TSX: RMX | OTCQX: RBYCF
TORONTO,
April 30, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -
Rubicon Minerals Corporation (TSX: RMX | OTCQX: RBYCF)
("Rubicon" or the "Company") is pleased to report an
updated Mineral Resource Estimate ("2018 Mineral Resource
Estimate") for the Phoenix Gold Project (the "Project").
The Company plans to file an updated NI 43-101 Technical Report for
the Project within 45 days.
Table 1: 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate at 3.0 grams
per tonnes of gold ("g/t Au") Cut-Off
Grade1 - Effective April 30, 2018
|
Resource
Category
|
Quantity
(000'tonnes)
|
Grade
(g/t
Au)
|
Contained
Gold
Ounces
|
Measured
(M)
|
188
|
6.80
|
41,000
|
Indicated
(I)
|
1,186
|
6.30
|
240,000
|
M +
I
|
1,374
|
6.37
|
281,000
|
Inferred
|
3,884
|
6.00
|
749,000
|
- Effective date for this Mineral Resource is April 30, 2018
- Mineral Resource Estimate uses a break-even economic
cut-off grade of 3.0 g/t Au based on assumptions of a gold price of
US$1,300 per ounce, an exchange rate
of US$/C$ 0.77, mining cash
costs2 of C$97/t,
processing costs of C$20/t, G&A
of C$5/t, sustaining capital
C$10/t, refining,
transport and royalty costs of C$53/oz, and average gold
recoverability of 92%
- Mineral Resource Estimate reported from within an
envelope accounting for mineral continuity
- Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not
demonstrate economic viability
- There is no certainty that all or any part of this
Mineral Resource will be converted into Mineral Reserve
- All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy
of the estimates and totals may not add correctly
_______________________________
|
1
|
There is no certainty
that the Inferred Mineral Resources will be converted to the
Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource categories, that the
Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources will be converted to the
Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve categories and there is no
certainty that the updated Mineral Resource statement will be
realized. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not
have demonstrated economic viability; the estimate of Mineral
Resources in the updated Mineral Resource statement may be
materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title,
taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant
issues.
|
2
|
Mining cash cost
components include in-stope mining costs, underground utilities,
material handling, and development costs.
|
Table 2: Comparison between
20183 and
20164 Estimated Quantities at
Reported Cut-Off Grades – 3.0 g/t Au (2018
Mineral Resource Estimate), 3.5 g/t Au and 4.0 g/t Au(Historic 2016
Mineral Resource Estimate4)
|
Cut-off
Grade
Classification
|
Quantity (000'
tonnes)
|
Grade (g/t
Au)
|
Contained Gold
Ounces
|
20183
|
20162
|
Change
|
20183
|
20162
|
Change
|
20183
|
20162
|
Change
|
3.0 g/t
Au
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Measured
(M)
|
188
|
0
|
N/A
|
6.80
|
0
|
N/A
|
41,000
|
0
|
N/A
|
Indicated
(I)
|
1,186
|
719
|
65%
|
6.30
|
5.71
|
10%
|
240,000
|
132,000
|
82%
|
Total
M+I
|
1,374
|
719
|
91%
|
6.37
|
5.71
|
12%
|
281,000
|
132,000
|
113%
|
Inferred
|
3,884
|
2,491
|
56%
|
6.00
|
5.18
|
16%
|
749,000
|
415,000
|
80%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.5 g/t
Au
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Measured
(M)
|
155
|
0
|
N/A
|
7.54
|
0
|
N/A
|
38,000
|
0
|
N/A
|
Indicated
(I)
|
964
|
601
|
60%
|
7.01
|
6.19
|
13%
|
217,000
|
120,000
|
81%
|
Total
M+I
|
1,119
|
601
|
86%
|
7.08
|
6.19
|
14.4%
|
255,000
|
120,000
|
113%
|
Inferred
|
3,146
|
1,959
|
61%
|
6.64
|
5.71
|
16.3%
|
672,000
|
360,000
|
87%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.0 g/t
Au
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Measured
(M)
|
129
|
0
|
N/A
|
8.29
|
0
|
N/A
|
35,000
|
0
|
N/A
|
Indicated
(I)
|
779
|
492
|
58%
|
7.78
|
6.73
|
16%
|
195,000
|
106,000
|
84%
|
Total
M+I
|
909
|
492
|
85%
|
7.86
|
6.73
|
17%
|
230,000
|
106,000
|
117%
|
Inferred
|
2,556
|
1,519
|
68%
|
7.31
|
6.28
|
16%
|
601,000
|
307,000
|
96%
|
|
Base case scenario
for the 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate is at the 3.0 g/t Au
cut-off. Other scenarios are shown for comparison purposes.
|
_______________________________
|
3
|
There is no certainty
that the Inferred Mineral Resources will be converted to the
Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource categories, that the
Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources will be converted to the
Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve categories and there is no
certainty that the updated Mineral Resource statement will be
realized. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not
have demonstrated economic viability; the estimate of Mineral
Resources in the updated Mineral Resource statement may be
materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title,
taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant
issues.
