airborne, reconnaissance and commercial evaluation (137; 138) of the known tungsten deposits between 2007 and 2014. Aside from an airborne electromagnetic survey, there appears to have been little substantive exploration (such as drilling) carried out during this time. In 1992 NunaOil also resampled the Noa Dal gold prospect (139).
• The Gauss Halvø licence was subject to reconnaissance investigations by Tambora Mining Corporation and by ARC Mining Ehf in 2014 (140). These programs were largely restricted to heliborne visits to known mineral occurrences.
20 Owned by Greenland Resources Inc and surrounded by GExpl’s Hesteskoen licence. 21 originally 27.5% owned by the Danish state, the balance being held by Danish, Swedish and Canadian interests (262) 22 Between 70° N and 74°30’ N 23 More detail on the historical exploration work is presented in the Known Prospects section of this report
iv 24 History FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
• The Wegener Halvø license formed part of a licence package held by Avannaa Exploration Ltd and joint-ventured with Anglo-American Plc (‘AA’). This package was subject to two field seasons of exploration over 2012 and 2013 (141). Although airborne magnetic and gravity were acquired within a portion of the licence area (141), it appears to GExpl that the overall effort was largely focussed to the south and outside of the park boundary24. Aside from geophysical data acquisition, it does not appear that AA performed any work within the Wegener Halvø licence area. As part of the AA program, six widely spaced drill-holes were completed for a total of 2,500 m about 20 to 40 km southeast of the southeastern-most corner of the Wegener Halvø licence (141). The result of the drilling program was underwhelming at a time when AA was under significant management and financial pressure (142) that subsequently saw AA enact a forced divestiture program designed to cut its assets down from 68 to 16 mines (143). The withdrawal from the joint-venture in eastern Greenland is a likely consequence of this divestiture program.
GExpl was unable to identify what work has been performed at Devondal, which is currently under licence by China-Nordic Mining Company and surrounded by the Wegener Halvø license. Historically the Devondal prospect was drilled, yielding commercially relevant copper- lead-silver intersections (107; 86).
GExpl applied for its licenses in August 2017, when there was to the best of its knowledge25, no active exploration programs in the region for three to four years. The Hesteskoen application was subject to a competing application, and the Ymer Ø to a competitive batch process26. GExpl’s remaining applications were uncontested. In December 2017, GExpl was awarded all its license applications, bar the excise of the Malmbjerg molybdenum deposit from the Hesteskoen license. After GExpl’s applications the Devondal licence renewed, along with a competing application lodged for the Malmbjerg deposit. In February 2018, an unknown party lodged applications between the Company’s Wegener Halvø and Gauss Halvø licenses.
5 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALISATION
5.1 Regional Geology
Greenland has a diverse, complex geological history which is poorly understood relative to North America, Europe and Australia. While there is good exposure on the coast, about 1.7 M km2 (144) (~78%) of the island’s interior is covered by an ice-sheet up to 3 km thick (145) that formed between 35 and 40 million years ago (146). The ice-free ~410,000 km2 along Greenland’s coast is of comparable size (102) to all of Sweden at 410,335 km2 (147) or Paraguay 397,302 km2 (148). It was not until Dawes (2009) (149) that the first graphic interpretation of the geology underneath the ice was published (Figure 15). In fact, less than half the coastal exposure has ever been subject to publicly funded airborne geophysical surveys (150), something that is taken for granted in other countries.
Extremely old rocks like Western Australia
Greenland contains some of the oldest rocks on Earth (151) (152), and some of the oldest traces of life in the fossil record are near the capital city of Nuuk (153). The basement of Greenland is dominated by the Archean-aged North Atlantic Craton (154) in the south; and the Rae Craton which
24 GExpl notes that at this time, there was not precedent for mining licences being granted inside the park. Consequently, AA may have made a conscious decision not to pursue targets inside the park. Subsequent to AA, the Citronen zinc deposit gained a mining licence in the same national park, which provides tangible evidence that it is mine permitting is possible. 25 Based on anecdotal evidence, GExpl understands that there had been no activity on China-Nordic Mining Company’s Devondal licence for a number of years. 26 A process where the Government applies a temporary moratorium on new applications while it advertises for applicants to enter into a deliberate competitive application process. This contrasts with the normal process where the Government lets free-market forces determine whether there is a competing application or not.
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 25 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
is thought to account for much of central-western, and possibly central eastern-Greenland (155) (102). The boundaries of the Rae craton are poorly described in the reviewed literature. The Archaean cratons are separated by Palaeoproterozoic-aged mobile belts (156) (157) (149). Younger sedimentary basins cover approximately 40% of Greenland’s ice-free area (158), predominantly in the east and north of the country. Mesoproterozoic-, Neoproterozoic- and Phanerozoic-aged sediments respectively account for 30%, 50%, and 20% of these basins (158).
Figure 15: Geology of Greenland
Source: GEUS (149). Note the green dashed lines are superimposed by GExpl based on geochronological interpretation by Nutman (2016) (156). ‘A’ stands for Archean-aged crust, P for Proterozoic aged crust, with A1 being the Rae craton, A2 the North Atlantic craton, P1 being the Inglefield mobile belt, P2 the Nagssugtoqidian mobile belt, and P3 the Ketilidian belt. Green shaded rectangle encapsulates Frontier.
Subduction zone
Eastern Greenland’s basement rocks and some of the overlying sediments are influenced by the Caledonian Orogeny (159). The Caledonian Orogeny was a mountain-building event, evidence of which is also seen along much of the Norwegian coastline and the Canadian east coast. The eastern Greenland Caledonides, which extend north-south for 1,500 km (128), is one of the least understood orogenic belts (160). The Caledonides are the result of the collision between the supercontinents of Laurentia (North American and Greenland) and Baltica (Scandinavia), and the Avalonia
iv 26 Geological Setting and Mineralisation FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
microcontinent (parts of Great Britain and North America) (161) during the Silurian period (443.8 Ma to 419.2 Ma) (162). Eastern Greenland may be near the Laurentia-Baltica-Avalonia triple junction shown in Lyngsie & Thybo (2016) (163). The Laurentia-Baltica collision resulted in parts of the European continent transferring onto eastern Greenland at Liverpool Land (164). This collision resulted in the European plate subducting beneath Greenland (165) (166) and is associated temporally with granitic intrusions (165). This subduction event likely played an important part in the metallogeny of eastern Greenland as subduction can be a powerful mechanism for transferring economically important elements from the mantle into the continental crust (167).
Figure 16: Caledonian and its southern extension, the Appalachian Orogeny
Source: Grennes et al. (1999) (168). Note the components of the Caledonia Orogen have the darker shading.
A major break in the Earth’s crust
The Jan Mayen fault zone is an east-west oriented, 200 to 300 km wide fracture zone that extends from central eastern Greenland across to Norway, skirting the northern part of Jan Mayen island (Figure 61 Appendix 3) (169) (159) (170). The Jan Mayen island is an expression of a micro-continent that rifted from Greenland about 33 Ma (171). The JMFZ intersects Greenland at a sub-perpendicular angle (170). The JMFZ is volcanically active, evidenced by the volcanoes on Jan Mayen Island (138). This volcanism is thought to be connected to the mantle plume underneath Iceland (172). The JMFZ also acted as a focal conduit for melt supply observed in the King Oscar’s fjord of eastern Greenland (171). The greater JMFZ expresses itself clearly in the bathymetric imagery of the sea floor, and GExpl traces it to offshore Norway. When GExpl projects the JMFZ to western Greenland, it aligns with magnetic and gravity measurements (Figure 63 and Figure 64). in Appendix 3), and a 200-300km wide disruption in the west coast topography. Also, the projected location also coincides with an area containing flood basalts and large structures that are not mapped under the ice, like the Disko Bugt suture (173; 174). The extension of the JMFZ across Greenland is also marked by a change in the orientation of the heat flux map published by Rezvanbehbahani et al. (2017) (175) (Figure 17), and drainage patterns observed in the ice sheet (176). Furthermore, the interpreted JMFZ extension aligns with known mineral occurrences on the west coast 27. Irrespective of the validity of GExpl’s extrapolation, the JMFZ is likely to exert a major influence on eastern Greenland’s mineral prospectivity (section 35).
A hot spot like Hawaii
Expansive flood basalts and mafic intrusions dominate the centre latitudes of Greenland (Figure 13). These rocks are associated with the Iceland mantle plume (177) and form part of the North Atlantic Igneous
27 Magmatic nickel sulphides on Disko Island, zinc-lead of the Black Angel mine, and similar base metals in Karrat Fjord.
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 27 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Province, one of the biggest ‘large’ igneous provinces (‘LIPs) on Earth (159). The plume became active about 55/56 Ma (178) (171) when Greenland began to rift from Europe (178). The plume is one of 49 global hotspots. However, it is one of only seven on Earth to have very deep origins (179). The exact orientation of the plume’s movement is uncertain (180) (181). Present-day volcanism is restricted to Iceland, and Jan Mayen island (about 500 km east of Greenland) (182). Kharin and Eroshenko (2014) (172) note that the Jan Mayen volcanoes may be connected at depth to the Icelandic mantle plume via the Jan Mayen Fault Zone (‘JMFZ’). Rock exposures on the west and east coasts of Greenland, as published by Dawes (2009) (149), gives the impression of a track in this orientation28. Recent research into the heat within the rocks under the ice-sheet (175) (183) and analysis of geothermal springs on both the east and west coasts of Greenland (183), suggest that the Iceland plume had a north-south orientation in the centre of the island (Figure 17). Curiously, the path of maximum heat flux in central Greenland aligns with the approximate location and orientation of the Greenland Grand Canyon (184) (Figure 62 in Appendix 3). GExpl is unaware of any research linking the recent (2013) discovery of the north-south oriented Greenland Grand Canyon with the emerging knowledge on the sub-glacial heat flux and Iceland mantle plume (184). Greenfield postulates that the Iceland mantle-plume initially had a north-south orientation before taking on its present- day east-south-easterly trajectory, which is important for understanding the mineral system (section 35) and therefore the mineral potential of Greenland.
Figure 17: Greenland’s sub-ice heat flux and an interpretation of extensions to the JMFZ
Source: Image generated by GExpl in Google Earth which incorporates a geo-referenced map published by Rezvanbehbahani et al. (2017) (175). Note, mW m-2 measures the magnitude and direction (implied by the white dashed line) of heat flow. Black is low-heat, red is high-heat flow.
5.2 Local Geology
Much of the eastern and northern portions of Greenland are dominated by an up to 14 km thick sequence of sedimentary rocks (185) that are intruded by a chemically diverse suite of igneous rocks (159). In GExpl’s opinion, the combined influences of the palaeo-subduction zone, mantle plume and
28 Although Brooks (2011) opines that the east and west mafics are not connected. GExpl is unaware of a definitive interpretation.
iv 28 Geological Setting and Mineralisation FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
structural complexity harboured by the JMFZ and Caledonian Orogeny make the geology of central- eastern Greenland unusual.
A unique juxtaposition of two economically important sediment packages
Sedimentary rocks with local volcanic intercalations were deposited in continental to shallow marine basins along the eastern margin of the Laurentia supercontinent (186). With the cessation of the Caledonian Orogeny in the Devonian (419.2 to 358.9 Ma), younger sedimentary basins developed in central east Greenland and ceased when sea-floor spreading initiated continental break-up in the North Atlantic (186). Younger sedimentary basins continued forming until the Cretaceous, restricted to isolated north-trending basins that formed graben structures (186).
The sedimentary successions in the Frontier region appear to unusual due to a juxtaposition of Neoproterozoic-aged and Permian-Triassic-aged sequences (187) (Figure 18); the significance of which is in that both these ages are associated with globally significant copper-mineralising events (188). In the southern part of Frontier, the two sedimentary basins were structurally emplaced next to one another. GExpl is unaware of a similar occurrence elsewhere on Earth. In the northern part of Frontier, the two sequences are separated by Devonian aged (419.2 Ma to 358.9 Ma) red-bed sedimentary rocks (189). The Permian-Triassic-aged sedimentary rocks contained within the East Greenland Basin (190) (191) (‘EGB'), and the Neoproterozoic-aged sedimentary rocks are contained with the Eleonore Bay Super-group (‘EBS’).
The EGB and the Devonian-aged red-bed sedimentary rocks abut the EBS along the Western fault zone which formed through orogenic processes and led to crustal thinning (192). The juxtaposition of the EGB and Devonian next to one another is due to the Gauss Halvø fault, that formed in response to extensional deformation and resulting in 80 to 100 km wide fault blocks (192). The Western and Gauss Halvø faults, together with the Hochstetters Foreland fault29, make up the world’s largest relay ramp (193).
29 To the northeast and outside of the Project area
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 29 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Figure 18: Geology of central east Greenland
Source: Higgins et al., (2001) (194)
Extension of the great European copper system
The sediments of the EGB contain an extension of the Zechstein sea, an economically important sedimentation event that extends through parts of northern Britain to Germany and Poland (195). The stratigraphic sequences of the EGB are mapped to and correlated with those found in Norway (196) (197), and the copper occurrences correlate with those in Germany (195). Figure 65 in Appendix 3 shows a detailed understanding of the distribution of these sediments, in the North Atlantic. In east Greenland, the sedimentary rocks deposited in an 80 to 100 km wide basin that trends north-south for 400 km and is closed to the south and west (198). There are numerous sub-basins of variable sizes and oxidation states in the EGB (198). The sediments deposited as part of a transgressive- regressive cycle that resulted in the formation of shales, limestones and a thick package of
iv 30 Geological Setting and Mineralisation FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
economically important evaporites and algal laminated gypsum (Figure 19, Figure 20) (189; 158). Also, the shales are considered to be prospective sources of hydrocarbons (158; 199); a feature similar to evaporites considered favourable for the formation of some copper deposits (188). GExpl’s Wegener Halvø and Gauss Halvø licenses contain the majority of the outcropping upper -Permian evaporites closest to the Jan Mayen structures demarcated by the King Oscar Fjord in the south, and Kaiser Franz Josef Fjord in the north. The overlying Jurassic to Cretaceous-aged sedimentary rocks are prospective for hydrocarbons (200).
Figure 19: Lithostratigraphic column of Figure 20: Outcrop of the evaporitic Foldvik group the CFB
Source: Wignal & Twitchett (2002) (201). Note, the column is rotated 90.
Source: Stemmerik et al. (1988) (201).
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 31 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Similarities with the African Copperbelt
The sediments of the EBS contain sediments of the same Neoproterozoic age as those that host the world-class base-metal deposits in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (188). Age is often considered to be an important indicator of metallogenic prospectivity in a sedimentary basin (102). In the case of very old rocks like the EBS, it creates an opportunity for multiple mineralising events, such as the Caledonian Orogeny, the passing of a mantle-plume, subduction processes, or more localised processes. Like the EGB, there are similarly-aged, related sedimentary basins in Europe (202). Of particular note are the Proterozoic-aged sedimentary basins in northern Norway (203) (Figure 68 in Appendix 3) as they are known to host sediment-hosted copper like the Nussir deposit30 (204).
The EBS is a fundamental part of the East Greenland Caledonides (205). The EBS sits unconformably on a migmatised Archean-aged basement (206; 207). The stratigraphy of the EBS is subdivided into four groups, ascending from the Nathorst Land, Lyell Land, Ymer Ø to the Andree Land Group (208) (Figure 22, Figure 23). The sedimentary pile is up to 14 km thick and dominated by clastic and carbonaceous sediments (194). The upper part of the EBS contains frequent intercalations of evaporitic sediments (209). The 1 km thick Tillite Group overlies the EBS and comprises diamictites, sandstones, mudstones, and carbonates (127). The metamorphic grade of the sedimentary pile ranges from amphibolite-facies31 where it is in contact with the basement rocks, to being unmetamorphosed at the top of the Tillite Group (194).
Figure 21: EBS exposure as seen from Ymer Island
Source: Pedersen & Olesen (1984) (134)
30 Nussir contains a foreign estimate totalling 66 Mt grading 1.15% Cu with “payable amounts of gold and silver” (188). The Nussir host rock is Palaeoproterozoic-aged (359). 31 Medium pressure (2 to 12 kbar), medium to high-temperature (~450° to 750°C)
iv 32 Geological Setting and Mineralisation FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 22: Lithostratigraphic column of the EBS
Source: Sønderholm et al. (2008) (209). Note, the column is rotated 90.
Figure 23: Schematic of the EBS
Source: Sønderholm et al. (2008) (209).
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 33 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
A large igneous province of great diversity
The sub-volcanic rocks in the Frontier region are a result of the Icelandic mantle plume and the rifting of Greenland from Europe (210). These processes resulted in an extremely broad spectrum of intrusive rock types such as tholeiitic and alkali basalts, nepheline- and quartz-syenites, nephelinites and carbonatites (159). The volcanic expression of these rocks occurs off the coast in the eastern Greenland shelf (186; 159). This diverse magmatic event began 63 Ma and ceased only recently at 13 Ma (159; 186) (refer to Figure 67 for a schematic of the igneous activity in the North Atlantic). Research on the present-day Icelandic plume shows that olivine minerals have compositions that are consistent with magma chamber crystallization, recharge, and mixing imposed on a primary magma that is derived from a peridotite source (211).
There are extensive plume derived flood basalts to the south and north of Frontier (212); with minor expression in the north of the Gauss Halvø licence area. There are however extensive dyke swarms and sills (186) throughout the CFB. The predominant theory is that these flood basalts have eroded from the Frontier region (213). However, based on GExpl review of the existing literature, the flood basalts are likely to have formed from separate events; evidenced by 1) the main Icelandic plume outpourings to the south; and 2) the JMFZ acting as a conduit to direct magmas to the north in a separate outpouring (as described by Kharin & Eroshenko, 2014 (172)).
The granite intrusions in the Frontier region are thought to derive from the low-temperature (<800°C) melting of sediments at depth (‘S-type granites’) (214; 215), as well as granites formed from magmatic processes (‘I-type granites’) (216). Geochemical modelling of the S-type granites suggests that their formation was aided by externally derived H2O-rich fluids possibly derived from faults and shear zones (215), most likely the JMFZ (217).
In GExpl’s opinion, the long-lived (>30 million years) nature and chemical diversity of the igneous activity in eastern Greenland bodes well for its mineral prospectivity.
The intersection of major, perpendicular structures
The JMFZ expresses itself in the Frontier region as major fjords like the King Oscar and Kaiser Franz Joseph fjords. In addition to the JMFZ, significant structural influence comes from the Caledonian Orogeny and its related subduction that resulted in extensive low-angle detachment in a north-south orientation (127) (Figure 18). In the literature, the scale of these structures are comparable with the Himalayas (218) (Figure 24), and the total displacement is estimated to be 200 to 400 km (219). Furthermore, the area is thought to contain the world’s largest relay ramp in the Kaiser Franz Joseph Fjord (193). The interaction of the east-west JMFZ, the north-south orientation of the detachments and the west-dipping subduction plate create multiple fluid pathways and opportunities for fluid mixing events. These processes can be important in the formation of mineral deposits.
iv 34 Geological Setting and Mineralisation FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 24: Macrostructure comparison of the Himalayas and central eastern Greenland
Source: Hodges (2012) (218). Abbreviations: EGST, East Greenland sole thrust; FRD, Fjord Region detachment system; HST, Himalayan sole thrust; HT, Himalayan-Tibetan fault system; MBT, Main Boundary thrust system; MCT, Main Central thrust system; MFT, Main Frontal thrust system; STD, South Tibetan detachment system; W, Western fault.
5.3 Mineralisation and Deposit Type
Exploration targeting is a predictive process that does not have a steady-state of success (220). There are essentially two approaches to exploration targeting, one based on deposit models, and the other based on a systemic approach. GExpl’s primarily uses the mineral systems approach. This approach is important to understanding why GExpl’s selected Frontier for its exploration efforts.
5.3.1 Mineral system
Accuracy over precision
The mineral systems approach is relatively simple and straight-forward to understand but is difficult in practice due to input uncertainties (221; 222). The mineral system relies on the identification of connectivity and interaction between at least four criteria32 (223):
1. Source of metal bearing fluids;
2. Conduit to provide a pathway to the deposition site;
3. Throttle that focusses the metal bearing fluids; and
4. Trap which can be either a physical or chemical means of extracting the metal from the fluid into a deposit.
If all the four criteria are met, the deposit must be protected from subsequent geological forces that may destroy it (223). What constitutes a source, conduit, throttle and trap vary depending on the
32 There is variance in the literature and additional criteria may be included
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 35 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
geological terrane (222). It is this imprecision that sets the mineral system approach apart from the deposit model approach. However, the strength of the mineral system approach is that what it might lack in precision (221), it makes up for in accuracy. As put by Carveth Read (1898), "It is better to be vaguely right than precisely wrong" (224). For this reason, the mineral system approach is suited to conceptual targeting processes.
Natural systems are well documented as having heavily skewed populations distributions. Such skew in natural systems are described in almost all scientific disciplines, (225) ranging from ecology, sociology, linguistics, physics, economics, demographics, internet behaviour, human behaviour and so on. Mineral deposits are no different; their size and grade of deposits are best described by a multiplicative process. (226). However, the type of distribution varies in the literature. Singer (2008) (227) demonstrated that log-normal distributions best describe size-grade combinations, while Guj et al., (2011) (228) demonstrate that Pareto distributions have good predictive properties. Both distributions connect quite naturally and may in some cases be identical and may plot as straight lines on log-log graphs (229). Both distributions are generated by multiplicative processes which are important (220) because the product is zero (no deposit) if any aspect is missing, despite how good all the other qualities may be.
Fractal science describes how systems are repeatable at all scales (230), which in this case implies that the processes which form deposits also have multiplicative underpinnings (231). Consequently, if any part of the source, conduit, throttle or trap is missing, then the product is zero (no deposit). This multiplicative process explains why mineral deposits are rare and should be considered in the exploration targeting process (231). By adopting a mineral systems approach, it is possible to gain an appreciation of the probability of success (232; 231) and refine the aspects of the system that need prioritising in the exploration process (i.e. test the weakest link).
The first mover in elephant country
As phrased by Hronsky & Groves (2008) (220), the “fundamental tenet of conceptual targeting is that ore deposits are part of much more extensive systems, and hence that targeting must be carried out at global through province to district scales”. GExpl’s applied the mineral system approach at both macro- and project scales to determine a region’s merit as ‘elephant country’ (220) and then matched with a “first-mover” (220) exploration strategy. In assessing the prospectivity of Frontier, GExpl considered criteria from macro- through to project scales (Table 1). Based on the tabulated criteria that GExpl has been able to establish and verify from multiple peer-reviewed sources, it considers Frontier to satisfy all the requirements of the mineral systems approach. GExpl also notes that tracing the linear feature of the JMFZ through Norway, Sweden/Denmark results in the JMFZ intersecting the world-class sediment-hosted copper deposits in Poland (Figure 69) - implying that it could be a crustal-scale metallogenic control33. As a cross check to the mineral system analysis, GExpl also considered deposit models and empirical evidence (historical exploration results). While features such as the mantle plume may post-date some of the classic copper deposit models (discussed in more detail in the following section), they may create potential for younger mineralising events that either enrich proto-mineralisation34, or create new deposits in their own right.
As part of this process, GExpl commissioned a foremost global authority on exploration targeting to identify the portions in the Frontier region that he considered most prospective (233)35, and the Company applied for licenses based on this opinion.
33 In the reviewed literature, GExpl has not identified commentary on the JMFZ being common to east Greenland and Poland and as such, it must be treated as a hypothetical observation rather proven fact. However, if the hypothesis is true, then the next best place to find the next Lubin, in GExpl’s opinion, is in eastern Greenland. 34 Often referred to as proto-ore, but this is distinctly different, and must not be confused with, the JORC (2012) definition of an Ore Reserve 35 The report by Dr Jon Hronsky is marked as confidential
iv 36 Geological Setting and Mineralisation FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Table 2: Mineral system criteria considered by GExpl
GExpl’s Macro Project Criteria
Source Subduction zone, large igneous province, Thick sequences of ‘red-bed’ oxidised and, and mantle plume (source of heat as well reduced sediments, salt-bearing evaporites that as metal and fluids). liberate metals from the surrounding sediments.
Conduit Major crustal structures, Jan Mayen Fault Permeable rocks with recirculating fluids driven Zone and the structures associated with by heat sources with the migmatisation of the the Caledonian Orogeny. These are basement rocks, Caledonian Orogeny and the younger than the sedimentary rocks, passing of the mantle plume. creating the potential for metal mobilisation subsequent to deposition. Throttle Contrasting sediment porosity, and aquitards, flood basalts up to 2 km thick36, dykes, sills and plutons which create physical channels. Large-scale regional faults and subsidiary structures.
Trap Mixing with crustal fluids, degassing, The chemical contrast between reduced and temperature and pressure changes. oxidised sub-basins.
Preservation Largely low-grade metamorphic terranes, uncertain erosive history.
Figure 25: Opinion of mineral prospectivity
Source: Image generated in Google Earth by GExpl using files generated by Hronsky (2017)37 (233)
36 There is contrasting literature on whether basalts have eroded from the Frontier or whether they were ever there. 37 The report is marked as confidential, however GExpl sought and gained permission to publish the results in the form and context that is shown in this Report.
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 37 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
5.3.2 Deposit models
Precision over accuracy
The deposit model approach takes detailed information about a known deposit and uses the information as criteria for targeting deposits elsewhere. This approach is distinct from the mineral system approach as it by and large focusses on the end-product rather than the underlying processes. As stated by McCuaig et al. (2010) (234), "Deposit models are belief systems that are based on a combination of inspiration, intuition and logic. They contain a large degree of uncertainty that is arguably hard, and in many instances impossible, to quantify". In part, the inaccuracy despite the precision is because deposit models are often based on the biggest and best deposits (220). By definition, such super-giant deposits are ‘unique’, making them the exception rather than the rule (235) and therefore likely controlled by unique processes that make for poor analogues (234). Despite the predictive shortcomings of deposit models, they are useful in conveying information and concepts and are easier to apply at a camp scale than the mineral systems approach.
Many applicable models
Greenland is prospective for a wide variety of commodities and deposit types. The timing relationship between these deposit types are shown in Figure 26, and their locations in Figure 70 of Appendix 3. At 12,975 km2 of exposure, Frontier is a very large project (section 3.1, (41)) in a diverse and unique geological setting (sections 5.1, 0). Consequently, Frontier is prospective for many different deposit types. These types can be crudely grouped into:
• Sediment-hosted base metal deposits (158); • vein and skarn hosted base and precious metals, barite, (236), tungsten, gold and antimony (237); • felsic intrusion-related molybdenum (Climax type) (238), tin and tungsten (239); and • mafic hosted intrusive and extrusive nickel, copper and platinum group metals (‘PGM’) (240).
A detailed review of east Greenland’s mineral potential is available in Pederson & Stendal (2000) (240), and publications by GEUS38.
38 http://www.geus.dk/minex/geology_ore-uk.htm
iv 38 Geological Setting and Mineralisation FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 26: Metallogenic evolution of Greenland
Source: Kolb et al., (2016) (102). Note SSC stands for sediment- stratiform sedimentary copper, Ni-PGE for orthomagmatic sulphide mineralisation, and SPSZ for Sunrise Point Shear Zone. The green bands indicted ages associated with globally significant copper mineralising events. Frontier is largely considered prospective for mineralisation younger than 1.000 Ma.
Sediment-hosted, big and rich but paradoxically poorly understood
The term ‘sediment-hosted’ covers a range of individual deposit models of which three are known to apply to Frontier (158). The critical factors39 of these deposit models, as described by Hitzman et al. (2010) (188), align well with the mineral systems approach. These deposit types are best known for their copper content. However, they may include a suite of other economically important metals such as cobalt, lead, zinc, silver and molybdenum, and in at least one instance, a nickel-dominant deposit (241). The type examples of these deposits occur in the famous Central African Copperbelt in the DRC40 and Zambia. These deposits
39 “Sediment-hosted stratiform copper deposits require oxidized metal source beds (red beds), reduced facies to serve as metal traps, and saline brines capable of leaching and carrying metals. To form significant deposits, mineralizing fluids must be confined within the red beds and expelled through relatively focused zones, often in areas of stratal pinch out or linear structural zones. Potentially productive host rock sequences and geometric configurations are commonly found in rift basins. Supercontinent breakup is ideal for producing rift basins” – Hitzman et al. (2010). 40 Democratic Republic of the Congo
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 39 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
have copper as principal commodity but can contain significant, accessory cobalt (242; 243); and the economically important (244) central European Kupferschiefer that tends to be copper dominant with substantial lead and silver content (188; 245). Frontier is also reported to be prospective for Mississippi Valley sub-type (‘MVT’) (236), which is typically dominant in zinc and lead and distinctly different to both the Copperbelt and Kupferschiefer models.
