TIDMEMH
RNS Number : 9149O
European Metals Holdings Limited
13 October 2021
13 October 2021
RESOURCE UPGRADE AT CINOVEC LITHIUM PROJECT TO 708MT INCLUDING
53.3 MT OF NEW MEASURED RESOURCE
European Metals Holdings Limited (EMH, Company) ( ASX & AIM:
EMH, Nasdaq ADS: EMHXY ) is pleased to announce final drill results
and an upgraded mineral resource estimate for t he lithium and tin
resources in the Cinovec Lithium-Tin deposit in the Czech
Republic.
The Company has recently completed a drilling campaign at
Cinovec South, comprising 22 diamond drill core holes for 6,622
metres, with the goal of increasing resource certainty in the
existing resource model in and around the initial planned mining
areas and upgrading part of the resource from the Indicated
category to the higher confidence Measured category.
Highlights
-- Re-classification of 53.3 million tonnes ( MT ) into Measured
resource category grading 0.47% Li(2) O and 0.08% Sn.
-- 28.5 MT of Inferred resource upgraded to Indicated resource category
-- The Measured and Indicated resource has increased from 372.4
to 413.4 MT @ 0.47% Li(2) O and 0.05%Sn .
-- The total Measured, Indicated and Inferred resources have
increased by 12.3MT to 708.2MT @ 0.43% Li(2) O and 0.05% Sn (0.1%
Li (0.2153% Li(2) O) Cut-off).
-- Increase in overall resource to 7.39 MT LCE
-- Analysis received for final 10 diamond core holes in the
Geomet s.r.o. drilling program including:
o Hole CIS-16 returned 101.7m averaging 0.59% Li(2) O, incl.
11.35m @ 0.85% Li(2) O
o Hole CIS-32 returned 61m averaging 0.66% Li(2) O and 0.17% Sn,
incl. 30.5m @ 0.30% Sn
o Hole CIS-33 returned 113.3m averaging 0.54% Li(2) O, incl.
14.7m @ 0.60% Li(2) O
o Hole CIS-34 returned 111.4m averaging 0.54% Li(2) O and 0.13%
Sn, incl. 21.15m @ 0.71% Li(2) O and 0.57% Sn
European Metals Executive Chairman Keith Coughlan said , "The
primary stated aim of this drilling program was to convert a larger
portion of the resource to the measured category to provide greater
certainty of the financial model and security to financiers. The
results clearly indicate that the program has been successful and
the robustness and consistency of the Cinovec resource further
demonstrated. As we move closer to ultimate financing and offtake
discussions, this higher degree of certainty provides more funding
options for the project. Results from the final drill holes of the
program have been in line with or better than expected.
"As we have reported previously, because zinnwaldite is
paramagnetic, wet magnetic separation,
the first stage of the ore processing has the effect of greatly
increasing the grade of lithium oxide in the concentrate to
approximately 2.85%. The zinnwaldite concentrate produced from
Cinovec requires only roasting, compared to the calcination and
roasting required of processing spodumene. This not only improves
the economics, it will also have the effect of considerably
reducing greenhouse gas emissions of the Project when compared to
spodumene projects."
MINERAL RESOURCE UPGRADE
Independent expert Lynn Widenbar of Widenbar and Associates
updated the Mineral Resource Estimate, which has been prepared and
reported in accordance with the 2012 Australasian Code for the
Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore
Reserves (JORC Code (2012)). Mr Widenbar has compiled all mineral
resource estimates at Cinovec to date.
The resource was last updated based on data available in
November 2017, using almost 800 historic underground and surface
drill holes, historic underground channel sampling plus data from
an additional 32 new diamond drill holes drilled by EMH (refer to
the Company's ASX release dated 28 November 2017).
An additional five holes have been drilled and assayed
subsequently in 2018 (ASX releases dated 29 January 2019 and 28
February 2019) and have been incorporated in this new resource
update together with the recently completed program of 22 diamond
core holes (refer to the Company's ASX releases dated 22 February
2021 and 6 May 2021for previously reported results and to this
announcement for further details on holes CIS-15 to17, CIS-27 and
CIS-31 to 36 .
The resource classification has also been revised on the basis
of the new data, interpretations and methodologies.
The Cinovec Project remains a potential low operating cost, hard
rock lithium hydroxide producer, due to a number of key
advantages:
-- By-product credits from the recovery of tin, tungsten, potash
and sodium sulphate;
-- The ore is amenable to single-stage crushing and single-stage
coarse SAG milling, reducing capital and operating costs and
complexity;
-- Paramagnetic properties of zinnwaldite allow the use of low
cost wet magnetic processing to produce a lithium concentrate for
further processing at relatively high recoveries;
-- Relatively low temperature roasting at atmospheric pressure
utilizing conventional technologies, reagent recycling and the use
of waste gypsum; and
-- Low cost access to extensive existing infrastructure and grid
power.
A summary of the updated Lithium Resource Estimate is presented
in Table 1 below. The November 2017 estimate is presented in Table
2 for comparison. The increased drilling density in the southern
area has allowed re-classification of 53.3 MTs of Indicated
material to the Measured category. In addition, there has been an
overall increase of 14.3 MT, almost all contained within Cinovec
South. Inferred resources have decreased by 28.5Mt due to being
reclassified to the higher confidence Indicated category as a
result of tighter infill drill spacing.
Table 1 : Cinovec Project Mineral Resource September 2021 (0.1%
Li ( 0.2153% Li(2) O ) Cut-off)
CINOVEC SEPTEMBER 2021 RESOURCE SUMMARY
Cut-off Tonnes Li Li(2) Sn
O W LCE
--------------- ----------- ----- ------ ----- ----- -----
% (Millions) % % % % MT
--------------- ----------- ----- ------ ----- ----- -----
0.1 % Li
(0.22% Li(2)
MEASURED O) 53.3 0.22 0.48 0.08 0.02 0.64
--------------- ----------- ----- ------ ----- ----- -----
0.1 % Li
(0.22% Li(2)
INDICATED O) 360.2 0.20 0.44 0.05 0.02 3.88
--------------- ----------- ----- ------ ----- ----- -----
0.1 % Li
(0.22% Li(2)
MEASURED+INDICATED O) 413.4 0.21 0.44 0.05 0.02 4.51
--------------- ----------- ----- ------ ----- ----- -----
0.1 % Li
(0.22% Li(2)
INFERRED (approx.) O) 294.7 0.18 0.39 0.05 0.02 2.87
--------------- ----------- ----- ------ ----- ----- -----
0.1 % Li
(0.22% Li(2)
TOTAL O) 708.2 0.20 0.42 0.05 0.02 7.39
--------------- ----------- ----- ------ ----- ----- -----
Notes:
1. Mineral Resources are not Reserves until they have
demonstrated economic viability based on a feasibility study or
prefeasibility study.
2. Mineral Resources are reported inclusive of any reserves and
are prepared by Widenbar in accordance with the guidelines of the
JORC Code (2012).
3. The effective date of the Mineral Resource is September 20, 2021.
4. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate.
5. The operator of the project is Geomet s.r.o., 49% owned by
EMH and 51% owned by CEZ a.s. Gross and Net resources attributable
to EMH. are the same.
6. Any apparent inconsistencies are due to rounding errors.
7. MT is million tonnes.
8. LCE is Lithium Carbonate Equivalent and is equivalent to Li(2) CO(3) .
Table 2: Cinovec Project Mineral Resource November 2017 (0.1% Li
( 0.2153% Li(2) O ) Cut-off)
CINOVEC NOVEMBER 2017 RESOURCE
Cut-off Tonnes Li Li(2) Sn
O W LCE
--------------- ----------- ----- ------ ----- ----- -----
% (Millions) % % % % MT
--------------- ----------- ----- ------ ----- ----- -----
MEASURED N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a
--------------- ----------- ----- ------ ----- ----- -----
0.1 % Li
(0.22% Li(2)
INDICATED O) 372.4 0.21 0.44 0.04 0.02 4.08
--------------- ----------- ----- ------ ----- ----- -----
0.1 % Li
(0.22% Li(2)
MEASURED+INDICATED O) 372.4 0.21 0.44 0.04 0.02 4.08
--------------- ----------- ----- ------ ----- ----- -----
0.1 % Li
(0.22% Li(2)
INFERRED (approx.) O) 323.5 0.18 0.39 0.04 0.01 3.16
--------------- ----------- ----- ------ ----- ----- -----
0.1 % Li
(0.22% Li(2)
TOTAL O) 695.9 0.20 0.42 0.04 0.01 7.23
--------------- ----------- ----- ------ ----- ----- -----
Notes:
1. The previous Mineral Resource estimate is provided for
comparison purposes only - the Mineral Resource estimate has been
updated to the estimate provided in Table 1.
2. Refer to the Company's ASX release dated 28 November 2017 for more information.
3. Mineral Resources are not Reserves until they have
demonstrated economic viability based on a feasibility study or
prefeasibility study.
4. Mineral Resources are reported inclusive of any reserves and
are prepared by Widenbar in accordance with the guidelines of the
JORC Code (2012).
5. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate.
6. Any apparent inconsistencies are due to rounding errors.
7. MT is million tonnes.
8. LCE is Lithium Carbonate Equivalent and is equivalent to Li(2) CO(3) .
Drilling
Between 1952 and 1989, the Cinovec deposit was sampled in two
ways: in drill core and underground channel samples. Only core
drilling was employed, either from surface or from underground.
Surface drilling comprised 80 holes, totalling 30,340 meters;
holes were vertical or inclined, with a typical maximum depth of
400m, though one structural hole was drilled to 1,596m. Core
diameters from 220mm near surface to 110 mm at depth. Average core
recovery was 89.3%.
Underground drilling used Craelius XC42 or DIAMEC drills, with
766 holes for 53,126m; both horizontal and inclined holes were
drilled. Core diameter was 46mm.
Channel samples, from drift ribs and faces, were collected
during detailed exploration between 1952 and 1989 by Geoindustria
n.p. and Rudne Doly n.p., both Czechoslovak State companies. Drill
sample length was 1 m, channel samples were 10cm x 5cm with a
sample mass of about 15kg. Up to 1966, samples were collected using
hammer and chisel; from 1966 a small drill (Holman Hammer) was
used. 14,179 samples were collected and transported to a crushing
facility.