|
4
|
The 2016 Estimates
are not current and should not be relied upon.
|
Key Points:
Based on a 3.0 g/t Au cut-off grade:
- Measured and Indicated Resources increased 113% to
281,000 ounces of gold compared to 2016 Indicated Resources
(Measured Resources were not estimated in 2016) of 132,000 ounces
of gold; Measured and Indicated grades increased 12% to 6.37 g/t Au
compared to 2016 Indicated gold grades of 5.71 g/t Au;
- Inferred Resources increased 80% to 749,000 ounces of
gold compared to 2016 Inferred Resources of 415,000 ounces of gold;
Inferred grades increased 16% to 6.00 g/t Au compared to 2016
Inferred grades of 5.18 g/t Au; and
- The increase in Mineral Resources is mainly attributed
to, and supported by, a re-interpretation of geological and
structural controls on mineralization along with recognizing the
potential for larger scale mining, rather than focusing entirely on
a narrow-vein mining plan, which resulted in broader mineral
domains.
General observations and commentary
- Reported Measured Resources for the first time in the
history of the Project;
- New interpretation of the geological and structural
controls on gold mineralization;
- Considerations for potential bulk mining
methods;
- 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate includes exploration data
up to November 30, 2017 (which
includes 23,500 metres ("m") of oriented
drilling);
- Early observations from the 2018 infill drilling and
underground development samples from test mining appear to show
grades consistent with the 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate, but it
is still too early to complete mining reconciliations and draw
conclusions;
- Potential to further upgrade the classifications and
expand the 2018 Mineral Resources with data from 5,000 m of drilling completed in the fourth
quarter of 2017 and activities from the 2018 Exploration
Program, including test mining and an additional
24,000 m of drilling;
and
- Conference call with Rubicon's senior management will be
held today at 10:00am ET.
Canada/ U.S. toll-free dial-in
number +1 (888) 231-8191,
International dial-in number +1 (647) 427-7450, webcast
link:
https://event.on24.com/wcc/r/1665362/858E306DCFE37785798419DFE29660AE.
Rubicon President and Chief Executive Officer George Ogilvie, P.Eng., stated, "On the back of
a successful 2017 Exploration Program, we are pleased to deliver
the 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate, which demonstrates a
significant increase in ounces, grades, and tonnes at the Phoenix
Gold Project. This is an important step forward towards potentially
advancing the Project to a viable commercial operation. We are
uniquely positioned compared to other junior gold explorers because
we have substantial mine infrastructure in place, including a new
state-of-the-art 1,250-tonne per day mill, a completed tailings
management facility, a 200-person camp, earth and civil works in
place, a fully commissioned hoist and headframe, a shaft that is
approximately 730-metres deep, mobile equipment and more than nine
kilometres of underground development. We also have approximately
C$687 million in tax loss pools that
could be utilized in a potential viable commercial operation
scenario. I am also pleased to report that the Company deployed
shareholder capital efficiently, resulting in a finding cost of
approximately C$7 per
ounce5."
"We delivered the 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate ahead of
schedule mainly because we saw significant growth in the Mineral
Resources after we finalized our internal estimates. Other factors,
such as finalizing the structural geology interpretation, the
encouraging initial results from the closely spaced 2018 test stope
infill drilling and development samples during test mining, and the
review by two reputable external consultants in Golder Associates
and Tim Maunula and Associates
Consulting, give us additional confidence in the 2018 Mineral
Resource Estimate."
"We are pleased with the progress achieved to-date and we
believe there is still further potential to improve upon the 2018
Mineral Resource Estimate. Our current exploration and test mining
activities provides us with the potential opportunity to
significantly enhance both the quantities and the classifications
of the 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate at a future date."
_______________________________
|
5
|
Calculated as all
direct costs associated with the 2017 Exploration Program and
attributable overhead.
|
2018 Geological Model of the F2 Gold
Deposit
The 2018 geological model benefits from information that
was not previously available in 2016, including approximately
3,500 m of oriented structural
drilling, 20,000 m of oriented infill
and step-out drilling, the structural re-logging of 10,000 m of historical core, and detailed
structural mapping carried out in 2017. The Company believes the
new geological information provides a better understanding of the
structural and lithological controls on the distribution of the
gold mineralization, its grade, and its continuity, of the F2 Gold
Deposit. On March 12, 2018, Rubicon,
Golder Associates Ltd. ("Golder") and peer reviewer T.
Maunula and Associates (together, "Consultants") provided an
updated preliminary interpretation of the structural geology of the
F2 Gold Deposit ("Structural Interpretation"), which has
since been finalized. According to the Structural Interpretation,
the primary controls on the gold mineralization are the
well-established dextral Riedel vein system of quartz-actinolite
veins (the "Riedel vein system") that occur within the
biotite and silica altered basaltic mafic volcanic flows ("HiTi
Basalt Units") (the main host rock for gold mineralization) and
the quartz-feldspar porphyry felsic dykes and sills ("Felsic
Intrusive Units") (to a lesser extent). The Riedel vein system
demonstrates greater continuity of gold mineralization within the
HiTi Basalt Units compared to the 2016 structural interpretation.