The African and European deposits account for the overwhelming majority of the globe’s known sediment- hosted copper (188). Importantly, the African and European deposits are of the same Neoproterozoic and Permian-Triassic ages (246; 188) (Figure 27) as the EBS and EGB. Geological age is a common first indicator in assessing a region’s prospectivity when using the sediment-hosted deposit models (188). The second indicator can be the presence of evaporites, which can be important as they provide a source of salt to generate brines, and salinity is a major control on metal solubility (247). Evaporites can act as a physical seal as well as create voids/porosity into which minerals can be deposited (247). There is significant variability within the sediment-hosted models. In part, this variability is because relative to other deposit types, like magmatic and porphyry deposit, they have been subject to a fraction41 of the equivalent research (248). The relative poor understanding of these deposits is somewhat of a paradox given they have the highest grade of any deposit model given the contained copper and cobalt metals (Figure 72 and, Figure 73 in Appendix 3)42.
GExpl’s review of the literature indicates that Frontier meets the criteria favourable for hosting sediment- hosted copper deposits. It also considers the potential quantity and quality of these deposit types to be economically superior to other copper deposit types. Consequently, GExpl intends to direct much of its exploration efforts to discovering sediment-hosted copper, and genetically related cobalt, lead, zinc and silver. GExpl also notes that using a deposit model approach, the United States Geological Survey has highlighted areas within Frontier that it considers prospective for hosting sediment-hosted copper (Figure 28).
Figure 27: Ages of Sediment-hosted deposits
Source: Hitzman et al. (2010) (188). Note: Kupf stands for Kupferschiefer, Dzh for Dzhezkazgan, Red for Redstone, CACB for Central African Copperbelt, WP/PO for White Pine/Presque Isle, and Rev for Revett. GExpl added EGB and EBS in bold green.
41 Based on Greenfield’s visual estimates of a chart contained in Robb (2017), sediment-hosted deposits have been the subject of ~2.5% of research on magmatic deposits, and~3% of that dedicated to porphyrys. 42 In addition Figure 74 in Appendix 3 for the size-grade combination of sediment-hosted nickel
iv 40 Geological Setting and Mineralisation FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 28: USGS copper prospective tracts
Source: Image generated by GExpl using files published by the USGS (249)
Analogue of one of the greatest nickel deposits
The mafic intrusive and extrusive rocks associated with the mantle plume are prospective for nickel, copper and PGMs (240; 250). Extensive mafic sills intrude the Permian-Triassic-aged sediments of the Wegener and Gauss Halvø licenses, and extrusive flood basalts cover the north-eastern portion of the Gauss Halvø license. The magmatic deposit model that applies to the known mafic igneous rocks in the region is the conduit-type. Such magmatic deposits are composed of sulphide minerals that are formed by the segregation and accumulation of sulphide liquids from mafic or ultramafic magma (251). Contamination and assimilation of magma by sulphur bearing rocks such as sediments can trigger sulphide mineral segregation (252). The largest (253) and arguably the most economically significant43 conduit type deposit is the Noril’sk-Talnakh deposit system in Siberia. These deposits are characterised by a setting in a large (3,000 km by 4,000 km) flood basalt province, formed during the PT boundary from mantle plume activity in a continental rift setting (254). The Noril’sk-Talnakh mineralisation is found in differentiated 30 to 350 m thick sills (255) hosted within sedimentary basins which served as feeders to the overlying flood-basalts (254). The Tunguska sedimentary basin hosts the Noril’sk-Talnakh intrusion and is known to contain evaporites and occurrences of sediment-hosted copper (254). Furthermore, the Noril’sk-Talnakh intrusions show distinctive heterogeneity that may be due to complex mixing of different magma types (256). GExpl notes the tectonic model for the Noril’sk-Talnakh deposits shares significant commonality with Frontier’s tectonic setting. GExpl also notes that the flood basalts and intrusions within its Gauss Halvø license show high-levels of heterogeneous contamination by crustal material (257), in an area with known sediment- hosted copper and evaporites. Empirical support for the mantle plume’s nickel prospectivity concept comes from the flood basalts on Disko Island on Greenland’s west coast (258), which are thought to be prospective for conduit hosted nickel (259), and where massive sulphide containing high-grade nickel have been discovered (250)(e.g. 28 tonne lens grading 7% Ni, 3% Cu, 2ppm PGE (260)).
43 Part of one of the lowest-cost nickel miners on Earth (326)
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 41 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
High-grade vein hosted metals
Frontier is known to host vein type tungsten, antimony and gold deposits within the Ymer Ø license (237; 261). It also encapsulates a historical vein-hosted lead-zinc mine known as Blyklippen (owned by Ironbark Zinc Ltd), excised from Frontier.
The known vein-hosted lead-zinc (and barite) mineralisation within Frontier formed through hydrothermal processes (100). This broad category results from a sequence of processes that begin with the generation of hydrous magmas, subsequent crystallisation and separation of volatile-rich fluids that precipitate out typically as vein or replacement deposits (262). Put more simply; they are typically associated with the crystallisation of intrusions and ejection of volatiles (including economically important metals) in the final stages of solidifying. In the case of the depleted Blyklippen deposit, the dating of the lead indicates that the origin of the metals is from immature clastic sediments (240) as opposed to a magma. The dating also suggests that the known vein-hosted mineralisation may be a result of the passing of the mantle plume (240) (263), which relative to most epithermal models is an unusual mechanism for introducing heat and fluids.
Regardless of their classification, tungsten mineralisation is related to felsic intrusions (237; 264) such as the S- and I-type granites throughout Frontier. The variation in the deposit type relates to whether the mineralisation is formed in a skarn (adjacent to the intrusion), or as veins (distal to the intrusion). Both vein and skarn-type deposits can be found in the same area (237). The host rocks for skarns are typically carbonates; while for veins, they are typically argillites and shales (264). The scale of these deposits is small relative to the sediment-hosted systems. Detailed estimates are hard to source, but a review of 44 deposits by the United States Geological Survey found that the median size of a vein hosted tungsten deposit is 0.56 Mt grading 0.93% WO3, and a skarn deposit to be 1.1 Mt grading 0.67% WO3 (265). An example of vein-hosted mineralisation is the Hemerdon deposit (237) that is currently being mined by Wolf Minerals Ltd (266).
Large-scale intrusion-hosted deposit types
Eastern Greenland is famous for its intrusions, such as the world-class (267) Skaergaard layered intrusion44. Frontier is reported to be prospective for intrusion-related molybdenum and tin. The Hesteskoen license surrounds a Climax-type molybdenum deposit known as Malmbjerg (268). The Gauss Halvø license includes a tin-bearing granite (107; 140).
Intrusive related molybdenum, tin (and tungsten) deposits associate with felsic, reduced S-type granites. These intrusions may also be prospective for less well understood, but economically important intrusion- related gold deposits45 (269). Tin, tungsten and molybdenum-bearing rocks tend to be highly fractionated and show distinct chemical signatures (270). These Eocene-aged (or younger) intrusions are genetically related to the vein and skarn related tungsten deposits described in the preceding section. Spatially, tin and tungsten bearing intrusions associate with the breakup of supercontinents, and the superposition of passive and active margins (270). Ample supply of heat is also an important prerequisite for such metalliferous intrusions (270). GExpl believes that Frontier satisfies these criteria given it contains a palaeo-subduction zone (165) (166) that became passive with the separation from Europe (271), and an ample heat source in the form of the mantle plume (175).
5.3.3 Known prospects
As Frontier is very large and covers a complex geological environment, there are numerous mineral occurrences. However, most of these ‘prospects’ had little more than scant evaluation. In part, this is due to a single modestly sized company (Nordisk) holding an exclusive 50-year license over a massive 100,000 km2, during a time when geophysical exploration methods were still in their infancy.
44 Located about 450 km southwest of Ittoqortoormiit and outside of GExpl license area. 45 Most intrusive related gold is associated with oxidised, I-type magmas (214)
iv 42 Geological Setting and Mineralisation FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
When Nordisk relinquished its massive licence area in exchange for hydrocarbon licences in the Jameson Land Basin (2), Harpøth et al. (1986) (107) published Nordisk’s findings in a seminal book. However, GExpl notes that the Harpøth et al. (1986) publication is not exhaustive and may omit valuable information, such as high-grade zinc, and cobalt assay results in favour for emphasis on lead and tungsten results. GExpl opines that there are likely to be many unidentified prospects, and the potential of many of the known occurrences may be understated. However, as the publication by Harpøth et al. (1986) (107) is the reference point for most subsequent reports, this section makes extensive use of direct quotation from that publication.
Gauss Halvø licence The Gauss Halvø licence contains the northern extension of the CFB sediments. This licence also contains a diversity of mineral occurrences (Figure 29) that, by and large, were subject to little research. Sediment- hosted copper occurs in the eastern portion of the licence, and vein-hosted base metals (copper-lead-zinc) occur in the west. The northern portion of the licence contains several intrusion-related tin and rare-earth elements (‘REE’) anomalies. While there are no known nickel occurrences within Frontier, GExpl believes that the northeast portion of the Gauss Halvø licence is its most prospective area for conduit-hosted nickel sulphides46.
Figure 29: Anomalous prospects in the Gauss Halvø licence
Source: Image generated by GExpl using information contained in Harpøth et al. (1986) (107)
The Giesecke47 prospect is in the eastern portion of the Gauss Halvø Licence. It contains the ‘Ladderbjerg’ copper occurrence which is hosted by the Permian-aged Huledal Formation conglomerates (Figure 30). The known mineralisation is assigned to the relatively obscure ‘Revett-type’ sediment-hosted copper model (158). Harpøth et al. (1986) have the following truncated description:
“The Huledal Formation is only developed in the central and northern part of the Giesecke Bjerge, where it has an average thickness of 10 m. The conglomerates of the formation unconformably overlie Caledonian/Devonian granites, Devonian acid volcanics or Devonian-Carboniferous sediments. The braided alluvial plain conglomerates consist of well-rounded quartzite pebbles/cobbles with sand matrix and carbonate cement. Scattered strata-bound
46 Unlike sediment-hosted copper which tends to have large and obvious haloes of low-grade mineralisation, nickel sulphides are far more discrete and less likely to be recorded in historical records. 47 Giesecke Bjerge: 74°28.8´N 21°46.7´W
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 43 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
copper and lead mineralisation occurs at several localities in Giesecke Bjerge. The most significant mineralisation occurs in a 1000x400 m area SE of Ladderbjerg48. A pronounced lateral metal zonation is observed with copper in the southeastern part and lead in the northwestern part. In the transition zone a distinct vertical zonation exists with copper in the lower part and lead in the upper part of the formation. The copper mineralization is observed as irregular malachite and subordinate azurite stain with malachite and azurite coating the larger clasts and forming part of the cement together with goethite and chalcopyrite” (107 p. 88).
Figure 30: Photo of a mineralised clast in the conglomerate at the Ladderbjerg prospect
Source: GEUS (2011) (158)
The vein hosted occurrences are hosted in the rocks older to that of Giesecke, primarily in Devonian red- bed sediments, namely the:
• Gastisdal49 prospect which contains “Carboniferous, coal-bearing clastic sediments downthrown against Devonian clastics and a wedge of gneiss and granite… 1 m thick vein has been followed for more than 500 m in outcrops and boulders in a 120 direction in Devonian sediments…selected samples returned: copper max. 2.5%, lead max. 0.35%, silver max. 250 ppm, and bismuth max. 150 ppm” (107 p. 66).
• Høgbom Bjerg50 prospect which contains: “A crude radial pattern of mineralized veins and a possible mineral zonation was observed…Mineralized veins of cm-dm thickness are scattered in both igneous and sedimentary rocks throughout the area. They may be concentrated in 5-10 m wide swarms… minerals are galena, bornite and chalcocite with minor sphalerite, chalcopyrite, pyrrhotite and arsenopyrite. A selected sample assays 3.5% Cu, 2.1% Pb, 0.7% Zn, 1.0% Fe, 460 ppm Ag and 1.3 ppm Au. Comparable precious metal values occur in other veins of the area” (107 pp. 66-67).
• Foldaelv51 prospect where: “The veins are hosted in granite of probably Devonian age.….A selected sample contains 0.23% Cu, 0.12% Pb, 320 ppm Zn, 100 ppm Bi, 45 ppm Ag, 0.5 ppm Au, 600 ppm U and 5 ppm Th…the veins are probably associated with the Devonian magmatic event” (107 p. 58).
The Sernander Bjerg52 prospect is another vein hosted occurrence. The west of the prospect has a prominent and significant outcropping vein (Figure 31), that:
48 Ladderbjerg: 73°35.2´N 22°09.6´W 49 Gastisdal: 73°30.0´N 22°39.6´W 50 Høgbom Bjerg: 73°36.8´N 22°45.1 W 51 Foldaelv 73°24.5´N 22°03.2´W 52 Sernander Bjerg: 73°41.6´N 22°41.8´W
iv 44 Geological Setting and Mineralisation FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
“is exposed for a vertical distance of 75 m. The length is uncertain, but the mineralized trace of the zone has been followed for 50 m laterally in the scree towards the west. The width of the vein zone is up to 20 m at the topmost part decreasing to less than one metre locally. Mineralized brecciated quartz veins attain thicknesses of up to 6 m with an estimated average thickness of 3.5 m for 75 m vertically. Mineralization is characterised by a complex mixture of galena, pyrite, sphalerite, chalcopyrite, arsenopyrite and fahlore53” (107 p. 59); and
“the average grade of the exposed part of the vein is 10.6% Pb, 285 ppm Ag, 1.5% Zn, 0.4% Cu and 0.2 ppm Au. It is noteworthy that a chip sample profile over 6 metres width from the thickest part of the vein averages 13.8% Pb, 400 ppm Ag, 2.1% Zn, 0.6% Cu and 0.25 ppm Au. Microprobe investigation showed that the average silver content in fahlore is 5.27% (average of 9 analyses) in one sample and 1.91% (average of 11 analyses) in another. The Fahlore is an intermediate phase between the end members tennantite – tetrahedrite” (107 p. 60).
The eastern part of the Sernander Bjerg prospect has a scree field containing galena and sphalerite rich boulders of metamorphosed shales that returned assays of “lead max. 20.8%, zinc max. 5.9%, bismuth max. 150 ppm, and silver max. 20 ppm” (107 p. 67).
Figure 31: West Sernander Bjerg vein schematic Figure 32: West Sernander Bjerg vein photo
Source: Harpøth et al. (1986) (107 p. 60) Source: Harpøth et al. (1986) (107 p. 60)
The granite intrusions in the northern portion of the Gauss Halvø are also anomalous in metals. The Blokadedal54 prospect is known to have:
“Very pronounced tin anomalies in pan samples indicated that an area around Arve55 and Blokadedal with granite associated Sn-W-Mo-Bi-Nb-Ta-REE-F56 mineralization”;
“The granite exposed at Parkinson Bjerg57 in Blokadedal is the only intrusion studies in some detail”; and
53 Fahlore is a term that refers to an sulfosalts generally in the series between tennantite and tetrahedrite 54 Blokadedal, 73°43.7´N 22°35.3´W 55 Arve: 73°42.0´N 22°26.4´W 56 Bi – bismuth, Nb – niobium, Ta- tantalum, REE – rare earth element, F - fluorine 57 Parkinson Bjerg: 73°45.5´N 22°38.0´W
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 45 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
“high trace content of tin, which for unaltered granite averages 23 ppm. Furthermore, the analyses show enrichment in F-Rb-Li and depletion in Sr-Ba-Mg, indicated that the granite is an excellent tin granite” (107 p. 61).
Wegener Halvø licence The Wegener Halvø licence is well mineralised by an assortment of commodities, including copper, cobalt, gold, lead, zinc, barite, tin, tungsten, and phosphate. The mineral occurrences are either associated with granites or hosted by veins or sedimentary rocks. Much of the historical work focussed on the Wegener Peninsula and Canning Land (Figure 33), which are the westernmost promontories in the licence (Figure 35).
Figure 33: Anomalous prospects in the Wegener Halvø licence
Source: Image generated by GExpl using information contained in Harpøth et al. (1986) (107)
The known base metal mineralisation is mostly found in the upper portion of carbonate and the lower portion of shales, although stratiform copper does occur in Triassic-aged arkosic sandstones and conglomerates (272) (Figure 34). In addition to sediment-hosted copper, the Wegener Peninsula contains abundant sulphide bearing veins that are up to 6 m thick, and that have grades ranging from 1% to 20% Cu (273). While located on the Wegener Peninsula, this section does not discuss the favourable results from the Devondal prospect, which is outside of the Wegener Halvø licence.
Figure 34: Schematic of the stratigraphy and mineralisation in Wegener Halvø
Source: Modified by GExpl, from GEUS (2011) (158)
iv 46 Geological Setting and Mineralisation FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 35: Mineral occurrences and fault patterns on Wegener Halvø and Canning Land
Source: from Harpøth et al. (1986) (107 p. 38), legend enlarged by GExpl
Within the Wegener Halvø licence, there are three distinct, and widespread mineralised horizons containing sediment-hosted copper:
1. The Pingo Dal Formation at Paradigmabjerg58: “Copper-silver and lead mineralization is confided to a belt of distal alluvial fan sediments along the southern and eastern borders of the elevated, fault- bounded block of southwest of Wegener Halvø…Mineralization occurs at several stratigraphical levels in 0.5-3 m thick pinkish-whitish arkose and conglomerate beds […]. The sulphides occur as irregular blebs, as mm-thick stratiform layers in the most coarse-grained foresets…Within the mineralised levels, copper and lead mineralized beds occur separately whereas both copper and lead sulphides occur in the remobilize veins…the primary ore59 minerals are chalcocite and galena…At Paradigmabjerg proper, an up to 5 m thick copper- and lead-mineralized arkose sequence outcrops for 500 m. It displays a distinct lateral zonation with chalcocite-galena to the south and chalcopyrite -pyrite in the north” (107 pp. 91- 92). 2. The Graklint60 beds: “Stratiform mineralisation occurs over a c. 500 km2 large area between Fleming Fjord and Carlsberg Fjord. Disseminated, fine-grained sulphides are hosed in one or more dm-m thick beds of black shale/limestone and in the uppermost 10-50cm of underlying grey, calcareous sandstone or limestone. The mineralised horizons are continuous for several hundred of metres laterally, but metal contents are relative low – typically 1-2% combined lead-zinc-copper” (107 pp. 93-94). 3. The Malmros Klint and Ørsted Dal members: “Overlying the Pingel Dal Beds are c. 200 m of red mudstones of playa flat origin of the Malmros Klint Member which grade upwards into the more sandy, distal flood-plain deposits of the c. 130 m thick Ørsted Dal member. Copper mineralization is located in the transition zone between the two members and has approximately the same aerial
58 Paradigmabjerg: 71°41.8´N 22°37.3´W 59 In this context, ore is a direct historical quote and must not be confused with the term Ore Reserves as defined by the JORC code 60 Graklint: 71°45.9´N 22°56.5´W
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 47 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
distribution as in the Pingel Dal beds. …the minerals appear partly as up to 10 cm long plates and blebs of native copper and copper arsenides, and partly as more fine-grained dissemination” (107 pp. 94-95).
At the Kumaat61 locale within the Paradigmabjerg prospect, sediment-hosted rock-chip values show high copper content, with a maximum grade of 7.5% Cu, 15.6% Pb, 300 g/t Au, 0.15% Mo62 and 0.03% Co (274).
A the Vimmelskaftet63 prospect on the Wegener Peninsula:
“Thin, richly mineralized beds are known form several localities, for example south of Vimmelskafte. Here 1-3 cm beds of biosparite contain c.10% combined zinc and lead.” (107 p. 79).
At the Tvekegledal64 prospect on Wegener Peninsula, Harpøth et al. (1986) write that:
“As early as the thirties a gold-bearing boulder65 was found at the mouth of Tvekegledal a silver-bearing "blue vein" was investigated at Calamitcselv. Subsequent investigations by Nordmine were carried out mainly during the period 1979-1981…. The veins may be massive and up to 6 m thick, but frequently they form up to 100 m wide zones with abundant en echelon mm to cm veinlet… Geochemically the veins are characterized by scattered high contents of copper, lead and zinc (1- 20% in selected samples). Other analytical results include up to 0.35% Bi, up to 660 ppm As, up to 350 ppm Sb, up to 350 ppm Ag and up to 3.6 ppm Au” (275 p. 37).
In contrast to Harpøth et al. (1986), work by Thomassen Svenssen (1980) (274) identified highly anomalous Zn and Co suggesting there is also potential for these metals in addition to the ones identified by Harpøth et al. (1986) above. For example, Thomassen & Svenssen (1980) (274) disclose a 11.5% zinc assay contained within the Posidonia Shale at Calamites Dal66, and a peak grade of 0.15% cobalt from an undisclosed location within the Wegener Peninsula.
The Kap Allen67 area in Canning Land contains a pronounced contact skarn up to 400 m wide surrounds the granite and is known to contain three types of mineralisation:
1. “Lead-zinc mineralization occurs in a more than 100 m wide and more than 10 m thick zone in the altered granite roof. Inferred dimensions, mainly based on scree-sediment anomalies68, could be as much as 200xl000x100 m… 2. Arsenic-(copper-bismuth-gold) mineralization occurs as small (typically c. 100 m2 scattered rust zones in the granite. No connection between mineralization and fracture pattern could be established, but some of the mineralized bodies exhibit extensive jointing… Analyses of selected samples reveal the following maximum values: 0.6% Cu…5 ppm Ag and 0.58 ppm Au... 3. Scheelite mineralization is indicated from mineralized boulders and from panned heavy-mineral concentrates in an area of more than 6 km around Kap Allen and southwest of Kap Wardlaw. Most of the mineralized boulders represent granite/granodiorite…a single boulder of scheelite-mineralized spotted slate indicates that tungsten mineralization also occurs in the sediments” (107 pp. 36-37).
61 Kumaat: 71°42.8´N 22°35.4´W 62 Thomassen&Svenssen (1980) did not identify molybdenite and assume that the molybdenum is contained within the copper sulphide mineral species 63 Vimmelskaftet: 71°42.7´N 22°44.0´W 64 Tvekegledal 71°43.2´N 22°38.4´W 65 Grading 4%Cu, and 3.7 g/t Au, 21 g/t Ag (107 p. 38) 66 Calamites Dal: 71°44.2´N 22°30.6´W 67 Kap Allen 71°41.0´N 22°00.0´W 68 Scree sediment may not be a reliable indicator of a mineralised footprint
iv 48 Geological Setting and Mineralisation FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
The Kap Allan area is also known to contain fluorite. The vein hosted fluorite occurs as white to faint purple, but also green, yellow and black varieties. “The largest known occurrence is an up to 1.8 m wide and 25 m long lens of massive fluorite occurring in a 2 m-wide, fluorite-cemented breccia zone” (107 p. 57).
Hesteskoen licence The Hesteskoen licence surrounds the historical high-grade Blyklippen zinc-lead mine and the proximal world-class Malmbjerg molybdenum deposit, both of which are excised from the licence. The Hesteskoen licence contains historical prospects the alignment of which suggest a northeast trend from Malmbjerg (Figure 36).
Figure 36: Anomalous prospects in the Hesteskoen licence
Source: Image generated by GExpl using information contained in Harpøth et al. (1986) (107)
The Carboniferous and Permian-Triassic-aged sediments of the region are intruded by felsic rocks belonging to the Werner Bjerge alkaline intrusive complex, and mafic sills and dykes (100). The Werner Bjerge intrusive complex trends to the northeast and across King Oscar Fjord to CGRG Ltd’s Kap Parry project. (Figure 49). The Kap Parry project contains ‘substantial’ Zr-Nb-Ta-REE mineralisation (276). In GExpl’s opinion, the hydrothermal mineralisation in this area relates to the Werner Bjerge intrusions, and as such, the prospective corridor for Blyklippen-style mineralisation is also in this orientation69.
The Werner Bjerge complex appears to be an influence on two areas of:
• The Slugtdal70 prospect in the east of the licence contains hydrothermal mineralised occurrences that are associated with syenite intrusions and align with the orientation of the Werner Bjerge complex:
“…widespread late-magmatic hydrothermal activity occurs as red, brown, yellow and black staining of both intrusive and sedimentary rocks. This is due to the disseminated limonite and manganese oxides. In particular, the syenites exhibit pronounced alteration of the mafic components. Analyses of 40
69 Based on an alignment of hydrothermal occurrences from Malmbjerg, Oksehorn and Kap Syenit as shown in Figure 36 70 Slugtdal: 72°01.4´N 23°17.6´W
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 49 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
hydrothermally altered grab samples form Oskerhorn 71, Theresabjerg72, Kap Syenit73 and Pictet Bjerge74 complexes return persistently anomalous values of lead (max. 1%, copper (max. 0.1%) and silver (max. 130 ppm), whereas molybdenum (max. 0.1%) and tungsten (max. 800 ppm) occur sporadically” (107 p. 105). The Oksedal75 prospect, near Oskerhorn, contains stratabound and vein-type barite and lead zinc mineralization hosted in Upper Permian carbonates parallel to a fault oriented 160°N (265).
• The Bredehorn76 prospect in the south of the licence is primarily a barite occurrence however it is reported to contain a 6.8 m channel sample that returned 2.7% Pb, 0.3% Zn and 65% BaSO4 (barite) (97 p. 76); and
The western portion of the Hesteskoen licence is also known to contain anomalous intrusion-related tin, and high-grade base-metal veins. This assemblage of occurrences appears to be similar to that observed in northern and western Gauss Halvø. At Bersærkerbræ77, Harpøth et al. (1986) note that:
“Pronounced tin anomalies in panned heavy mineral concentrates led to the finding of two types of tin-mineralized quartz veins in the sediments two km northeast of Harlech Fjeld78…Genetically, there is no connection between the veins and the underlying granite, because a thrust fault occurs in between. The assumed source granite for the vein mineralization is expected to be situated to the northeast” (107 pp. 41-42); and
“A copper-mineralized vein was found two km northeast of Harlech Fjeld, Bersærkerbræ in connection with tin exploration). The mineralization is located just 200 m below the tin-bearing quartz veins described in the previous section… Analyses of selected samples gave the following results: copper 8.5-35.5%, silver 150-540 ppm, molybdenum up to 150 ppm, lead up to 400 ppm and gold up to 0.1 ppm” (107 p. 42).
Harpøth et al. (1986) also state that in general, nearly all the end-moraines of the glaciers in the north Stauning Alps contain tungsten anomalies (107 p. 42).
Eleonore North and Eleonore South licences The Eleonore North and South licences are known to contain extensive sediment-hosted copper anomalism (Figure 37) that has subject to only limited historical work. The copper anomalies are most prominent in the north of the Eleonore North license, where there is a ~300 km long trend of copper anomalism (102). The known copper mineralisation occurs in at least eight different stratigraphic horizons, with the most well-mineralised being at the transition between a quartzitic sandstone to limestone and dolomitic limestone (102).
71 Oksehorn: 72°01.5´N, 23°39.9´W 72 Theresabjerg: 72°01.8´N, 23°25.6´W located in the northern tip of the Wegener Halvø Licence 73 Kap Syenit: 72°03.4´N, 23°06.3´W; located in the northern tip of the Wegener Halvø Licence 74 Pictet Bjerge: 72°04.5´N, 23°23.0´W located in the northern tip of the Wegener Halvø Licence 75 Okseshoren: 72° 4'48.00"N, 23°48'48.00"W 76 Bredehorn: 71°53.3´N, 23°59.7´W 77 Bersærkerbræ 72°08.0´N, 24°38.0´W 78 Harlech Fjeld 72°12.3´N, 24°37.3´W, located within the Eleonore South licence
iv 50 Geological Setting and Mineralisation FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 37: Anomalous prospects in the Eleonore North and South licences
Source: Image generated by GExpl using information contained in Harpørth et al. (1986) (107)
Harpøth et al. (1986) provide a detailed account of the mineralised strata, and the abridged description is presented below:
“Stratiform and strata-bound copper mineralization was found both in the Lower and upper Eleonore bay Group at Canning Land by GGU in 1971. These finds led to continued investigations through the East Eleonore Bay Group located between 72°N and 74°N. In the mid-seventies parallel investigations were carried out by a group from the University of Copenhagen and by Nordmine. Nordmine later investigated occurrences on Ymer Ø and on Canning Land. A detailed description is given by Ghisler (277) from which most of the following descriptions are adapted.
The Eleonore Bay Group sequence shows a largely similar lithological development in a region 450 km from south to north and 200 km from coast to coast, but has only been investigated for its mineral potential in some detail in the central fjord region between 72°N and 74°N.
Stratiform and strata-bound mineralization has been observed within a 3000 m thick stratigraphical pile comprising the uppermost part of the Argillaceous-Arenaceous Series of the Lower Eleonore Bay Group and the Quartzite and Multicoloured Series of the Upper Eleonore Bay Group.
The Upper Argillaceous-Arenaceous Series is dominated by thin-bedded quartzite and shales. The Quartzite Series is divided into six numbered beds (1-6) and consists of well-sorted sandstones (mainly quartzites), sandy shales and shales. The Multicoloured Series is divided into seven numbered beds (7- 13) comprising shales, mudstones, arenaceous dolomites, limestones, dolomitic shales, sandstones and sandy shales occurring in a characteristic sequence of alternating beds of variable colours. The described sequence represents very shallow water sedimentation. Eight different levels in the stratigraphical column exhibit stratiform or strata•bound copper mineralization (Figure 38). The approximate area distribution of the individual mineralized stratigraphical levels south of 74°N is shown in Figure 39. A description or the various mineralized horizons is given below.