EMH carried out diamond drilling between 2014 and 2021 which is
summarised below
EMH Drilling
------------------
Year Holes Metres
------ ----------
2014 3 940.1
------ ----------
2015 5 2,077.30
------ ----------
2016 18 6,459.60
------ ----------
2017 6 2,697.10
------ ----------
2018 5 1,640.30
------ ----------
2020-2021 22 6,621.70
------ ----------
TOTAL 59 20,536.10
------ ----------
Table 3 EMH Drilling Programs
Collar Location and Survey
Historically, drill hole collars were surveyed with a great
degree of precision by the mine survey crew. Hole locations are
recorded in the local S-JTSK Krovak grid.
In 2014-21, drill collar locations were surveyed by a registered
surveyor and downhole surveys were recorded by a contractor.
Topographic control in the area is excellent.
Drill Hole and Channel Sampling
Historically, core and channel samples were crushed in two
steps: to -5mm, then to -0.5mm. 100g splits were obtained and
pulverised to -0.045mm for analysis.
During EMH's 2014 to 2021 drilling campaigns, sample intervals
vary between 50cm and 2m and honour geological or visible
mineralisation boundaries. The majority of samples were 1m in
length. Samples are half or quarter of core, with the latter
applied for large diameter core.
Sample Preparation and Assaying
Historically, core was either split or consumed entirely for
analyses.
In 2014-15, core was washed, geologically logged, sample
intervals determined and marked then the core was cut in half. In
2016-21, larger core was cut in half and one-half was cut again to
obtain a quarter core sample. One-half or one-quarter samples were
delivered to ALS Global in Romania for assaying after duplicates,
blanks and standards were inserted into the sample stream. The
remaining drill core is stored on site for reference.
Sample preparation was carried out by ALS Global in Romania,
using industry standard techniques appropriate for the style of
mineralisation represented at Cinovec.
Historic analytical methods included XRF and wet chemical
techniques; samples collected from the new holes were analysed by
fusion or 4 acid digest with ICP finish.
The following analytical methods were chosen: ME-MS81 (lithium
borate fusion or 4 acid digest, ICP-MS finish) for a suite of
elements including Sn and W and ME-4ACD81 (4 acid digest, ICP-AES
finish) additional elements including lithium.
About 40% of samples were analysed by ME-MS81d (ME-MS81 plus
whole rock package). Samples with over 1% tin are analysed by XRF.
Samples over 1% lithium were analysed by Li-OG63 (four acid and ICP
finish).
QAQC Summary
Historically, tin content was measured by XRF and using wet
chemical methods. W and Li were analysed by spectral methods.
Analytical QA was internal and external. The former subjected 5%
of the sample to repeat analysis in the same facility. 10% of
samples were analysed in another laboratory, also located in
Czechoslovakia. The QA/QC procedures were set to the State norms
and are considered adequate. It is unknown whether external
standards or sample duplicates were used.
Overall accuracy of sampling and assaying was proved later by
test mining and reconciliation of mined and analysed grades.
A comprehensive report on QAQC carried out during the Geomet
drilling programs has been prepared by Dr V Sesulka et al ("
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM FOR EXPLORATION
DRILLING CAMPAIGNS 2014-2021 AT THE CINOVEC LI-SN-W DEPOSIT ",
September 2021).
During six drilling campaigns between 2014 and 2021, a total of
12,790 samples from 59 drill holes have been sampled and sent to
the ALS Laboratory, Romania for multi-element and/or whole rock
analyses. 2,093 of them were submitted as standards, blanks or
duplicates for check the lab procedures, with an average insertion
frequency of 16.4%.
A summary breakdown of QAQC samples is shown below:
SAMPLE TYPE NO.OF SAMPLES % OF SAMPLES
Original 10,697 83.6
-------------- -------------
Standard 1,132 8.9
-------------- -------------
Blank 492 3.8
-------------- -------------
Duplicated 469 3.7
-------------- -------------
Table 4 QAQC Sample Breakdown
The updated database incorporates a number of updates to drill
collar locations, downhole survey and assay data. There is a total
of 1,250 holes (including 59 surface diamond holes drilled to date
by Geomet) and 78,086 assay intervals. This includes underground
sampling (from adits, development drives and stopes from the former
tin mine) which are entered as pseudo-drill holes in the database.
Raw assay data has been composited to 1m intervals prior to
analysis and estimation.
All data has been imported into Micromine 2021.5 software for
further analysis and estimation, including:
-- Checks for duplicate collars ;
-- Checks for missing samples ;
-- Checks for down hole from-to interval consistency ;
-- Checks for overlapping samples ;
-- Checks for samples beyond hole depth ;
-- Checks for missing assays ;
-- Checks for down-hole information beyond hole depth ;
-- Checks for missing down-hole information ;
-- Checks for missing or erroneous collar survey.
Regional and Local Geology
The Cinovec Deposit is located in the Krusne Hory/Erzgebirge
metallogenic province at the northern border of the Bohemian
Massif, in the Saxothuringian Zone of European Variscides ( temprok
1989). Krusne Hory/Erzgebirge is one of the major metamorphic
crystalline complexes of the European Variscan Belt, and is formed
by partially concealed Late Palaeozoic multiphase granitic
batholiths intruding amphibolite facies Neoproterozoic to
Carboniferous age metamorphic complex (Seltmann and temprok
1995).
The Krusne Hory/Erzgebirge NE-SW trending anticlinorium extends
over 120km in length and 45km in width, and plunges slightly to the
south-west. The Erzgebirge crystalline complex exposes a seemingly
coherent sequence of migmatite, para-and orthogneiss, mica schist
containing intercalations of metabasalt, metarhyolite and marble,
and by phyllite (Klominsky et al. 2010), and magmatic rocks.
Neoproterozoic basement rocks are represented by migmatitic
gneiss and mica schist with abundant intercalated metamorphosed
marl, dolomite, calc-silicate rock, quartzite, ultramafic and
granulitic rocks which were migmatised and granitised during the
Variscan orogeny. The overlying Lower Paleozoic sequence comprises
marine clastic (mainly pelitic) and granitic rocks, which are
transgressively overlain by Lower Devonian clastic rocks. Middle
Devonian clastic rocks and carbonate with interbedded submarine
spilite--keratophyre volcanics are followed by the Carboniferous
Culm facies (Seltmann and temprok 1995)
The Sn-W-Li mineralisation is hosted in an alkalic granite
cupola of late Variscan age. Tin and tungsten occur mainly in oxide
minerals (cassiterite and wolframite). Lithium occurs mainly in
zinnwaldite, a Li-rich muscovite. Quartz veining and greisenisation
are associated with the mineralisation. Typically, highest grade
lithium mineralisation is associated with the greisen but large
portions of the lithium resource are also hosted in the greisenised
granite or other types of altered granite.
Geological Logging
Core was logged in detail historically in a facility 6 km from
the mine site. The following features were logged and recorded in
paper logs: lithology, alteration (including intensity divided into
weak, medium and strong/pervasive), and occurrence of ore minerals
expressed in %, and a macroscopic description of congruous
intervals and structures and core recovery.
In 2014-2021, core descriptions were recorded into paper logging
forms by hand and later entered into an Excel database.
Geological Interpretation and Modelling
The detailed geological logging was simplified into codes to
represent greisen, granite, greisenised granite, quartz veins, the
overlying barren rhyolite and overburden zones and the basal
low-mica granite domain.
A geological domain model was constructed using Leapfrog
software with solid wireframes representing greisen, granite,
greisenised granite and the overlying barren rhyolite. In addition,
a thin overburden layer is modelled near surface and a low-mica
granite is modelled to form the lower limit of the mineralisation.
This was used to both control interpolation and to assign density
to the model.
Statistics and Variography
Analysis of sample lengths indicated that compositing to 1m was
necessary. Statistics and variography have been carried out on the
1m composited drill hole data, which has been coded according to
the geological wireframes. Note that variography has been carried
out using unfolded coordinates to follow the variable strike and
dip orientation of the mineralised domains.
Distribution analysis of Li%, Sn% and W% by geological domain
showed that there were sufficient differences to justify separate
interpolation of each unit.
Although the full suite of minor elements were included in the
modelling process, a group of seven variables was selected (in
addition to Li%, Sn% and W%) to be included in the final model to
reduce its size. These were reviewed by geological domain, and log
probability plots are shown below. These additional variables
are:
Cs_ppm, Ga_ppm, Nb_ppm, Rb_ppm, Ta_ppm, Sc_ppm and Zn_ppm.
Correlation analyses between Li%, Sn% and W% were reviewed for
each geological domain . There appears to be no significant
correlation between any of these variables, supporting the use of
differing variograms for each variable and rock type.
Li%, Sn% and W% variograms showed some isotropy for some of the
geological units in the plane of the mineralisation, and variogram
model parameters were generate for each variable and domain. Nugget
effects for Li% were 30 to 35%, with ranges up to 179m in granite,
228m in greisen and 154m in greisenised granite.
Resource Estimation
Initially, a block model representing the geology domains is
generated using the geological domain wireframes. Block sizes were
10m (E-W) by 10m (N-S) by 5m (Vertical). Block sizes were chosen as
between 1/4 and 1/2 the typical drill spacing in reasonably
well-drilled areas of the deposit. Subcells down to a minimum 1m x
1m x 0.5m were used to honour geological boundaries.
In addition, underground development, including drives,
crosscuts and stopes (both open and filled) were generated as
blocks and sub-blocks within the rock model.
Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis (KNA) has been carried out to
establish optimum search and minimum/maximum composite parameters.
Goodness-of-fit statistics were generated to assess the efficiency
of the various parameters. The primary statistics used were kriging
variance, kriging efficiency and the slope of regression.
Densities applied for Mineral Resource tonnage calculations are
based on historical bulk density measurements which were reviewed
by EMH staff in Czech; a dry bulk density of 2.57 t/m(3) was
assigned for granite and greisenised granite, and 2.70 t/m(3) for
greisen. Rhyolite and other materials were assigned a density of
2.60 t/m(3) .
Resource estimation was carried out separately for each
geological domain, using only the data within each domain.
Ordinary Kriging was used as the estimation methodology, using
variogram parameters derived from the variogram modelling and
search parameters derived from the Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis,
variogram modelling and drill hole spacing considerations. An
"unfolding" search strategy was used which allowed the search
ellipse orientation to vary with the locally changing dip and
strike.