Rubicon believes the Structural Interpretation has allowed for the
evaluation of bulk mining methods for the Project. For further
details on the Structural Interpretation, please refer to the
Rubicon news release on March 12, 2018.
Using the Structural Interpretation as the basis for an
updated geological model, the Company and its Consultants were able
to interpolate a greater volume of gold mineralization within the
HiTi Basalt Units. This resulted in a significant increase in the
mineralized tonnes and ounces throughout the deposit compared to
the 2016 Mineral Resource estimate. Rubicon believes additional
exploration work (drilling, development, test mining and bulk
sampling) is required to further improve and reconcile the
geological model for the F2 Gold Deposit.
2018 Mineral Resource Estimate
The 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate6 (see Table
1 above) benefits from 483,303
m7 of core drilling in 1,343 drill holes carried
out from February 2008 to
November 2017, along with the
re-logging of approximately 10,000 m
of historical core, detailed structural mapping, and existing data
from development mapping and underground wall sampling (chip
samples). The 2018 Mineral Resource model covers a strike length of
approximately 1,200 m and depths up
to 1,350 m and remains open along
strike and at depth. The 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate excludes
the crown pillar, depleted resources, and information below the
1,350 m elevation.
The 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate was evaluated using a
geostatistical block modelling approach constrained by mineral and
stratigraphic domains interpreted from the drill hole and mapping
data. The block model grades were interpolated using inverse
distance cubed ("ID3"), which the Company evaluated as the
most representative method. Rubicon assessed other grade
interpolation methodologies, including ordinary kriging
("OK") and inverse distance squared ("ID2"), and
determined that the ID3 estimates controlled grade smoothing the
best and achieved an appropriate grade-tonnage profile relative to
the characteristics of the deposit. Density data was assigned based
on average values for each stratigraphic unit.
The block model was classified in accordance with Canadian
Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum ("CIM")
Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves
(May 2014). Drill spacing for Mineral
Resources in the Measured, Indicated, and Inferred categories were
approximately up to 20 m, 20-to-40 m,
and 40-to-80 m centres, respectively, where geology and grade
continuity were reasonably understood. Measured Resources required
a minimum of a 20 m by 20 m drill spacing with sub-level development,
mapping, chip samples and supported by reconciliation where
available. Measured and Indicated Resources are all located near
existing underground infrastructure and development.
The Mineral Resources are sensitive to the selection of
reporting assumptions. The sensitivity of the Mineral Resource
estimates to the selection of cut-off grade is summarized as grade
tonnage data in Table 3 below. The classified Mineral Resources
reported by underground level are tabulated in Table 6 (at the end
of this news release). Please see Diagrams 1, 2, and 3 (at the end
of this news release) showing the conceptual plan view and cross
sections of Zones 1 and 2 (the two main mineral domains) of the
2018 Mineral Resource blocks in the Measured, Indicated, and
Inferred categories, and Exploration Target areas.
At a 3.0 g/t Au cut-off grade for the 2018 Mineral
Resource Estimate, Rubicon is evaluating a potential bulk mining
scenario for the F2 Gold Deposit. The Company is currently testing
the sub-level long-hole mining method for its three test stopes and
anticipates extracting a bulk sample between 25,000 to 30,000
tonnes, which will be processed at the Company's mill. Rubicon
intends to reactivate its mill later this year. Observations and
results from its test mining activities will allow the Company to
confirm the amenability of possible bulk mining methods.
_______________________________
|
6
|
There is no certainty
that the Inferred Mineral Resources will be converted to the
Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource categories, that the
Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources will be converted to the
Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve categories and there is no
certainty that the updated Mineral Resource statement will be
realized. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not
have demonstrated economic viability; the estimate of Mineral
Resources in the updated Mineral Resource statement may be
materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title,
taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant
issues.
|
7
|
Excludes certain
historic holes drilled from surface angled down-plunge into the
deposit.