Argillaceous-Arenaceous Series
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 51 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Two strata-bound copper-mineralized levels occur within the uppermost part of the Series: a lower level some 150 m below the top and an upper level at the transition to the Quartzite Series.
The lower level is mineralized at several localities, is up to 5 m thick, but has a poor lateral persistency. The pyrrhotite-pyrite-chalcopyrite-mineralized quartzite beds in general contain less than 0.1% copper79.
The upper and most distinctive copper-bearing horizon is situated immediately above a rusty-weathered bed which defines the top of the Lower Eleonore Bay Group. This pyrrhotite-pyrite• bearing quartzite bed is recognizable throughout the region, but copper mineralization is only found in Andree Land (Figure 39), where it has been followed laterally for more than 10 km in a region where the sediments have been metamorphosed. Malachite staining makes the 0.2- 1.5 m (max 5 m) thick horizon easily recognizable.
Microscopically, the quartzite rock contains minor amounts or biotite, chlorite, muscovite, pyrrhotite, pyrite, chalcopyrite, galena, sphalerite, cobaltite, molybdenite80, rutile, ilmenite and graphite and the secondary minerals malachite, covellite81 and goethite. Graphite is always associated with the sulphides. The copper content of selected samples varies from 0.25 to 2.5% Cu. The average grade is estimated to be below 0.1% copper.
Quartzite Series - bed 3
Widespread copper mineralization (Figure 39) occurs in 0.5- 2 m thick horizons in the upper part of bed 3 which is dominated by dark green quarzitic shales interbedded with thin quartzites. According to lithology and sulphide mineralogy three types or mineralization are distinguishable:
The first type or mineralization occurs in finely laminated shales-siltstones with characteristic graded bedding. The stratiform copper mineralization is strictly associated with the more coarse-grained units which contain chalcopyrite. Pyrite is the only sulphide in the fine-grained laminae, whereas rutile/anatase and organic matter/graphite occur in both lithologies.
The second type of mineralization concerns disseminated framboids of pyrite associated with subordinate galena, sphalerite and chalcopyrite in shale. The pyrite is always associated with organic matter or graphite.
The third type occurs in coarse-grained quartzites with a chlorite matrix and cemented by quartz and chalcopyrite and pyrite. The quartzites typically have a spotted appearance.
The average copper grade is estimated to be below 0.1%.
Quartzite Series - bed 5
Widespread copper mineralisation (Figure 39) occurs in 0.2-2 m thick intercalation of white quartzites and green quartzitic shales in a sequence dominated by dark red quartzitic shales. Chalcopyrite and subordinate bornite, chalcocite and pyrite occur partly in detrital quart z grains and partly as cementing
79 Low grades such as 0.1% Cu are normal for regional geochemical programs as such programs are intended to help vector towards drill targets rather than define deposits. 80 GExpl notes that these are economically important mineral species that respectively contain copper, lead, zinc, cobalt and molybdenum. 81 Malachite and covellite are economically significant minerals.
iv 52 Geological Setting and Mineralisation FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
phases associated with the more coarse-grained laminae in the quartzitic shales. Analyses of selected grab samples range from 0.1 to 1.25% Cu. The average grade is estimated to be below 0.1% Cu.
Quartzite Series - bed 6
Widespread but non-persistent copper mineralization occurs in 0.2- 1 m thick quartzite beds in the uppermost part of this unit (Figure 39). Disseminated euhedral pyrite and chalcopyrite occur interstitially to coarse-grained quartz. The average copper grade is low.
In Brogetdal epigenetic copper-antimony mineralization occurs in the top of bed 6 (see description of Brogetdal following this block of quotation).
Multicoloured Series82 - bed 7
This stratiform copper mineralization is the most wide•spread and persistent one in the Eleonore Bay Group with an observed distribution of 275 km from south (Canning Land) to north (Strindberg Land) (Figure 39). The host rock is a monotonous red shale displaying mm-scale graded bedding. The shales are calcareous and dolomitic with an increasing carbonate content from 5% in the lower part to some 50% near the top. Mineralization occurs in green intercalations of carbonaceous shale ranging in thickness from a few cm to a few m. Two distinct mineralized horizons occur, one 10-15 m and the other 60-70 m above the top of the white quartzite bed 6. In addition, traces of copper sulphides arc found locally at higher levels in bed 7.
The copper sulphides generally occur as very fine-grained disseminations of chalcocite83 and/or chalcopyrite, but locally discrete sulphide blebs (up to 5 cm large) elongated parallel to bedding plane fissility dominate. The blebs are characteristically rimmed by graphite/organic matter and predominantly consist of chalcocite with subordinate bornite and chalcopyrite.
The average copper content of the mineralized green shale is estimated to be 200-1000 ppm over a thickness of 1- 2 m. In local areas (for example Strindberg Land), average grades of 0.1-0.5% occur. Selected samples yield up to 6% copper. The average silver content is low (a Cu/Ag ratio of 1000- 1500).
Multicoloured Series - bed 8
Thin (10-25 cm) stratiform copper-mineralized beds occur scattered but widespread (Figure 39). Disseminated chalcocite occurs in dolomite or dolomitic shale. The copper content is low.
Multicoloured Series - bed 10
Thin (10-15 cm) stratiform copper-mineralized beds are scattered but widespread (Figure 39). Disseminated chalcocite with subordinate bornite, chalcopyrite and pyrite occur in dolomitic shale and dolomitic siltstone. The grade is estimated to be 0.1% Cu over a thickness of 10-25 cm.
Genetically, the mineralized beds in the Eleonore Bay Group are interpreted as being of synsedimentary- early diagenetic origin. This is strongly indicated by the cementing nature of the copper
82 Note: the Multicoloured Series is a historical name that is no longer in use. The current name is the Ymer Ø Group. Figure 68 in Appendix 3 compares historical and modern naming conventions. 83 GExpl notes that chalcocite is important as it represents a primary in situ mineralisation rather than potential surficial enrichment/staining as may be the case with malachite.
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 53 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
sulphides, by the selective precipitation in the more coarse-grained laminae, and by the occurrence of copper-mineralized boulders of identical type in the overlying tillites. Organic matter acted as the reducing agent for sulphide precipitation” (107 pp. 30-33).
At Holmesø84 in the northern reaches of the Eleonore North licence, a single drill-hole, H1, targeted a vein type copper occurrence. The drill rig broke down 1.4 m downhole in a hole planned to a depth of 21.1 m, and the target was never followed up despite the core yielding an assay of 1.33% Cu, 0.67% Sb and 28 g/t Ag:
“Copper-antimony mineralization was found at Brogetdal esø in Brogetdal during reconnaissance of the Eleonore Bay Group sediments in 1974. Prospect investigations comprising geological mapping, geophysics and a single bore hole (21.1 m) were commenced the following year, but were never brought to a conclusion. Similar mineralization was found at Lakesø, some 8 km further SE in Brogetdal”; and
“and the tectonic control (Upper Devonian faults) indicated an epigenetic origin comparable to that of the W- Sb veins of Ymer Ø” (107 p. 56).
Other mineral occurrences in the Eleonore licences include the Skeldal85 prospect in the Eleonore South licence is listed as a barite occurrence, however lead-copper bearing boulders were found; and Panoramafjeld86 within the Eleonore North licence where Harpøth et al. (1986) describe:
“Anomalous scheelite content in the rivers sediments south of Panoramafjeld was first noted by Stendal. Follow-up investigations including shallow drilling by Nordmine in 1980 and 1981 revealed the same type of scheelite mineralisation as on Ymer Ø i.e. scheelite in brecciated limestone” (107 p. 55).
84 Holmesø 73°46.3´N 24°50.9´W 85 Skeldal: 72°15.4´N 24°15.5´W 86 Panoramafjeld 73°31.4´N 25°19.0´W
iv 54 Geological Setting and Mineralisation FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 38: Stratigraphy of the uppermost part Figure 39: Distribution of major copper- of the Argillaceous-Arenaceous mineralised outcrops in the EBS Series of the Eleonore Bay Group, and the Quartzite Series and Multicoloured Series
Source: Harpøth et al (1986) (107 p. 31) Source: GEUS (2011) (158)
Ymer Ø licence In addition to the sediment-hosted copper potential of the EBS, the Ymer Ø licence covers hydrothermal, tungsten, arsenic, and gold occurrences. These primarily occur at Noa Dal, North Margeries Dal, and Margeries Dal87. While Noa Dal occurs within the Eleonore North licence, it locates within Ymer Island and for simplicity of reporting, is included in this section on the Ymer Ø licence.
87 Margeries Dal: 73°09.6´N 24°55.5´W
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 55 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Figure 40: Anomalous prospects in the Ymer Ø licence
Source: Image generated by GExpl using information contained in Harpøth et al. (1986) (107)
According to Harpøth et al. (1986):
“Vein-type scheelite-stibnite mineralization was discovered in north Margeries Dal on Ymer Ø in 1979 during follow-up of scheelite-anomalous pan sample… The mineralization is hosted in the Multicoloured Series of the late Precambrian upper Eleonore Bay Group sediments…
In south Margeries Dal scheelite mineralization occurs in limestone breccia at two localities in the central part of a 1- 2 km wide E-W-trending graben-like fault zone. The two occurrences are named the south Margeries Dal vein and the "Colinedal" vein… The south Margeries Dal vein comprises scheelite mineralized, silicified breccia zones in the lowermost 60 m of the black limestone bed 9 and outcrops in a sleep valley wall which is partly scree-covered…High-grade scheelite mineralization is restricted to the thicker parts of the hreccia zones, Individual half•metre sections contain up to 24% W in drill cores. Scattered scheelite is found in the thinner part of the breccia zone, 10--40 m away from high-grade mineralization, and in calcite veins in the limestone at a distance of up to 4 m from the breccia zones. The high-grade mineralization in the breccia zones seems to follow the base of bed…
In north Margeries Dal mineralization also occurs within 1 to 2 km wide E-W-trending graben-like fault structure. Mineralization has been located at the southern edge of the grahen structure within u 800 m long, 150 m wide and 250 m high zone… The size of individual lenses varies considerably. The largest scheelite-mineralized lens is a subhorizontal elongated lens 150 m long, and 20 to 40 m high… Scheelite is very irregularly distributed and occurs both as fine-grained impregnation and as coarse-grained fissure fillings with W contents in half- metre drill sections from traces to 11%... Stibnite mineralization occurs within the shale/dolomite. Here intense fracturing, jointing and thin quartz veinlets arc frequent. Stibnite occurs predominantly in massive 10 semi-massive veins 1- 50 cm thick, and is associated with quartz” (107 pp. 47-50).
iv 56 Geological Setting and Mineralisation FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 41: Scheelite mineralisation from South Figure 42: The North Margeries Dal tungsten Margeries Dal prospect
Source: Pedersen & Olesen (1984) (261). The cm-scale white Source: Pedersen 1980 ( (278) scheelite grains are hosed within dolomitised breccia
At Noa Dal88 (Figure 43) within the Ymer Ø licence, Harpøth et al. (1986) identify that antimony and gold occur as at least four different types of mineralisation:
1. “sulphide-bearing quartz veins occur in the quartzites”; 2. “scattered grains of scheelite occur on joint plains and in thin quartz veins in calcite-bearing quartzites close to major E-W fault”; 3. “outcropping mineralises comprises brecciated quartzites impregnated with up to 20% pyrite, and locally with high gold contents (up to 5 ppm)”; and 4. “Mineralised scree boulders form the south side of the valley indicate other types of mineralisation. One type is stibnite-arsenopyrite-gold as impregnation and veinlets in brecciated dolomitic shale and brecciated quartzite…Analysis of stibnite-mineralised scree boulders average 5-10% Sb, 0.5% As, 0.5-2 ppm Au and 2-5 ppm Ag” (107 p. 52).
In 1986, a Nordisk conducted a detailed mapping program that in addition to the above, resulted in the delineation two mineralised veins that are partially covered by scree (279). The first vein is sub vertical, 5- 15 m wide, 150 m long vein that was postulated89 to have a grade of 1.2% Sb, and 0.28 g/t Au; and a 50 m long vein ranging between 4 and 14 m wide and striking for 50 m with a postulated grade of 5.8% Sb and 0.85 g/t Au (279).
In contrast to much of the Frontier, the source of the source of the mineralisation on Ymer Island is attributed to a granite formed during the Caledonian Orogeny (280). Work by NunaMinerals suggests that the source granite may be at a depth of between 200 and 280 m below surface (281).
Figure 43: Noa Dal prospect, looking east Figure 44: Noa Dal lake, Looking east
Source: Nunaoil A/S (1992) (139) Source: This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA (282)
88 Noa Dal 73°19.4´N 25°03.2´W 89 Based on rock chip samples, no drilling
Geological Setting and Mineralisation 57 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
6 EXPLORATION
There was very limited prior exploration in Frontier and only a few mineral occurrences have been investigated in any detail. Much of the prior work was carried out by Nordisk between 1952 and 1984 when it held a 50-year exclusive exploration licence covering the area between 70° to 74°30´N (283). When the license was relinquished, Harpøth et al. (1986) (107) published Nordisk’s findings in a seminal book which details much of the work. For the most part, historical exploration involved prospecting, field mapping, selective drilling of tungsten targets, and prospect-scale ground geophysical exploration methods. Modern exploration of substance is restricted to the Wegener Halvø, Ymer Ø and, to a lesser extent, the Eleonore licences, none of which has involved drilling.
Between 1967 and 1983 (107 p. 108), many geochemical samples were collected from Scoresby Sound to the south of Frontier, up to Clavering Ø to the north of Frontier. The samples include 10,298 rock-chip samples, and 3,823 panned concentrates, and 2,812 stream sediment samples (107 p. 108) (Figure 45). Within the EBS, the geochemical sampling was carried out at a low density of one drainage sample per 5- 10 km2 (284), and one rock-chip sample per 10-100 m of the sedimentary stratigraphic column (284). The EBS sampling and analysis program was deemed to be successful in identifying copper mineralisation (284). More focused geochemical sampling programs during this period were carried out at some of the known prospects (Figure 46). During the 1990s and in 2009, the Eleonore South licence was subject to geochemical sampling targeting diamondiferous kimberlite intrusions (285). In 2011, Avannaa Exploration Ltd undertook a six-day helicopter-borne reconnaissance program (52) within an exploration licence that was tightly constrained to a target stratigraphy90. This program resulted in the reporting of 34 geochemical rock-chip samples, with peak grades of 4% Cu, 16.5% Pb, and 0.6% Zn (see the full assay suite in Appendix 4). The program confirmed the historical geochemical results.
90 Avaanna targeted a green mudstone in a sequence of red mudstone in lowermost Ymer Ø Group underlain by a horizon of white quartzite in uppermost Lyell Land Group (126). By comparison, GExpl’s licences are stratigraphic agnostic as it proposes to undertake geophysical exploration programs that are not restricted to surficial outcrop
iv 58 Exploration FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 45: Geochemical sampling map
Source: X-plore Geoconsulting (286) based on data published by the Government, and areas identified by Hronsky (2017) (233) as being the most prospective for sediment-hosted copper.
Figure 46: Sampling of the Ladderbjerg Figure 47: Induced polarization survey in 1975 prospect in 1980
Exploration 59 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Source: Stensgaard et al. (2009) (214) Source: Bruneau.(1976) (287) Frontier was partially subject to temporally and spatially disparate, geophysical surveys. For the most part these surveys are outdated by modern methods, and in GExpl’s opinion, of limited use in exploring for sediment-hosted copper. GExpl notes that there are no precedent gravity surveys. GExpl considers gravity to be an important field of measurement as it provides a relatively superior insight to the geological structures that may control the emplacement of mineralisation.
The prior geophysical survey programs can be grouped into four periods of activity:
• In 1976, small-scale, ground-based geophysical surveys were carried out, including induced polarization and resistivity surveys covering 1.6 km 2 at Brogetdal91, 0.28 km2 at Breithorn92, and 0.35 km2 at Devondal93 (287) (Figure 47). In 1980, prospect geophysical surveys were attempted at Ymer Ø but failed to detect the known mineralisation (288). During this period, the Government flew airborne radiometric surveys over the entire Frontier region (150). • In 1997, the Government flew airborne electromagnetic surveys over the Jameson Land Basin (150). This survey covered much of the Wegener Halvø and part of the Hesteskoen licence (Figure 48). However, the surveys do not cover the Wegener Peninsula or Canning Land, which are GExpl’s preferred areas. • Between 2000 and 2001 the Government flew hyperspectral surveys over disparate areas within Frontier (150) (289) (Figure 71 in Appendix 3). • In 2009, NunaMinerals A/S (‘NunaMinerals’) flew a helicopter-borne electromagnetic and magnetic survey (281).Error! Reference source not found. The survey used a SkyTEM p latform flown at a spacing of 150 m, with tie lines at 1000 m. The flight speed averaged 77.5 km/h94 and the terrain clearance 80.8 m95. Around this time, NunaMinerals undertook handheld radiometric surveys (281), geochemical sampling, as well as metallurgical test work (137). • In 2013 (141), Avannaa in conjunction with AA flew airborne magnetic and electromagnetic surveys, part of which cover the Wegener Halvø licence (Figure 49). Around this time, the Government also performed studies of integrating photogeology with the 1990s electromagnetic data (272), which builds on the high resolution mapping (1:100,000) carried out in 1979 (107 p. 78).
Table 3: Details of airborne geophysical surveys within the Wegener Halvø licence Program Avannaa/Anglo-American Government AEM97 Survey area Wegener Halvø and South portion of Wegener Northern Jameson Land Canning Land Halvø licence (Wegener Halvø, partial Hesteskoen) Survey period May-June 2013 July-August 1997 Acquisition Fugro Acquisition Systems Geoterrex-Dighem company Acquisition Fixed-wing gradient magnetic Fixed-wing magnetic and system electromagnetic Survey Area 423 km2 1,235 km2 5,400 km2 Line km flown N/A 10,171 14,622 Flight height 120 m 120 m 120 m Flight orientation North-northeast to south-southwest East-west Line spacing 300 m 200 m 400 m Tie line Northwest-southeast East-west North-south orientation Tie line spacing 2000 m 4000 m Source: Modified from Guarnieri et al. (2016) (141) and Brethes et al (2018) (283)
91 Brogetdal: 73°45.8´N 24°48.8´W in the Eleonore North licence 92 Breithorn 71°51.1´N 24°02.7 W in the Hesteskoen licence 93 Devondal 71°35.9´N 22°41.7´W located in China Nordic Mining’s licence 94 With a standard deviation of 15 km/h 95 With a standard deviation of 58 .3 m
iv 60 Exploration FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 48: Historical airborne magnetic and electromagnetic survey areas
Source: X-plore Geoconsulting (286) based on data published by the Government.
Exploration 61 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Figure 49: Magnetic and gravity data over the Jameson Land Basin
Source: Brethes et al.(2018) (283). Background colours represent a compilation published by Gaina & Werner (2011) (283) and has a resolution of 1:5,000,000
7 DRILLING
There has been very little drilling carried out within Frontier. The existing drilling mostly focusses on tungsten occurrences, a barite/base-metal occurrence and a solitary attempt at drilling a copper occurrence. GExpl considers the copper and nickel potential to be material to the understanding of the Frontier’s economic potential, and the tungsten and barite a secondary consideration. Consequently, this section presents a summary of the drilling, and the accompanying detail located in Appendix 5.
In 1974, Nordisk attempted a solitary 21.1 m long diamond drill-hole at the Holmesø prospect in the northern reaches of the Eleonore North licence. However, the drill-rig broke down after penetrating only 1.4 m, and the hole was never completed or revisited. Assays of the core returned grades of 1.33% Cu, 0.67% Sb, 0.06% Zn, 0.003% Pb and 28 g/t Ag (107 p. 56). Based on a review of the available literature, and conversation with the MMR and GEUS (290), no copper-focussed drilling has occurred within Frontier.
During the period 1971 to 1975, Nordisk carried out prospect investigations of the Bredehorn96 barite-lead- zinc occurrence that located within the Hesteskoen licence. Then ten shallow diamond drill-holes were completed for a total of 121 m (107 p. 74). GExpl made enquiry with GEUS as to whether this data is available, but was advised that the information is held by the MMR (291). GExpl is in the process of locating this data but does not consider it material to the understanding of Frontier’s economic potential.
Between 1981 and 1983 the Ymer Ø licence was subject to drilling activity (130) (Figure 50). The first year involved thirteen shallow diamond holes totalling 96 m (130) (excluding three holes that failed to penetrate the cover (288)), and the second year eighteen holes for 1986.4 m (130). Of these, fourteen
96 Bredehorn: 71°53.3´N 23°59.7´W
iv 62 Drilling FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
holes97 were at South Margeries Dal, and eleven98 at North Margeries Dal (130). All holes had a diameter of 35.3 mm and core recoveries were close to 100% (130).
Between 1980 and 1981, drilling for tungsten was also carried out at Panoramafjeld99 within the Eleonore North licence (107 p. 55). However, GExpl has not been able yet to source the original drill data and can only speculate that the amount of drilling and results were inconsequential to its understanding of the overall prospectivity of Frontier.
Figure 50: Diamond drilling at South Margeries Dal, circa 1983
Source: Pedersen & Olesen (1984) (261)
8 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY
Much of the existing data is historical in nature. The bulk of the geochemical samples were collected between 1967 and 1983 (107 p. 108). According to Harpøth et al. (1986):
“Only a portion of the samples has been analysed, most frequently by semi-quantitative multi-element emission spectrography. Other methods applied include atomic absorption spectrography for base metals, X-ray fluorescence spectrography for the determination of tungsten, antimony, arsenic, barium and rare- earth elements, neutron activation for determination of uranium, thorium, gold, tungsten and antimony and fire-assay for the determination for gold and silver”; and
97 From four drill pads (356) 98 From three drill pads (356) 99 Panoramafjeld 73°31.4´N 25°19.0´W
Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security 63 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
“Because different laboratories were used, different analytical methods applied, with different detection limits and different levels of accuracy and precision, it is not strictly correct to compare the analytical values. However, in geochemical exploration it is often the content within an order of magnitude that is of interest100” (107 p. 108).
Greenfields has not identified any reports on the preparation, analysis and safeguarding of drill hole samples. GExpl expects that the standards and procedures used do not meet current good practice. However, GExpl considers that the results are likely to be reliable from an indicative point of view, particularly as NunaMinerals sent a bulk sample for metallurgical test-work, which yielded similar assay grades to those reported in the historical literature (137).
The 2011 Avannaa geochemical sampling appears to have been done using acceptable procedures, handling and submission to an appropriately certified laboratory as Thomassen (2012) states:
“22 hand samples and 12 chip samples were shipped to the laboratory of ALS minerals in Piteå, Sweden for chemical analysis by the ALS Laboratory Group. At the lab, the samples were crushed and pulverized and then submitted to a standard package ME-MS61 using 4-acid digestion and ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma with mass spectroscopy), or to ME-ICP61a using 4-acid digestion and ICP-AES (inductively coupled plasma with atomic emission spectroscopy). A few samples were also tested for gold by Au-ICP21 using fire-assay techniques and ICP-AES” (133).
GExpl has no reason to doubt the veracity and accuracy of the Avannaa work .
9 DATA VERIFICATION
GExpl relied upon public domain information and conversation with people and organisations that are familiar with the history of central eastern Greenland. GExpl performed a detailed review of historical documentation so that where possible, facts could be cross-validated. However, given that the Frontier licences were only granted recently, GExpl has not had the opportunity yet to conduct a check sampling program.
10 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
In 2012, the tungsten mineralisation within the Ymer Ø licence was subject to preliminary metallurgical test work. At that time, NunaMinerals disclosed to the market the following:
“The scoping level metallurgical testing on a scheelite sample from NunaMinerals’ South Margeries Dal tungsten deposit, Ymer Island, Greenland, has been conducted by SGS Minerals Services UK on behalf of NunaMinerals. The testing of a surface bulk sample demonstrates that the mineralisation can be upgraded to approximately 65% WO3 by using a staged grind recovery strategy by gravity means alone.
The head grade for the feed sample was 3.64% WO3 with contaminant such as Cu, Pb, Zn, As, Bi and S at low levels. The head grade is consistent with the historical average grade for South Margeries Dal tungsten deposit calculated by Nordisk Mineselskab A/S in the 1980’s. Heavy liquid testing conducted on a feed sample crushed through 11.3 mm showed that a separation made at 2.75 g/cm3 would reject 85% of the weight whilst loosing just 10% of the tungsten suggesting that this could serve as a very effective means of pre-concentration.
100 Pages 110, which leads on from this sentence, is missing in GExpl’s copy of this publication
iv 64 Data Verification FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Gravity release analysis performed on material passing through 1 mm has shown that liberation can be attained within coarse fractions, though increasing with decreasing particle size. Excellent grades were achievable in all fractions tested, with ultimate liberation occurring below 125 μm. The maximum grade achieved from this testing was around 65% WO3 and was observed in fractions below 125 μm. This liberation point is supported by mineralogical analysis.
Flotation testing has shown that good grades can be achieved on feed material ground through 80% passing 106 μm. Maximum attained grade was 55.1% WO3. Although it has not been tested, it may be possible that this concentrate could be cleaned using a table circuit as the main mineral contaminants appear to be calcite, quartz and dolomite or diopside, all minerals with a density around 2.75 g/cm3 in contrast to the density of scheelite at 6.1 g/cm3” (137).
Greenfields made due enquiry to the Government of Greenland about access to the report that supports NunaMinerals’ public disclosure. However, due to NunaMinerals having gone bankrupt in 2016 (292), the Government only had access to a NunaMinerals hard drive, and additional enquiry is required to determine if the supporting documentation can be sourced and made available to GExpl. The Company does not doubt the veracity of the NunaMinerals public disclosure. However until the source documentation is located, caution must be applied.
11 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
Frontier contains historical estimates that are not reported in accordance with the JORC Code. A competent person has not done sufficient work to classify the historical estimates in accordance with the JORC Code; it is uncertain that following evaluation and further exploration work that the historical estimates will be able to be reported as mineral resources in accordance with the JORC Code. The following section details some of these estimates, but GExpl recommends that the reader treats them with caution.
At Ymer Ø, historical estimates were prepared by Nordisk in 1984 (261), based on 25 diamond drill- holes completed between 1981 and 1983. The holes resulted in a total of 2,081 m of core with a diameter of 35.3 mm (130). Fourteen of the holes are at the South Margeries prospect, and eleven at the North Margeries Dal prospect. The resulting assays were used to estimate, most likely with a polygonal method, a diluted figure of:
• North Margeries Dal – 42,000 t grading 0.7%W in a lens, 71,000 t grading 2.8% Sb in a southern fault zone, 37,000 t grading 4.9% Sb in a northern fault zone (130); and
• South Margeries Dal – 90,000 to grading 2% W in the main lens, 7,000 t grading 0.6% W in a small lens (130).
According to Pederson & Olesen (1984”): “individual lenses are relatively small with areas up to 10,000 m2 and average thickness of 4 m with a variation from 1 m to 103 m. The lenses are open into the mountain and towards depth” (261). GExpl is aware of extrapolative estimates for the North and South Margeries Dal occurrences that envelope the above historical estimates (293). These estimates are at best what would be classified as an ‘Exploration Target’ using the JORC (2012) nomenclature. However, GExpl does not consider extrapolation of discontinuous systems to be valid, and considers it too speculative for republication.
At Noa Dal, Harpøth (1986) (279) estimated that two veins could respectively host 130,000 t of material grading 1.2% Sb and 0.26 g/t Au, and 90,000 t grading 5.8% Sb and 0.85 g/t Au. However, these historical estimates are based entirely on surface mapping, rock chip sampling and extrapolation down to 50 m below surface (279). GExpl assigns a low level of confidence to the historical estimate for the Noa Dal mineralisation.
Mineral Resource Estimates 65 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
At the Sernander Bjerg occurrence in Gauss Halvø, a historical estimate exists for the exposed part of a vein. This estimate uses rock-chip sampling and visual traces of the exposed part of the vein. The historical estimate for this prospect is 45,500t to 72,500t grading 12% mixed base metals and 300 ppm silver (107 p. 60).
At the Bredehorn prospect, Harpøth et al. (1986) detail a historical estimate of 270,000t of material containing 72% barite, which was speculated be a subset of a deposit of several million tonnes (107 p. 76).
GExpl is also aware of an estimate of tonnes and grade for copper occurrences within its Gauss Halvø license (‘Ladderbjerg prospect’) (158; 294). However, these estimates are based entirely on surface mapping and very limited (eight samples) geochemical rock-chip sampling and GExpl does not consider them to have a reasonable prospect for eventual economic extraction. GExpl cautions that while these estimates are also in the public domain, should be treated entirely as geochemical anomalies.