The primary search ellipse was 150m along strike, 150m down dip
and 7.5m across the mineralisation. A minimum of 4 composites and a
maximum of 8 composites were required. A second interpolation with
search ellipse of 300m x 300m x 12.5m was carried out to inform
blocks to be used as the basis for an Exploration Target. Block
size was 10m (E-W) by 10m (N-S) by 5m.
Validation of the final resource model has been carried out in a
number of ways including section comparison of data versus model,
average grade comparison by domain, swathe plots and production
reconciliation.
All methods of validation have produced acceptable results.
Mining and Metallurgical Assumptions
Previous mining studies and the updated Preliminary Feasibility
Study established that it was feasible and economic to use
large-scale, long-hole open stop mining (refer to the Company's ASX
release dated 17 June 2019 for more information on the updated
Preliminary Feasibility Study).
Successful locked-cycle tests ("LCT") results carried out in
2021 further support the Cinovec project's credentials to initially
produce battery-grade lithium carbonate (refer to the Company's ASX
release dated 19 May 2021). European Metals has demonstrated that
Cinovec battery grade lithium carbonate can be easily converted
into lithium hydroxide monohydrate with a commonly utilised liming
plant process.
A calculation of breakeven cut-off grade for overall use in
resource reporting used a total processing cost of $40/t, a
recovery of 75% for Li(2) CO(3) and Li(2) CO(3) price of $10,000
gives a cut-off of 0.0987% Li. A value of 0.1% Li has been used for
reporting; at this stage no credit has been allowed for SN, W or
other minor by-products.
The Cinovec Project remains a potential low operating cost, hard
rock lithium hydroxide producer, due to a number of key
advantages:
-- By-product credits from the recovery of tin, tungsten, potash
and sodium sulphate;
-- The ore is amenable to single-stage crushing and single-stage
coarse SAG milling, reducing capital and operating costs and
complexity;
-- Paramagnetic properties of zinnwaldite allow the use of low
cost wet magnetic processing to produce a lithium concentrate for
further processing at relatively high recoveries;
-- Relatively low temperature roasting at atmospheric pressure
utilizing conventional technologies, reagent recycling and the use
of waste gypsum; and
-- Low cost access to extensive existing infrastructure and grid
power.
Resource Classification
The Mineral Resource has been classified in the Measured,
Indicated and Inferred categories, in accordance with the JORC Code
(2012). A range of criteria was considered for determining the
resource classification such as:
-- Geological continuity;
-- Data quality;
-- Drill hole spacing;
-- Modelling technique;
-- Estimation properties including search strategy, number of
informing data and average distance of data from blocks plus output
from the kriging process.
The resource classification methodology incorporated a number of
parameters derived from the kriging algorithms in combination with
drill hole spacing and continuity and size of mineralised
domains.
Geological Continuity
Geological continuity in the main geological units is generally
well-understood, particularly in areas of dense underground
drilling and sampling. The classification has been designed to
reflect these levels of confidence.
Data Quality
Resource classification is based on information and data
provided from the EMH database. Descriptions of drilling
techniques, survey, sampling/sample preparation and analytical
techniques used to generate the historical Czech database have been
reviewed and generally comply with the quite rigorous standards
employed by the Government agencies of the time. This historical
data has been confirmed by recent drilling undertaken by EMH, which
is of industry standard quality. Widenbar considers that both the
historical and EMH databases represent reasonable records of the
drilling undertaken at the project.
Drilling Spacing
Drill hole location plots have been used to ensure that local
drill spacing conforms to the minimum expected for the resource
classification. Measured material is generally confined to areas
where resource definition drilling has been carried out by EMH to
50m x 50m or closer and confirms historical data. Indicated
material is generally confined to areas where resource definition
drilling has been carried out by EMH up to 100m x 100m and also
contains significant historical data. Inferred material outside
these areas is confined to having an average distance to data used
in interpolation of less than 100m. Spacing in these areas is often
closer than 50m x 50m (with underground drilling and sampling), but
has generally been sampled only for Sn and W, with small numbers of
Li samples.
Modelling Technique
The resource model was generated using an Ordinary Kriging
interpolation method, with a two-pass search approach and using
geological control and an unfolding methodology.
The search pass used, the number of samples used, the kriging
variance and the average distance of samples from each block, were
all stored in the block model.
In general the kriging variance, search pass and average
distance are all broadly correlated with a combination of drill
hole spacing and domain thickness.
Final Classification
The above parameters were used as a guide in combination with
drill spacing and confirmation by EMH drilling to arrive at a final
resource classification. The methodology used was to digitise area
strings to define the Measured, Indicated and Inferred categories
by referring to underlying displays of drill hole data, kriging
variance, number of samples used etc.
The impact of the new EMH drill holes on the geological model
and the block model have been reviewed. Globally the geology and
resource model are similar to the previous models produced between
2016 and 2017, with only relatively minor local changes to grade
distributions. The increase in confidence resulting from the new
drill data has allowed additional areas of the block model to be
upgraded in classification from Indicated to Measured, and from
Inferred to Indicated.
Sample spacing used for lithium Mineral Resource estimation is
wider, as development samples were not assayed for lithium; sample
spacing typically ranges from 25m to 200m. Measured material is
located in the area of infill drilling to approximately 50m x 50m
spacing or closer covered by the recent of the EMH drilling.
Estimated blocks outside the areas defined as Measured, Indicated
or Inferred are considered to form part of an Exploration
Target.
Sample spacing used in Mineral Resource estimation for tin
ranges from continuous channel sampling up to approximately 100m.
The range reflects the density of historical work with samples very
closely spaced in areas of underground development and trial
mining, less so in areas sampled only by surface or underground
drill holes.
DRILLING RESULTS
The Company has recently completed a drilling campaign at
Cinovec South, comprising 22 diamond drill core holes for 6,622
metres. The analysis has been received from the final 10 holes,
which is summarised below. The drill hole results have been
prepared and reported by Dr Vojtech Sesulka in accordance with the
JORC Code (2012).
-- Hole CIS-15 returned 14.4m averaging 0.83% Li(2) O and 5.3m averaging 1.06% Li(2) O
-- Hole CIS-16 returned 101.7m averaging 0.59% Li(2) O, incl. 11.35m @ 0.85% Li(2) O
-- Hole CIS-17 returned 66.3m averaging 0.46% Li(2) O, incl.
12.15m @ 1.00% Li(2) O, 0.26% Sn and 4.25m @ 1.55% Li(2) O and
0.48% Sn
-- Hole CIS-27 returned 147m averaging 0.46% Li(2) O
-- Hole CIS-31 returned 129.5m averaging 0.44% Li(2) O, incl.
16m @ 0.17% Sn and 7.05m @ 0.26% Sn
-- Hole CIS-32 returned 61m averaging 0.66% Li(2) O and 0.17% Sn, incl. 30.5m @ 0.30% Sn
-- Hole CIS-33 returned 113.3m averaging 0.54% Li(2) O, incl. 14.7m @ 0.60% Li(2) O
-- Hole CIS-34 returned 111.4m averaging 0.54% Li(2) O and 0.13%
Sn, incl. 21.15m @ 0.71% Li(2) O and 0.57% Sn
-- Hole CIS-35 returned 124.75m averaging 0.49% Li(2) O and
0.11% Sn, incl. 46.95m @ 0.60% Li(2) O and 0.25% Sn
-- Hole CIS-36 returned 112.45m averaging 0.46% Li(2) O
Mineralized Intercepts and Lithology
Rhyolite/granite contact in hole CIS-15 was hit in a depth of
166.0m. Minor Li interval of 17.3m averaging 0.23% Li(2) O is
followed by a barren zone of microgranite, hematite granite and
albite granite. The major Li-Sn mineralization is hosted in greisen
zone below a depth of 206.6m. Regrettably, the hole hit a stope
(219.4-223.0m), and failed shortly after in a dept of 228.3m. The
Li intervals in this zone are 14.4m averaging 0.83% Li(2) O and
0.38% Sn in a hanging wall and 5.3m averaging 1.06% Li(2) O and
0.67% Sn in a foot wall of the stope.
In hole CIS-16, the rhyolite/granite contact was intersected in
185.9m depth. The minor Li intercept of 12.1m at 0.53% Li(2) O and
0.27% Sn hosts Sn high grade interval of 5m @ 0.59% Sn, incl. 2m @
1.10% Sn. The major Li interval of 101.7m averaging 0.59% Li(2) O
comprises several Li high grade zones of 11.35m @ 0.85% Li(2) O,
2.2m @ 1.13% Li(2) O and 2.7m @ 0.93% Li(2) O.
In hole CIS-17, the Li mineralization starts immediately below
the rhyolite/granite contact in a depth of 84.1m. The whole portion
of granite is Li mineralized, however several gaps of various
thickness and Li grades slightly below the cut-off grade break up
the ore zone into several discrete intervals, such as 29m at 0.24%
Li(2) O, 16m at 0.21% Li(2) O and 35.5m at 0.38% Li(2) O, incl.
3.75m @ 1.25% Li(2) O in the upper section. In the deeper part of
the hole, major interval of 66.3m averaging 0.46% Li(2) O and 0.09%
Sn hosts several Li high grade zones of 12.15m @ 1.00% Li(2) O and
0.26% Sn, 4.25m @ 1.55% Li(2) O, 1.7m @ 1.29% Li(2) O and 1.77m @
1.00% Li(2) O, and notable 16m thick Sn intersect grading 0.22% Sn
and 0.80% Li(2) O.
Rhyolite/Granite contact in hole CIS-27 was reached in a depth
of 177.0m. The Li mineralization begins straight below the contact
with a minor interval of 30.5m averaging 0.30% Li(2) O. The major
Li intercept of 147.0m averaging 0.46% Li(2) O runs from the dept
of 213m till the bottom of the hole, and includes several Li high
grade zones of 4.9m @ 0.86% Li(2) O, 2.4m @ 0.89% Li(2) O, 6.9m @
0.84% Li(2) O, 1m @ 1.56% Li(2) O or 2.1m @ 1.20% Li(2) O.
Hole CIS-31 intersected the rhyolite/granite contact in a depth
of 215.5m. The Li intercept of 129.5m averaging 0.44% Li(2) O is
hosted in greisenized granite and greisen, with high grade Li
intercepts of 6m @ 0.83% Li(2) O, 3m @ 0.91% Li(2) O and 3m @ 0.86%
Li(2) O. Additionally, several Sn zones were hit in the hole: 16m @
0.17% Sn, 7.05m @ 0.26% Sn and 5.5m @ 0.13% Sn.