|
Table 3: 2018 Mineral Resource Sensitivity Analysis at
Potential Mining Cut-off
Grades8
|
|
Measured +
Indicated Classification
|
Inferred
Classification
|
Cut-off Grade
(g/t Au)
|
Quantity
(000't)
|
Grade
(g/t Au)
|
Contained Gold
Ounces (000)
|
Quantity
(000't)
|
Grade
(g/t Au)
|
Contained
Gold
Ounces
(000)
|
2.0
|
2,167
|
4.94
|
344
|
6,475
|
4.58
|
954
|
2.5
|
1,729
|
5.62
|
313
|
5,045
|
5.24
|
851
|
*3.0
|
1,373
|
6.37
|
281
|
3,884
|
6.00
|
749
|
3.5
|
1,119
|
7.08
|
255
|
3,146
|
6.64
|
672
|
4.0
|
909
|
7.86
|
230
|
2,556
|
7.31
|
601
|
4.5
|
745
|
8.65
|
207
|
2,070
|
8.04
|
535
|
5.0
|
623
|
9.42
|
189
|
1,725
|
8.70
|
483
|
*Base Case Scenario:
Mineral Resource Estimate uses a break-even economic cut-off grade
of 3.0 g/t Au
|
_______________________________
|
8
|
There is no certainty
that the Inferred Mineral Resources will be converted to the
Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource categories, that the
Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources will be converted to the
Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve categories and there is no
certainty that the updated Mineral Resource statement will be
realized. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not
have demonstrated economic viability; the estimate of Mineral
Resources in the updated Mineral Resource statement may be
materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title,
taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant
issues.
|
Comparison Between the 2018 and 2016 Minerals Resource
Estimates9
The 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate has been developed by
building on the Company's historical exploration activity. The 2018
Mineral Resource Estimate included additional data from the 2017
Exploration Program, which was not available during the
determination of the 2016 Mineral Resource Estimate9. At
the reporting cut-off grade of 3.0 g/t Au, the 2018 Measured and
Indicated Resources' tonnes, grade, and gold ounces increased by
91%, 12% and 113%, respectively, compared to the 2016 Indicated
Mineral Resources (Measured Resources were not estimated). The 2018
Inferred Mineral Resources' tonnes, grade, and gold ounces
increased by 56%, 16%, and 80%, respectively, compared to the 2016
Inferred Resources. The expansion of the Mineral Resources is
mainly attributed to, and supported by, a re-interpretation of
geological and structural controls on mineralization along with
recognizing the potential for larger scale mining, rather than
focusing entirely on a narrow-vein mining plan, which resulted in
broader mineral domains. The comparison between the 2018 Mineral
Resource Estimate and 2016 Mineral Resource Estimate are summarized
in Table 2 (above). The Company believes it has deployed more
reasonable controls and estimation parameters to produce a
representative geological model and 2018 Mineral Resource
Estimate. A summary of the key parameters used for the 2018
Mineral Resource Estimate and comparison to the 2016 Mineral
Resource Model is included in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Summary of Key Parameters that Contributed
to the Changes in Mineral Resources between 2018 and
20169
|
Parameter
|
2018
Mineral
Resource
Estimate
|
2016
Mineral
Resource
Estimate9
|
Material
Impact
|
Informing
Data
|
Data from drilling
and development samples
|
- 1,343 core drill
holes
- 438,303 m (3,500 m
of oriented structural drilling; 20,000 m of oriented infill and
step-out drilling)
- Chip samples
included with a 10 m distance
restriction
|
- 1,381 core drill
holes
- 450,175
m
- No oriented
core
- Chip samples were
excluded
|
Re-interpretation of
geological and structural models
|
Detailed
maping
|
- >9,000 m of
underground development and exposure of gold mineralization in test
stoping
- Updated level
mapping from accessible levels
|
>9,000 m of
underground development and exposure of gold mineralization in test
stoping
|
Re-interpretation of
geological and structural models
|
Geological
Modelling
|
Wireframe/
volumetrics
|
Broader mineral
domains modelled to allow for interpretation of both mineralization
and controlling stratigraphy
|
Narrow-vein,
high-grade implicit model interpretation with a surrounding
low-grade envelope.
|
Model representative
of mineralization and host stratigraphy resulting in larger zones
with increased tonnes, grades, ounces
|
Block Size
|
2 m x 2 m x 2
m
|
2.5 m x 5 m x 5
m
|
Block resolution
representative of variability and characteristics of mineralization
with controlled smoothing of grades
|
High-Grade
Treatment Strategy
|
Capping grade of
mineral domains
|
Capping of 1.0 m
composite grades based on mineral domain and
stratigraphy:
Zone 1: F2
Basalt 70.0 g/t, Talc 35.0 g/t, Felsic 10.0 g/t Au
Zone 2: West
Limb & Hanging Wall Basalts 70.0 g/t Au, Talc 35.0 g/t, Felsic
35.0 g/t
Zones 3 &
4: same as Zone 1 See Table 5 at the end of the news
release.
|
Capping of raw sample
grades having variable lengths:
High-Grade:
10.0 – 120.0 g/t Au (71 domains)
Low-Grade:
5.0 – 45.0 g/t Au (19
domains)
|
Capping completed on
equal length basis and representative of the grade distribution of
the host stratigraphic unit and mineral domain
|
Radii of
influence
|
Outlier samples
limited to 10 m
|
Outlier samples
limited to
10-20 m
|
Controlled influence
of outlier data
|
Estimation
methodology
|
Hard boundary
mineralization based on stratigraphic and structural
interpretations with dynamic search controls using ID3
|
Hard boundary
mineralization based on interpretation of narrow-veins with dynamic
search controls using OK
|
Model representative
of stratigraphic and structural controls with controlled grade
smoothing
|
Geological
modelling
|
Stratigraphic block
model created and used for mineral domain controls
|
Implicit model
generated but not used to constrain mineral domains
|
Accurate geological
interpretation resulting in an understanding of the nature and
controls on mineralization
|
Please refer to Table 5 at the end of the news release for
further details on the geological modelling and high-grade
treatment strategies, including top-cut values and coefficients of
variation ("CV") for each sample
population.