12 ORE RESERVE ESTIMATES
Frontier does not contain any Ore Reserves. Such estimates require Mineral Resources to be estimated, upon which modifying factors must be applied. As Frontier is for all intent and purposes a ‘first mover’ exploration opportunity, it is not possible to estimate if or when an Ore Reserve estimate may transpire.
13 MINING METHODS
Multiple factors influence mining methods, including the shape, quantity, quality and location of any mineralisation. In the case of Frontier, GExpl notes that much of the project is located in alpine terrain (51) in a park with an Arctic desert (38) that experiences extremely cold temperatures (12) and seasonal daylight (11). These factors may influence a conceptual mining method. GExpl postulates that relative to more temperate climates, underground mining methods in an Arctic climate m ay be more favourable than open pit equivalents as:
• severe temperature can negatively impact the performance of mobile and fixed equipment (295). Excess heat management is a consideration in most underground mines (296; 297), but in an Arctic environment such heat may represent an advantage over open-pit equivalents;
• visibility may be very limited during the winter months and snow storms (whiteouts) which may negatively impact safety (298) and productivity;
• underground operations are at less risk from potentially destructive and life threatening (299) katabatic winds101;
• while mining is permitted in the Northeast Greenland Park, the societal expectation is that the footprint of a mining operation is as small as reasonably possible. Given underground mines often use waste rock and tailing for filling voids, they may have lower permitting and environmental risk associated with them as compared to open pit waste dumps and tailings dams102 (300).
101 GExpl is unaware of Piteraq winds in the Frontier region. However, it cannot discount their potential occurrence and until better information becomes available, the Company treats Frontier as though it is subject to katabatic winds. 102 Assuming tailings material can be incorporated into a paste suitable for back filling underground voids
iv 66 Ore Reserve Estimates FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Furthermore, research by Sykes (2018) suggests that future mines are likely to increasingly trend towards underground mining methods due to an energy transition awa y from fossil fuels and steadily increasing health and environmental standards.
Source: Sykes (2018) (301)
GExpl notes that a 1982 hypothetical mining study on the Devondal occurrence conceptualised the use of a room-and-pillar underground mine (85). Similarly, in 1982, the Ymer Ø tungsten deposits were subject to economic evaluations by Nordisk. The study envisaged a small-scale underground mine (302). However, it is shown that the known mineralisation was insufficient and that a minimum threshold may need to be in the order of 180,000t of material grading at least 2.5% W (288). Similarly, a 2011 hurdle rate study (303) commissioned by NunaMinerals determined that tonnages would need to be substantially higher again, up to an order of magnitude more than what was historically estimated. GExpl emphasises to the reader that this information is presented strictly for historical accuracy and transparency purposes and should not be considered reliable.
14 RECOVERY METHODS
A conceptual deposit of sulphide minerals within Frontier would plausibly require material beneficiation so that the grade of the product is sufficiently high to be saleable. Flotation is often used as a means of beneficiating sulphide minerals like chalcopyrite (Cu), chalcocite (Cu), galena (Pb), sphalerite (Zn) and pentlandite (Ni) (304; 305; 306); and some oxides like scheelite (W) (307). If mine grades are sufficiently high, such as when there are high concentrations of the mineral chalcocite 103, it may be possible that the raw material is saleable (308).
The only recovery studies that GExpl is aware of relate to the Ymer Ø tungsten occurrences. The NunaMinerals test-work suggests that a simple gravity separation circuit may produce a saleable product (137). The test-work also showed that the mineralisation is amenable to flotation (137).
103 Pure chalcocite contains 79.85% Cu (303), for comparison, the common copper mineral chalcopyrite contains 34.64% Cu (303).
Recovery Methods 67 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
15 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE
There is no significant infrastructure within Frontier. However, Frontier has numerous navigable fjords that may provide seasonal deep-water access to international markets. While modelling bathymetry in many of Greenland’s fjords may be difficult (309), a 2017 study showed that the ~20 km wide King Oscar and Kaiser Franz Joseph Fjords maintain a depth of more than 300 m (310). For base-metal projects, access to international export markets is economically important (311). For example, the inland Kabanga nickel deposit in western Tanzania which, has a substantial size and grade combination, but has remained undeveloped for more than two decades (312; 313; 314). GExpl opines that the fjords in the Frontier region may provide excellent, if somewhat seasonal 104, access to the market. The Frontier is well located with respect to the European and North American markets, and potentially the Asian market through the Northern Sea Route (Figure 51).
Figure 51: Arctic sea routes
Source: Arctic Portal (2018) (315)
16 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL/COMMUNITY IMPACT
GExpl is unaware of any environmental, social or community impact studies within Frontier. It is possible that the Malmbjerg molybdenum deposit may have been subject to such studies, as it was previously a Mining Licence (316), whereby the conditions would have necessitated such studies (13). The Hesteskoen licence covers much of the historical Malmbjerg Mining Licence; however, the Malmbjerg deposit itself is excised from GExpl’s licence. Aside from the military personnel at
104 Shipping windows will be constrained to when the fjords are ice-free. This will be contingent on which fjord, or subsidiary fjord is used.
iv 68 Project Infrastructure FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Mestervig (47; 2) and scientific outposts (~20 to 30 people) (38), there are no inhabitants within Frontier. Consequently, it is plausible that any social community impacts would be minimal.
17 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
As Frontier is an exploration project, no market studies or contracts that relate to mine production have been undertaken or entered. From the point of discovery, it can take multiple years to bring a deposit into production (317). Consequently, for a potentially long-term investment proposition such as an exploration project, near-term commodity market studies are not relevant. However an understanding of the macroeconomic climate may be beneficial for the reader.
Economic growth is on the increase in many of the major commercial hubs of the world. The World Bank (2018) estimates that the global growth rate will reach 3.1% over the course of 2018 (318), and states:
“2018 is on track to be the first year since the financial crisis that the global economy will be operating at or near full capacity” (318).
GExpl does not quantitatively speculate on future metal prices. However, it notes that the targeted suite of commodities have passed a cyclical low and are now on favourable trajectories (Figure 52 to Figure 56)105. These price paths are supported by long-trending decreases in global volatility, and improvements in Chinese manufacturing conditions (Figure 57). However, the reader should be aware that metal commodities experience cyclical prices (319). In the words of Collan et al. (2017), “A full metal price cycle consists of a peak price, followed typically by a long recession, which ends in a trough followed by a new (relatively short) expansion of prices and a new peak” (320). Such a cycle may also move within a larger ‘super-cycle’ (321). Within certain metal groups, such as copper, lead, and zinc (base-metals) there may be co-movement in the price. However, there may be no co-movement between base- metals, and steel alloys (Ni, Mo, W), or precious metals (Au, Ag, Pt, Pd) (319).
As GExpl is currently an Australian entity, movements in currency exchange rates may affect costs and potential future profits. GExpl notes that the ratio between the Australian dollar (‘AUD’) and Danish Krone (‘DKK’) has shown little significant variability since the 1990s (Figure 58). Similarly, since late 2015, the AUD has been strengthening against the USD (Figure 59). A stable DKK provides certainty around expenditure obligations, while a strengthening USD may decrease the costs to an Australian domiciled company like GExpl.
105 GExpl does not have access to raw price data for tungsten. However, a chart published by a third party indicates that is also experiencing an increase in price (316) – see Figure 75 in Appendix 3.
Market Studies and Contracts 69 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Figure 52: Copper prices, January 1960 through to 13 April 2018 Copper price time series $18,000
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
Price Price real) (USD/t, $6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$-
Date
Source: Collated by Greenfields using data published by the London Metal Exchange (322) and the World Bank (323)
Figure 53: Cobalt prices, January 1960 through to 28 February 2018 Cobalt price time series $200,000
$180,000
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000 Price Price real) (USD/t, $60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$-
Date
Source: Collated by Greenfields using data published by the London Metal Exchange (322) and the World Bank (323)
iv 70 Market Studies and Contracts FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 54: Nickel prices, January 1960 through to 28 February 2018 Nickel price time series $70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000 Price real) Price (USD/t,
$20,000
$10,000
$-
Date
Source: Collated by Greenfields using data published by the London Metal Exchange (322) and the World Bank (323)
Figure 55: Lead prices, January 1960 through to 28 February 2018 Lead price time series $6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
Price real) (USD/t, Price $2,000
$1,000
$-
Date
Source: Collated by Greenfields using data published by the London Metal Exchange (322) and the World Bank (323)
Market Studies and Contracts 71 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Figure 56: Zinc prices, January 1960 through to 28 February 2018 Zinc price time series $10,000
$9,000
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000 Price Price real) (USD/t, $3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$-
zinc Date
Source: Collated by Greenfields using data published by the London Metal Exchange (322) and the World Bank (323)
Figure 57: Market volatility and Chinese manufacturing conditions Market Volatilty and Chinese Manufacturing Growth 90 55
80 54
53 70
52 60
51 50 50 40 49
30
48
Volatility (real) Volatility Index Caixin China Manufacturing Manufacturing China Caixin PMI 20 47
10 46
0 45
02-Jan-93 02-Jan-95 02-Jan-98 02-Jan-00 02-Jan-05 02-Jan-07 02-Jan-17 02-Jan-90 02-Jan-91 02-Jan-92 02-Jan-94 02-Jan-96 02-Jan-97 02-Jan-99 02-Jan-01 02-Jan-02 02-Jan-03 02-Jan-04 02-Jan-06 02-Jan-08 02-Jan-09 02-Jan-10 02-Jan-11 02-Jan-12 02-Jan-13 02-Jan-14 02-Jan-15 02-Jan-16 02-Jan-18 Date
VIX China CPI 90 per. Mov. Avg. (VIX)
Source: Collated by Greenfields using data published by Yahoo (324) and Markit Economics (325)
iv 72 Market Studies and Contracts FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 58: AUD-DKK exchange rate since the float of the AUD AUD-DKK- time series 10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
Exchange rate (#) rateExchange 2.00
1.00
0.00
Date AUD:DKK
Source: Collated by Greenfields using data published by the Reserve Bank of Australia (326), using a Euro peg of 7.46038
Figure 59: AUD-USD exchange rate since the float of the AUD AUD-USD time series
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40 Exchange rate (#) rateExchange
0.20
0.00
Date AUD:USD
Source: Collated by Greenfields using data published by the Reserve Bank of Australia (326)
Market Studies and Contracts 73 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
18 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
There are no material capital and operating costs for Frontier. GExpl is aware that historical and conceptual estimates are publically avaliable on the Ymer Ø tungsten (138; 302), and the Devondal106 copper-lead occurrences (86). However, GExpl does not consider these estimates reliable or relevant to the type of deposit it is targeting. If an economically viable deposit is discovered in Frontier, its cost structure will, in part, be a function of its size, quality and location (327). A future cost estimation exercise may be able to benefit from benchmarking studies carried out elsewhere in Greenland, such as at the Malmbjerg (83), Citronen (91), Kvanefjeld (89) and White Mountain (96) deposits. Similarly, cost and operating benchmarks may be available from projects in Nordic countries and northern Canada (328; 329). Such benchmarks may support first-principal estimates.
19 ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS
No economic evaluations (Scoping, Prefeasibility of Feasibility studies) have been carried out within Frontier. Economic evaluations require many input assumptions that require a degree of accuracy that cannot be reliably estimated for an exploration project.
20 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
Exploration is an inherently uncertain process, and exposure to uncertainty can result in opportunity and risk. The risk associated with exploration is difficult to quantify (234). However, Table 4 presents some estimates of exploration success. Kreuzer et al. (2007) (41) determined that median size of a project is ~233 km2, or about 55 times smaller than Frontier. GExpl opines that, all else kept equal107, the risk that the Frontier does not contain a deposit is comparatively low, placing more emphasis on the discovery process rather than whether it is there in the first place.
Table 4: Collation of exploration discovery rates from various sources Source Probability estimate
Bailly (1967) Through an empirical analysis of seven companies and three government 1 (330) agencies over a 25-year period in the USA, determined that 0.3% ( ⁄333) of projects became mines. Griffis (1971) Calculated using empirical evidence, that for a major mining company (Cameco), 1 (331) the probability of a discovery of a deposit that leads to a mine in 1.5% ( ⁄67). Kreuzer et al. Calculates that the theoretical probability of discovering a deposit that leads to a 1 (2008) (231) successful Feasibility study is in the order of 1.6%( ⁄63) Bartrop & Guj Empirically determined that between 1998 and 2004, the global discovery rate was 1 1 (2009) (332) 0.9% ( ⁄111) for all discoveries, 0.3% ( ⁄333) for major discoveries, 0.07% 1 ( ⁄1429) and world-class discoveries.
Importantly, GExpl considers Frontier to be a true greenfield project which is important:
“As the larger deposits, with more obvious footprints, tend to be found first, the probability of “major” or “world- class” discoveries is greatest in greenfield programs directed to poorly explored terranes, recently opened up to exploration” (332).
106 Not owned by GExpl but encapsulated by its Wegener Halvø licence 107 Primarily mineral prospectivity
iv 74 Capital and Operating Costs FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
For Frontier, the notion of the quote above is also supported, or enhanced, by it being prospective for sediment-hosted copper (232), and conduit-type nickel (333)), that have quantity and quality combinations that are superior to most other deposit types (334; 242; 335). Deposits with superior quantity-quality tend to be brought into production much faster than ‘normal’ deposits (336). Consequently, GExpl considers Frontier to be distinctively different to most other exploration projects.
21 INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on GExpl’s interpretation of the information reviewed, Frontier is large compared to most exploration projects held by its peers and has favourable qualities such as:
• Permian-Triassic-aged sediments, containing evaporites and copper anomalism that correlates with the Kupferschiefer copper deposits;
• Neoproterozoic-aged sediments containing evaporites and copper anomalism that are of similar age to those that host the African Copperbelt;
• Located at the junction between a major crustal fault zone, and a palaeo-subduction zone, with a GExpl interpreted extrapolation of the fault zone leading to a direct connection with the world-class Lubin copper deposit;
• Containing flood basalts derived from one of only seven mantle plumes thought to have deep- seated sources in the Earth;
• Having geological features that make it, perhaps uniquely, analogous to the world-class Noril’sk-Talnakh nickel-copper-PGE deposits (Permian-Triassic-aged evaporitic and cupriferous sediments underlying flood-basalts derived from a deep-mantle plume located near a continental triple junction);
• No prior modern, systematic, regional scale exploration that may have tested or downgraded the exploration concept; and
• Being in an unpopulated part of a safe, pro-mining jurisdiction that has low rates of mineral taxation, low-corruption and a simple regulatory framework based on western systems.
To the best of GExpl’s knowledge, there are no other projects on Earth that can match most of the above qualities let alone all of them.
22 RECOMMENDATIONS
GExpl recommends that a first-mover exploration program is conducted. Given the wide range of commodities and deposit types, the initial program should use commodity agnostic methods . By applying an agnostic program, GExpl considers that it maximises the potential value of commodities of secondary interest. Furthermore, this program should focus on new data acquisition that can contrast and compliment the historical data (mostly geochemical).
The gathering of regional scale, geophysical information is recommended for cost efficiency, big-data generation. In contrast to the historical work, which was largely surficial, geophysical surveys are likely to provide a much better understanding of sub-surface potential. This important as while the Frontier has good exposure in many places, there are significant areas with scree covered slopes, and till filled valleys.
The combination of regional scale geophysical and geochemical data, should lead to the verification of known anomalies, as well as the identification of new anomalies. GExpl recommends that an three-
Interpretations and Conclusions 75 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
component airborne survey is performed, using gravity, radiometric and magnetic methods. These three geophysical datasets each provide different insights to the lithology and structure of the area being surveyed. GExpl plans to acquire the datasets using one airborne platform, which should reduce uncertainty related to different flight spacings should they be acquired separately (often the case).
GExpl expects that a regional scale geophysical survey will yield a large amount of information, t hat must then be turned into knowledge. To do so, GExpl may run a crowd-sourcing competition. The intent of such a competition is to capture a broad range of interpretation. To provide depth to the crowdsourced results, GExpl contemplates sponsoring a PhD student to undertake an analysis of the crowd results. In turn, GExpl envisages a ground-truthing campaign once the researcher has made their recommendation on Frontier’s most prospective areas. The information from the ground truthing may then be used to create a feedback loop, at the end of which GExpl may be in a position retain the best parts of the Frontier, while relinquishing those portions it considers having lower potential. GExpl believes that this proposed data analysis program will yield results superior to a conventional model where there is a heavy reliance on the opinion of one or two experts.
GExpl prepared a budget108,109,110 (Table 5) for a program that may be conducted over one or two years111, depending on the availability of funding, contractor, and externalities. The work program is based on scale-appropriate practice, which due to the size of Frontier, comes with substantial economies of scale. The maximum two-year budget amounts to AUD371/km2 which is similar to the minimum obligations for an equivalent licence holding in Western Australia. Using a standard two- year budget, the proposed exploration is lower than the peer offerings identified by GExpl (Figure 60). the cost-efficiency, as implied on a $/km 2 per annum basis, is possible due to economies of scale - Frontier being 28 times larger than the identified peers - and a first-mover advantage.
Work in subsequent field seasons may involve the ground-truthing of targets or anomalies generated in the first season, higher resolution and higher precision gravity surveys, as well as electromagnetic 112 geophysical surveys, and geochemical surveys. GExpl postulates that much of the work in the first three years will focus on improving accuracy, before moving to precise exploration methods like drilling. GExpl acknowledges that this approach is contrary to most exploration programs that in its opinion, rush to drill too early (a good way to be precisely wrong). GExpl believes that by initially focussing on accuracy over precision, the proposed program may both reduce the time to potential discovery, while doing so in the most cost-efficient manner.
This conceptual three-year accuracy program will give GExpl the option to retain only the best areas when the Special Exploration Licences convert to conventional Exploration Licences. However, exploration is an inherently uncertain process, and drilling may occur sooner should targets be generated that are too good to delay with regards to testing. GExpl will adapt its exploration program as additional information, or new insights become available.
108 All budget figures quoted are in AUD and rounded to the nearest 10,000. 109 Program costs include all-in costs for completing the program. 110 Where prudent to do so, GExpl may issue shares in lieu of cash payment 111 A program spread over two years will still meet minimum expenditure obligations. Does not include corporate overheads. 112 A high-cost method that is suited to heliborne surveys rather than the fixed-wing program proposed for year 1. Electromagnetic surveys are particularly useful for targeting nickel sulphide mineralisation (359). Weather conditions may affect the ability to carry out the full extent of a planned exploration program over one field season.
iv 76 Recommendations FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Table 5: First-pass exploration budget Activity Minimum (AUD M) Maximum (AUD M) Total Year 1 Year 2 Total Year 1 Year 2 Geophysical surveying 1.15 1.15 3.00 3.00 Crowdfunded Interpretation 0.35 0.35 0.50 0.50 Historical Data Review 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Field Reconnaissance 0.50 0.50 0.55 0.55 Petrophysical Data Acquisition 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 Surface Geochemistry 0.00 0.11 0.40 0.30 Administration 0.08 0.08 0.20 0.20 0.20 2. 2 2.2 0.00 4.90 4.40 0.50
Figure 60: Proposed expenditure relative to peers ASX IPO one year expenditure equivalent assuming a AUD4.9 M raise $1,000,000
$100,000
per annum per $10,000 2
AUD/km $1,000
$100
ProspechLtd
E2 Metals Ltd Metals E2
Riversgold LtdRiversgold
TNT Mines Ltd Mines TNT
Cygnus Gold Ltd Cygnus
Roman Kings Ltd RomanKings
Pure Minerals Ltd Minerals Pure
SaturnMetals Ltd
AIC Resources Ltd AICResources
Titan Minerals Ltd Minerals Titan
Galena MiningLtdGalena
Symbol Mining Ltd Mining Symbol
Northern Cobalt Ltd NorthernCobalt
PursuitLtd Minerals
Awati ResourcesLtd Awati
Bryah ResourcesLtd Bryah
Okapi Resources Okapi Ltd
Podium Minerals LtdMinerals Podium
Tando Resources TandoResources Ltd
Mayur ResourcesMayur Ltd
Lithium Consolidated Lithium
TaoCommodities Ltd
Lustrum Minerals Ltd Minerals Lustrum Ltd RaptorResources
Woomera Mining Ltd Mining Woomera
Nelson Resources Ltd NelsonResources
Calidus Ltd Calidus Resources
Koppar Resources Ltd KopparResources
Corona ResourcesCorona Ltd
Alderan Resources Ltd Alderan
High Grade Metals LtdGrade Metals High
Rafaella Resources Ltd Rafaella
Manuka Resources Ltd ManukaResources
Black Cat Syndicate Ltd Cat Black Syndicate
BlackEarthMinerals NL
Carawine Resources Ltd CarawineResources
Magmatic Resources Ltd Magmatic
Eumeralla Resources Ltd Eumeralla
Accelerate Resources Ltd AccelerateResources
Todd River Resources Ltd River Todd Resources
Golden Mile Resources Ltd Mile Golden Resources
Greenfields Exploration Ltd Greenfields American Pacific Borate and Ltd Borate AmericanPacific Lithium Compiled by Greenfields Exploration Ltd using public domain data on ASX Prospectus documetns between January 2017 and April 2018
23 REFERENCES
1. Creative Commons. Franz Johann Joseph von Reilly [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons. 2. Higgins, Anthony K. Exploration history and place names of northern East Greenland. Copenhagen : Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, 2010. 3. Kreuzer, Oliver. RE: GIS Geology Data. [email to J A Bell 2 April] Perth : X-plore GeoConsulting, 2018. 4. JORC. Australasian Code For Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves - the JORC Code. s.l. : The Joint Ore Reserves Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia, 2012.
References 77 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
5. VALMIN. Australasian Code For Reporting for Public Reporting of technical Assessments and Valuations of Mineral Assets - The VALMIN Code. s.l. : The VALMIN Committee of the Australasian Institute of mining and Metallurgy and the Australian Institute of Geoscientists, 2015. 6. ASIC. Regulatory Guide 111: Content of Expert Reports. Australian Securities & Investments Commission. [Online] March 2011a. [Cited: 2 October 2016.] http://download.asic.gov.au/media/1240152/rg111-30032011.pdf. 7. —. RG 112 Independence of Experts. Australian Securities and Investments Commission. [Online] 30 March 2011b. [Cited: 13 October 2016.] http://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/find-a- document/regulatory-guides/rg-112-independence-of-experts/. 8. —. Regulatory Guide 170: Prospective Financial Information. Australian Securities & Investments Commission. [Online] April 2011c. [Cited: 2 October 2016.] http://download.asic.gov.au/media/1240943/rg170-010411.pdf. 9. NI43-101. Standards & Guidelines for Resources & Reserves. Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum. [Online] 24 June 2011. [Cited: 2 October 2016.] http://web.cim.org/standards/documents/Block484_Doc111.pdf. 10. ASX. Listing Rules Chapter 5. Australian Securities Exchange. [Online] 1 July 2014. [Cited: 23 September 2019.] http://www.asx.com.au/documents/rules/Chapter05.pdf. 11. TimeandDate. Ittoqqortoormiit, Greenland — Sunrise, Sunset, and Daylength, February 2018. Timeanddate.com. [Online] Time and Date AS, 2018. [Cited: 20 February 2018.] https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/greenland/ittoqqortoormiit. 12. —. Annual Weather Averages in Ittoqqortoormiit. Timeanddate.com. [Online] Time and Date AS, 2018. [Cited: 20 February 2018.] https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/greenland/ittoqqortoormiit/climate. 13. Naalakkersuisut. Unofficial consolidation of the Mineral Resources Act. Govmin. [Online] 28 November 2016. [Cited: 13 February 2018.] https://www.govmin.gl/images/Unofficial_translation_of_unofficial_consolidation_of_the_Mineral_Res ources_Act.pdf. 14. Naalakkersuisut MLSA. Exploration licence with exclusive exploration rights for Greenfields Exploration Pty Ltd for the area Gauss Halvø in East Greenland. Nuuk : Mineral Licence and Safety Authority, 2017. Licence No. 2018/03. 15. —. Exploration licence with exclusive exploration rights for Greenfields Exploration Pty Ltd for the area Scott Bjerg in East Greenland. Nuuk : Mineral Licence and Safety Authority, 2017. Licence No. 2018/19. 16. —. Exploration licence with exclusive exploration rights for Greenfields Exploration Pty Ltd for the area Stauning Alper in East Greenland. Nuuk : Mineral Licence and Safety Authority, 2017. Licence No. 2018/02. 17. —. Exploration licence with exclusive exploration rights for Greenfields Exploration Pty Ltd for the area Strindberg Land in East Greenland. Nuuk : Mineral Licence and Safety Authority, 2017. Licence No. 2018/01. 18. —. Exploration licence with exclusive exploration rights for Greenfields Exploration Pty Ltd for the area Wegener Halvø in East Greenland. Nuuk : Mineral Licence and Safety Authority, 2017. Licence No. 2018/05. 19. —. Exploration licence with exclusive exploration rights for Greenfields Exploration for the area Hesteskoen in East Greenland. Nuuk : Mineral Licence and Safety Authority, 2017. Licence No. 2018/04. 20. ‘To See What State We Are In’: First Years of the Greenland Self-Government Act and the Pursuit of Inuit Sovereignty. Kuokkanen, Ruana. 2: 179-195, s.l. : Ethnopolitics, 2017, Vol. 16. 1744-9065.
iv 78 References FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
21. CIA. Greenland. The World Factbook. [Online] Central Intelligence Agency, 30 January 2018. [Cited: 13 February 2018.] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gl.html. 22. ABS. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016 Census QuickStats. [Online] 12 January 2017. [Cited: 17 February 2018.] http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/036. 23. McGwin, Kevin. Hunting helps Greenlanders keep poverty at bay — but its benefits are spread unevenly. arctictoday.com. [Online] 28 February 2018. [Cited: 2 March 2018.] https://www.arctictoday.com/hunting-helps-greenlanders-keep-poverty-bay-benefits-spread-unevenly/. 24. Mineral riches: a route to Greenland’s independence? Taagholt, Jørgen and Brooks, Kent. 264: 360- 371, Copenhagen : Polar Record, 2016, Vol. 52. 1475-3057. 25. Chinese investment in Greenland’s mining industry: Toward a new framework for foreign direct investment. Têtu, Pierre-Louis and Lasserre, Frédéric. 3: 661-671, s.l. : The Extractive Industries and Society, 2017, Vol. 4. 2214-790X. 26. Contemplating governance for social sustainability in mining in Greenland. Tiainen, Heidi. 282-289, s.l. : Resources Policy, 2016, Vol. 49. 0301-4207. 27. ‘To See What State We Are In’: First Years of the Greenland Self-Government Act and the Pursuit of Inuit Sovereignty. GettingTheDealThrough. 2: 179-195, s.l. : Ethnopolitics, 2017, Vol. 16. 744-9065. 28. TI. CPI 2017. [Online] 2018. [Cited: 2 March 2018.] https://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview. 29. UN. International Human Development Indicators. [Online] 22 March 2017. [Cited: 2 March 2018.] http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries. 30. CATO. Human Freedom Index. [Online] 2017. [Cited: 2 March 2018.] https://www.cato.org/human- freedom-index. 31. Reuters. Greenland's parliamentary election to be held on April 24: state broadcaster. Reuters. [Online] 13 March 2018. [Cited: 14 March 2018.] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland- election/greenlands-parliamentary-election-to-be-held-on-april-24-state-broadcaster-idUSKCN1GP22I. 32. Greenland mulls independence from Denmark during election campaign. CBC News. [Online] Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 6 March 2018. [Cited: 4 April 2018.] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/greenland-election-april-2018-1.4564556. 33. Naalakkersuisut. Terms / Laws / Guidelines. Govmin. [Online] 25 June 2013. [Cited: 13 February 2018.] https://www.govmin.gl/images/stories/faelles/App_standard_pros_eng_25_jun_2013_web.pdf. 34. MMR. Greenland Day in Perth. Govmin. [Online] 9 December 2016. [Cited: 13 February 2018.] https://www.govmin.gl/images/stories/minerals/events/Greenland_Day_in_Perth_2016_- _December_9th/GreenlandDay2016_05_Lynge_Licences_Infrastructure.pdf. 35. Naalakkersuisut. Current Licences. Govmin. [Online] 5 February 2018. [Cited: 16 February 2018.] https://www.govmin.gl/minerals/current-licences. 36. —. Terms / Laws / Guidelines. Govmin. [Online] 2018. [Cited: 13 February 2018.] https://www.govmin.gl/minerals/terms-rules-laws-guidelines. 37. DMP. Fees and Charges 2017–18. Government of Western Australia Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety . [Online] 1 July 2017. [Cited: 17 February 2018.] http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Documents/Minerals/Minerals-Feesandcharges_2017.pdf. 38. Ittoqqortoormiit and the National Park of Greenland: a community’s option for tourism development. Tommasini, Daniela. 3: 237-239, Roskilde : The Polar Record, 2013, Vol. 49. 1475-3057. 39. IBG. ASX Announcements >>2016. Ironbark Zinc Ltd. [Online] 19 December 2016. [Cited: 24 February 2018.] ASX Announcements >>2016. https://ironbark.gl/investor-centre/asx- announcements/2016-2/.