In hole CIS-32, the rhyolite/granite contact was intersected in
a depth of 187.6m. The Li mineralization start immediately beneath
the contact with grades slightly below the Li cut-of. The major Li
interval of 61.0m averaging 0.66% Li(2) O and 0.17% Sn starts in a
depts of 209m, with two Li high grade zones of 6.4m @ 1.01% Li(2) O
and 5.0m @ 1.11% Li(2) O in a lower section of the drill hole. The
hole CIS-32 is mineralized in Sn, with 30.5m interval averaging
0.30% Sn, containing high grade intervals 1m @ 2.21% Sn and 6.0m @
0.69% Sn and 0.189% W. The hole was terminated in a depth of 274.0
in a fault zone with no recovery in the last 4 meters.
In hole CIS-33, the granite contact was intersected in a depth
of 180.95m. The major Li interval of 113.3m averaging 0.54% Li(2) O
begins some 14 m below the contact, with several Li high grade
zones: 4m @ 0.86% Li(2) O, 3.25m @ 0.87% Li(2) O and 2m @ 1.39%
Li(2) O. Upper portion of the interval is mineralized in Sn with
14.7m @ 0.26% Sn.
Hole CIS-34, granite started in a depth of 167.4m, with
intensive greisenization from 192m. The whole Li intercept of
111.4m averaging 0.54% Li(2) O is mineralized in Sn grading 0.13%
Sn. The highest Sn content is in the upper portion of the
mineralized body: 21.15m averaging 0.57% Sn, incl. 2.15m @ 1.77%
Sn, 1m @ 4.1% Sn and 1m @ 1.04% Sn.
In hole CIS-35, the whole granite section immediately below the
contact with rhyolite in a depth of 195.25m is mineralized with
124.75m averaging 0.49% Li(2) O and 0.11% Sn. Two larger Sn
intervals of 12m @ 0.1% Sn and 46.95m @ 0.25% Sn take place in the
upper part of the granite.
The rhyolite/granite contact in hole CIS-36 was intersected in a
depth of 191.5m. Two Li intervals returned: minor interval 5.15m
averaging 0.44% Li(2) O, incl. 0.9m @ 1.11% Li(2) O, and major
interval of 112.45m averaging 0.46% Li(2) O, incl. 2m @ 1.29% Li(2)
O, 1m @ 1.24% Li(2) O and 2m @ 1.44% Li(2) O. The upper portion of
the ore body is mineralized in Sn with 55.85m @ 0.13% Sn
(considering no Sn cut-off).
All the drill holes have been terminated in ore and not in the
underlaying low-mica granite, which is considered to be the
footwall of the Li-granite.
Table 5: Completed drill hole data.
Hole ID Easting Northing Elevation Azimuth Dip (deg) Target Status
(m) (deg) Depth
(m)
CIS-15(1) -778861.53 -966541.96 854.75 269.23 -78.82 228.3 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-16(1) -778838.67 -966518.93 857.67 284.53 -89.64 320.2 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-17(1) -778801.94 -966404.89 862.68 213.13 -89.68 310.3 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-18(2) -779103.76 -966705.24 783.60 289.13 -80.60 275 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-19(2) -779040.43 -966682.54 802.78 143.33 -85.16 288.8 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-20(2) -779040.09 -966681.82 802.97 260.33 -79.09 285.8 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-21(2) -778947.87 -966715.23 817.00 302.23 -80.11 300.3 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-22(2) -778944.77 -966718.48 816.98 1.13 -84.50 299 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-23(2) -778945.31 -966717.11 817.03 195.03 -79.03 310 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-24(3) -778972.02 -966835.93 775.78 35.73 -75.02 285.5 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-25(3) -778896.75 -966804.04 798.2 244.93 -89.76 296 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-26(3) -778901.84 -966803.06 798.18 83.33 -74.14 292.6 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-27(1) -779036.41 -966783.62 778.66 341.13 -76.92 360.7 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-28(3) -779038.63 -966779.32 778.98 319.03 -89.15 298.8 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-29(3) -778956.01 -966848.92 774.51 229.13 -89.28 274 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-30(3) -778955.51 -966849.42 774.63 95.13 -78.27 299.2 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-31(1) -778814.86 -966771.84 819.29 117.83 -79.29 370.5 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-32(1) -778872.86 -966597.58 848.58 268.13 -74.40 274 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-33(1) -778871.76 -966597.46 848.58 320.33 -89.49 307.8 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-34(1) -778852.20 -966584.13 851.45 354.43 -89.14 304.9 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-35(1) -778816.61 -966769.95 819.48 26.26 -81.00 320 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
CIS-36(1) -778817.69 -966769.31 819.51 1.33 -70.47 320 completed
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------
Notes:
1. Reported for the first time in this announcement
2. Refer to the Company's ASX release dated 2 February 2021
3. Refer to the Company's ASX release dated 6 May 2021
Table 6: Mineralized intercepts in hole CIS-15.
CIS-15
From To Interval Determining Li(2) Sn W (%) Note
(m) element O (%) (%)
------ --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ------------------------
Li(2)
166 183.3 17.3 O 0.23 0.01 0.002
------ --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ------------------------
Li(2)
205 219.4 14.4 O 0.83 0.38 0.027
------ --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ------------------------
Li(2) incl. 1m@1.82% Sn
223 228.3 5.3 O 1.06 0.67 0.029 (225-226m)
------ --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ------------------------
incl. 2.4m@1.98%
Sn (217-219.4m),
208 219.4 11.4 Sn 0.90 0.48 0.030 1m@3.48% Sn (217-218m)
------ --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ------------------------
Cut-off: 0.2% Li(2) O, 0.1% Sn, 0.05% W
Table 7: Mineralized intercepts in hole CIS-16.
CIS-16
From To Interval Determining Li2O Sn W Note
(m) element (%) (%) (%)
------- --------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ -----------------------------
Li(2) incl. 2m@0.90% Li(2)
198.95 211 12.05 O 0.53 0.27 0.026 O, 0.62% Sn (203-205m)
------- --------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ -----------------------------
incl. 11.35m@0.85%
Li(2) O (246-257.35m),
2.2m@1.13% Li(2) O
(286-288.2m),
Li(2) 2.7m@0.93% Li(2) O
218.5 320.2 101.7 O 0.59 0.04 0.006 (301.1-303.8m)
------- --------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ -----------------------------
198.95 199.95 1 Sn 0.68 0.14 0.008
------- --------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ -----------------------------
202.55 203 0.45 W 0.59 0.02 0.103
------- --------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ -----------------------------
203 208 5 Sn 0.76 0.59 0.020 incl. 2m@1.10% Sn (204-206m)
------- --------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ -----------------------------
209 209.85 0.85 W 0.61 0.02 0.155
------- --------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ -----------------------------
218.5 224.9 6.4 Sn 0.46 0.13 0.011
------- --------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ -----------------------------
229.55 229.9 0.35 Sn 0.84 0.39 0.061
------- --------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ -----------------------------
234.3 234.9 0.6 Sn 0.94 0.93 0.095
------- --------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ -----------------------------
251 252.1 1.1 Sn 0.89 0.14 0.124
------- --------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ -----------------------------
262 263 1 Sn 0.54 0.27 0.035
------- --------- ------------ ----- ----- ------ -----------------------------
Cut-off: 0.2% Li2O, 0.1% Sn, 0.05% W
Table 8: Mineralized intercepts in hole CIS-17.
CIS-17
From To Interval Determining Li(2) Sn W (%) Note
(m) element O (%)
(%)
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
Li(2)
95 124 29 O 0.24 0.01 0.002
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
Li(2)
130 136 6 O 0.21 0.01 0.001
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
Li(2)
154 170 16 O 0.21 0.01 0.001
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
Li(2) incl. 3.75m@1.25% Li(2)
203.5 239 35.5 O 0.38 0.03 0.025 O, 0.14% Sn (230-233.75m)
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
incl. 12.15m@1.00% Li(2)
O, 0.26% Sn (262.95-275.1m),
4.25m@1.55% Li(2) O,
0.48% Sn (262.95-267.2m),
1.7m@1.29% Li(2) O (273.4-275.1m),
Li(2) 1.7m@1.00% Li(2) O,
244 310.3 66.3 O 0.46 0.09 0.005 0.16% Sn (294.5-296.2m)
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
225.15 230 4.85 W 0.64 0.06 0.154
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
231 233.75 2.75 Sn 1.00 0.17 0.026
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
264 280 16 Sn 0.80 0.22 0.006 incl. 2m@0.99% Sn (264-266m)
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
293.5 294.5 1 W 0.76 0.03 0.140
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
300 301 1 Sn 0.29 0.11 0.001
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
309 310.3 1.3 Sn 0.39 0.14 0.015
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
Cut-off: 0.2% Li(2) O, 0.1% Sn, 0.05% W
Table 9: Mineralized intercepts in hole CIS-27.
CIS-27
From To Interval Determining Li(2) Sn W (%) Note
(m) element O (%) (%)
------- --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ---------------------------
Li(2)
177 207.5 30.5 O 0.30 0.06 0.003
------- --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ---------------------------
incl. 4.9m@0.86% Li(2)
O, 0.16% Sn (214.1-219m),
2.4m@0.89% Li(2) O,
0.31% W (266.9-269.3m),
6.85m@0.84% Li(2) O
(271.5-278.35m),
0.95m@1.56% Li(2) O
(312.65-313.6m),
Li(2) 2.1m@1.20% Li(2) O
213 360 147 O 0.46 0.04 0.017 (329-331.1m)
------- --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ---------------------------
191.2 194 2.8 Sn 0.39 0.29 0.003
------- --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ---------------------------
203.3 204.1 0.8 Sn 0.87 0.11 0.002
------- --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ---------------------------
206 206.5 0.5 Sn 0.77 0.27 0.005
------- --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ---------------------------
215 216 1 Sn 0.95 0.61 0.014
------- --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ---------------------------
231 233 2 Sn 0.57 0.37 0.009
------- --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ---------------------------
incl. 1.2m @ 0.97% Sn
239 241.2 2.2 Sn 0.74 0.64 0.473 (240-241.2m)
------- --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ---------------------------
249.4 252 2.6 Sn 0.56 0.18 0.079
------- --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ---------------------------
268 269.3 1.3 W 1.03 0.05 0.571
------- --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ---------------------------
274 275.15 1.15 Sn 0.90 0.11 0.009
------- --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ---------------------------
348.3 349 0.7 Sn 0.31 0.50 0.003
------- --------- ------------ ------- ----- ------ ---------------------------
Cut-off: 0.2% Li(2) O, 0.1% Sn, 0.05% W
Table 10: Mineralized intercepts in hole CIS-31.