_______________________________
|
9
|
All references to the
2016 Mineral Resource Estimate are reported in the Technical Report
with an effective date of January 11, 2016 available on
SEDAR(www.sedar.com) which is no longer considered to be current
and not to be relied upon.
|
Next Steps
The Company believes it can potentially improve upon the
2018 Mineral Resource Estimate in the following areas:
- Targeted infill and step-out drilling in areas
containing Inferred Resources and Exploration
Targets10: Rubicon
intends to potentially convert Inferred Resources to Indicated
Resources by drilling areas in the mid-to-upper levels of the
deposit where existing drill spacing is on 40-m centres or more.
Furthermore, Rubicon has identified Exploration Target
areas10 (greater than 80-metre centres) potentially
between 500,000 and 800,000 tonnes of sparsely drilled mineralized
material with grades potentially between 5.0 to 7.0 g/t Au where
the Company intends to infill drill.
- Model reconciliation based on 25,000 to 30,000 tonnes
of bulk sample processing: The results from the
bulk sampling program will be used to reconcile and validate any
future Mineral Resource Estimate, and potentially increase
confidence in the modelling process and Mineral Resources. Early
observations from infill drilling and samples from the test stopes
show that grades appear to be consistent with the 2018 Mineral
Resource Estimate, although no conclusions can be made at this
time;
- Evaluating McFinley and Close Proximity
Targets: Rubicon is evaluating Mineral Resource
data from the historic McFinley Deposit, located near existing
underground development at the Project, using current standards and
parameters, which could be potentially included in any future
Mineral Resource Estimate. The Company is also evaluating
historical drill data from its Close Proximity Targets (Peninsula,
CARZ, and Island Zones) located within two kilometres northeast of
the Project, which could possibly be included in any future updated
Mineral Resource Estimate.
- F2 Gold Deposit remains open at depth and along
strike: Historical drilling intersected high-grade
intercepts to a depth of 1,600 m
below surface, well below the bottom of the 2018 Mineral Resource
Estimate at 1,350 m elevation. These
intercepts warrant follow up drilling in the future.
_______________________________
|
10
|
As per 2.3(2)(a) of
NI 43-101, the potential quantity and grade is conceptual in
nature, that there has been insufficient exploration to define a
mineral resource and that it is uncertain if further exploration
will result in the target being delineated as a mineral
resource.
|
Conference Call Details
The Company's senior management team will
host a conference call today, Monday, April 30, 2018 at
10:00 am ET (7:00 am PT) to
discuss the news release. Participants
in Canada and the United States may join the
conference call by dialing toll free +1 (888) 231-8191 or
+1 (647) 427-7450 for calls
outside Canada and the United States or via
webcast:
https://event.on24.com/wcc/r/1665362/858E306DCFE37785798419DFE29660AE.
A recorded playback of the conference call can be accessed
on the Company's website at
www.rubiconminerals.com.
Qualified Persons and Quality Assurance and Quality
Control (QA/QC)
The content of this news release has been read and
approved by George Ogilvie, P.Eng.,
President and CEO for Rubicon, Brian
Thomas, P.Geo., and Jerry
DeWolfe, P.Geo., M.Sc. for Golder, and Tim Maunula, P.Geo. for T. Maunula &
Associates Consulting Inc. All four are Qualified Persons as
defined by NI 43-101.
Underground drilling was conducted by Boart Longyear
Drilling of Haileybury, Ontario
and was supervised by the Rubicon exploration team. Oriented core
drilling was performed using the Boart Longyear TruCore™
orientation system. All assays reported are uncut unless otherwise
stated. All samples reported herein were performed by SGS Mineral
Services of Red Lake, Ontario, an
independent lab with ISO/IEC 17025-2005 standards. All NQ core
assays reported were obtained by fire assay with AA-finish or using
gravimetric finish for values over 10.0 g/t Au.
Intercepts cited do not necessarily represent true widths,
unless otherwise noted, however drilling is generally intersecting
interpreted mineralized zones at a high angle. True width
determinations are estimated at 65-80% of the core length intervals
for the 305-metre level drilling, and estimated at 75-95% of the
core length for the 610- and 685-metre level drilling. Rubicon's
quality control checks include insertion of blanks, certified
reference standards and blind duplicates to monitor laboratory
accuracy and precision.
About Rubicon Minerals
Corporation
Rubicon Minerals
Corporation is an advanced gold exploration company that owns
the Phoenix Gold Project, located in the prolific Red Lake gold district in northwestern
Ontario, Canada. Additionally,
Rubicon controls over 280 square kilometres of prime exploration
ground in Red Lake and more than
900 square kilometres of mineral property interests in the emerging
Long Canyon gold district that straddles the Nevada-Utah
border in the United States.