References 79 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
40. Hollis, Julie. Re: your enquiry (Nanoq - ID nr.: 5290851). [email] Nuuk : Ministry of Mineral Resources, 29 April 2017. 41. Australian junior exploration floats, 2001-06, and their implications for IPOs. Kreuzer, Oliver P, Etheridge, Michael A and Guj, Pietro. 4: 159-182, s.l. : Resources Policy, 2007, Vol. 32. 0301-4207. 42. Statistics Denmark. Consumer Price Index. Statistics Denmark. [Online] 2018. [Cited: 16 February 2018.] https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/priser-og- forbrug/forbrugerpriser/forbrugerprisindeks. 43. Bloomberg. Bloomberg Markets. [Online] 16 February 2018. [Cited: 17 February 2018.] https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AUDDKK:CUR. 44. Visit Greenland. Visit Greenland. [Online] 2017. [Cited: 17 February 2018.] https://visitgreenland.com/destinations/ittoqqortoormiit/. 45. Timeanddate.com. Distance. TimeandDate. [Online] Time and Date AS, 2018a. [Cited: 19 February 2018.] https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distances.html?n=705. 46. Insider. Travel. Insider. [Online] Insider Inc, 2017. [Cited: 19 February 2018.] http://www.thisisinsider.com/worlds-most-isolated-remote-places-2017-10#ittoqqortoormiit- greenland-7. 47. Greenland as a self-governing sub-national territory in international relations: past, current and future perspectives. Ackrén, Maria and Jakobsen, Uffe. 4: 404-412., s.l. : The Polar Record, 2015, Vol. 51. 14753057. 48. Nerlerit Inaat Airport. ISSAAFIQ - The Arctic Gateway. [Online] ISSAAFIQ, 3 April 2015. [Cited: 19 February 2018.] https://www.isaaffik.org/users/nerlerit-inaat-airport. 49. ACRM. Govmin. [Online] 2016. [Cited: 16 March 2018.] https://www.govmin.gl/images/stories/minerals/events/PDAC_2017/Session%206%20- %20Niels%20Tanderup%20Kristensen%20Arctic%20Cluster%20of%20Raw%20Materials%20- %20Opportunities%20in%20Greenland.pdf. 50. Bernstein, Stefan. Personal communication. Copenhagen, 25 April 2017. 51. Thomassen, Bjørn, Rink, Matilde and Stelter, Sebastian. Technical Report on Mineral Exploration 2013, Jameson Land and Liverpool Land, Central East Greenland. London : Avannaa Exploration Ltd, 2014. Statutory report. 52. Thomassen, Bjørn. Technical Report on Mineral Exploration in the Eleonore Bay Supergroup, Central East Greenland. London : Avannaa Exploration Ltd, 2012. Statutory report. 53. NSIDC. National Snow and Ice Data Center. [Online] 2018. [Cited: 17 February 2018.] https://nsidc.org/data/google_earth/. 54. Trend and interannual variability in southeast Greenland Sea Ice: Impacts on coastal Greenland climate variability. Moore, G W K, Straneo, F and Oltmanns, M. 23: 619-8626, s.l. : Geophysical Research Letter, 2014, Vol. 41. 1944-8007. 55. Greenland – investment opportunities. Ministry of Industry, Labour and Trade. [Online] 16 March 2016. [Cited: 14 March 2018.] http://naalakkersuisut.gl/~/media/Nanoq/Files/Attached%20Files/Erhverv/Seoul_2016/2%20Invest ment%20opportunities%20in%20Greenland%20Greenland%20Government%20Deputy%20Mini ster%20Mr%20Jrn%20Skov%20Nielsen.pdf. 56. Wikipedia. List of mountain peaks of Greenland. Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. [Online] Wikimedia Foundation, 2018. [Cited: 2 March 2018.] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountain_peaks_of_Greenland. 57. ESA. Space in images. ESA. [Online] European Space Agency, 20 August 2014. [Cited: 25 February 2018.] http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/08/Greenland_ice-sheet_height.
iv 80 References FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
58. Creative Commons. By Jerzystrzelecki - Own work, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=23653152. 59. —. By Bjoertvedt [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], from Wikimedia Commons. 60. —. By Jerzy Strzelecki [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], from Wikimedia Commons. 61. Saqqaa. Råstofskolen - Greenland School of Minerals & Petroleum. KTI. [Online] 2018. [Cited: 24 February 2018.] https://www.kti.gl/kl/. 62. Naalakkersuisut. Our mineral resources- creating prosperity for Greenland: Greenland’s oil and mineral strategy 2014-2018. [Online] May 2014. [Cited: 11 March 2018.] http://naalakkersuisut.gl/~/media/Nanoq/Files/Publications/Raastof/ENG/Olie%20og%20mineralst rategi%20ENG.pdf. 63. NanuTravel. Home. Nanutravel.com. [Online] Nanu Travel, 2018. [Cited: 20 February 2018.] http://www.nanutravel.dk/. 64. Naalakkersuisut. Exploration Projects. Govmin. [Online] Government of Greenland, 2018. [Cited: 24 February 2018.] https://www.govmin.gl/minerals/geology-of-greenland/exploration- projects. 65. Katabatic winds and piteraq storms: observations from the Greenland ice sheet. GEUS Bulletin 31. [Online] Jun 2014. [Cited: 20 February 2018.] http://www.geus.dk/publications/bull/nr31/nr31_p83-86.pdf. 66. Grau, Oriol, et al. Plant co-existence patterns and High-Arctic vegetation composition in three common plant communities in north-east Greenland. Polar Research. 2014, Vol. 33, 1. 67. Madsen, Jesper, et al. Long-Term Effects of Grazing and Global Warming on the Composition and Carrying Capacity of Graminoid Marshes for Moulting Geese in East Greenland. Ambio. 2011, Vol. 40, 6: 638-649. 68. Bjørnshauge, Samuel í Geil. Letter 21 November 2017: End of Consultation - 2018/01, 2018/02, 2018/03 and 2018/05, Greenfields Exploration Pty Ltd. Nuuk : Government of Greenland, 2018. 69. NanuTravel. Location Facts - Mammals of the Region. Nanutravel.dk. [Online] Nanu Travel, 2013. [Cited: 20 February 2018.] http://www.nanutravel.dk/Mammals-of-the-region.49.aspx. 70. Laidre, Kristin L, et al. Shifts in female polar bear (Ursus maritimus) habitat use in East Greenland. Polar Biology. 2015, Vol. 38, 6: 879-893. 71. Dalerum, Fredrik and Angerbjörn, Anders. Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) diet in Karupelv valley, East Greenland, during a summer with low lemming density. Arctic. 2000, Vol. 53, 1: 1-8. 72. RAMSAR. Annotated List of Wetlands of International Importance - Denmark. Ramsar. [Online] 2014. [Cited: 20 February 2018.] https://rsis.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/rsiswp_search/exports/Ramsar-Sites-annotated-summary- Denmark.pdf?1519075535. 73. MMR. Letter undated: Concerning exploration application no. 2018/04 and 2018/05. Nuuk : Government of Greenland, 2018. 74. NanuTravel. Location Facts - Flora and Fauna. NanuTravel.dk. [Online] Nanu Travel, 2013. [Cited: 20 February 2018.] http://www.nanutravel.dk/HOME.1.aspx. 75. Naalakkersuisut. Mining History. Govmin. [Online] Government of Greenland, 2018. [Cited: 20 February 2018.] https://www.govmin.gl/minerals/mining-history. 76. A Palaeoproterozoic multi-stage hydrothermal alteration system at Nalunaq gold deposit, South Greenland. Bell, Robin-Marie, et al. 3: 383-404, s.l. : Mineralium Deposita, 2017, Vol. 52. 1432-1866.
References 81 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
77. Importance of geochemistry: The Black Angel lead‐zinc mine, Greenland. Poling, G W and Ellis, D V. 1-2: 101-118, s.l. : Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 1995, Vol. 13. 78. Exploitation of lead and zinc deposits at Mesters Vig. Polar Record. 58: 50-51, s.l. : Polar Record, 1958, Vol. 9. 475-3057. 79. Kolb, Jochen. History of Mining. [book auth.] Rognvald Boyd, et al. Mineral Resource in the Arctic. Trondheim : Geological Survey of Norway, 2016. 80. Ivigut cryolite and modern Greenland. Lloyd, Trevor. 3: 39-52, s.l. : Canadian Geographer, 1953, Vol. 1. 1541-0064. 81. Alba. Amitsoq Graphite, Greenland. Alba Mineral Resources. [Online] Alba Mineral Resources Plc, 2018. [Cited: 20 February 2018.] http://www.albamineralresources.com/page.php?pID=13. 82. GEUS. The Black Angel lead-zinc mine at Maarmorilik. Geology and Ore: Exploration and Mining in Greenland. 2, 2003, Vol. 2. 83. TetraTech. Feasibility Study for Malmbjerg Project Molybdenum Mine Development. TetraTech Inc. [Online] 2010. [Cited: 2 February 2018.] http://www.tetratech.com/pdf/download?url=http://localhost%252fen%252fdocs%252fpd14%252d 023%252den%252dmalmberg%252dproject%252epdf. 84. Fouche, Gwladys. Chinese firm unlikely to develop $2 billion Greenland iron ore mine soon: minister. Reuters. [Online] 27 January 2016. [Cited: 14 March 2018.] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-mining-china/chinese-firm-unlikely-to-develop-2- billion-greenland-iron-ore-mine-soon-minister-idUSKCN0V425D. 85. Nordisk. Scheelite Project, Ymers Ø Pre Feasibility Study. Copenhagen : Nordisk Mineselskab, 1982. 86. —. Copper/lead/silver project , Devondal, Preliminary study. Copenhagen : Nordisk Mineselskab A/A, 1983. GEUS report file: 21049. 87. Greenland Rubies. News and Events. Greenland Rubies A/A. [Online] 11 May 17. [Cited: 22 February 2018.] http://greenlandruby.gl/pr_170511.html. 88. GGG. ASX announcements. [Online] 11 October 2017. [Cited: 22 February 2018.] http://www.ggg.gl/docs/ASX-announcements/Maritime%20Safety%20Study.pdf. 89. —. ASX announcements. [Online] 6 April 2016. [Cited: 2 March 2018.] http://www.ggg.gl/docs/ASX-announcements/Feasibility-Study-Update-April-2016.pdf. 90. IBG. ASX announcements. [Online] 15 January 2018. [Cited: 22 February 2018.] https://ironbark.gl/investor-centre/asx-announcements/2018-2/. 91. —. ASX Announcements. [Online] 12 September 2017. [Cited: 2 March 2018.] https://ironbark.gl/investor-centre/asx-announcements/2017-2/. 92. Bluejay. Dundas Ilmenite Project. [Online] Bluejay Mining Plc, 2018. [Cited: 2 March 2018.] https://www.titanium.gl/projects/dundas-ilmenite-project/. 93. —. Announcements. [Online] 10 April 2017. [Cited: 2 March 2018.] https://www.google.com.au/search?q=dundas+ilmenite+maiden+resource&rlz=1C1CHBF_en- GBAU726AU726&oq=dundas+ilmenite+maiden+resource&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l2.8734j0j7&s ourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8. 94. —. Announcements. Bluejay Mining. [Online] 2 February 2018. [Cited: 23 February 2018.] https://www.titanium.gl/announcements/placing-announcement/. 95. —. Presentations & Webcasts. [Online] 15 November 2017. [Cited: 2 March 2018.] https://www.titanium.gl/documents/investor-presentation/TZMI-Company-presentation.pdf.
iv 82 References FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
96. HUD. News. [Online] 7 December 2017. [Cited: 22 February 2018.] http://www.hudsonresources.ca/files/NR2017-14.pdf. 97. —. Presentations. [Online] 2 January 2018. [Cited: 2 March 2018.] https://hudsonresourcesinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Hudson_January_2018.pdf. 98. —. Projects anorthosite. [Online] Hudson Resources Inc, 2018. [Cited: 2 March 2018.] https://hudsonresourcesinc.com/projects/white-mountain-anorthosite-project/. 99. PGM. Skaergaard. [Online] Platina Resources Ltd, 2017. [Cited: 4 March 2018.] https://www.platinaresources.com.au/projects/skaergaard/. 100. GEUS. The Blyklippen lead-zinc mine at Mesters Vig, East Greenland. Geology and Ore: Exploration and mining in Greenland. 5, December 2005. 101. Greenland Resources. News and Financials. Greenland Resources. [Online] 22 December 2017. [Cited: 24 February 2018.] http://greenlandresources.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PR17-03- Greenland-Resources.pdf. 102. Metallogeny of Greenland. Kolb, Jochen, et al. : 93-555, s.l. : Ore Geology Reviews, 2016, Vol. 78. 0169-1368. 103. Keiding, Jacob K. Malmbjerg Molybdenum Deposit. [book auth.] Rognvald Boyd, et al. Mineral Resources in the Arctic. Trondheim : Geological Survey of Norway, 2016. 104. KGHM. Mineral resources and reserves report. KGHM. [Online] 25 June 2015. [Cited: 25 February 2018.] http://kghm.com/en/mineral-resources-and-reserves-report. 105. IBG. Mestervig. Ironbark Zinc. [Online] 2018. [Cited: 25 February 2018.] https://ironbark.gl/projects/greenland/mestersvig/. 106. GEUS. Greenland Mineral Occurrence Map: Occurrence Data Sheet. Greenland Portal. [Online] [Cited: 25 February 2018.] http://data.geus.dk/gmomweb/mineraloccurencepdf.seam?mineraloccurencepdfGeolfeatureid=128 1. 107. Harpøth, Ole, et al. The mineral occurrences of central East Greenland. Copenhagen : The Commission for Scientific Research in Greenland, 1986. 108. CGRG. Kap Parry. Czech Geological Research Group. [Online] CGRG Ltd, 2015. [Cited: 25 February 2018.] http://www.cgrg.cz/projects.php?project=KapParry. 109. CSIS, Conley, Heather A and Rahbek-Clemmensen, Jon. Arctic Temperatures and Greenland Politics Heat Up. CSIS. [Online] 9 March 2018. [Cited: 14 March 2018.] https://www.csis.org/analysis/arctic-temperatures-and-greenland-politics-heat. 110. Naalakkersuisut. Events. Govmin. [Online] 2018. [Cited: 23 February 2018.] https://www.govmin.gl/events. 111. Deloitte. Information Guide How to set up a Company in Greenland. Deloitte. [Online] October 2015. [Cited: 25 February 2018.] https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/dk/Documents/audit/2015Set-up-business- Greenland.pdf. 112. Government. Rules for fieldwork and reporting in Greenland. Govmin. [Online] 2000. [Cited: 23 February 2018.] https://www.govmin.gl/images/stories/minerals/rules_for_fieldwork.pdf. 113. Hollis, Julie. Re: your enquiry (Nanoq - ID nr.: 5290851). [email] Nuuk : Ministry of Mineral Resources, 26 April 2017. 114. GGG. Greenland and Denmark Pass Uranium Export Legislation, Solid Foundation Set for Kvanefjeld Project. Greenland Minerals and Energy Ltd. [Online] 2018 June 2016. [Cited: 24 February 2018.] http://www.ggg.gl/docs/ASX-announcements/Denmark-Passes-Export- Legislation.pdf.
References 83 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
115. VisitGreenland. The National Park. Visit Greenland. [Online] 2018. [Cited: 24 February 2018.] https://visitgreenland.com/about-greenland/national-park/. 116. FinnAust. Positive Changes to Greenland Mining Obligations. BlueJay Mining Plc. [Online] 17 February 2017. [Cited: 24 February 2018.] http://www.titanium.gl/announcements/positive- changes-greenland-licence-obligations/. 117. Naalakkersuisut. About. Ujarassiorit. [Online] Government of Greenland, 2018. [Cited: 24 February 2018.] http://www.ujarassiorit.gl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=129&lan g=en. 118. MMR. Greenland Day in Perth. Govmin. [Online] 11 December 2016. [Cited: 25 February 2018.] https://www.govmin.gl/images/stories/minerals/events/Greenland_Day_in_Perth_2016_- _December_9th/GreenlandDay2016_19_Hollis_Strategy_Geoscience.pdf. 119. Getting the Deal Through. Mining: Greenland. Getting the Deal Through. [Online] June 2017. [Cited: 4 April 2018.] https://gettingthedealthrough.com/area/22/jurisdiction/120/mining- greenland/. 120. ATO. Company Tax Rates. Australian Tax Office. [Online] 12 December 2017. [Cited: 24 February 2018.] https://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/Company-tax/. 121. Naalakkersuisut. Knowledge. Arctic Cluster of Raw Materials. [Online] March 2017. [Cited: 25 February 2018.] Tax losses incurred by exploration companies can be carried forward indefinitely.. 122. Akileraartarnermut Aqutsisoqarfik. Home. Tax Greenland. [Online] Government of Greenland, 2018. [Cited: 24 February 2018.] http://int.aka.gl/en/Tax-Greenland. 123. Tax Greenland. Tax Rates 2016/2017. Akileraarttarnermut Aqutsisoqarfik. [Online] 2018. [Cited: 24 February 2018.] http://int.aka.gl/en/Tax-Greenland/Tax-rates-2017. 124. Naalakkersuisut. Appendix 1 to addendum no. 3 to Standard Terms for Exploration Licences. Govmin. [Online] 1 July 2014. [Cited: 24 February 2018.] https://www.govmin.gl/images/stories/faelles/Standard_terms_for_Exploration_Licences_for_Mine rals_-_Addendum_no_3_-_Appendix_1.pdf. 125. DMP. Mineral Royalties. Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety. [Online] Government of Western Australia, 2018. [Cited: 24 February 2018.] http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Minerals/Royalties-1544.aspx. 126. Fraser Institute. Annual Survey of Mining Companies: 2017. Fraser Institute. [Online] February 2018. [Cited: 22 February 2018.] https://www.fraserinstitute.org/categories/mining. 127. Hauge, Kristina. Structural and Petrological Data along a Transect across the Caledonian Fjord Region Detachment Zone in Andreè Land, North-East Greenland. Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Unviersity of Oslo,. Oslo : University of Oslo,, 2013. Masters Thesis. 128. Neoproterozoic–Lower Palaeozoic stratigraphical relationships in the marginal thin-skinned thrust belt of the East Greenland Caledonides: comparisons with the foreland in Scotland. Higgins, A K, Leslie, A G and Smith, M P. 2: 143-160, s.l. : Geological Magazine, Vol. 138. 1469-5081. 129. Henriksen, Niels and Higgins, A K. Geological research and mapping in the Caledonian orogen of East Greenland, 70°N–82°N. [book auth.] Niels Henriksen, et al. The Greenland Caledonides: Evolution of the Northeast Margin of Laurentia. s.l. : Geological Society of America, 2008. 130. NunaMinerals. Ymers Ø Tungsten Prospect Central East Greenland. Copenhagen : NunaMinerals A/S, 2008. 131. Higgins, A K. Exploration history of East Greenland 69°–82°N. Copenhagen : not identified, 2005.
iv 84 References FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
132. Castle, Malcolm. Annual Report Exploration Licence 2007/41. [Online] 28 November 2008. [Cited: 10 March 2018.] greenmin.gl. GEUS report file: 22109. 133. Thomassen, Bjørn. Technical Report on Mineral Exploration in the Eleonore Bay Supergroup, Central East Greenland: Work carried out 2011 under exploration licence 2011/40 and prospecting licence 2010/21. London : Avannaa Exploration Ltd, 2012. GEUS report file: 22596. 134. Pedersen, John L and Olesen, Bjarne Lund. Vein type tungsten and antimony mineralisation in central east Greenland. Copenhagen : Nordisk Mineselskab A/S, 1984. 135. Bruneau, Claude. Geophysical Survey in East Greenland: Strindberg Land and Brogetdal. Copenhagen : Nordisk Minselskab A/A, 1975. GEUS report file: 20798. 136. Pedersen, John. Field Report prospecting licence no. 20/92 An area in East Greenland. Copenhagen : NunaOil A/AS, Pasminco Australia Ltd, 1992. GUES report file 21103. 137. NunaMinerals. Initial metallurgical testing produces commercial grade concentrate - Ymer tungsten project. Nasdaq Globe Newswire. [Online] 5 June 2012. [Cited: 3 March 2018.] https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2012/06/05/266188/0/en/Initial-metallurgical-testing- produces-commercial-grade-concentrate-Ymer-tungsten-project.html. 138. Rix, Tuperna. A Study into economical and Infrastructure: Tungsten Prospect at Ymer-Island East Greenland. Nuuk : NunaMinerals A/S, 2011. 139. Pedersen, John. Gold-Antimony at Noa Dal on Ymer O, East Greenland. Copenhagen : Nunaoil A/A, 1992. GEUS report file 21299. 140. van Gool, Jeroen A M and Russill, Jon. Geological report following 2014 exploration activities on licence 2014/09, East Greenland. Reykjavik : SRK Exploration Services Ltd on behalf of ARC Mining ehf, 2014. 141. Guarnieri, Pierpaolo, et al. CRUSMID-3D: Crustal structures and mineral deposit systems: 3D- modelling of base metal mineralization in Jameson Land (East Greenland). s.l. : Nordic Council of Ministers, 2016. 0908-6692. 142. Thomas, Melvyn. CEO crisis in Anglo American worries Surat. [Online] 26 August 2012. [Cited: 10 March 2018.] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/surat/ceo-crisis-in-anglo-american- worries-surat/articleshow/15775442.cms. 143. Hume, Neil. Anglo American returns to profit and ends forced asset sales. [Online] 21 February 2017. [Cited: 10 March 2018.] https://www.ft.com/content/2b469bda-f814-11e6-9516-2d969e0d3b65. 144. NSIDC. Quick Facts on Ice Sheets. NSIDC. [Online] National Snow & Ice Data Center, 2018. [Cited: 25 February 2018.] https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html. 145. Changes in Greenland ice bed conditions inferred from seismology. Toyokuni, Genti, et al. :81- 98, s.l. : Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 2018, Vol. 277. 0031-9201. 146. Evidence for ephemeral middle Eocene to early Oligocene Greenland glacial ice and pan-Arctic sea ice. Tripati, Ardhna and Darby, Dennis. s.l. : Nature Communications, 2018, Vol. 1036. 147. CIA. Sweden. World Factbook. [Online] Central Intelligence Agency, 2018. [Cited: 24 February 2018.] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html. 148. —. Paraguay. World Factbook. [Online] Central Intelligence Agency, 2018. [Cited: 24 February 2018.] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pa.html. 149. Dawes, Peter R. The bedrock geology under the Inland Ice: the next major challenge for Greenland mapping. Geological Survey Of Denmark And Greenland Bulletin. 17, 2009, Vols. :55-70. 150. GEUS. Airborne geophysical data from Greenland. Geology and Ore: Exploration and Mining in Greenland. 22, 2013. 151. Earth's oldest mantle fabrics indicate Eoarchaean subduction. Kacsmarek, Mary-Alix, et al. 10665, s.l. : Nature Communications, 2016, Vol. 7.
References 85 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
152. Constraining the process of Eoarchean TTG formation in the Itsaq Gneiss Complex, southern West Greenland. Hoffman, J Elis, et al. :374-386, s.l. : Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2014, Vol. 383. 012-821X. 153. Evidence for early life in Earth’s oldest hydrothermal vent precipitates. Dodd, Matthew S, et al. 7643: 60-64, s.l. : Nature, 2017, Vol. 543. 1476-4687. 154. Metallogeny of the North Atlantic Craton in Greenland. Kolb, Jochen, Bagas, Leon and Fiorentini, Marco L. 4: 815-855, London : Mineralogical Magazine, 2015, Vol. 79. 471-8022. 155. Structure of the Palaeoproterozoic Nagssugtoqidian Orogen, South-East Greenland: Model for the tectonic evolution. Kolb, Jochen. : 809-822, s.l. : Precambrian Research, 2014, Vol. 255. 0301-9268. 156. Nutman, Allen. Greenland's Precambrian crustal architecture: Four decades of geochronology goes online. Govmin. [Online] 9 December 2015. [Cited: 2 March 2018.] https://www.govmin.gl/images/stories/minerals/events/Greenland_Day_in_Perth_2016_- _December_9th/GreenlandDay2016_07_Nutman_Geochronology-1.pdf. 157. GEUS. Geological Map of Greenland 1:2,500,000. GEUS. [Online] Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, 20 June 2003. [Cited: 24 February 2018.] http://www.geus.dk/program- areas/raw-materials-greenl-map/greenland/gr-map/anhstart-uk.htm. 158. —. Sediment-hosted copper in Greenland. Geology and Ore: Exploration and Mining in Greenland. 18, 2011. 159. Brooks, Kent C. The East Greenland rifted volcanic margin. Copenhagen : Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, 2011. 604-8156. 160. Early Neoproterozoic events in East Greenland. Watt, G R and Thran, K. 1: 165-184, s.l. : Precambrian Research, 2001, Vol. 110. 0301-9268. 161. Palaeomagnetism of igneous rocks of the Lake District (Caledonian) terrane, Northern England: palaeozoic motions and deformation at a leading edge of Avalonia. Piper, J D A. 3: 211-246, s.l. : Geological Journal, 1997, Vol. 32. 1099-1034. 162. The crustal structure of central East Greenland—I: From the Caledonian orogen to the Tertiary igneous province. Schmidt-Aursch, Mechita C and Jokat, Wilfried. 2: 736-752, s.l. : Geophysical Journal International, 2005, Vol. 160. 0956-540X. 163. A new tectonic model for the Laurentia−Avalonia−Baltica sutures in the North Sea: A case study along MONA LISA profile 3. Lyngsie, S B and Thybo, H. 3-4: 201-227, s.l. : Tectonophysics, 2007, Vol. 429. 0040-1951. 164. Terrane transfer during the Caledonian orogeny: Baltican affinities of the Liverpool Land Eclogite Terrane in East Greenland. Augland, Lars Eivind, Andersen, Arild and Corfu, Fernando. 1: 15-26, s.l. : Journal of the Geological Society, Vol. 168. 00167649. 165. Seismological evidence for a fossil subduction zone in the East Greenland Caledonides. Schiffer, Christian, et al. 4: 311-314, s.l. : Geology, 2014, Vol. 42. 00917613. 166. Geophysical-petrological modelling of the East Greenland Caledonides – Isostatic support from crust and upper mantle. Schiffer, Christian, et al. : 44-57, s.l. : Tectonophysics,, 2016, Vol. 692. 0040- 1951. 167. Laznicka, Peter. Giant Metallic Deposits : Future Sources of Industrial Metals / by Peter Laznicka (2nd Ed.). Berlin : Springer Berlin Heidelberg , 2010. 978364212405. 168. Scandinavian Caledonide Metallogeny in a plate tectonic perspective. Grenne, T, Ihlen, P M and Vokes, F M. 5: 422-471, s.l. : Mineralium Deposita, 1999, Vol. 34. 1432-1866. 169. Source study of the Jan Mayen transform fault strike-slip earthquakes. Rodríguez-Pérez, Q and Ottemöller, L. :71-84, s.l. : Tectonophysics, 2014, Vol. 628. 0040-1951.
iv 86 References FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
170. Blischke, A, et al. The Jan Mayen microcontinent: an update of its architecture, structural development and role during the transition from the Ægir Ridge to the mid-oceanic Kolbeinsey Ridge. [book auth.] G Péron-Pinvidic, et al. The NE Atlantic Region: A Reappraisal of Crustal Structure, Tectonostratigraphy and Magmatic Evolution. London : Geological Society, 2016. 171. Crustal structure off Kong Oscar Fjord, East Greenland: Evidence for focused melt supply along the Jan Mayen Fracture Zone. Tobias, Hermann and Jokat, Wilfried. : 110-119, s.l. : Tectonophysics, 2016, Vol. 691. 0040-1951. 172. Magmatism: The Jan Mayen Hotspot, Arctic Atlantic Ocean. Kharin, G S and Eroshenko, D V. 2: 108-124, s.l. : Volcanology and Seismology, 2014, Vol. 8. 18197108. 173. Basin evolution and destruction in an Early Proterozoic continental margin: the Rinkian fold– thrust belt of central West Greenland. Grocott, John and McCaffrey , Kenneth J W. 3: 453-467, s.l. : Journal of the Geological Society, 2018, Vol. 174. 00167649. 174. Linking the Palaeoproterozoic Nagssugtoqidian and Rinkian orogens through the Disko Bugt region of West Greenland. Connelly, Jn, et al. : 319-335, s.l. : Journal of the Geological Society, 2006, Vol. 163. 0016-7649. 175. Predicting the Geothermal Heat Flux in Greenland: A Machine Learning Approach. Rezvanbehbahani, Soroush, et al. 24: 12271-12279, 2017, Vol. 44. 1944-8007. 176. Tracking the provenance of Greenland-sourced, Holocene aged, individual sand-sized ice-rafted debris using the Pb-isotope compositions of feldspars and 40Ar/39Ar ages of hornblendes. White, Lee F, et al. 192-203, s.l. : Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2016, Vol. 433. 012-821X. 177. Long-lived post breakup magmatism along the East Greenland margin: Evidence for shallow- mantle metasomatism by the Iceland plume. Storey, M, et al. 2: 172-176, s.l. : Geology, 2004, Vol. 32. 0091-7613. 178. The Iceland–Jan Mayen plume system and its impact on mantle dynamics in the North Atlantic region: Evidence from full-waveform inversion. : 39-51, s.l. : Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 367. 0012-821X. 179. Three distinct types of hotspots in the Earth’s mantle. Coutillot, Vincent, et al. 3: 295-308, s.l. : Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2003, Vol. 205. 012-821X. 180. NE Atlantic break-up: a re-examination of the Iceland mantle plume model and the Atlantic–Arctic linkage. Lundin, E R and Doré, A G. [ed.] A G Doré and B A Vining. London : Geological Society, 2005. Petroleum Geology: North-West Europe and Global Perspectives—Proceedings of the 6th Petroleum Geology. pp. 739-754. 181. The deep Earth origin of the Iceland plume and its effects on regional surface uplift and subsidence. Barnett-Moore, Nicholas, et al. 1: 5-254, s.l. : Solid Earth, 2017, Vol. 8. 18699529. 182. The Iceland–Jan Mayen plume system and its impact on mantle dynamics in the North Atlantic region: Evidence from full-waveform inversion. Rickers, Florian, Firchtner, Andreas and Trampert, Jeannot. 1: 39-51, s.l. : Earth and Planetry Science Letters, 2013, Vol. 367. 0012-821X. 183. High geothermal heat flux in close proximity to the Northeast Greenland Ice Stream. Rysgaard, Søren, et al. 1:1344-1344, s.l. : Scientific Reports, 2018, Vol. 8. 184. Paleofluvial Mega-Canyon Beneath the Central Greenland Ice Sheet. Bamber, Jonathan L, et al. 6149: 997-999, s.l. : Science, 2013, Vol. 341. 095-9203. 185. Precambrian Evolution of North and North-East Greenland: Crystalline Basement and Sedimentary Basins. Jepsen, Hans F and Kalsbeek, Feiko. 153-160, s.l. : Polarforschung, 1998, Vol. 68. 186. Kolb, Jochen. Description of the main metallogenic/kimberlite provinces. [book auth.] Rognvald Boyd, et al. Mineral Resources in the Arctic. Trondheim : Geological Survey of Norway, 2016.