CIS-31
From To Interval Determining Li(2) Sn W (%) Note
(m) element O (%)
(%)
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ -----------------------------
incl. 6m@0.83% Li(2)
O, 0.15% Sn, 0.103%
W (257-263m),
3m@0.91% Li(2) O,
0.11% Sn (266-269m),
241 370.5 129.5 Li(2) O 0.44 0.07 0.021 3m@0.86% Li(2) O (285-288m)
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ -----------------------------
incl. 1m@0.86% Li(2)
O, 0.20% Sn, 0.469%
246 262 16 Sn 0.58 0.17 0.052 W (259-260m)
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ -----------------------------
267 274.1 7.05 Sn 0.75 0.26 0.036
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ -----------------------------
278.5 284 5.5 Sn 0.36 0.13 0.005
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ -----------------------------
incl. 1m@0.73% Sn,
292 298 6 W 0.40 0.17 0.051 0.056% W (297-298m)
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ -----------------------------
Cut-off: 0.2% Li(2) O, 0.1% Sn, 0.05% W
Table 11: Mineralized intercepts in hole CIS-32.
CIS-32
From To Interval Determining Li(2) Sn W (%) Note
(m) element O (%)
(%)
---- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ -----------------------------
incl. 6.4m@1.01% Li(2)
Li(2) O, 0.14% Sn (248-254.4m),
209 270 61 O 0.66 0.17 0.034 5m@1.11% Li(2) O (263-268m)
---- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ -----------------------------
213.5 244 30.5 Sn 0.58 0.30 0.047
---- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ -----------------------------
238 244 6 W 0.74 0.69 0.186 incl. 1m@2.21% Sn (238-239m)
---- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ -----------------------------
251 254 3 Sn 1.13 0.28 0.053
---- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ -----------------------------
257 263 6 W 0.59 0.02 0.062
---- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ -----------------------------
Cut-off: 0.2% Li(2) O, 0.1% Sn, 0.05% W
Table 12: Mineralized intercepts in hole CIS-33.
CIS-33
From To Interval Determining Li(2) Sn W (%) Note
(m) element O (%)
(%)
---- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
incl. 4m@0.86% Li(2) O,
0.10% Sn (217-221m),
Li(2) 3.25m@0.87% Li(2) O (244.75-248m),
195 308 113 O 0.54 0.06 0.007 2m@1.39% Li(2) O (296-298m)
---- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
197 212 14.7 Sn 0.60 0.26 0.019 incl. 1m@1.24% Sn (211-212m)
---- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
219 221 2 W 0.86 0.19 0.075
---- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
240 241 1 Sn 0.76 0.73 0.046
---- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------
Cut-off: 0.2% Li(2) O, 0.1% Sn, 0.05% W
Table 13: Mineralized intercepts in hole CIS-34.
CIS-34
From To Interval Determining Li(2) Sn W (%) Note
(m) element O (%)
(%)
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ --------------------------------------
incl. 6.1m@0.87% Li(2)
O, 0.98% Sn, 0.099% W
(203.5-209.6m),
1m@1.25% Li(2) O (283.35-284.35m),
Li(2) 0.7m@1.42% Li(2) O (290.25-290.95m),
193 304.9 111.4 O 0.54 0.13 0.026 0.7m@1.83% Li(2) O (300.5-301.2m)
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ --------------------------------------
incl. 2.15m@1.77% Sn
(199.35-201.5m),
1m@4.10% Sn, 0.390%
W (206.5-207.5m),
1m@1.04% Sn, 0.158%
199.35 221 21.15 Sn 0.71 0.57 0.056 W (219-220m)
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ --------------------------------------
217 221 4 W 0.55 0.31 0.094
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ --------------------------------------
238 239 1 Sn 0.41 1.08 0.753
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ --------------------------------------
249 250 1 W 0.56 0.05 0.068
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ --------------------------------------
251 252 1 Sn 0.40 0.62 0.232
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ --------------------------------------
260 261 1 W 0.57 0.01 0.154
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ --------------------------------------
266.45 267.45 1 W 0.69 0.01 0.068
------- --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ --------------------------------------
Cut-off: 0.2% Li(2) O, 0.1% Sn, 0.05% W
Table 14: Mineralized intercepts in hole CIS-35.
CIS-35
From To Interval Determining Li(2) Sn W (%) Note
(m) element O (%)
(%)
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ----------------------------------------
incl. 3.6m@0.91% Li(2)
O (199.4-203m),
2.15m@1.05% Li(2) O, 0.62%
Sn, 0.092% W (235.3-237.45m),
Li(2) 1.1m@1.55% Li(2) O (246.5-247.6m),
195.3 320 124.8 O 0.49 0.11 0.017 1.4m@0.91% Li(2) O (265.3-266.7m)
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ----------------------------------------
202 214 12 Sn 0.49 0.10 0.054 incl. 2m@0.280% W (203-205m)
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ----------------------------------------
incl. 1.15m@0.89% Li(2)
O, 1.08% Sn, 0.166% W (236.3-237.45m),
1.35m@0.73% Li(2) O, 0.34%
Sn, 0.144% W (243-244.35m),
3m@0.52% Li(2) O, 0.54%
219.8 266.7 46.95 Sn 0.60 0.25 0.027 Sn, 0.072% W (254-257m)
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ----------------------------------------
Cut-off: 0.2% Li(2) O, 0.1% Sn, 0.05% W
Table 15: Mineralized intercepts in hole CIS-36.
CIS-36
From To Interval Determining Li(2) Sn W (%) Note
(m) element O (%)
(%)
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ---------------------------------
Li(2) incl. 0.9m@1.11% Li(2)
192.5 197.7 5.15 O 0.44 0.09 0.013 O (193.8-194.7m)
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ---------------------------------
incl. 2m@1.29% Li(2)
O, 0.12% Sn (229.2-231.2m),
1m@1.24% Li(2) O, 0.30%
Li(2) Sn (235.2-236.2m),
207.6 320 112.5 O 0.46 0.07 0.011 2m@1.44% Li(2) O (261.4-263.4m)
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ---------------------------------
197 197.7 0.7 Sn 0.64 0.34 0.004
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ---------------------------------
207.6 209.5 1.95 Sn 0.73 0.16 0.005
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ---------------------------------
214.5 225.5 11 Sn 0.36 0.14 0.018
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ---------------------------------
incl. 0.95m@1.08% Sn
230.2 237.2 6.95 Sn 0.86 0.28 0.022 (236.2-237.15m)
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ---------------------------------
243 256.2 13.2 Sn 0.43 0.18 0.023
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ---------------------------------
262.4 263.4 1 Sn 1.84 0.11 0.096
------ --------- ------------ ------ ----- ------ ---------------------------------
Cut-off: 0.2% Li(2) O, 0.1% Sn, 0.05% W
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON CINOVEC
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Cinovec Lithium/Tin Project
Geomet s.r.o. controls the mineral exploration licenses awarded
by the Czech State over the Cinovec Lithium/Tin Project. Geomet has
been granted a preliminary mining permit by the Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry of Industry. The company is owned 49%
by European Metals and 51% by CEZ a.s. through its wholly owned
subsidiary, SDAS..
An initial Probable Ore Reserve of 34.5MT at 0.65% Li(2) O and
0.09% Sn reported 4 July 2017( Cinovec Maiden Ore Reserve - Further
Information ) has been declared based on stope optimizing model to
cover the first 20 years mining at an output of 22,500tpa of
lithium carbonate reported 11 July 2018 ( Cinovec Production
Modelled to Increase to 22,500tpa of Lithium Carbonate ).
This makes Cinovec the largest hard rock lithium deposit in
Europe, the fourth largest non-brine deposit in the world and a
globally significant tin resource.
The deposit has previously had over 400,000 tonnes of ore mined
as a trial sub-level open stope underground mining operation for
the extraction of tin.
In June 2019 EMH completed an updated Preliminary Feasibility
Study, conducted by specialist independent consultants, which
indicated a return post tax NPV of USD1.108B and an IRR of 28.8%
and confirmed that the Cinovec Project is a potential low operating
cost, producer of battery grade lithium hydroxide or battery grade
lithium carbonate as markets demand (refer Company's ASX release
dated 17 June 2019). It confirmed the deposit is amenable to bulk
underground mining. Metallurgical test-work has produced both
battery grade lithium hydroxide and battery grade lithium carbonate
in addition to high-grade tin concentrate at excellent recoveries.
Cinovec is centrally located for European end-users and is well
serviced by infrastructure, with a sealed road adjacent to the
deposit, rail lines located 5 km north and 8 km south of the
deposit and an active 22 kV transmission line running to the
historic mine. As the deposit lies in an active mining region, it
has strong community support.
The economic viability of Cinovec has been enhanced by the
recent strong increase in demand for lithium globally, and within
Europe specifically.
There are no other material changes to the original information
and all the material assumptions continue to apply to the
forecasts.
CONTACT
For further information on this update or the Company generally,
please visit our website at www.europeanmet.com or see full contact
details at the end of this release.
WEBSITE
A copy of this announcement is available from the Company's
website at www.europeanmet.com.
ENQUIRIES:
European Metals Holdings Limited
Keith Coughlan, Executive Chairman Tel: +61 (0) 419 996 333
Email: keith@europeanmet.com
Kiran Morzaria, Non-Executive Director Tel: +44 (0) 20 7440 0647
Dennis Wilkins, Company Secretary Tel: +61 (0) 417 945 049
Email: dennis@europeanmet.com
WH Ireland Ltd (Nomad & Joint Broker)
James Joyce/James Sinclair-Ford Tel: +44 (0) 20 7220 1666
(Corporate Finance)
Harry Ansell/Jasper Berry (Broking)
Shard Capital (Joint Broker) Tel: +44 (0) 20 7186 9950
Damon Heath
Erik Woolgar
Blytheweigh (Financial PR) Tel: +44 (0) 20 7138 3222
Tim Blythe
Megan Ray
Chapter 1 Advisors (Financial PR
- Aus) Tel: +61 (0) 433 112 936
David Tasker
The information contained within this announcement is considered
to be inside information, for the purposes of Article 7 of EU
Regulation 596/2014, prior to its release. The person who
authorised for the release of this announcement on behalf of the
Company was Keith Coughlan, Executive Chairman.