Rubicon's shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange
(RMX) and the OTCQX markets (RBYCF). For more
information, please visit our website at
www.rubiconminerals.com.
RUBICON MINERALS CORPORATION
George Ogilvie, P.Eng.
President, CEO, and Director
Table 5: Further Details on Geological Modelling and
High-Grade Treatment Strategy
|
Geological
Modelling
|
Geological domains
were modelled based on broad low-grade mineral envelopes associated
with the three main HiTi Basalt lenses defined on the property
(from mine grid West-to-East including Hanging Wall Basalt, West
Limb Basalt, and F2 Basalt). Golder used block model techniques to
estimate gold grade and stratigraphic units into 2 m x 2 m x 2 m
blocks using Datamine Studio software. All rock types were grouped
into three main stratigraphic units consisting of Talc, HiTi Basalt
and Felsic Intrusive as determined by grade distribution analysis
of the rock types present. These stratigraphic units were then used
as mineral domains to constrain the gold grade estimates, acting as
hard boundaries between the units. Stratigraphic units were
estimated into the blocks based on Nearest Neighbour interpolation
using a representative search ellipse, with additional search
orientation controls to account for variable orientations of strike
and dip. The estimated stratigraphic units were then used as hard
boundary mineral domains (zonal controls) due to the strong
association between gold mineralization and the HiTi Basalt Unit.
Grade estimation was completed using ID3 interpolation using 1.0 m
composite samples, with additional search controls used to account
for structural trends of mineralization. A 4-pass search strategy
was used where gold estimates required a minimum of 5 and maximum
of 8 samples from a minimum of 2 holes for the first 2 passes and a
minimum of 4 and maximum of 8 samples for the
3rd and 4th passes. Search distances
were factored for each successive search. Average density values
were assigned to the model based on stratigraphic unit.
|
High-Grade
Treatment Strategy
|
High-grade composite
samples (outliers) were controlled during the estimation process
using a combination of distance restriction and top-cutting (assays
capped to a defined maximum value). Grades were left uncut and
unrestricted within the actual 2 m x 2 m x 2 m block. Beyond that,
samples were top-cut and limited to a maximum distance of 10 m.
Beyond 10 m, the outlier samples were removed from the block
estimation. Top-cut values were assessed based on scatter plot,
cumulative probability and decile analysis for each stratigraphic
unit within mineral domains for Zones 1 to 4 as summarized below.
CVs of capped and uncapped grades for Zones 1 to 4 are also
summarized below.
|
Top-Cut Values for Zones 1, 2, 3, and
4:
|
|
|
Zones
|
Stratigraphic
Unit
|
Top-Cut Value (g/t
Au)
|
1 F2
Basalt
|
HiTi
Basalt
|
70.0
|
1 F2
Basalt
|
Talc
|
35.0
|
1 F2
Basalt
|
Felsic
Intrusive
|
10.0
|
2 Hanging Wall, West
Limb Basalt
|
HiTi
Basalt
|
70.0
|
2 Hanging Wall, West
Limb Basalt
|
Talc
|
35.0
|
2 Hanging Wall, West
Limb Basalt
|
Felsic
Intrusive
|
35.0
|
3 Felsic
Lens
|
All
|
Same as Zone
1
|
4 F2 Basalt
North
|
All
|
Same as Zone
1
|
CV for Zones 1, 2, 3, and 4:
Domains and
stratigraphic units
|
# of 1.0 m
composite
samples
|
** UNCAPPED
**
|
** CAPPED
**
|
Min.
|
Max.
|
Mean
|
Std.Dev.
|
CV
|
Min.
|
Max.
|
Mean
|
Std.Dev.