References 87 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
187. Hronsky, Jon. East Greenland targeting - initial comments. [email to JA Bell, 18 May] Perth : Western Mining Services, 2017. 188. Formation of Sedimentary Rock-Hosted Stratiform Copper Deposits through Earth History. Hitzman, Murray W, Selley, David and Bull, Stuart. 3: 627-639, s.l. : Economic Geology, 2010, Vol. 105. 1554-0774. 189. Palaeokarst-influenced depositional and diagenetic patterns in Upper Permian carbonates and evaporites, Karstryggen area, central East Greenland. Scholle, Peter A, et al. 5: 895-918, s.l. : Sedimentology, 1993, Vol. 40. 1365-3091. 190. Geometry and Kinematics of the Triassic Rift Basin in Jameson Land (East Greenland). Guarnieri, P, Brethes, A and Rasmussen, T. 4: 602-614, s.l. : Tectonics, 2017, Tectonics, Vol. 36, pp. 36:1-13. 1944-9194. 191. Nielsen, Jesper K, Shen, Yanan and Piasecki, Stefan. No abrupt change in redox condition caused the end-Permian marine ecosystem collapse in the East Greenland Basin. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 291, 2010, Vols. 1: 32-38. 192. Structural evolution and basin architecture of the Traill Ø region, NE Greenland: A record of polyphase rifting of the East Greenland continental margin. Parsons, A J, et al. 3, s.l. : Geospher, 2017, Vol. 13. 1553040X. 193. The world's biggest relay ramp; Hold With Hope, NE Greenland. Peacock, D C P, et al. 7: 843- 850, s.l. : Journal of Structural Geology, 2001, Vol. 22. 0191-8141. 194. Neoproterozoic Lower Palaeozoic stratigraphical relationships in the marginal thin-skinned thrust belt of the East Greenland Caledonides: comparisons with the foreland in Scotland. Higgins, A K, Leslie , A G and Smith, M P. 2: 143-160, s.l. : Geological Magazine, 2001, Vol. 138. 0016-7568. 195. Marine ingressions into the Middle/Late Permian saline lake of the Southern Permian Basin (Rotliegend, Northern Germany) possibly linked to sea-level highstands in the Arctic rift system. Legler, Berit and Schneider, Jörg W. 1, s.l. : Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 2008, Vol. 267. 0031-0182. 196. Hot acidic Late Permian seas stifle life in record time. Georgiev, Svetoslav, et al. 3: 389-400, s.l. : Earth and Planetary Science LEtters, 2011, Vol. 310. 0012-821X. 197. NPD. Petroleum Resources on the Norwegian Continental Shelf 2013 Exploration. Stavanger : Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, 2013. 198. S-isotope studies of shallow water, laminated gypsum and associated evaporites, Upper Permian, East Greenland. Stemmerik, Lars, Rouse, John E and Spiro, Baruch. 1: 37-46, s.l. : Sedimentary Geology, 1988, Vol. 58. 0037-0738. 199. Climatic and eustatic controls on the development of a Late Triassic source rock in the Jameson Land Basin, East Greenland. Andrews, Steven D, et al. 5: 09-619, s.l. : Journal of the Geological Society, 2014, Vol. 171. 0016-7649. 200. Bojesen-Koefoed, Jorgen A, Alsen, Peter and Christiansen, Flemming Bennike. Six years of petroleum geological activities in North-East Greenland (2008–2013): projects and a view of the future. Copenhagen : eological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, 2013. 201. Permian-Triassic sedimentology of Jameson Land, East Greenland: incised submarine channels in an anoxic basin. Wignall, P and Twitchett, R. 6: 691-703, s.l. : Journal of the Geological Society, 2002, Vol. 159. 0016-7649. 202. Neoproterozoic basin evolution in Fennoscandia, East Greenland and Svalbard. Nystuen, J P, et al. 1: 35-43, s.l. : Episodes, 2008, Vol. 31. 705-3797.
iv 88 References FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
203. Sønderholm, Martin and Tirsgaard, Henrik. Lithostratigraphic framework of the Upper Proterozoic Eleonore Bay Supergroup of east and north-east Greenland. GGU Bulletin: Grønlands Geologiske Undersøglelse. 167, 1993. 204. Nussir. Projects. [Online] Nussir ASA, 2012. [Cited: 15 March 2018.] http://www.nussir.no/en_projec_nussir.php. 205. Evolution of a Late Proterozoic Carbonate Ramp (Ymer O and Andrée Land Groups, Eleonore Bay Supergroup, East Greenland): Response to Relative Sea-Level Rise. Frederiksen, K S. : 125-130, s.l. : Polarforschung, 2000, Vol. 68. 2190-1090. 206. Late Mesoproterozoic to early Neoproterozoic history of the East Greenland Caledonides: evidence for Grenvillian orogenesis? Kalsbeek, Feiko, et al. 6: 215-1225, s.l. : Journal of the Geological Society, 2000, Vol. 157. 00167649. 207. Relationships between Archaean and Palaeoproterozoic crystalline basement complexes in the southern part of the East Greenland Caledonides: an ion microprobe study. Thrane, Kristine. 1: 19- 42, s.l. : Precambrian Research, 2002, Vol. 113. 301-9268. 208. Stensgaard, Bo Møller, Kalvig, Per and Stendal, Henrik. Quantitative Mineral Resource Assessment: Sedimentary-hosted Copper in Greenland. s.l. : Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, 2011. 1396-7916. 209. Sønderholm, Martin, et al. Neoproterozoic sedimentary basins with glacigenic deposit of the East Greenland Caledonides. [book auth.] A K Higgins, Jane A Gilotti and Paul M Smith. The Greenland Caledonides: Evolution of the Northeast Margin of Laurentia. s.l. : Geological Society of America, 2008. 210. Basin-scale architecture of deeply emplaced sill complexes: Jameson Land, East Greenland. Eide, Christian Haug, et al. :23-40, s.l. : Journal of the Geological Society, 2016, Vol. 174. 211. Nickel-cobalt contents of olivine record origins of mantle peridotite and related rocks. Herzberg, Claude, Vidito, Christopher and Starkey , Natalie A. 9: 1952-1966, s.l. : The American Mineralogist, 2016, Vol. 101. 9453027. 212. Tertiary volcanism in northern E Greenland: Gauss Halvø and Hold with Hope. Upton, B G J, Emeleus, C H and Hald, N. 4: 491-508., s.l. : Journal of the Geological Society, 1980, Vol. 137. 2041- 479X. 213. A stratigraphical and palaeoenvironmental analysis of the sub-basaltic Palaeogene sediments of East Greenland. Jolley, D and Whitham, A. 1: 53-60, Vol. 10. 1354-0793. 214. Stensgaard, Bo Møller, Kalvig, Per and Stendal, Henrik. Quantitative mineral resource assessment: Sedimentary-hosted copper in Greenland. Copenhagen : Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, 2009. 215. Geochemistry and petrogenesis of S-type granites in the East Greenland Caledonides. Kalsbeek, Feiko, Jepsen, Hans F and Jones, Kevin A. 2-3: 91-109, s.l. : Lithos, 2001, Vol. 57. 0024-4937. 216. Prolonged Paleozoic Magmatism in the East Greenland Caledonides: Some Constraints from U- Pb Ages and Hf Isotopes. Rehnström, Emma F. 5: 447-465, s.l. : The Journal of Geology, 2010, Vol. 118. 15375269. 217. Crustal structure off Kong Oscar Fjord, East Greenland: Evidence for focused melt supply along the Jan Mayen Fracture Zone. Hermann, Tobias and Jokat, Wilfried. : 110-119, s.l. : Tectonophysics, 2016, Vol. 691. 040-1951. 218. Crustal Decoupling in Collisional Orogenesis: Examples from the East Greenland Caledonides and Himalaya. Hodges, K V. : 685-708, s.l. : Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 2016, Vol. 44. 1545-4495. 219. The foreland-propagating thrust architecture of the East Greenland Caledonides 72°–75°N. Higgins, A K, et al. : 1009-1026, s.l. : Journal of the Geological Society, 2008, Vol. 161.
References 89 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
220. Science of targeting: definition, strategies, targeting and performance measurement. Hronsky, J M A and Groves, D I. 1: 3-12, s.l. : Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 2008, Vol. 55. 221. Translating the mineral systems approach into an effective exploration targeting system. McCuaig, T Campbell, Beresford, Steve and Hronsky, Jon. 3: 128-138, s.l. : Ore Geology Reviews, 2010, Vol. 38. 0169-1368. 222. Mineral system analysis: Quo vadis. Hagemann, S G, Lisitsin, V A and Huston, D L. 504-522, s.l. : Ore Geology Reviews, 2016, Vol. 76. 0169-1368. 223. Wyborn, L A I, Heintich, C A and Jaques, A L. Australian Proterozoic Mineral Systems: Essential Ingredients and Mappable Criteria. [book auth.] P C Hallenstein. Australian mining looks north – the challenges and choices. Melbourne : Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 1994. 224. Read, Carveth. Logic: Deductive and Inductive. London : s.n., 1898. 225. Zipf's Law Unzipped. Baek, Seung Ki, Bernhardsson, Sebastian and Minnhagen, Petter. 2011, New Journal of Physics 13(4). 226. Risk and Uncertainty in Mineral Exploration: Implications for Valuing Mineral Exploration Properties. Kreuzer, O P and Etheridge, M A. Kalgoorlie : Kalgoorlie'07 Conference, 2010. Vols. 20- 28, pp. 20-27. 227. The Lognormal Distribution of Metal Resources in Mineral Distributions. Singer, D A. : 80-86, s.l. : Ore Geology Reviews, 2013, Ore Geology Reviews, Vol. 55, pp. 55:80-86. 0169-1368. 228. A Time-Series Ausdit of Zipf's Law as a Measure of Terrane Endowment and Maturity in Mineral Exploration. Guj, Pietro, et al. 2: 241-259, s.l. : Economic Geology, 2011, Economic Geology (106), Vol. 106, pp. 241-259. 229. A Brief History of Generative Models for Power Law and Lognormal Distribution. Mitzenmacher, Michael. 2: 226-251, s.l. : Mathematics, 2004, Internet Mathematics, Vol. 1, pp. 226-251. 1944-9488. 230. Dimri, V P. Fractal Behaviour of the Earth System. Berling Heidelberg : Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005. 231. Linking Mineral deposit models to quantitative risk analysis and decision-making in exploration. Kreuzer, Oliver P, et al. 4: 829-850, s.l. : Economic geology, 2008, Vol. 103. 03610128. 232. Translating the mineral systems approach into an effective exploration targeting system. McCauig, T Campbell, Beresford, Steve and Hronsky, Jon. 3: 128-138, s.l. : Ore Geology Reviews, 2010, Vol. 38. 0169-1368. 233. Hronsky, Jon. Regional-scale sed-Cu targeting: East Greenland (Eleonore Bay and Jameson Land Basins) - CONFIDENTIAL. Perth : Western Mining Services, 2017. 234. Fooling Ourselves – Dealing with Model Uncertainty in a Mineral Systems Approach to Exploration. McCuaig, Campbell T, Kreuzer, Oliver P and Brown, Warwick M. Dublin : Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial SGA Meeting, 2007. 235. Uses (and abuses) of ore deposit models in mineral exploration. Hodgson, C J. 2: 79-89, s.l. : Geoscience Canada, 1990, Vol. 17. 236. GEUS. The zinc potential in Greenland. Geology and ore: Exploration and mining in Greenland. 21, 2012. 237. —. Tungsten potential in Greenland. Geology and ore: Exploration and Mining in Greenland. 25, 2014. 238. Re-Os and Ar-40/Ar-39 ages of porphyry molybdenum deposits in the east Greenland volcanic- rifted margin. Brooks, K, et al. 6: 1215-1222, s.l. : Economic Geology, 2004, Vol. 99. 0361-0128.
iv 90 References FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
239. Exploration for scheelite in East Greenland — A case study. Hallenstein, C P, Pedersen, J L and Stendal, H. 1:381-392, s.l. : Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 1981, Vol. 15. 0375-6742. 240. Mineral occurrences in central East and North-East Greenland—new possibilities? Pedersen, M and Stendal, H. 1: 42-48, s.l. : Applied Earth Science, 2000, Vol. 109. 1743-2758. 241. Geology of the Enterprise Hydrothermal Nickel Deposit, North-Western Province, Zambia. Capistrant, Patricia L, et al. 1: 9-38, s.l. : Economic Geology, 2015, Vol. 110. 15540774. 242. Quantifying the recoverable resources of by-product metals: The case of cobalt. Mudd, G M, et al. :87-98, s.l. : Ore Geology Reviews, 2013, Vol. 55. 0169-1368. 243. Factors controlling the precipitation of copper and cobalt minerals in sediment-hosted ore deposits: Advances and restrictions. Muchez, Ph and Corbella, M. : 38-46, s.l. : Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 2012, Vol. 188. 0375-6742. 244. Curvature Attribute from Surface-Restoration as Predictor Variable in Kupferschiefer Copper Potentials. Mejía-Herrera, Pablo, et al. 3: 275-290, s.l. : Natural Resources Research, 2015, Vol. 24. 1573-8981. 245. World-class sediment-hosted stratiform copper deposits: Characteristics, genetic concepts and metallotects. Brown, A C. 3: 317-328, s.l. : Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 1997, Vol. 44. 1440- 0952. 246. Cox, Dennis P, et al. Sediment-Hosted Copper Deposits of the World: Deposit Models and Database. Washington : United States Geological Survey, 2003. Government Publication. 247. Constraints on Conceptual and Quantitative Modelling of Early Diagenetic Sediment-Hosted Stratiform Copper Mineralization. Brown, Alex C. 10:192, s.l. : Minerals, 2017, Vol. 7. 2075-163X. 248. Research Trends in Economic Geology….and do we use our knowledge to maximum benefit? Robb, L J. 110:7-8., s.l. : Society of Economic Geologists Newsletter, 2017. 249. USGS. Global assessment of undiscovered copper resources. Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data. [Online] United States Geological Survey, 2010. [Cited: 10 March 2018.] https://mrdata.usgs.gov/sir20105090z/. 250. GEUS. Magmatic nickel potential in Greenland. Geology and ore: Exploration and mining in Greenland. 24, 2013. 251. The mineral system approach applied to magmatic Ni–Cu–PGE sulphide deposits. Barnes, Stephen J, et al. : 296-316, s.l. : Ore Geology Reviews, 2016, Vol. 76. 169-1368. 252. Sulphide Sinking in Magma Conduits: Evidence from Mafic–Ultramafic Plugs on Rum and the Wider North Atlantic Igneous Province. 2: 383-416, s.l. : Journal of Petrology, 2016, Vol. 57. 460-2415. 253. The gyroscopic Earth and its role in supercontinent and metallogenic cycles. Yakubchuk, Alexander. 3: 387-398, s.l. : Ore Geology Reviews, 2008, Vol. 34. 0169-1368. 254. Noril’sk–Talnakh Cu–Ni–PGE deposits: a revised tectonic model. Yakkubchuk, Alexander and Nikishin, Anatoly. 2: 125-142, s.l. : Mineralium Deposits, 2004, Vol. 39. 1432-1866. 255. Metallogeny of Siberia: tectonic, geologic and metallogenic settings of selected significant deposits. Seltmann, R, et al. 6: 655-706, s.l. : Australian Journal of Earth Science, 2010, Vol. 57. 440-0952. 256. Hafnium-neodymium constraints on source heterogeneity of the economic ultramafic-mafic Noril'sk-1 intrusion (Russia). Malitch, K N, et al. 36-46, s.l. : Lithos, 2013, Vols. 164-167. 0024-4937. 257. Temporal variations in crustal assimilation of magma suites in the East Greenland flood basalt province: Tracking the evolution of magmatic plumbing systems. Peate, David W, Barker, Abigail K and Riishuus, Morten S. 1: 179-197, s.l. : Lithos, 2008, Vol. 102. 0024-4937. 258. Petrology of the Paleocene Picrites and Flood Basalts on Disko and Nuussuaq, West Greenland. Larsen, Lotte M and Pedersen, Asger K. 9: 1667-1711, s.l. : Journal of Petrology, 2009, Vol. 50. 1460- 2415.
References 91 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
259. Geochemistry of Tertiary tholeiites and picrites from Qeqertarssuaq (Disko Island) and Nuussuaq, West Greenland with implications for the mineral potential of comagmatic intrusions. Lightfoot, Peter C, et al. 2-3: 139-163, s.l. : Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 1997, Vol. 128. 1432-0967. 260. Bluejay. Disko-Nuussuaq (‘Disko’) magmatic massive sulphide nickel-copper-platinum-cobalt project in south west Greenland. Bluejay. [Online] Bluejay Mining Plc, 2018. [Cited: 4 April 2018.] https://www.titanium.gl/projects/disko-nickel-copper-cobalt-in-greenland/. 261. Pedersen, John L and Olesen, Bjarne Lund. Vein type tungsten and antimony mineralisation in central east Greenland. Copenhagen : Nordisk Mineselskab A/S, 1984. 262. Formation of a magmatic-hydrothermal ore deposit: insights with LA-ICP-MS analysis of fluid inclusions. Audetat, Gunther Heinrich. 5359: 2091-2094, s.l. : Science, 1998, Vol. 279. 1095-9203. 263. Tertiary mineralization and magmatism, East Greenland: lead isotope evidence for remobilization of continental crust. Jensen, Sven Monrad. 1, s.l. : Chemical Geology, 1998, Vol. 150. 0009-2541. 264. Hammarstron, Jan, et al. Sn and (or) W skarn and replacement deposits. Washington DC : United States Geological Survey, 1995. 265. Cox, Dennis P. Descriptive model of W skarn deposits. Washington DC : United States Geological Survey, 1986. 266. Wolf. Drakelands mine. Wolf Minerals. [Online] Wolf Minerals Ltd. [Cited: 8 March 2018.] http://www.wolfminerals.com.au/irm/content/drakelands-mine.aspx?RID=324&RedirectCount=1. 267. The Shape and Volume of the Skaergaard Intrusion, Greenland: Implications for Mass Balance and Bulk Composition. Nielsen, Troels F D. 3, s.l. : Journal of Petrology, 2004, Vol. 45. 1460-2415. 268. Mapping alteration minerals at Malmbjerg molybdenum deposit, central East Greenland, by Kohonen self-organizing maps and matched filter analysis of HyMap data. Bedini, Enton. 4, s.l. : International Journal of Remote Sensing, 2014, Vol. 33. 1366-5901. 269. Intrusion-related gold deposits associated with tungsten-tin provinces. Thompson, J F H, et al. 4: 323-334, s.l. : Mineralium Deposita, 1999, Vol. 34. 1432-1866. 270. Phanerozoic tin and tungsten mineralization—Tectonic controls on the distribution of enriched protoliths and heat sources for crustal melting. Romer, Rolf L and Kroner, Uwe. :60-95, s.l. : Gondwana Research, 2016, Vol. 31. 1342-937X. 271. High-level landscapes along the margin of southern East Greenland—A record of tectonic uplift and incision after breakup in the NE Atlantic. Bonow, Johan M, Japsen, Peter and Nielsen, Troels F D. : 10-29, s.l. : Global and Planetary Change, Vol. 116. 0921-8181. 272. Integrating 3D photogeology with aeromagnetic data as a tool for base-metal exploration in East Greenland. Guarnieri, Pierpaolo and Rasmussen, Thorkild Maack. 31: 71-74, s.l. : Geological Survey Of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin, 2014, Vol. 2014. 1604-8156. 273. Guarnieri, Pierpaolo, et al. Crustal Structure and Mineral Deposit Systems: 3D-modelling of base metal mineralization in Jameson Land (East Greenland). Copenhagen : Nordic Council of Ministers, 2016. 0908-6692. 274. Thomassen, Bjørn and Svensson, Lise Pless. Prospecting of the Permian Sediments of the Wegener Halvø, Mesters Vig South and Schucher Dal Areas, East Greenland. Copenhagen : Nordisk Mineselskab A/A, 1980. GEUS report file: 20704. 275. Caby, R. Prelminary results of mapping in the Caledonian rocks of Canning Land and Wegener Halvø, East Greenland. s.l. : Rapp. Grønlands Geol., 1972. Unders: 48:21-38. 276. CGRG. Kap Parry. CGRG. [Online] Czech Geological Research Group Ltd. [Cited: 14 March 2018.] http://www.cgrg.cz/projects.php?project=KapParry.
iv 92 References FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
277. Ghisler, M, Jensen, Aa and Stendal, H. Stratabound copper mineralization in the late Precambrian of the Greenland Caledonides. [book auth.] S Janković and R H Sillitoe. European Copper Deposits. Belgrade : Society for Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits, 1980. 278. Pedersen, John. Scheelite exploration in the Ymers O, Niklausdal, Nord Stauning Alper, Kalkdal and Alpefjord Areas, Central East Greenland. Copenhagen : Nordisk Mineselskab A/S, 1980. GEUS report file 20710. 279. Harpøth, Ole. The Noa Dal antimony-gold vein on Ymer Ø, central east Greenland. Copenhagen : Nordisk Minselskab A/S, 1986. GEUS report file: 20862. 280. Scheelite mineralisation in central east Greenland. Hallenstein, C P and Pedersen, J L. Copenhagen : Commission of the European Communities: Selected papers arising from the EEC primary raw materials programme (1978-81), 1983. 281. NunaMinerals. Renewed exploration for high-grade vein-type tungsten-antimony deposits in Central East Greenland: Hyperspectral, Radiometric and. [Powerpoint] Nuuk : NunaMinerals A/S, 2009. 282. Creative Commons. By Hannes Grobe, AWI - Own work, CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3237764. 283. Interpretation of aeromagnetic data in the Jameson Land Basin, central East Greenland: Structures and related mineralized systems. Brethes, Anaïs, et al. : 116-136, s.l. : Tectonophysics, 2018, Vols. 724-725. 0040-1951. 284. Geochemical prospecting for stratabound mineralization in late Precambrian sediments of East Greenland (72–74°N). Stendal, Henrik and Hock, Martin. 1, s.l. : Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 1981, Vol. 15. 0375-6742. 285. Ulansky, Chad. Assessment Report on the Umiiviit Exploration Licence. s.l. : Metalex Ventures Ltd, 2009. GEUS report file: 22151. 286. Kreuzer, Oliver. RE: GIS Geology Data. [email to Bell J, 5 April] Perth : X-plore Geoconsulting Pty Ltd, 2018. 287. Bruneau, Claude. Geophysical Survey in East Greenland. Bern : Geotest on behalf of Nordisk Mineselskab A/A, 1976. GEUS file report: 20801. 288. Pedersen, John and Oleson, Bjarne Lund. The scheelite and stibnite mineralization on west Ymers Ø in central east Greenland - A Compilation. Copenhagen : Nordisk Mineselskab A/S, 1984. GEUS Report file: 21050. 289. Tukiainen, Tapani. Projects MINEO and HyperGreen: airborne hyperspectral data acquisition in East Greenland for environmental monitoring and mineral exploration. Geology of Greenland Survey Bulletin. 189, 2001, Vols. : 122-126. 290. Bernstein, Stephan and Stendal, Henrik. Skype call with Hronsky J, Bell J and Saleem A. 19 May 2017. 291. Heincke, Björn Henning. SV: problems downloading SkyTEM dataset- Ymer Ø (Nanoq - ID nr.: 7299053). [email to Bell J] Copenhagen : Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Tue 3/04/2018 8:07 PM. 292. NunaMinerals. NunaMinerals A/S - Market Update. Global Newswire. [Online] 3 July 2016. [Cited: 15 March 2018.] https://globenewswire.com/news- release/2016/07/03/853329/0/en/NunaMinerals-A-S-Market-Update.html. 293. Harpøth, Ole. The Noa Dal antimony-gold vein on Ymer Ø, central East Greenland. Copenhagen : Nordisk Mineselskab A/S, 1985. GEUS report file: 20862. 294. USGS. Ladderbjerg (Giesecke Bjerge). Global assessment of undiscovered copper resources. [Online] United States Geological Survey, 2010. [Cited: 10 March 2018.] https://mrdata.usgs.gov/sir20105090z/show-sir20105090z.php?id=10528.