CAUTION REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS
Information included in this release constitutes forward-looking
statements. Often, but not always, forward looking statements can
generally be identified by the use of forward looking words such as
"may", "will", "expect", "intend", "plan", "estimate",
"anticipate", "continue", and "guidance", or other similar words
and may include, without limitation, sta tements regarding plans,
strategies and objectives of management, anticipated production or
construction commencement dates and expected costs or production
outputs.
Forward looking statements inherently involve known and unknown
risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the company's
actual results, performance and achievements to differ materially
from any future results, performance or achievements. Relevant
factors may include, but are not limited to, changes in commodity
prices, foreign exchange fluctuations and general economic
conditions, increased costs and demand for production inputs, the
speculative nature of exploration and project development,
including the risks of obtaining necessary licences and permits and
diminishing quantities or grades of reserves, political and social
risks, changes to the regulatory framework within which the company
operates or may in the future operate, environmental conditions
including extreme weather conditions, recruitment and retention of
personnel, industrial relations issues and litigation.
Forward looking statements are based on the company and its
management's good faith assumptions relating to the financial,
market, regulatory and other relevant environments that will exist
and affect the company's business and operations in the future. The
company does not give any assurance that the assumptions on which
forward looking statements are based will prove to be correct, or
that the company's business or operations will not be affected in
any material manner by these or other factors not foreseen or
foreseeable by the company or management or beyond the company's
control.
Although the company attempts and has attempted to identify
factors that would cause actual actions, events or results to
differ materially from those disclosed in forward looking
statements, there may be other factors that could cause actual
results, performance, achievements or events not to be as
anticipated, estimated or intended, and many events are beyond the
reasonable control of the company. Accordingly, readers are
cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward looking
statements. Forward looking statements in these materials speak
only at the date of issue. Subject to any continuing obligations
under applicable law or any relevant stock exchange listing rules,
in providing this information the company does not undertake any
obligation to publicly update or revise any of the forward looking
statements or to advise of any change in events, conditions or
circumstances on which any such statement is based.
LITHIUM CLASSIFICATION AND CONVERSION FACTORS
Lithium grades are normally presented in percentages or parts
per million (ppm). Grades of deposits are also expressed as lithium
compounds in percentages, for example as a percent lithium oxide
(Li(2) O) content or percent lithium carbonate (Li(2) CO(3) )
content.
Lithium carbonate equivalent ("LCE") is the industry standard
terminology for, and is equivalent to, Li(2) CO(3) . Use of LCE is
to provide data comparable with industry reports and is the total
equivalent amount of lithium carbonate, assuming the lithium
content in the deposit is converted to lithium carbonate, using the
conversion rates in the table included below to get an equivalent
Li(2) CO(3) value in percent. Use of LCE assumes 100% recovery and
no process losses in the extraction of Li(2) CO(3) from the
deposit.
Lithium resources and reserves are usually presented in tonnes
of LCE or Li.
The standard conversion factors are set out in the table
below:
Table: Conversion Factors for Lithium Compounds and Minerals
Convert Convert Convert
from Convert to to
Convert to Li(2) LiOH.H(
to Li Li(2) O CO(3) 2) O
Lithium Li 1.000 2.153 5.325 6.048
----------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Lithium Li(2)
Oxide O 0.464 1.000 2.473 2.809
----------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Lithium Li(2)
Carbonate CO(3) 0.188 0.404 1.000 1.136
----------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
LiOH.
Lithium H(2)
Hydroxide O 0.165 0.356 0.880 1.000
----------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Lithium
Fluoride LiF 0.268 0.576 1.424 1.618
----------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
COMPETENT PERSON'S STATEMENT
Information in this report that relates to exploration results
for CIS-15 to17, CIS-27 and CIS-31 to 36 is based on, and fairly
reflects, information and supporting documentation prepared by
European Metals Competent Person Dr Vojtech Sesulka. Dr Sesulka is
a Certified Professional Geologist (certified by the European
Federation of Geologists), a member of the Czech Association of
Economic Geologist, and a Competent Person as defined in the JORC
Code 2012 edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of
Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Dr Sesulka
has provided his prior written consent to the inclusion in this
report of the matters based on his information in the form and
context in which it appears. Dr Sesulka is an independent
consultant with more than 10 years working for the EMH or Geomet
companies. Dr Sesulka does not own any shares in the Company and is
not a participant in any short or long term incentive plans of the
Company.
The information in this release that relates to Mineral
Resources and Exploration Targets is based on, and fairly reflects,
information and supporting documentation prepared by Mr Lynn
Widenbar. Mr Widenbar, who is a Member of the Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and a Member of the Australasian
Institute of Geoscientists, is a full-time employee of Widenbar and
Associates and produced the estimate based on data and geological
information supplied by European Metals. Mr Widenbar has sufficient
experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type
of deposit under consideration and to the activity that he is
undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the JORC
Code 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of
Exploration Results, Minerals Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr
Widenbar has provided his prior written consent to the inclusion in
this report of the matters based on his information in the form and
context that the information appears. Mr Widenbar does not own any
shares in the Company and is not a participant in any short or long
term incentive plans of the Company.
PREVIOUSLY REPORTED INFORMATION
The information in this report relating to Exploration Results,
Ore Reserves, production targets and forecast financial information
derived from a production target (other than information being
reported for the first time in this report) is extracted from the
Company's ASX releases referred to in the body of the report and
are available to view on the Company's ASX announcements platform
(ASX: EMH). The Company confirms that it is not aware of any new
information or data that materially affects the information
included in the original market announcements and, in the case of
estimates of Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves, that all material
assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates in
the relevant market announcement continue to apply and have not
materially changed. The Company confirms that the form and context
in which the Competent Person's findings are presented have not
been materially modified from the original market announcement.
The information in this report relating to the Mineral Resources
reported in November 2017 is extracted from the Company's ASX
release dated 28 November 2017. The information has been provided
for comparison only, as the mineral resource estimate has been
updated by this report.
European Metals Ltd - Cinovec Deposit - September 2021
JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Sampling
techniques * Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, * Between 2014 and 2021, the Company commenced a core
random chips, or specific specialised industry drilling program and collected samples from core
standard measurement tools appropriate to the splits in line with JORC Code guidelines.
minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma
sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These
examples should not be taken as limiting the broad * Sample intervals honour geological or visible
meaning of sampling. mineraliisation boundaries and vary between 50cm and
2 m. The majority of samples are 1 m in length
* Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample
representivity and the appropriate calibration of any * The samples are half or quarter or eighth of core;
measurement tools or systems used. the latter applied for large diameter core.
* Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that * Between 1952 and 1989, the Cinovec deposit was
are Material to the Public Report. sampled in two ways: in drill core and underground
channel samples.
* In cases where 'industry standard' work has been done
this would be relatively simple (eg 'reverse * Channel samples, from drift ribs and faces, were
circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples collected during detailed exploration between 1952
from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g and 1989 by Geoindustria n.p. and Rudne Doly n.p.,
charge for fire assay'). In other cases more both Czechoslovak State companies. Sample length was
explanation may be required, such as where there is 1 m, channel 10x5cm, sample mass about 15kg. Up to
coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. 1966, samples were collected using hammer and chisel;
Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg from 1966 a small drill (Holman Hammer) was used.
submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed 14179 samples were collected and transported to a
information. crushing facility.
* Core and channel samples were crushed in two steps:
to -5mm, then to -0.5mm. 100g splits were obtained
and pulverized to -0.045mm for analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling
techniques * Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole * In 2014, three core holes were drilled for a total of
hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) 940.1m. In 2015, six core holes were drilled for a
and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard total of 2,455.0m. In 2016, eighteen core holes were
tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or drilled for a total of 6,459.6m. In 2017, six core
other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by holes were drilled for a total of 2697.1m. In 2018, 5
what method, etc). core holes were drilled for a total of 1,640.3 and in
2020, 22 core holes were drilled for a total of
6,621.7m.
* In 2014 and 2015, the core size was HQ3 (60mm
diameter) in upper parts of holes; in deeper sections
the core size was reduced to NQ3 (44mm diameter).
Core recovery was high (average 98%). Between 2016
and 2021 up to four drill rigs were used, the core
size was PQ or HQ.
* Historically only core drilling was employed, either
from surface or from underground.
* Surface drilling: 80 holes, total 30,340 meters;
vertical and inclined, maximum depth 1596m
(structural hole). Core diameters from 220mm near
surface to 110 mm at depth. Average core recovery
89.3%.
* Underground drilling: 766 holes for 53,126m;
horizontal and inclined. Core diameter 46mm; drilled
by Craelius XC42 or DIAMEC drills.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------
Drill sample
recovery * Method of recording and assessing core and chip * Core recovery for historical surface drill holes was
sample recoveries and results assessed. recorded on drill logs and entered into the database.
* Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure * No correlation between grade and core recovery was
representative nature of the samples. established.
* Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery
and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred
due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse
material.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------
Logging
* Whether core and chip samples have been geologically * In 2014-2021, core descriptions were recorded into
and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to paper logging forms by hand and later entered into an
support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, Excel database.
mining studies and metallurgical studies.
* Core was logged in detail historically in a facility
* Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in 6 km from the mine site. The following features were
nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography. logged and recorded in paper logs: lithology,
alteration (including intensity divided into weak,
medium and strong/pervasive), and occurrence of ore
* The total length and percentage of the relevant minerals expressed in %, macroscopic description of
intersections logged. congruous intervals and structures and core recovery.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-sampling
techniques * If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, * In 2014-21, core was washed, geologically logged,
and sample half or all core taken. sample intervals determined and marked then the core
preparation was cut in half. Larger core was cut in half and one
half was cut again to obtain a quarter or eighth core
* If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary sample. One half or one quarter or one eighth samples
split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. was delivered to ALS Global for assaying after
duplicates, blanks and standards were inserted in the
sample stream. The remaining drill core is stored on
* For all sample types, the nature, quality and site for reference.
appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.
* Sample preparation was carried out by ALS Global in
* Quality control procedures adopted for all Romania, using industry standard techniques
sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of appropriate for the style of mineralisation
samples. represented at Cinovec.
* Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is * Historically, core was either split or consumed
representative of the in situ material collected, entirely for analyses.
including for instance results for field
duplicate/second-half sampling.
* Samples are considered to be representative.
* Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain
size of the material being sampled. * Sample size and grains size are deemed appropriate
for the analytical techniques used.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------
Quality of
assay data * The nature, quality and appropriateness of the * In 2014-21, core samples were assayed by ALS Global.
and assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether The most appropriate analytical methods were
laboratory the technique is considered partial or total. determined by results of tests for various analytical
tests techniques.
* For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF
instruments, etc., the parameters used in determining * The following analytical methods were chosen: ME-MS81
the analysis including instrument make and model, (lithium borate fusion or 4 acid digest, ICP-MS
reading times, calibrations factors applied and their finish) for a suite of elements including Sn and W
derivation, etc. and ME-4ACD81 (4 acid digest, ICP-AES finish)
additional elements including lithium. In 2020-2021
analytical method ME-MS89L (Super Trace DL Na2O2 by
* Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. ICP-MS) was used.
standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory
checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy
(i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been * About 40% of samples were analysed by ME-MS81d
established. (ME-MS81 plus whole rock package). Samples with over
1% tin are analysed by XRF. Samples over 1% lithium
were analysed by Li-OG63 (four acid and ICP finish).
* Standards, blanks and duplicates were inserted into
the sample stream. Initial tin standard results
indicated possible downgrading bias; the laboratory
repeated the analysis with satisfactory results.
* Historically, tin content was measured by XRF and
using wet chemical methods. W and Li were analysed by
spectral methods.
* Analytical QA was internal and external. The former
subjected 5% of the sample to repeat analysis in the
same facility. 10% of samples were analysed in
another laboratory, also located in Czechoslovakia.
The QA/QC procedures were set to the State norms and
are considered adequate. It is unknown whether
external standards or sample duplicates were used.
* Overall accuracy of sampling and assaying was proved
later by test mining and reconciliation of mined and
analysed grades.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------
Verification
of sampling * The verification of significant intersections by * During the 2014-21 drill campaigns the Company
and assaying either independent or alternative company personnel. indirectly verified grades of tin and lithium by
comparing the length and grade of mineral intercepts
with the current block model.
* The use of twinned holes.
* Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures,
data verification, data storage (physical and
electronic) protocols.
* Discuss any adjustment to assay data.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------
Location of
data points * Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill * In 2014-21, drill collar locations were surveyed by a
holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine registered surveyor.
workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource
estimation.
* Down hole surveys were recorded by a contractor.
* Specification of the grid system used.
* Historically, drill hole collars were surveyed with a
great degree of precision by the mine survey crew.
* Quality and adequacy of topographic control.
* Hole locations are recorded in the local S-JTSK
Krovak grid.
* Topographic control is excellent.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------
Data spacing
and * Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. * Historical data density is very high.
distribution
* Whether the data spacing and distribution is * Spacing is sufficient to establish Measured,
sufficient to establish the degree of geological and Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource Estimates.
grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource
and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and
classifications applied. * Areas with lower coverage of Li% assays have been
identified as Exploration Targets.
* Whether sample compositing has been applied.
* Sample compositing to 1m intervals has been applied
mathematically prior to estimation but not
physically.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------
Orientation
of data in * Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased * In 2014-21, drill hole azimuth and dip was planned to
relation to sampling of possible structures and the extent to intercept the mineralized zones at near-true
geological which this is known, considering the deposit type. thickness. As the mineralized zones dip shallowly to
structure the south, drill holes were vertical or near vertical
and directed to the north. Due to land access
* If the relationship between the drilling orientation restrictions, certain holes could not be positioned
and the orientation of key mineralised structures is in sites with ideal drill angle.
considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this
should be assessed and reported if material.
* The Company has not directly collected any samples
underground because the workings are inaccessible at
this time.
* Based on historic reports, level plan maps, sections
and core logs, the samples were collected in an
unbiased fashion, systematically on two underground
levels from drift ribs and faces, as well as from
underground holes drilled perpendicular to the drift
directions. The sample density is adequate for the
style of deposit.
* Multiple samples were taken and analysed by the
Company from the historic tailing repository. Only
lithium was analysed (Sn and W too low). The results
matched the historic grades.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------
Sample
security * The measures taken to ensure sample security. * In the 2014-21 programs, only the Company's employees
and contractors handled drill core and conducted
sampling. The core was collected from the drill rig
each day and transported in a company vehicle to the
secure Company premises where it was logged and cut.
Company geologists supervised the process and
logged/sampled the core. The samples were transported
by Company personnel in a Company vehicle to the ALS
Global laboratory pick-up station. The remaining core
is stored under lock and key.
* Historically, sample security was ensured by State
norms applied to exploration. The State norms were
similar to currently accepted best practice and JORC
guidelines for sample security.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------
Audits or
reviews * The results of any audits or reviews of sampling * Review of sampling techniques was carried out from
techniques and data. written records. No flaws found.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
(Criteria listed in section 1 also apply to this section.)
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Mineral -- In June 2020, the Czech
tenement and * Type, reference name/number, location and ownership Ministry of the Environment
land tenure including agreements or material issues with third has granted Geomet three
status parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, Preliminary Mining Permits
overriding royalties, native title interests, which cover the whole of
historical sites, wilderness or national park and the Cinovec deposit. The
environmental settings. permits are valid until
2028.
* Geomet plans to amalgamate these into a single Final
* The security of the tenure held at the time of Mining Permit
reporting along with any known impediments to
obtaining a licence to operate in the area.
--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Exploration
done by other * Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other * There has been no acknowledgment or appraisal of
parties parties. exploration by other parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Geology
* Deposit type, geological setting and style of * Cinovec is a granite-hosted tin-tungsten-lithium
mineralisation. deposit.
* Late Variscan age, post-orogenic granite intrusionTin
and tungsten occur in oxide minerals (cassiterite and
wolframite). Lithium occurs in zinwaldite, a Li-rich
muscovite
* Mineralization in a small granite cupola. Vein and
greisen type. Alteration is greisenisation,
silicification.
--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Drill hole * Reported previously.
Information * A summary of all information material to the
understanding of the exploration results including a
tabulation of the following information for all
Material drill holes:
o easting and northing
of the drill hole collar
o elevation or RL (Reduced
Level - elevation above
sea level in metres)
of the drill hole collar
o dip and azimuth of
the hole
o down hole length and
interception depth
o hole length.
* If the exclusion of this information is justified on
the basis that the information is not Material and
this exclusion does not detract from the
understanding of the report, the Competent Person
should clearly explain why this is the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Data
aggregation * In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging * Reporting of exploration results has not and will not
methods techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations include aggregate intercepts.
(eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are
usually Material and should be stated.
* Metal equivalent not used in reporting.
* Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths
of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade * No grade truncations applied.
results, the procedure used for such aggregation
should be stated and some typical examples of such
aggregations should be shown in detail.
* The assumptions used for any reporting of metal
equivalent values should be clearly stated.
--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Relationship
between * These relationships are particularly important in the * Intercept widths are approximate true widths.
mineralisation reporting of Exploration Results.
widths and
intercept * The mineralization is mostly of disseminated nature
lengths * If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to and relatively homogeneous; the orientation of
the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be samples is of limited impact.
reported.
* For higher grade veins care was taken to drill at
* If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are angles ensuring closeness of intercept length and
reported, there should be a clear statement to this true widths
effect (e.g. 'down hole length, true width not
known').
* The block model accounts for variations between
apparent and true dip.
--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Diagrams
* Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and * Appropriate maps and sections have been generated by
tabulations of intercepts should be included for any the Company, and independent consultants. Available
significant discovery being reported These should in customary vector and raster outputs, and partially
include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill in consultant's reports.
hole collar locations and appropriate sectional
views.
--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Balanced
reporting * Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration * Balanced reporting in historic reports guaranteed by
Results is not practicable, representative reporting norms and standards, verified in 1997, and 2012 by
of both low and high grades and/or widths should be independent consultants.
practiced to avoid misleading reporting of
Exploration Results.
* The historic reporting was completed by several State
institutions and cross validated.
--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Other
substantive * Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, * Data available: bulk density for all representative
exploration should be reported including (but not limited to): rock and ore types; (historic data + 92 measurements
data geological observations; geophysical survey results; in 2016-21 from current core holes); petrographic and
geochemical survey results; bulk samples - size and mineralogical studies, hydrological information,
method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk hardness, moisture content, fragmentation etc.
density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock
characteristics; potential deleterious or
contaminating substances.
--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Further work
* The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. * Grade verification sampling from underground or
tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or drilling from surface. Historically-reported grades
large-scale step-out drilling). require modern validation in order to improve the
resource classification.
* Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible
extensions, including the main geological * The number and location of sampling sites will be
interpretations and future drilling areas, provided determined from a 3D wireframe model and
this information is not commercially sensitive. geostatistical considerations reflecting grade
continuity.
* The geologic model will be used to determine if any
infill drilling is required.
* The deposit is open down-dip on the southern
extension, and locally poorly constrained at its
western and eastern extensions, where limited
additional drilling might be required.
* No large scale drilling campaigns are required.
--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources
(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2,
also apply to this section.)
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Database
integrity * Measures taken to ensure that data has not been * Assay and geologic data were compiled by the Company
corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying staff from primary historic records, such as copies
errors, between its initial collection and its use of drill logs and large scale sample location maps.
for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.
* Sample data were entered in to Excel spreadsheets by
* Data validation procedures used. Company staff in Prague.
* The database entry process was supervised by a
Professional Geologist who works for the Company.
* The database was checked by independent competent
persons (Lynn Widenbar of Widenbar & Associates).
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Site visits
* Comment on any site visits undertaken by the * The site was visited by Dr Pavel Reichl who has
Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. identified the previous shaft sites, tails dams and
observed the mineralisation underground through an
adjacent mine working and was previously the
* If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why Competent Person for exploration results.
this is the case.
* The current Competent Person for exploration results,
Dr Vojtech Sesulka, has visited the site on multiple
occasions and has been involved in 2014 to 2021
drilling campaigns.
* The site was visited in June 2016 by Mr Lynn Widenbar
,
the Competent Person for Mineral Resource Estimation.
Diamond drill rigs were viewed, as was core; a visit
was carried out to the adjacent underground mine in
Germany which is a continuation of the Cinovec
Deposit.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Geological
interpretation * Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the * The overall geology of the deposit is relatively
geological interpretation of the mineral deposit. simple and well understood due to excellent data
control from surface and underground.
* Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.
* Nature of data: underground mapping, structural
measurements, detailed core logging, 3D data
* The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on synthesis on plans and maps.
Mineral Resource estimation.
* Geological continuity is good. The grade is highest
* The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral and shows most variability in quartz veins.
Resource estimation.
* Grade correlates with degree of silicification and
* The factors affecting continuity both of grade and greisenisation of the host granite.
geology.
* The primary control is the granite-country rock
contact. All mineralization is in the uppermost 200m
of the granite and is truncated by the contact.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions
* The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource * The Cinovec Deposit strikes north-south, is elongated
expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan ,
width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower and dips gently south parallel to the upper granite
limits of the Mineral Resource. contact. The surface projection of mineralization is
about 1 km long and 900 m wide.
* Mineralization extends from about 200m to 500m below
surface.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Estimation and
modelling * The nature and appropriateness of the estimation * Block estimation was carried out in Micromine 2021.5
techniques technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including using Ordinary Kriging interpolation.
treatment of extreme grade values, domaining,
interpolation parameters and maximum distance of
extrapolation from data points. If a computer * A geological domain model was constructed using
assisted estimation method was chosen include a Leapfrog software with solid wireframes representing
description of computer software and parameters used. greisen, granite, greisenised granite and the
overlying barren rhyolite. This was used to both
control interpolation and to assign density to the
* The availability of check estimates, previous model (2.57 for granite, 2.70 for greisen and 2.60
estimates and/or mine production records and whether for all other material).
the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate
account of such data.
* Analysis of sample lengths indicated that compositing
to 1m was necessary.
* The assumptions made regarding recovery of
by-products.
* Search ellipse sizes and orientations for the
estimation were based on drill hole spacing, the
* Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade known orientations of mineralisation and variography.
variables of economic significance (e.g. sulphur for
acid mine drainage characterisation).
* An "unfolding" search strategy was used which allowed
the search ellipse orientation to vary with the
* In the case of block model interpolation, the block locally changing dip and strike.
size in relation to the average sample spacing and
the search employed.
* After statistical analysis, a top cut of 5% was
applied to Sn% and W%; a 1.2% top cut is applied to
* Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining Li%.
units.
* Sn% and Li% were then estimated by Ordinary Kriging
* Any assumptions about correlation between variables. within the mineralisation solids.
* Description of how the geological interpretation was * The primary search ellipse was 150m along strike,
used to control the resource estimates. 150m down dip and 7.5m across the mineralisation. A
minimum of 4 composites and a maximum of 8 composites
were required.
* Discussion of basis for using or not using grade
cutting or capping.
* A second interpolation with search ellipse of 300m x
300m x 12.5m was carried out to inform blocks to be
* The process of validation, the checking process used, used as the basis for an Exploration Target.
the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and
use of reconciliation data if available.
* Block size was 10m (E-W) by 10m (N-S) by 5m
* Validation of the final resource has been carried out
in a number of ways including section comparison of
data versus model, swathe plots and production
reconciliation. All methods produced satisfactory
results.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Moisture
* Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or * Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis using the
with natural moisture, and the method of average bulk density for each geological domain.
determination of the moisture content.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Cut-off
parameters * The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality * A series of alternative cutoffs was used to report
parameters applied. tonnage and grade: Lithium 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3% and 0.4%.
* The final reporting cutoff of 0.1% Li was chosen
based on underground mining studies carried out By
Bara Consulting in 2017 while developing an initial
Probable Ore reserve Estimate.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Mining factors
or assumptions * Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, * Mining is assumed to be by underground methods.
minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if
applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always
necessary as part of the process of determining * An updated Preliminary Feasibility Study prepared in
reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction 2019 established that it was feasible and economic to
to consider potential mining methods, but the use large-scale, long-hole open stop mining.
assumptions made regarding mining methods and
parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not
always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this * Using a total processing cost of $40/t, a recovery of
should be reported with an explanation of the basis 75% and Li(2) CO(3) price of $10,000 gives a
of the mining assumptions made. break-even cutoff of 0.0987% Li.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Metallurgical
factors or * The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding * Successful locked-cycle tests ("LCT") results carried
assumptions metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as out in 2021 further support the Cinovec project's
part of the process of determining reasonable credentials to initially produce battery-grade
prospects for eventual economic extraction to lithium carbonate. -- European Metals has
consider potential metallurgical methods, but the demonstrated that Cinovec battery grade lithium
assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment carbonate can be easily converted into lithium
processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral hydroxide monohydrate with a commonly utilised liming
Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is plant process. -- Six LCTs were planned but testwork
the case, this should be reported with an explanation was stopped after four cycles as the main process
of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made. stream compositions had successfully stabilised. --
Battery grade lithium carbonate was produced in every
LCT with lithium recoveries of up to 92.0% achieved
in the four LCTs performed. -- The LCTs tested
zinnwaldite concentrate from the southern part of
Cinovec, representative of the first five years of
mining. -- Improved fluoride removal process step
further enhances project's economic outcomes as a
result of the regeneration and reuse of the ion
exchange resins. -- Further optimisation work in
hydrometallurgy processing steps expected to improve
lithium recoveries from concentrate to >92.0%.
* Extensive testwork was conducted on Cinovec ore in
the past. Testing culminated with a pilot plant trial
in 1970, where three batches of Cinovec ore were
processed, each under slightly different conditions.
The best result, with a tin recovery of 76.36%, was
obtained from a batch of 97.13t grading 0.32% Sn. A
more elaborate flowsheet was also investigated and
with flotation produced final Sn and W recoveries of
better than 96% and 84%, respectively.
* Historical laboratory testwork also demonstrated that
lithium can be extracted from the ore (lithium
carbonate was produced from 1958-1966 at Cinovec).
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental
factors or * Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process * Cinovec is in an area of historic mining activity
assumptions residue disposal options. It is always necessary as spanning the past 600 years. Extensive State
part of the process of determining reasonable exploration was conducted until 1990.
prospects for eventual economic extraction to
consider the potential environmental impacts of the
mining and processing operation. While at this stage * The property is located in a sparsely populated area,
the determination of potential environmental impacts, most of the land belongs to the State. Few problems
particularly for a greenfields project, may not are anticipated with regards to the acquisition of
always be well advanced, the status of early surface rights for any potential underground mining
consideration of these potential environmental operation.
impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have
not been considered this should be reported with an
explanation of the environmental assumptions made. * The envisaged mining method will see much of the
waste and tailings used as underground fill.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Bulk density
* Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis * Historical bulk density measurements were made in a
for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, laboratory.
whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements
,
the nature, size and representativeness of the * The following densities were applied:
samples.
* 2.57 for granite
* The bulk density for bulk material must have been
measured by methods that adequately account for void
spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture and * 2.70 for greisen
differences between rock and alteration zones within
the deposit.
* 2.60 for all other material
* Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used
in the evaluation process of the different materials.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Classification
* The basis for the classification of the Mineral * The new 2014 to 2020 drilling has confirmed the
Resources into varying confidence categories. Lithium mineralisation model and allowed the Mineral
Resource to be classified in the Measured, Indicated
and Inferred categories.
* Whether appropriate account has been taken of all
relevant factors (ie relative confidence in
tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, * The detailed classification is based on a combination
confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, of drill hole spacing and the output from the kriging
quality, quantity and distribution of the data). interpolation.
* Whether the result appropriately reflects the * Measured material is located in the south of the
Competent Person's view of the deposit. deposit in the area of new infill drilling carried
out between 2014 and 2020.
* Material outside the classified area has been used as
the basis for an Exploration Target.
* The Competent Person (Lynn Widenbar) endorses the
final results and classification.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Audits or
reviews * The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral * Wardell Armstrong International, in their review of
Resource estimates. Lynn Widenbar's initial resource estimate stated "the
Widenbar model appears to have been prepared in a
diligent manner and given the data available provides
a reasonable estimate of the drillhole assay data at
the Cinovec deposit".
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of
relative * Where appropriate a statement of the relative * In 2012, WAI carried out model validation exercises
accuracy/ accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource on the initial Widenbar model, which included visual
confidence estimate using an approach or procedure deemed comparison of drilling sample grades and the
appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the estimated block model grades, and Swath plots to
application of statistical or geostatistical assess spatial local grade variability.
procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the
resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such
an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative * A visual comparison of Block model grades vs
discussion of the factors that could affect the drillhole grades was carried out on a sectional basis
relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate. for both Sn and Li mineralisation. Visually, grades
in the block model correlated well with drillhole
grade for both Sn and Li.
* The statement should specify whether it relates to
global or local estimates, and, if local, state the
relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to * Swathe plots were generated from the model by
technical and economic evaluation. Documentation averaging composites and blocks in all 3 dimensions
should include assumptions made and the procedures using 10m panels. Swath plots were generated for the
used. Sn and Li estimated grades in the block model, these
should exhibit a close relationship to the composite
data upon which the estimation is based. As the
* These statements of relative accuracy and confidence original drillhole composites were not available to
of the estimate should be compared with production WAI. 1m composite samples based on 0.1% cut-offs for
data, where available. both Sn and Li assays were
* Overall Swathe plots illustrate a good correlation
between the composites and the block grades. As is
visible in the Swathe plots, there has been a large
amount of smoothing of the block model grades when
compared to the composite grades, this is typical of
the estimation method.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
This information is provided by RNS, the news service of the
London Stock Exchange. RNS is approved by the Financial Conduct
Authority to act as a Primary Information Provider in the United
Kingdom. Terms and conditions relating to the use and distribution
of this information may apply. For further information, please
contact rns@lseg.com or visit www.rns.com.
RNS may use your IP address to confirm compliance with the terms
and conditions, to analyse how you engage with the information
contained in this communication, and to share such analysis on an
anonymised basis with others as part of our commercial services.
For further information about how RNS and the London Stock Exchange
use the personal data you provide us, please see our Privacy
Policy.
END
UPDFIFISISLVLIL
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
October 13, 2021 02:00 ET (06:00 GMT)
European Metals (LSE:EMH)
Gráfica de Acción Histórica
De Mar 2024 a Abr 2024
European Metals (LSE:EMH)
Gráfica de Acción Histórica
De Abr 2023 a Abr 2024