|
CV
|
ZONE 1
|
Talc
|
6,332
|
0.00
|
324.30
|
0.60
|
6.69
|
11.2
|
0.00
|
35.00
|
0.46
|
2.34
|
5.1
|
HiTi
Basalt
|
13,322
|
0.00
|
1,230.74
|
2.58
|
18.37
|
7.1
|
0.00
|
70.00
|
2.17
|
5.53
|
2.5
|
Felsic
|
2,076
|
0.00
|
56.52
|
0.59
|
2.16
|
3.6
|
0.00
|
10.00
|
0.53
|
1.24
|
2.3
|
ZONE 2
|
Talc
|
61,551
|
0.00
|
912.57
|
0.23
|
7.40
|
32.2
|
0.00
|
35.00
|
0.12
|
1.16
|
9.3
|
HiTi
Basalt
|
20,486
|
0.00
|
1,361.77
|
2.01
|
15.47
|
7.7
|
0.00
|
70.00
|
1.68
|
4.89
|
2.9
|
Felsic
|
28,572
|
0.00
|
1,555.65
|
0.86
|
10.90
|
12.8
|
0.00
|
35.00
|
0.72
|
1.96
|
2.7
|
ZONE 3
|
Talc
|
20,619
|
0.00
|
108.35
|
0.05
|
1.35
|
25.7
|
0.00
|
35.00
|
0.04
|
0.81
|
18.7
|
HiTi
Basalt
|
148
|
0.00
|
21.50
|
0.75
|
2.23
|
3.0
|
0.00
|
21.50
|
0.75
|
2.23
|
3.0
|
Felsic
|
4,253
|
0.00
|
32.37
|
0.50
|
1.16
|
2.3
|
0.00
|
10.00
|
0.48
|
0.78
|
1.6
|
ZONE 4
|
Talc
|
4,363
|
0.00
|
73.94
|
0.05
|
1.16
|
24.2
|
0.00
|
35.00
|
0.04
|
0.58
|
15.1
|
HiTi
Basalt
|
1,129
|
0.00
|
64.87
|
0.69
|
3.02
|
4.4
|
0.00
|
64.87
|
0.69
|
3.02
|
4.4
|
Felsic
|
528
|
0.00
|
217.83
|
0.67
|
9.73
|
14.5
|
0.00
|
10.00
|
0.26
|
0.87
|
3.3
|
Table 6: Classified
2018 Mineral Resources by Underground
Level11
|
Measured and
Indicated Classification
|
Inferred
Classification
|
Level
(m below
surface)
|
Tonnes
(000s)
|
Grade
(g/t Au)
|
Contained
Ounces
(000s)
|
Tonnes
(000s)
|
Grade
(g/t
Au)
|
Contained
Ounces
(000s)
|
122
|
2
|
5.24
|
0
|
49
|
6.83
|
11
|
183
|
73
|
6.19
|
15
|
138
|
5.48
|
24
|
244
|
214
|
6.11
|
42
|
102
|
6.81
|
22
|
305
|
228
|
6.78
|
50
|
106
|
5.78
|
20
|
366
|
260
|
7.30
|
61
|
159
|
5.97
|
30
|
427
|
200
|
5.79
|
37
|
208
|
5.97
|
40
|
488
|
105
|
5.49
|
19
|
339
|
5.74
|
63
|
549
|
76
|
5.63
|
14
|
246
|
5.29
|
42
|
610
|
67
|
5.74
|
12
|
266
|
5.93
|
51
|
671
|
76
|
6.55
|
16
|
256
|
6.38
|
52
|
732
|
67
|
6.73
|
15
|
285
|
5.39
|
49
|
793
|
5
|
7.50
|
1
|
297
|
5.81
|
55
|
854
|
|
|
|
188
|
6.15
|
37
|
915
|
|
|
|
209
|
5.81
|
39
|
976
|
|
|
|
282
|
6.99
|
63
|
1,037
|
|
|
|
176
|
6.27
|
35
|
1,098
|
|
|
|
165
|
6.00
|
32
|
1,159
|
|
|
|
243
|
6.29
|
49
|
1,220
|
|
|
|
156
|
6.14
|
31
|
1,281
|
|
|
|
16
|
4.87
|
3
|
_______________________________
|
11
|
There is no certainty
that the Inferred Mineral Resources will be converted to the
Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource categories, that the
Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources will be converted to the
Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve categories and there is no
certainty that the updated Mineral Resource statement will be
realized. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not
have demonstrated economic viability; the estimate of Mineral
Resources in the updated Mineral Resource statement may be
materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title,
taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant
issues.
|
Cautionary Statement regarding Forward-Looking
Statements and other Cautionary Notes
This news release contains statements that constitute
"forward-looking statements" and "forward looking information"
(collectively, "forward-looking statements") within the meaning of
applicable Canadian and United
States securities legislation. Generally, these
forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of
forward-looking terminology such as "believes", "intends", "may",
"will", "should", "plans", "anticipates", "potential", "expects",
"estimates", "forecasts", "budget", "likely", "goal" and similar
expressions or statements that certain actions, events or results
may or may not be achieved or occur in the future. In some cases,
forward-looking information may be stated in the present tense,
such as in respect of current matters that may be continuing, or
that may have a future impact or effect. Forward-looking statements
reflect our current expectations and assumptions, and are subject
to a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other
factors which may cause our actual results, performance or
achievements to be materially different from any anticipated future
results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the
forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, but
are not limited to statements regarding the anticipated timing of
the filing of the NI 43-101 Technical Report, observations from the
2018 infill drilling and underground development samples from test
mining, impact of the data from the 5,000
m of drilling completed in the fourth quarter of 2017 and
activities from the 2018 Exploration Program on the 2018 Mineral
Resource Estimate, the potential advancement of the Phoenix Gold
Project to a viable commercial operation, the potential value of
the Company's tax loss pools, the potential to improve the
quantities and classification of the 2018 Mineral Resource
Estimate, the impact of the new 2018 geological model and
information on the Company's understanding of the F2 Gold Deposit
and evaluation of mining methods for the Phoenix Gold Project, the
additional exploration work required to further improve and
reconcile the geological model for the F2 Gold Deposit, the
anticipated timing of the reactivation of the Phoenix Gold
Project's mill, the further steps necessary to potentially improve
upon the 2018 Mineral Resource Estimates, including targeted infill
and step-out drilling to potentially convert Inferred Resources to
Indicated Resources, using the results from the bulk sampling
program for reconciliation and validation purposes, the evaluation
of the McFinley Deposit and other close proximity targets for
potential inclusion in a future Mineral Resources Estimate, and
follow-up drilling of the F2 Gold Deposit at depth and along
strike.
Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions
and estimates of management as of the date such statements are made
and represent management's best judgment based on facts and
assumptions that management considers reasonable. If such opinions
and estimates prove to be incorrect, actual and future results may
be materially different than expressed in the forward-looking
statements.
Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown
risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual
results, performance or achievements of Rubicon to be materially
different from any future results, performance or achievements
expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Such
factors include, among others: possible variations in
mineralization, grade or recovery or throughput rates; uncertainty
of mineral resources, inability to realize exploration potential,
mineral grades and mineral recovery estimates; actual results of
current exploration activities; actual results of reclamation
activities; uncertainty of future operations, delays in completion
of exploration plans for any reason including insufficient capital,
delays in permitting, and labour issues; conclusions of future
economic or geological evaluations; changes in project parameters
as plans continue to be refined; failure of equipment or processes
to operate as anticipated; accidents and other risks of the mining
industry; delays and other risks related to operations; timing and
receipt of regulatory approvals; the ability of Rubicon and other
relevant parties to satisfy regulatory requirements; the ability of
Rubicon to comply with its obligations under material agreements
including financing agreements; the availability of financing for
proposed programs and working capital requirements on reasonable
terms; the ability of third-party service providers to deliver
services on reasonable terms and in a timely manner; risks
associated with the ability to retain key executives and key
operating personnel; cost of environmental expenditures and
potential environmental liabilities; dissatisfaction or disputes
with local communities or First Nations or Aboriginal Communities;
failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated;
market conditions and general business, economic, competitive,
political and social conditions; our ability to generate sufficient
cash flow from operations or obtain adequate financing to fund our
capital expenditures and working capital needs and meet our other
obligations; the volatility of our stock price, and the ability of
our common stock to remain listed and traded on the
TSX.
Forward-looking statements contained herein are made as
of the date of this news release and Rubicon disclaims any
obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a
result of new information, future events or results or otherwise,
except as required by applicable securities laws. Readers are
advised to carefully review and consider the risk factors
identified in the Company's annual information form dated
March 22, 2018 under the heading
"Risk Factors" and in other continuous disclosure documents of the
Company filed at www.sedar.com for a discussion of the factors
that could cause Rubicon's actual results, performance and
achievements to be materially different from any anticipated future
results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the
forward-looking statements. Readers are further cautioned that the
foregoing list of assumptions and risk factors is not exhaustive
and it is recommended that prospective investors consult the more
complete discussion of Rubicon's business, financial condition and
prospects that is included in this news release. The
forward-looking statements contained herein are expressly qualified
by this cautionary statement.
Cautionary Note to U.S. Readers Regarding Estimates
of Measured, Indicated and Inferred Resources
This news release uses the terms "Measured" and
"Indicated" Mineral Resources and "Inferred" Mineral Resources. The
Company advises U.S. investors that while these terms are
recognized and required by Canadian securities administrators, they
are not recognized by the SEC. The estimation of "Measured" and
"Indicated" Mineral Resources involves greater uncertainty as to
their existence and economic feasibility than the estimation of
Proven and Probable Reserves. The estimation of "Inferred"
resources involves far greater uncertainty as to their existence
and economic viability than the estimation of other categories of
resources. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of a
"Measured", "Inferred" or "Indicated" mineral resource will ever be
upgraded to a higher category.
Under Canadian rules, estimates of "inferred mineral
resources" may not form the basis of feasibility studies,
pre-feasibility studies or other economic studies, except in
prescribed cases, such as in a preliminary economic assessment
under certain circumstances. The SEC normally only permits issuers
to report mineralization that does not constitute "reserves" as
in-place tonnage and grade without reference to unit measures.
Under U.S. standards, mineralization may not be classified as a
"reserve" unless the determination has been made that the
mineralization could be economically and legally produced or
extracted at the time the reserve determination is made. U.S.
investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of a
"measured", "indicated" or "inferred" mineral resource exists or is
economically or legally mineable. Information concerning
descriptions of mineralization and resources contained herein may
not be comparable to information made public by U.S. companies
subject to the reporting and disclosure requirements of the
SEC.
View original content with
multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rubicon-minerals-reports-a-material-increase-in-mineral-resources-including-a-113-growth-in-measured-and-indicated-resources-at-the-phoenix-gold-project-300638835.html
SOURCE Rubicon Minerals Corporation