References 93 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
295. An investigation on a diesel jet’s ignition characteristics under cold-start conditions. Liu, Fushui, et al. : 511-519, s.l. : Applied Thermal Engineering, 2017, Vol. 121. 359-4311. 296. Computational evaluation of thermal management strategies in an underground mine. Sasmito, Agus P, et al. : 1144-1150, s.l. : Applied Thermal Engineering, 2015, Vol. 90. 1359-4311. 297. Internal combustion engine cold-start efficiency: A review of the problem, causes and potential solutions. Roberts, A, Brooks, R and Shipway, P. : 327-350, s.l. : Energy Conversion and Management, 2014, Vol. 82. 0196-8904. 298. Quantifying safety benefit of winter road maintenance: Accident frequency modelling. Usman, Taimur, Fu, Liping and Miranda-Moreno, Luis F. 6: 1878-1887, s.l. : Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2010, Vol. 42. 0001-4575. 299. Interaction of katabatic winds and mesocyclones near the eastern coast of Greenland. Klein, Thomas and Heinemann, Gunther. 4: 407-422, s.l. : Meteorological Applications, 2002, Vol. 9. 1350- 4827. 300. Laboratory Characterization of Cemented Tailings Paste Containing Crushed Waste Rocks for Improved Compressive Strength Development. 2: 645-662, s.l. : Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 2017, Vol. 35. 15731529. 301. The current investment landscape for mining, exploration & mineral sands. Sykes, John Paul. Perth : 19th Australian Mineral Sands Conference, 22 March, 2018. 302. Nordisk. Scheelite Project, Ymers Ø, Pre Feasibility Study. Copenhagen : Arctic Consultants Group for Nordisk Mineselskab A/A, 1982. 303. Rix, Tuperna. A study into economical and infrastructure requirements: Tungsten prospect at Ymer-island East Greenland. s.l. : NunaMinerals A/S, 2011. 304. The separation of chalcopyrite and chalcocite from pyrite in cleaner flotation after regrinding. Chen, Xumen, Peng, Yongjun and Bradshaw, Dee. 64-72, s.l. : Minerals Engineering, 2014, Vol. 58. 892-6875. 305. Process mineralogy of copper-nickel sulphide flotation by a cyclonic-static micro-bubble flotation column. Cao, Yi-Jun, et al. 6: 87-787, s.l. : Mining Science and Technology (China), 2009, Vol. 19. 1674-5264. 306. Dispersion effect on a lead–zinc sulphide ore flotation. Silvestre, M O, et al. 9: 752-758, s.l. : Minerals Engineering, 2009, Vol. 22. 0892-6875. 307. A significant improvement of scheelite flotation efficiency with etidronic acid. Kang, Jianhua, et al. : 858-865, s.l. : Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, Vol. 180. 0959-6526. 308. Sandfire. History. Sandfire. [Online] Sandfire Resources Ltd. [Cited: 15 March 2018.] http://www.sandfire.com.au/about/history.html. 309. Resolving bathymetry from airborne gravity along Greenland fjords. Boghosian, Alexandra, et al. 12: 8516-8533, s.l. : Journal of Geophysical Research, 2015, Vol. 120. 2169-9356. 310. BedMachine v3: Complete Bed Topography and Ocean Bathymetry Mapping of Greenland From Multibeam Echo Sounding Combined With Mass Conservation. Morlighem, M, et al. 21: 11,051- 11,061, s.l. : Geophysical Research Letters, 2017, Vol. 44. 1944-8007. 311. From mine to coast: transport infrastructure and the direction of trade in developing countries. Bonfatti, R and Poelhekke, S. : 91-108, s.l. : Journal of Development Economics, 2017, Vol. 127. 0304- 3878. 312. Chromite compositions in nickel sulphide mineralized intrusions of the Kabanga-Musongati- Kapalagulu Alignment, East Africa: Petrologic and exploration significance. Evans, David M. : 307- 321, s.l. : Ore Geology Reviews, 2017, Vol. 90. 0169-1368.
iv 94 References FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
313. Exploration Overview. Wilburn, D. 5: 51, s.l. : Mining Engineering, 1998, Vol. 50. 00265187. 314. Main characteristics and review of mineral resources of the Kabanga-Musongati mafic-ultramafic alignment in Burundi. Deblond, A and Tack, L. 2: 313-328, s.l. : Journal of African Earth Sciences, 1999, Vol. 29. 1464-343X. 315. ArcticPortal. Downloads. [Online] 2018. [Cited: 3 March 2018.] https://arcticportal.org/maps/download. 316. Greenland Resources. The Malmbjerg molybdenum project. [Online] January 2018. [Cited: 15 March 2018.] http://greenlandresources.ca/wp- content/uploads/2018/01/2018_Malmbjerg_GRI_v9.pdf. 317. Schodde, R C. Time delay between discovery and development – is it getting more difficult? MinEx. [Online] September 2017. [Cited: 15 March 2018.] http://www.minexconsulting.com/publications/sep2017b.html. 318. WorldBank. January 2018 Global Economic Prospects report. [Online] 9 January 2018. [Cited: 17 March 2018.] https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/28932/9781464811630.pdf. 319. What are metal prices like? Co-movement, price cycles and long-run trends. Rossen, Anja. : 245- 276, s.l. : Resources Policy, 2015, Vol. 45. 301-4207. 320. Investigating the effect of price process selection on the value of a metal mining asset portfolio. Collan, Mikael, Savolainen, Jyrki and Pasi, Luukka. 2: 107-1152191-2211, s.l. : Mineral Economics, 2017, Vol. 30. 321. A simple mineral market model: Can it produce super cycles in prices. Cuddington, John T and Zellou, Abdel M. 1: 75-87, s.l. : Resources Policy, 2013, Vol. 38. 0301-4207. 322. LME. Reference Prices. London Metal Exchange. [Online] Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing (LME Holdings Ltd), 2018. [Cited: 25 April 2018.] https://www.lme.com/Market-Data/LME- reference-prices. 323. World Bank. Commodity Markets. [Online] The World Bank, 2018. [Cited: 16 April 2018.] http://www.worldbank.org/en/research/commodity-markets. 324. Yahoo. CBOE Volatility Index (^VIX). Yahoo Finance. [Online] Verizon Communications Inc, 2018. [Cited: 16 April 2018.] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EVIX/. 325. IHS Markit. Press releases. Markit Economics. [Online] IHS Markit Ltd, 2018. [Cited: 16 April 2018.] https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/Page.mvc/PressReleases. 326. RBA. Historical data. [Online] Reserve Bank of Australia, 2018. [Cited: 16 April 2018.] https://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/historical-data.html. 327. Haubrich, Chris. Understanding the nature and causes of capital cost overruns in the mining industry from 2005-2013. s.l. : EBGN 690: Advanced Econometrics - Final Project, 2013. 328. Pillar mining at Polaris using frozen backfill. Proc 13th World Mining Congress, Improvement of Mine Productivity and Overall Economy by Modern Technology. Zahovskis, C N. Stockholm : Pillar mining at Polaris using frozen backfill: Zahovskis, C N Proc 13th World Mining Congress, Improvement of Mine Productivity and Overall Economy by Modern Technology, Stockholm, June 1987 V2, P915–924. Publ Rotterdam: A A Balkema, 1987, 1987. Vol. 26. 0148-9062. 329. Exploration History and Mineral Potential of the Central Arctic Zn-Pb District, Nunavut. Dewing, Keith, Sharp, Robert J and Muraro, Ted. 4: 415-427, s.l. : Arctic, 2006, Vol. 59. 00040843. 330. Mineral Exploration and Mine Developing Problems. Statement presented to the Public Lands Law Conference. Bailly, P A. Boise : University of Idaho, 1967. Public Lands Law Conference. p. 44pp. 331. Exploration: changing techniques and new theories will find new mines. Griffis, A T. s.l. : World Mining, 1971, World Mining, pp. 24:64-60.
References 95 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
332. Bartrop, Stephen B and Guj, Pietro. Estimating Historical Probabilities of Discovery in Mineral Exploration. Perth : Centre for Exploration Targeting, 2009. 333. GEUS. Magmatic nickel potential in Greenland. Geology and Ore: Exploration and mining in Greenland. 24, 2013. 334. A Detailed Assessment of Global Cu Resource Trends and Endowments. Mudd, Gavin M, Weng, Zhehan and Jowitt, Simon M. 5: 1163-1183, s.l. : Economic Geology, 2013, Vol. 108. 1554-0774. 335. A Detailed Assessment of Global Nickel Resource Trends and Endowments. Mudd, G M and Jowitt, S M. 7, s.l. : Economic Geology, 2014, Vol. 109. 15540774. 336. Schodde, Richard. Key Issues Affecting the Time Delay Between Discovery and Development. Minex Consulting. [Online] 3 March 2014. [Cited: 6 September 2016.] http://www.minexconsulting.com/publications/Schodde%20presentation%20to%20PDAC%20Mar ch%202014.pdf. 337. Circum-Arctic Mapping Project: New Magnetic Anomaly map Linked to the Geology of the Arctic. Gaina, Carment, et al. Trondheim : American Geophysical Union, 2008. 338. NGU. Arctic Gravity Project - History and Information. [Online] National Geo-spatial Intelligence Agency. [Cited: 10 March 2018.] http://earth- info.nga.mil/GandG/wgs84/agp/hist_agp.html. 339. Stoker, M S, et al. An overview of the Upper Palaeozoic–Mesozoic stratigraphy of the NE Atlantic region. [book auth.] G Péron-Pinvidic, et al. The NE Atlantic Region. London : Geological Society of London, 2016, pp. 11-68. 340. USGS. Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) 1 Arc-Second Global. [Online] January 2015. [Cited: 17 March 2018.] https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/SRTM1Arc. 341. Naalakkersuisut-GEUS. Geological Overview. Govmin. [Online] 2014. [Cited: 2 March 2018.] https://www.govmin.gl/minerals/geology-of-greenland/geology-of-greenland. 342. A Detailed Assessment of Global Nickel Resource Trends and Endowments. 7: 1813-1841, s.l. : Economic Geology, 2014b, Vol. 109. 5540774. 343. InfoMine. Charts & data. InfoMine. [Online] InfoMine Inc, 2018. [Cited: 16 March 2018.] http://www.infomine.com/ChartsAndData/ChartBuilder.aspx?z=f&gf=110540.USD.kg&dr=max&c d=1. 344. Guj, P, et al. A Time-series Audit of Zipf’s Law as a Measure of Terrane Endowment and Maturity in Mineral Exploration. Economic Geology. 2011, 100, pp. 241-259. 345. Meaningful Market Valuation of Exploration Assets. Lord, D, et al. Melbourne : Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2012. VALMIN Seminar Series Proceedings 2011/2012. pp. 75- 83. 346. The Existence of Metal Price Cycles. Labys, W C, Lesourd, J B and Badillo, D. 1998, Resources Policy, pp. 24(3):147-155. 347. Discovery, Supply and Demand: From Metals of Antiquity to Critical Metals. Sykes, J P, Wright, J P and Trench, A. 2016, Applied Earth Science, pp. 125(1):3-20. 348. ASIC. Mining and resources - Forward-looking statements. Australian Securities and Investments Commission. [Online] 12 October 2016. [Cited: 13 October 2016.] http://www.asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/takeovers/forward-looking-statements/mining-and- resources-forward-looking-statements/. 349. The Lognormal Distribution of Metal Resources in Mineral Deposits. Singer, Donald. 2013, Ore Geology Reviews, pp. 80-86.
iv 96 References FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
350. A Brief History of Generative Models for Power Law and Lognormal Distributions. Mitzenmacher, Michael. 2: 226-251, s.l. : Mathematics, 2004, Internet Mathematics, Vol. 1, pp. 226-251. 1944-9488. 351. Dimri, V P. Fractal Behaviour of the Earth System. Berling Heidelberg : Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005. 9783540265368. 352. Kochite, a new member of the rosenbuschite group from the Werner Bjerge alkaline complex, East Greenland. Christiansen, C Claes, Johnsen, Ole and gault, Robert A. 3: 551-544, s.l. : European Journal of Mineralogy, 2003, Vol. 15. 09351221. 353. Webmineral. Chalcocite Mineral Data. Webmineral. [Online] N/A, 5 September 2012. [Cited: 16 March 2018.] http://webmineral.com/data/Chalcocite.shtml#.WqrfT-huY2w. 354. —. Chalcopyrite Mineral Data. Webmineral. [Online] N/A, 5 September 2012. [Cited: 16 March 2018.] http://webmineral.com/data/Chalcopyrite.shtml#.WqrgT-huY2w. 355. Nornickel. Strategy update 2017: Investing in sustainable development. [Online] November 2017. [Cited: 18 March 2016.] https://www.nornickel.com/files/en/investors/cmd/20171117_Strategy_ENG_2017.pdf. 356. de Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel . DICHOS POPULARES. Su significado. [Web page] s.l. : Dr. Alex Diaz Consulting, 2018. 357. Pedersen, John. Supplementary notes on diamond drilling and prospection on Ymers Ø, Central East Greenland. Copenhagen : Nordisk Minselskab A/S, 1983. GEUS report file: 20781. 358. Airborne EM applied to sulphide nickel? examples and analysis. Wolfgram, P and Golden, H. 4: 136-140, s.l. : Exploration Geophysics, 2001, Vol. 32. 0812-3985. 359. GEUS. The mineral potential of the east Greenland Palaeogene Intrusions. Geology and Ore: Exploration and mining in Greenland. 6, 2006. 360. An example of synorogenic sediment-hosted copper mineralization: Geologic and geochronologic evidence from the Paleoproterozoic Nussir deposit, Finnmark, Arctic Norway. Perelló, J, et al. 3: 677- 689, s.l. : Economic Geology, 2015, Vol. 110. 15540774. 361. Nunaminerals. 1 YMER tungsten - antimony project 2013. [Microsoft Powerpoint] Copenhagen : Nunaminerals A/S, 2014.
24 CONSENT AND COMPLIANCE STATEMENT: BELL
The information in this Report that relates to Technical Assessment and Valuation of Mineral Assets reflects information compiled and conclusions derived by Jonathan Bell, who is a Member of The Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr. Bell has sufficient experience relevant to the Technical Assessment and Valuation of the Mineral Assets under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Specialist as defined in the 2015 edition of the ‘Australasian Code for the Public Reporting of Technical Assessments and Valuations of Mineral Assets’. Jonathan Bell consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.’
I, Jonathan Bell, do hereby certify that:
a) I am the Managing Director of Greenfields Exploration Ltd, of Level 14, 197 St Georges Terrace, Perth Western Australia, 6000;
b) This certificate applies to the Frontier Project Technical Assessment Report which has an Effective Date of 28 April 2018;
c) I am a Member of the Australian institute of Geoscientist (No. 3116), Graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (No. 0038531), Member of the Resources and
Consent and Compliance Statement: Bell 97 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Energy Association, and Associate of the Stockbrokers Association of Australia. I have sixteen years mining industry experience as a geologist, within which I have a decade of experience as a consulting mineral economist;
d) I have not visited Frontier, and rely on public domain information, government data and interviews with prior explorers in the region;
e) I am the responsible person for the entirety of this Report;
f) I am not financially independent of GExpl and as such do no meet tests of Independence as set out in ASIC Regulatory Guide 112 (7). However, I have exercised objective thinking and presented a balanced and referenced Report;
g) I am the founder, major shareholder, and Managing Director of GExpl;
h) I have read the definition of a Specialist set out in VALMIN (2015) and a Competent Person as set out in JORC (2012), and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association and past relevant work experience, I fulfil the requirements to be a Specialist for the purpose of VALMIN Reporting; and
i) as of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, those portions of the Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information required to be disclosed to make the report not misleading.
I Jonathan Bell:
j) have read VALMIN (2015) and JORC (2012) and have been prepared this Report in accordance with the minimum reporting criteria set out in those Codes;
k) confirm that I have read the Report and that it fairly and accurately represents the information for which I am responsible; and
l) consent to the inclusion of this Report in an offer document.
28 April 2018
Signature of Competent Person Date
iv 98 Consent and Compliance Statement: Bell FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
25 APPENDIX 1: JORC TABLE 1
Criteria Explanation Report section
Sampling Assay data presented in this document largely relates to geochemical sampling Sections 8, 9 techniques of rock chips. There are historical drill intersections that primarily relate to tungsten and antimony mineralisation within the Ymer Ø license. The samples were not taken by GExpl, and there is limited supporting documentation about the type of sample, assay technique, quality and quantity control, or representability.
Drill Diamond coring was used for all the historical drilling undertaken within Frontier. Section 7 techniques Diamond coring is a high-quality method and GExpl understands that half or quarter core is in storage.
Drill sample GExpl is unaware of what the drill recovery at the Holmesø copper occurrence Section 7 recovery was. The tungsten focussed drilling at Ymer Ø had nearly 100% core recovery. GExpl has no concerns over the in-situ representation.
Logging GExpl does not currently have the Holmesø copper logging, and only crude logs Section 7 relating to the Ymer Ø drilling. GExpl recommends that any historical core be re- logged.
Sub-sampling GExpl has no data relating to the sub-sampling techniques or sample Section 8 techniques preparation. and sample preparation
Quality of Much of the rock chip copper sampling is from the 1980s or older, and it is not Sections 6, 8,9 assay data possible to determine their quality. Greenfields considers that the historical and laboratory laboratory methods, and quality and quantity control measures, are insufficient tests by modern standards.
In 2011, Avannaa collected 36 rock samples for laboratory analysis as part of a reconnaissance program in the EBS. The results were submitted to a reputable analytical laboratory in Sweden and GExpl has no reason to doubt the quality of the results. The results of the 2011 program verify the order of magnitude of the historical results.
No data is available for the Ymer Ø assay data that resulted from the drilling programs. However, in 2009 a bulk sample was collected and submitted to a reputable laboratory for metallurgical test-work. The head grade of this sample supports the historical results.
GExpl considers that new drill-hole samples will need to be collected and assayed to ascertain the accuracy of the historical data and its suitability for use in preparing a Mineral Resource estimate.
Verification of GExpl is unaware of any third party independent verification of the sampling and Section 8 sampling and assay data. assaying
Appendix 1: JORC Table 1 99 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Criteria Explanation Report section
Location of The data locations and topographic control are based on information that is Sections 3.1,6, 7 data points publicly disclosed by GEUS and the Ministry of Mineral Resources. Grids are based on UTM Zone24N using the WGS84 Datum.
Data spacing The geochemical rock chip sampling is erratically distributed and based visual Section 7 and anomalism or physical/topographical availability. The Ymer Ø drilling is based on distribution drill platforms from which fans of holes were created. Due to the terrain, the drill platforms are irregularly spaced.
Orientation of No spacing and distribution information is currently understood by GExpl in Section 7 data in relation to the Ymer Ø mineralisation. As the known mineralisation is structurally relation to controlled, it is likely that the historical drilling was oriented sub-perpendicular to geological these structures. The mineralisation on Ymer Island is not GExpl’s immediate structure exploration priority and is not considered by the Company to be Material to the understanding of the Frontier’s main economic potential.
Sample GExpl has no information on the measures taken to ensure sample security. Section 8 security Given the age of the drilling, and the low-plausibility of sample tampering, GExpl has no cause for concern.
Audits or GExpl is unaware of any audits or reviews that have been carried out within Section 8 reviews Frontier.
Mineral GExpl holds five Special Exploration Licences and one Exploration Licence, Section 3.1 tenement and issued by the Government. Special Exploration Licences confer an exclusive land tenure right to explore for mineral for three years at a reduced holding cost, provided status each licence covers more than 1,000km2. After three years, the holder of Special Exploration Licence has the right to convert the area, whole or in part, to conventional Exploration Licences. Greenfields’ sixth license is a conventional exploration license. There are no ownership agreements or material issues relating to the beneficial interest of the licences. The licences largely inside the Northeast Greenland National Park. Exploration and mining are allowed in Greenland national parks but may subject to more stringent regulatory requirements. The successful permitting of the Citronen zinc mine, held by Ironbark Zinc Ltd provides precedent evidence on the ability to gain mining permits in the Northeast Greenland National park.
Exploration Previous explorers within the license areas include Avannaa, NunaMinerals, and Section 6 done by other Nordisk. Between 1952 and 1984, Nordisk carried out regional mapping, parties geochemical sampling and limited ground-based geophysical surveys, and minor drill programs mostly focussed on tungsten. Avannaa conducted heliborne reconnaissance in the EBS., and in conjunction with Anglo American, detailed work that largely focussed on areas to the south of Frontier. NunaMinerals conducted a heliborne geophysical survey over a comparatively small licence holding on Ymer Ø. GExpl is aware that other explorers were active in the region. However these do not appear to have involved much more than reconnaissance level exploration.
Geology The target deposit types are principally sedimentary-hosted deposits (Cu, Co, Sections 0 , Ni), conduit-hosted deposit (Ni, Cu, PGE), as well as felsic intrusion and vein 5.3.2 hosted deposits (Sn, W, Mo). Frontier is known to contain hydrothermal
iv 100 Appendix 1: JORC Table 1 FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Criteria Explanation Report section
polymetallic mineralisation, and the broader region intrusion-hosted molybdenum mineralisation. Within Frontier, intrusion-hosted tin is plausible.
Drill hole GExpl does not currently have the historical drill-hole data. However, Frontier is Section 7 information a regional exploration opportunity, and historical tungsten drill-holes, while interesting, are not core facets at the time of writing the report. Any future drilling by GExpl is likely to focus on work that may substantially increase the size of the system.
Data GEM has relied upon historical public domain information. The aggregation of Section 6, 7, 8, 9 aggregation data underlying this information is unknown. However, GExpl’s primary business methods plan is to focus on early stage exploration on which historical data is of secondary importance.
Relationship Based on sections and maps, it appears that for practical purposes drill-hole fans Section 7 between form fixed drill pads were used. This results in drill intersections of variable mineralisation orientation to the mineralisation. GExpl is not relying on historical drill width and intersections and does not consider this aspect to be material to the intercept understanding of Frontier. lengths.
Diagrams All relevant available maps and diagrams of relevance are presented in the main No significant body of this document. References are provided for all images. Due to the discovery being reproduction of imagery, there may be imperfections in scales, legends and reported similar cartographic elements.
Balanced GExpl has sourced and reasonably presented all available results, where Entire document reporting available. The reader is cautioned that geochemical rock chip samples, by their nature, are not representative samples. Geochemical rock chip samples are erratically collected, lack scale and design. Geochemical results must be viewed as empirical evidence of anomalism, and not as a representative indication of mineralisation. Furthermore, due to the historical nature of the samples, it is not possible at the time of publication, to perform checks and balances on the numbers quoted in the literature. To maximise transparency and legitimacy, GExpl has used citations extensively.
Other GExpl is not in possession of relevant geophysical data that relates to its Sections 4, 6 substantive licences. The Wegener Halvø project and Hesteskoen license were subject to exploration government funded, airborne electromagnetic surveys in the late 1990’s. GExpl data does not consider these surveys use particulalry useful to the understanding of Frontier’s mineral potentail, and are not suited to direct detection of sedimentary hosted copper. GExpl understands that there is airborne radiometric survey data covering all the licence area. However, as the radiometric surveys are from the 1970s, they are deemed not to be relevant and have not been sourced by GExpl. NunaMinerals performed a small airborne geophysical campaign, which was not suited to the detection of sedimentary hosted copper.
Further work The availability of data over much of the licence area is rudimentary and Section 22 sporadic. GExpl has identified that previous explorers have collected data that is not available in the GEUS data portal. It is unknown if the private datasets are or will be accessible. Future work is expected to include broad-scale geophysical surveys, geochemical sampling and field mapping programs. Such broad-scale data acquisition programs will serve the purpose of identifying areas of interest for follow up exploration. A review of the historical information is required before
Appendix 1: JORC Table 1 101 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Criteria Explanation Report section
a decision on whether, and when drilling focussed on extending known mineralisation should occur.
Database GExpl does not have access to the historical data records for the historical Sections 8, 9 integrity estimates within the Ymer Ø project. Geochemical data are available from GEUS, which maintains the integrity of the data. GExpl’s exploration approach is to collect modern baseline, regional scale data and as such, historical database integrity is a minimal risk to the understanding and prospectivity of Frontier.
Site visits GExpl has not conducted a site visit to Frontier. The region is identified by GExpl Section 2.6 as being prospective for minerals from a first-principles ‘mineral systems’ approach to targeting, supplemented by a deposit-model driven analysis to understand the historical anomalism. As GExpl’s licenses were issued in late December 2017, site access was not practical due to seasonal restrictions. Given the early-stage nature of much of the license area, no material insights were anticipated from a site visit.
Geological GExpl understands that the lithology controls much the interpretation of the Ymer Section 7, 11 interpretation Ø mineralisation and that it is based on surface mapping and diamond drill-hole data. The historical data is clear that the mineralisation is poddy, but where historical estimates were made, there was a reasonable degree of confidence. The mineralisation remains open at depth, and likely along strike.
Dimensions In North Margeries Dal, the largest vein contains both scheelite and stibnite in a Section 7, 11 breccia zone striking 80° and dipping 75°N. Stibnite predominates in the 65 m of the breccia zone nearest the main fault. It occurs as decimetre-thick massive veins and as thin veinlets in the hanging wall of the breccia zone in the limestone. Scheelite is observed in the brecciated limestone of this 65 m long zone, but only as scattered grains. West of the stibnite-dominated zone, the brecciated limestone is mineralised along strike for 110 m, mostly with scheelite, but also with stibnite. Sampling of the entire 110 m long zone indicates contents of 0.8% W and 2.4% Sb with a thickness averaging 3 m. Dolomitisation and silicification of the limestone are also present in the breccia zone. Several other mineralised lenses occur in an overlying limestone unit up to 40 m north of the main fault. They are up to 1 m thick, 10 to 15 m long and contain about 1% W but no antimony. The tungsten (scheelite) occurs as breccia fillings in second-order fault structures. Similar small scheelite-mineralised lenses have been in second-order structures in the overlying limestone approximately 200 m east of the main mineralisation (GEUS, 2014).
The main mineralisation of South Margeries Dal is in a vein in an ENE-striking breccia zone, dipping 80°N, and without any noticeable amount of displacement. The zone is up to 3 m wide and can be followed from the bottom to the top of the 100 m thick, lowermost limestone unit. Scheelite occurs as breccia fillings in the limestone and is particularly concentrated in the breccia zone in the lower half of the unit (GEUS, 2014).
Estimation GExpl does not know that estimation technique was used the Ymer Ø historical Section 11 and modelling estimates. However, GExpl postulates that they may be simplistic polygonal techniques estimates. Using precise diamond drill-hole information.
iv 102 Appendix 1: JORC Table 1 FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Criteria Explanation Report section
Moisture GExpl has not identified any moisture content records. The known mineralisation Section 8 occurs in fresh rock, and by and large, Frontier contains fresh rock. However, moisture content may be a consideration in poorly consolidated sediment.
Cut-off GExpl does not know what, if any, cut-off parameters were used in the Ymer Ø Section 11 parameters historical estimates.
Mining factors Work carried out by previous explorers assume that the Ymer Ø mineralisation Section 13 or is suited to selective underground mining methods. Given the steep terrain over assumptions much of Frontier, the climate and general operating conditions, GExpl considers that underground methods are more plausible than open pit methods.
Metallurgical NunaMinerals (2012) states that “scoping level metallurgical testing on a Section 10 factors or scheelite sample from NunaMinerals’ South Margeries Dal tungsten deposit, assumptions Ymer Island, Greenland, has been conducted by SGS Minerals Services UK on behalf of NunaMinerals. The testing of a surface bulk sample demonstrates that the mineralisation can be upgraded to approximately 65% WO3 by using a staged grind recovery strategy by gravity means alone. The head grade for the feed sample was 3.64% WO3 with contaminant such as Cu, Pb, Zn, As, Bi and S at low levels. The head grade is consistent with the historical average grade for South Margeries Dal tungsten deposit calculated by Nordisk Mineselskab A/S in the 1980’s. Heavy liquid testing conducted on a feed sample crushed through 11.3 mm showed that a separation made at 2.75 g/cm3 would reject 85% of the weight whilst loosing just 10% of the tungsten suggesting that this could serve as a very effective means of pre-concentration. Gravity release analysis performed on material passing through 1 mm has shown that liberation can be attained within coarse fractions, though increasing with decreasing particle size. Excellent grades were achievable in all fractions tested, with ultimate liberation occurring below 125 μm. The maximum grade achieved from this testing was around 65% WO3 and was observed in fractions below 125 μm. This liberation point is supported by mineralogical analysis. Flotation testing has shown that good grades can be achieved on feed material ground through 80% passing 106 μm. Maximum attained grade was 55.1% WO3. Although it has not been tested, it may be possible that this concentrate could be cleaned using a table circuit as the main mineral contaminants appear to be calcite, quartz and dolomite or diopside, all minerals with a density around 2.75 g/cm3 in contrast to the density of scheelite at 6.1 g/cm3”.
Environmental GExpl is unaware of any environmental factors or assumptions that relate to the Section 3.2 factors or Ymer Ø license. Frontier is located within the Arctic circle and is subject to an assumptions Arctic desert climate that is moderated by the Atlantic Ocean. Daylight is seasonal, and the Project largely sits within a park (mining and exploration are permitted). As GExpl postulates that an underground mine is more plausible than an open pit mine, mine and processing waste may be used to fill underground voids, thereby limiting the risk of environmental contamination.
Bulk density The Ymer Ø historical estimates used a bulk density of 2.9 t/m3. Section 11
Classification The Ymer Ø interpretations predate the JORC/CRIRSCO family of reporting Section 11 standards and are classified as an unreliable historical estimate.
Appendix 1: JORC Table 1 103 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Criteria Explanation Report section
Audits and Greenfields is unaware of any formal audits and reviews on the Ymer Ø Section 9 reviews mineralisation but postulates that NunaMinerals may have performed in-house analysis of the historical estimates.
26 APPENDIX 2: LICENSE DETAILS
Table 6: Frontier SEL and EL details
Eleonore North Eleonore South Gauss Halvø Hesteskoen Wegener Halvø Ymer Ø Details Nodes Details Nodes Details Nodes Details Nodes Details Nodes Details Nodes ID: 26.05°W, ID: 24.68°W, ID: 24.68°W, ID: 24.25°W, ID: 23.43°W, ID: 24.18°W, 2018/01 74.08°N 2018/02 72.43°N 2018/03 72.43°N 2018/04 72.33°N 2018/05 72.13°N 2018/19 73.23°N Grant: 24.6°W, Grant: 24.53°W, Grant: 24.53°W, Grant: 24.15°W, Grant: 23.42°W, Grant: 25.05°W, 2/01/18 74.08°N 2/01/18 72.43°N 2/01/18 72.43°N 2/01/18 72.33°N 2/01/18 72.13°N 20/12/17 73.23°N Expires: 24.6°W, Expires: 24.53°W, Expires: 24.53°W, Expires: 24.15°W, Expires: 23.42°W, Expires: 25.05°W, 1/01/21 73.92°N 1/01/21 72.42°N 1/01/21 72.42°N 1/01/21 72.32°N 1/01/21 72.12°N 01/01/23 73.17°N Type: 24.57°W, Type: 24.5°W, Type: 24.5°W, Type: 24.13°W, Type: 23.23°W, 25.12°W, SEL 73.92°N SEL 72.42°N SEL 72.42°N SEL 72.32°N SEL 72.12°N Type: EL 73.17°N km2: 24.57°W, km2: 24.5°W, km2: 24.5°W, km2: 24.13°W, km2: 23.23°W, 25.12°W, 4850 73.9°N 1830 72.38°N 2433 72.38°N 1637 72.3°N 2155 72.1°N km2: 70 73.15°N 24.55°W, 24.47°W, 24.47°W, 24.12°W, 23.15°W, 25.15°W, 73.9°N 72.38°N 72.38°N 72.3°N 72.1°N 73.15°N 24.55°W, 24.47°W, 24.47°W, 24.12°W, 23.15°W, 25.15°W, 73.88°N 72.37°N 72.37°N 72.28°N 72.08°N 73.13°N 24.52°W, 24.4°W, 24.4°W, 23.95°W, 23.1°W, 25.05°W, 73.88°N 72.37°N 72.37°N 72.28°N 72.08°N 73.13°N 24.52°W, 24.4°W, 24.4°W, 23.95°W, 23.1°W, 25.05°W, 73.87°N 72.35°N 72.35°N 72.2°N 72.03°N 73.15°N 24.48°W, 24.33°W, 24.33°W, 24.08°W, 22.93°W, 25.02°W, 73.87°N 72.35°N 72.35°N 72.2°N 72.03°N 73.15°N 24.48°W, 24.33°W, 24.33°W, 24.08°W, 22.93°W, 25.02°W, 73.85°N 72.37°N 72.37°N 72.23°N 72°N 73.22°N 24.43°W, 24.28°W, 24.28°W, 24.2°W, 22.85°W, 24.18°W, 73.85°N 72.37°N 72.37°N 72.23°N 72°N 73.22°N 24.43°W, 24.28°W, 24.28°W, 24.2°W, 22.85°W, 73.83°N 72.35°N 72.35°N 72.12°N 71.98°N 24.38°W, 24.25°W, 24.25°W, 24.08°W, 22.82°W, 73.83°N 72.35°N 72.35°N 72.12°N 71.98°N 24.38°W, 24.25°W, 24.25°W, 24.08°W, 22.82°W, 73.72°N 72.15°N 72.15°N 72.1°N 71.97°N 24.43°W, 25.38°W, 25.38°W, 24.17°W, 22.7°W, 73.72°N 72.15°N 72.15°N 72.1°N 71.97°N 24.43°W, 25.38°W, 25.38°W, 24.17°W, 22.7°W, 73.7°N 72.8°N 72.8°N 72.07°N 71.95°N 24.45°W, 25.37°W, 25.37°W, 24.1°W, 22.52°W, 73.7°N 72.8°N 72.8°N 72.07°N 71.95°N 24.45°W, 25.37°W, 25.37°W, 24.1°W, 22.52°W, 73.68°N 72.87°N 72.87°N 72.05°N 71.87°N 24.47°W, 25.18°W, 25.18°W, 24.23°W, 22.75°W, 73.68°N 72.87°N 72.87°N 72.05°N 71.87°N 24.47°W, 25.18°W, 25.18°W, 24.23°W, 22.75°W, 73.63°N 72.88°N 72.88°N 71.98°N 71.77°N 24.45°W, 25.17°W, 25.17°W, 24.32°W, 22.83°W, 73.63°N 72.88°N 72.88°N 71.98°N 71.77°N 24.45°W, 25.17°W, 25.17°W, 24.32°W, 22.83°W, 73.62°N 72.9°N 72.9°N 71.95°N 71.75°N 24.43°W, 24.05°W, 22.93°W, 73.62°N 71.95°N 71.75°N 24.43°W, 24.05°W, 22.93°W, 73.6°N 72.02°N 71.73°N 24.38°W, 24°W, 22.97°W, 73.6°N 72.02°N 71.73°N 24.38°W, 24°W, 22.97°W, 73.53°N 72.05°N 71.72°N 24.57°W, 23.95°W, 23°W, 73.53°N 72.05°N 71.72°N 24.57°W, 23.95°W, 23°W, 73.55°N 72.1°N 71.68°N 24.67°W, 24°W, 22.93°W, 73.55°N 72.1°N 71.68°N 24.67°W, 24°W, 22.93°W, 73.48°N 72.12°N 71.7°N
iv 104 Appendix 2: License Details FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Eleonore North Eleonore South Gauss Halvø Hesteskoen Wegener Halvø Ymer Ø Details Nodes Details Nodes Details Nodes Details Nodes Details Nodes Details Nodes 24.83°W, 23.9°W, 22.9°W, 73.48°N 72.12°N 71.7°N 24.83°W, 23.9°W, 22.9°W, 73.43°N 72.27°N 71.72°N 24.38°W, 23.72°W, 22.82°W, 73.43°N 72.27°N 71.72°N 24.38°W, 23.72°W, 22.82°W, 73.42°N 72.23°N 71.73°N 24.18°W, 23.62°W, 22.73°W, 73.42°N 72.23°N 71.73°N 24.18°W, 23.62°W, 22.73°W, 73.23°N 72.18°N 71.75°N 25.05°W, 23.58°W, 22.68°W, 73.23°N 72.18°N 71.75°N 25.05°W, 23.58°W, 22.68°W, 73.17°N 72.15°N 71.77°N 25.12°W, 23.43°W, 22.6°W, 73.17°N 72.15°N 71.77°N 25.12°W, 23.43°W, 22.6°W, 73.15°N 71.8°N 71.78°N 25.15°W, 24.68°W, 22.53°W, 73.15°N 71.8°N 71.78°N 25.15°W, 24.68°W, 22.53°W, 73.13°N 72.15°N 71.8°N 25.05°W, 24.25°W, 22.38°W, 73.13°N 72.15°N 71.8°N 25.05°W, 24.25°W, 22.38°W, 73.15°N 72.33°N 71.73°N 25.02°W, 22.47°W, 73.15°N 71.73°N 25.02°W, 22.47°W, 73.22°N 71.72°N 24.18°W, 22.5°W, 73.22°N 71.72°N 24.18°W, 22.5°W, 72.9°N 71.7°N 24.33°W, 22.53°W, 72.9°N 71.7°N 24.33°W, 22.53°W, 72.88°N 71.68°N 24.57°W, 22.57°W, 72.88°N 71.68°N 24.57°W, 22.57°W, 72.9°N 71.67°N 24.58°W, 22.62°W, 72.9°N 71.67°N 24.58°W, 22.62°W, 72.92°N 71.65°N 24.6°W, 22.42°W, 72.92°N 71.65°N 24.6°W, 22.42°W, 73°N 71.68°N 24.45°W, 22.33°W, 73°N 71.68°N 24.45°W, 22.33°W, 73.02°N 71.75°N 24.78°W, 22.27°W, 73.02°N 71.75°N 24.78°W, 22.27°W, 72.9°N 71.77°N 25.35°W, 22.15°W, 72.9°N 71.77°N 25.35°W, 22.15°W, 72.88°N 71.73°N 25.52°W, 22.07°W, 72.88°N 71.73°N 25.52°W, 22.07°W, 73.02°N 71.75°N 25.7°W, 21.9°W, 73.02°N 71.75°N 25.7°W, 21.9°W, 73.12°N 71.7°N 25.83°W, 21.98°W, 73.12°N 71.7°N 25.83°W, 21.98°W, 73.75°N 71.67°N 25.83°W, 22.07°W, 73.95°N 71.67°N 26.05°W, 22.07°W, 73.95°N 71.65°N 26.05°W, 22.22°W, 74.08°N 71.65°N 22.22°W, 71.63°N 22.08°W, 71.63°N
Appendix 2: License Details 105 Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Eleonore North Eleonore South Gauss Halvø Hesteskoen Wegener Halvø Ymer Ø Details Nodes Details Nodes Details Nodes Details Nodes Details Nodes Details Nodes 22.08°W, 71.6°N 22.15°W, 71.6°N 22.15°W, 71.58°N 22.43°W, 71.58°N 22.43°W, 71.57°N 22.5°W, 71.57°N 22.5°W, 71.63°N 22.8°W, 71.63°N 22.8°W, 71.5°N 22.55°W, 71.5°N 22.55°W, 71.47°N 22.52°W, 71.47°N 22.52°W, 71.45°N 22.5°W, 71.45°N 22.5°W, 71.42°N 22.48°W, 71.42°N 22.48°W, 71.37°N 22.47°W, 71.37°N 22.47°W, 71.33°N 23.43°W, 71.33°N 23.43°W, 72.13°N
iv 106 Appendix 2: License Details FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
27 APPENDIX 3: SUPPORTING FIGURES
Figure 61: Jan Mayan Fault Zone
Source: Bamber et al. (2013) (184). The green rectangle approximates Frontier’s location.
Appendix 3: Supporting figures 107
Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Figure 62: Greenland’s grand canyon
Source: Bamber et al. (2013) (184). The green rectangle in the overview map approximates Frontier’s location.
Figure 63: Magnetic map of the Arctic
Source: Original image by Gaina et al. (2008) (337), with black interpretation lines added by GExpl in the image on the right. The green rectangle Frontier’s location.
iv 108 Appendix 3: Supporting figures FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 64: Gravity map of Greenland
Source: Original image by NGU (undated) (338), with black interpretation lines of the JMFZ added by GExpl. The green rectangle approximates Frontier’s location.
Appendix 3: Supporting figures 109
Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Figure 65: Stratigraphic distribution of Permian-Triassic-aged rocks
Source: Stoker et al. (2016) (339). The green rectangle approximates Frontier’s location.
iv 110 Appendix 3: Supporting figures FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 66: Neoproterozoic-aged sedimentary basins of Fennoscandia, east Greenland and Svaldbard
Source: Nystuen et al. (2018) (202), The green rectangle approximates Frontier’s location.
Appendix 3: Supporting figures 111
Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Figure 67: Igneous activity of the North Atlantic Igneous Province
Source: Brookes (2011) (159)
iv 112 Appendix 3: Supporting figures FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 68: Comparison of the historical and current nomenclature for the Neoproterozoic-aged sediments
Source: Sønderholm & Tirsgaard (203)
Appendix 3: Supporting figures 113
Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Figure 69: Extrapolation of the JMFZ using topographic data
Frontier
Source: Generated by GExpl using data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (340). Note, the extrapolation was also guided by the demarcation between the Aegean and Anatolian Plates.
iv 114 Appendix 3: Supporting figures FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 70: Mineral occurrences in Greenland
Source: Government of Greenland and GEUS (2014) (341). Frontier licence area is contained within the green rectangle.
Appendix 3: Supporting figures 115
Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Figure 71: Government hyperspectral and radiometric survey areas
Source: Government of Greenland and GEUS (2013) (150). Frontier licence area is contained within the green rectangle.
iv 116 Appendix 3: Supporting figures FRONTIER PROJECT | Technical Assessment
Figure 72: Copper deposit type tonnes and grade
Source: Generated by GExpl using information on averages published by Mudd et al. (2014) (334). Note: bubble size is the product of the contained metal and the grade.
Figure 73: Cobalt deposit type tonnes and grade
Source: Generated by GExpl using information on averages published by Mudd et al. (2013) (242). Note: bubble size is the product of the contained metal and the grade
1.80 Figure 74: Nickel sulphide 1.60 Impact related type 1.40 tonnes and grade 1.20 Proterozoic komatiite
Source: Generated by 1.00 Hydrothermal - other GExpl using information 0.80 Miscenllaneous averages published by Flood basalt Mudd et al. (2014b) (342). 0.60 Archaean komatiite Layered intrusive
Note: bubble size is the 0.40 Intrusion related Quality (nickel grade, %) grade, (nickel Quality product of the contained 0.20 metal and the grade. Note: Fe-Ni alloy there are very few known - Sediment-hosted examples of sediment- 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 hosted nickel, which may Quantity (million tonnes of rock) affect the distribution.
Appendix 3: Supporting figures 117
Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Figure 75: Ferro-tungsten price
Source: InfoMine (2018) (343)
iv 118 Appendix 3: Supporting figures
28 APPENDIX 4: AVANNAA GEOCHEMICAL ASSAY RESULTS
Sample Area Sample Altitude Longitude Latitude Sample Lithology Stratigraphy Sample Description no. Type m (Eastings) (Northings)
1721 Kirschdalen rock float 1001 -25.1381 72.5547 vein quartz ? vein quartz with chalcopyrite
1722 Jägmästarens Ø rock grab 13 -24.7056 72.4668 vein quartz EBSG bed 5 4 cm thick quartz veins with chalcopyrite and stibnite (?)in white quartzite bed
1723 Jägmästarens Ø rock grab 13 -24.7056 72.4668 sandstone EBSG bed 5 30 cm thick. yellow sandstone with malachite
1724 Jägmästarens Ø rock grab 4 -24.705 72.4664 quartzite EBSG bed 5 quartzite with malachite and stibnite (?)
1725 Jägmästarens Ø rock grab 13 -24.7056 72.4668 vein quartz EBSG bed 5 quartzite with chalcopyrite-bearing quartz veins
1726 Magdalena Sø rock grab 563 -25.4492 73.8692 vein quartz EBSG 1-2 cm thick quartz veins with minor chalcopyrite and galena
1727 Magdalena Sø rock grab 569 -25.4492 73.8725 sandstone EBSG typical flaser bedded sandstone with trace pyrite
1728 Magdalena Sø rock float 595 -25.445 73.8725 vein quartz EBSG vein quartz with galena and chalcopyrite
1729 Magdalena Sø rock grab 635 -25.4427 73.8733 vein quartz EBSG 15 cm thick quartz vein cutting malachite-stained silty shale
1730 Holmesø rock grab 133 -24.8399 73.7736 green siltstone EBSG bed 7 1 m thick green siltstone bed with traces of chalcocite
1731 Holmesø rock grab 148 -24.831 73.7738 green siltstone EBSG bed 7 1.5 m thick green siltstone bed with traces of chalcocite
1732 Holmesø rock grab 160 -24.8248 73.774 green siltstone EBSG bed 7 1.5 m thick green siltstone bed with traces of chalcocite
1733 Morænedal W rock chip 563 -25.3491 73.7231 green siltstone EBSG bed 7 1 m chip sample of 2-3 m thick siltstone bed with traces of chalcocite (lower green siltstone)
1734 Morænedal W rock chip 606 -25.3506 73.7229 green siltstone EBSG bed 7 1 m chip sample of 3 m thick siltstone bed with traces of chalcocite (upper green siltstone)
1735 Morænedal W rock grab 606 -25.3506 73.7229 green siltstone EBSG bed 7 "high grade" composite sample from 1734 loc.
1736 Morænedal E rock chip 566 -25.3257 73.7188 green siltstone EBSG bed 7 1 m chip sample of 3 m thick siltstone bed with traces of chalcocite (upper green siltstone)
1737 Morænedal E rock grab 566 -25.3257 73.7188 green siltstone EBSG bed 7 "high grade" composite sample from 1736 loc.
1745 Holmesø rock grab 115 -24.8329 73.7723 white quartzite ESBG 6 typical tetrahedrite-bearing white quartzite from blast site
1767 Lyell Land rock float 882 -25.1311 72.5524 oolitic carbonate ? oolitic carbonate float. likely from Andree Land group. contains pyrite as 1 cm rounded blebs
1768 Kap Petersens rock float 132 -24.6736 72.4116 EGB7 red siltstone EGB7 red siltstone of EGB7 float with 10 cm wide vein of quartz carbonate chlorite and sulfides of pyrite and chalcopyrite and galena. vein perpendicular to bedding
1782 Lyell Land float 1009 -25.1382 72.5587 quartzite rusty quartzite w. Lenses of coarse grained rounded qz grains w interstitial pyrite. 1783 Jägmästarens Ø grab 100 -24.645 72.4895 siltstone ymer group 1 m thick green siltstone layer. maLachite stained + specs of sulphides - looks stratabound. The layer seems to be continously
1784 Magdalena Sø chip 575 -25.4459 73.8681 siltstone/shale ymer group interbedded siltstone and shale occasionally malachite stained. 1.5m 1785 Magdalena Sø float 618 -25.444 73.8733 between bed 6 and 7 lyell group - ymer group hydrothermal altered quartzite w galena mineralisation
1786 Holmesø chip 121 -24.8336 73.7729 siltstone bed 7 ymer group red siltstone - foot nwall 0.7m 1787 Holmesø chip 121 -24.8336 73.7729 siltstone bed 7 ymer group green siltstone occassionally with blebs of chalcosite 1.15m 1788 Holmesø chip 121 -24.8336 73.7729 siltstone bed 7 ymer group red siltstone - hanging wall 1m 1789 Morænedal chip 575 -25.3361 73.722 siltstone bed 7 ymer group representative sample of the green silstone w. Lenses of chalcosite w. Reddish bornite 1m 1851 Magdalena Sø grab 757 -25.3736 73.8588 siltstone EBG7 Cu mineralization in green siltstone. no. 2. Chalcosite blebs to 50mm. concentrated in middle 50cm. Unit is 3m thick
1852 Magdalena Sø chip 757 -25.3736 73.8588 siltstone EBG7 Chip through 3m green siltstone
1853 Holmesø chip 151 -24.8244 73.7743 siltstone EBG7 Chip through 1.5m green siltstone no. 2. Sporadic Cu mineralizations
1854 Holmesø grab 174 -24.827 73.7749 red porphyry na 10m thick red prophyry. NW of Cu mineralization in quartzite in Holmesø Area (Gruner&Probst map). Dyke is about 10m wide.
1855 Magdalena Sø chip 914 -25.2518 73.8864 siltstone EBG7 chip through 2m green siltstone bed no. 2 with sporadic Cu mineralizations
1856 Magdalena Sø chip 495 -25.3593 73.8201 Siltstone EBG7 chip through 2m green siltstone bed no. 2 with sporadic Cu mineralizations
Appendix 4: Avannaa geochemical assay results 119
Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
Sample Ag Al (%) As Au Ba Be Bi Ca (%) Cd Ce Co Cr Cs Cu Fe (%) Ga Ge Hf In K (%) La Li no. (ppm) (ppm) (ppb) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
1721 <1 0.13 <50 <50 <10 <20 3.44 <10 10 10 2450 1.83 <50 0.1 <50
1722 <1 0.88 <50 110 <10 <20 0.06 <10 <10 20 560 0.91 <50 0.3 <50
1723 5 2.61 <50 200 <10 <20 0.28 <10 <10 20 7730 1.07 <50 1.2 <50
1724 3 1.25 <50 70 <10 <20 0.41 <10 <10 20 6060 0.88 <50 0.4 <50
1725 <1 1.07 <50 <50 <10 <20 0.83 <10 <10 20 190 0.94 <50 0.1 <50
1726 <1 2.66 <50 380 <10 <20 2.19 <10 20 30 30 2.65 <50 1 <50
1727 <1 5.36 <50 440 <10 <20 <0.05 <10 10 60 10 4.11 <50 3.1 <50
1728 27 0.63 <50 <50 <10 70 0.14 <10 <10 20 250 1.97 <50 0.2 <50
1729 <1 0.07 <50 <50 <10 <20 <0.05 <10 10 40 10 0.89 <50 <0.1 <50
1730 3 4.95 <50 180 <10 <20 1.26 <10 10 50 4530 1.46 <50 2.7 <50
1731 1 5.8 <50 190 <10 20 2.41 <10 20 40 1490 2.5 <50 1.4 <50
1732 3 4.96 <50 240 <10 <20 2.09 <10 10 40 3940 1.98 <50 1.6 <50 1733 3.31 7.08 1.4 10 280 3.61 2.04 3.38 0.05 88.4 17.5 35 4.99 2790 2.61 23 0.28 3.1 0.093 2.66 41.6 56.7 1734 0.84 6.1 1.3 1 650 2.1 0.34 3.61 0.03 86.7 18.1 30 2.38 786 2.52 19.75 0.3 3 0.068 1.05 42.4 99.5 1735 31.9 5.95 19.6 32 2630 1.84 8.79 4.54 0.09 79.9 18.6 26 2.14 >10000 2.64 19.45 0.22 2.7 0.066 0.93 39.1 99.5 1736 0.27 6.41 1.2 1 350 2.44 0.13 2.83 0.02 92.5 17 32 2.75 319 2.5 20.8 0.29 3.2 0.071 1.27 45.4 100 1737 10.5 5.74 27.1 7 530 1.87 1.82 7.71 0.09 83.9 16.9 26 2.03 >10000 2.41 18.65 0.2 2.8 0.071 0.92 41.2 96.9
1745 28 0.28 530 1050 <10 <20 <0.05 10 10 1620 35500 1.47 <50 0.2 <50
1767 <1 0.12 <50 <50 <10 <20 33.7 <10 <10 10 <10 0.89 <50 0.1 <50
1768 <1 2.11 <50 <50 <10 <20 1.76 <10 10 20 130 4.24 <50 0.1 <50
1782 1 0.66 <50 <1 <50 <10 <20 <0.05 <10 <10 20 10 2.29 <50 0.2 <50
1783 <1 5.6 <50 610 <10 <20 0.24 <10 10 40 160 3.33 <50 2.4 <50
1784 <1 5.27 <50 710 <10 <20 0.05 <10 10 70 30 4.23 <50 3.1 <50
1785 242 0.24 90 <50 <10 570 <0.05 <10 10 20 350 2.83 <50 0.1 <50
1786 <1 4.84 <50 290 <10 <20 4.73 <10 10 50 <10 3.04 <50 2 <50
1787 1 5.45 <50 370 <10 <20 2.13 <10 20 50 1340 2.28 <50 1.6 <50 1788 <1 5.12 <50 1160 <10 <20 1.61 <10 10 30 10 3.19 <50 2.1 <50 1789 1 5.26 <50 510 <10 <20 2.52 <10 10 30 500 2.3 <50 1.2 <50
1851 2 5.92 <50 1660 <10 20 2.77 <10 20 30 3690 2.63 <50 1.1 <50
1852 <1 5.49 <50 340 <10 20 2.94 <10 10 30 320 2.28 <50 1.1 <50 1853 2 5.1 <50 340 <10 <20 2.74 <10 20 30 1140 2.08 <50 1.6 <50
1854 1 6.2 <50 3420 <10 <20 2.24 <10 10 50 20 3.62 <50 2.9 210
1855 1 5.67 <50 860 <10 <20 2.2 <10 10 30 1630 2.3 <50 1.2 <50 1856 <1 5.52 <50 260 <10 20 2.59 <10 10 30 170 2.29 <50 1.2 <50
Sample Mg (%) Mn Mo Na (%) Nb Ni P (ppm) Pb Rb Re S (%) Sb Sc Se Sn Sr Ta Te Th Ti Tl U V W Y Zn Zr Cu Ag Pb (%) no. (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (%) (ppm)
1721 1.56 150 <10 <0.05 20 <50 <20 0.67 <50 <10 10 <50 <0.05 <50 <50 <10 <50 <20
1722 0.33 100 <10 0.05 <10 80 <20 <0.05 <50 <10 <10 <50 <0.05 <50 <50 <10 <50 20
1723 0.41 120 <10 0.86 <10 130 <20 0.09 <50 <10 30 <50 0.13 <50 <50 30 <50 30
1724 0.37 120 <10 0.22 <10 50 20 0.09 <50 <10 20 <50 <0.05 <50 <50 10 <50 20
1725 0.21 310 <10 0.63 <10 240 <20 <0.05 <50 <10 50 <50 <0.05 <50 <50 <10 <50 20
1726 0.61 990 <10 0.44 10 250 190 <0.05 <50 <10 280 <50 0.14 <50 <50 30 <50 30
1727 0.81 280 <10 1.17 10 260 20 <0.05 <50 10 20 <50 0.46 <50 <50 90 <50 60
iv 120 Appendix 4: Avannaa geochemical assay results
Sample Mg (%) Mn Mo Na (%) Nb Ni P (ppm) Pb Rb Re S (%) Sb Sc Se Sn Sr Ta Te Th Ti Tl U V W Y Zn Zr Cu Ag Pb (%) no. (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (%) (ppm)
1728 0.17 300 <10 <0.05 <10 50 19250 0.29 <50 <10 10 <50 <0.05 <50 <50 10 <50 430
1729 <0.05 230 <10 <0.05 10 <50 30 <0.05 <50 <10 10 <50 <0.05 <50 <50 <10 <50 <20
1730 3.07 220 <10 1.21 10 520 50 0.12 <50 10 70 <50 0.38 <50 <50 110 <50 110
1731 5.85 700 <10 0.82 10 490 <20 <0.05 <50 10 60 <50 0.34 <50 <50 60 <50 230
1732 4.76 590 <10 0.77 20 520 <20 0.1 <50 10 60 <50 0.33 <50 <50 60 <50 220 1733 3.74 1280 16.4 1.12 18 23.6 430 2920 110.5 <0.002 0.12 1.26 13.1 4 4.1 70.3 1.34 0.06 12.1 0.365 0.85 3.6 59 1.6 30 162 98.1 1734 5.37 724 0.33 0.97 15.1 22.1 440 14.2 57.8 <0.002 0.04 0.21 12 3 3 107.5 1.06 <0.05 13.5 0.306 0.33 2.9 47 1.1 29.9 229 97.7 1735 5.42 833 3.14 0.92 13.9 23.3 400 40.6 51.1 <0.002 0.96 1.06 11.3 5 2.6 172.5 0.95 0.05 12.4 0.275 0.35 3.2 44 1 29.4 221 88.1 4 1736 5.35 616 0.36 1.02 16.3 21.7 480 8.7 71.8 <0.002 0.02 0.2 13 3 3.2 84 1.15 <0.05 14 0.324 0.39 3.6 53 1.2 28.9 217 106 1737 5.14 1160 2.94 0.88 13.8 20.1 460 30.6 51.6 <0.002 0.34 0.63 11.9 6 2.6 181.5 0.99 <0.05 12.3 0.272 0.3 8 43 1.1 87.9 198 89 1.33
1745 0.07 90 <10 0.06 10 60 60 2.25 27500 <10 30 <50 <0.05 <50 <50 <10 <50 6090
1767 3.81 150 <10 <0.05 <10 <50 <20 0.43 <50 <10 530 <50 <0.05 <50 <50 <10 <50 <20
1768 1.31 1130 <10 0.18 10 50 190 <0.05 <50 <10 90 <50 <0.05 <50 <50 10 <50 170
1782 0.07 60 <10 <0.05 10 <50 <20 1.06 <50 <10 <10 <50 <0.05 <50 <50 10 <50 <20
1783 1.06 440 <10 2.02 10 290 30 <0.05 <50 10 70 <50 0.43 <50 <50 60 <50 120
1784 0.89 180 <10 0.91 20 380 20 <0.05 <50 10 20 <50 0.45 <50 <50 120 <50 90
1785 <0.05 120 <10 <0.05 <10 <50 >10000 2.43 <50 <10 10 <50 <0.05 <50 <50 <10 <50 670 >200 16.45 0 1786 3.77 1060 <10 0.86 20 460 190 <0.05 <50 10 150 <50 0.27 <50 <50 30 <50 90
1787 4.53 590 <10 0.9 20 500 40 <0.05 <50 10 100 <50 0.32 <50 <50 50 <50 190 1788 3 440 <10 1.06 10 440 50 <0.05 <50 10 130 <50 0.32 <50 <50 40 <50 120 1789 4.81 630 <10 1.28 20 460 30 <0.05 <50 10 150 <50 0.33 <50 <50 50 <50 220
1851 5.68 540 <10 1.07 20 470 30 0.1 <50 10 100 <50 0.33 <50 <50 50 <50 250
1852 4.83 610 <10 1.14 20 490 20 <0.05 <50 10 70 <50 0.33 <50 <50 50 <50 210 1853 4.94 680 <10 0.74 10 470 <20 <0.05 <50 10 80 <50 0.32 <50 <50 50 <50 220
1854 1.42 530 <10 2.12 20 2140 110 0.08 <50 10 2380 <50 0.46 <50 <50 70 <50 90
1855 4.89 550 <10 1.33 20 480 20 <0.05 <50 10 100 <50 0.34 <50 <50 50 <50 200 1856 4.76 630 <10 1.31 10 510 <20 <0.05 <50 10 60 <50 0.35 <50 <50 50 <50 190
Appendix 4: Avannaa geochemical assay results 121
Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
29 APPENDIX 5: YMER Ø DRILL DATA
The drill information below for Ymer Ø is reproduced directly from the source document (Pedersen & Olesen 1984 (261)). GExpl contacted GEUS to determine if electronic data for these drillholes is available, and if local grid conversion is available. GExpl was advised that the source document is the only data available. As GExpl is proposing to focus primarily on Frontier’s copper and nickel potential, the uncertainty of the drill collar locations is not considered material. As part of GExpl’s work program, it intends to collate and refine the historical information, which includes the Ymer Ø drill information.
iv 122 Appendix 5: Ymer Ø drill data
Appendix 5: Ymer Ø drill data 123
Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
iv 124 Appendix 5: Ymer Ø drill data
Appendix 5: Ymer Ø drill data 125
Greenfields Exploration Ltd | April 2018
iv 126 Appendix 5: Ymer Ø drill data