The MRE shows Indicated Resources of 224.8 million pounds of contained nickel and 155.0 million pounds of contained copper and further Inferred Resources of 86.2 million pounds of contained nickel and 57.5 million pounds of contained copper (Table 3).
The MRE, in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 ("NI 43-101") is effective as of
- In-Pit Resource at a 0.3% NiEq1 Cutoff Grade
- Indicated Resource of 19.3 Mt at 0.42% Ni, 0.28% Cu (0.57% NiEq2)
- Inferred Resource of 3.3 Mt at 0.37% Ni, 0.28% Cu (0.53% NiEq2)
- In-Pit Resource extends from surface to a vertical depth of 435 metres.
- Future Expansion: Potential to expand the 'higher-grade' (>0.9% NiEq2) zones within the In-Pit Resource with additional infill drilling.
- Out-of-Pit Resource at a 0.7% NiEq1 Cutoff Grade
- Indicated Resource of 3.2 Mt at 0.63% Ni, 0.47% Cu (0.92% NiEq2)
- Inferred Resource of 3.9 Mt at 0.69% Ni, 0.43% Cu (0.97% NiEq2)
- Exploration Upside: Significant potential to expand the Out-of-Pit Resource with additional infill drilling.
*Please see Mineral Resource Estimate Notes at the end of this release.
The geometry of the mineralization at West Graham, its amenability to low-cost open-pit mining methods, the availability of local skilled labour, proximity to power, transportation and processing infrastructure, including both nickel sulphide mills and smelters, favourably positions the project for a near-term path to production. The West Graham Deposit, as well as the larger Lockerby East Property, retains remarkable exploration upside and our maiden Mineral Resource is a vital step towards unlocking and realising that potential."
Table 1: West Graham Project Maiden Mineral Resource Estimate effective
*Please see Mineral Resource Estimate Notes at the end of this release.
Area | Category | NiEq | Tonnes | Ni % | Cu % | Co % | Pt g/t | Pd g/t | Au g/t | Ag g/t | NiEq %2 |
West Graham In-Pit Resource | |||||||||||
In-Pit | Indicated | 0.3 | 19,326,000 | 0.42 | 0.28 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 1.47 | 0.57 |
In-Pit | Inferred | 0.3 | 3,283,000 | 0.37 | 0.28 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 1.24 | 0.53 |
West | |||||||||||
Out-of-Pit | Indicated | 0.7 | 3,238,000 | 0.63 | 0.47 | 0.02 | 0.24 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 2.64 | 0.92 |
Out-of-Pit | Inferred | 0.7 | 3,867,000 | 0.69 | 0.43 | 0.03 | 0.22 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 2.20 | 0.97 |
(1) | NiEq cutoff grades consider metal prices of |
(2) | NiEq grades are calculated using this formula: Ni (%) + [Cu (%) * 0.369] + [Co (%) * 2.318] + [Pt / 31.1 * 4.779] + [Pd / 31.1 * 8.602] + [Au / 31.1 * 8.124] with price assumptions of |
Table 2: West Graham Resources, Sensitivity to cutoff grade. West Graham In-Pit Resource and Out-of-Pit Resource.
NiEq | Tonnes | Ni % | Cu % | Co % | Pt g/t | Pd g/t | Au g/t | Ag g/t | NiEq %2 |
West Graham In-Pit Indicated Resource | |||||||||
0.2 | 20,800,000 | 0.40 | 0.27 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 1.42 | 0.55 |
0.3 | 19,326,000 | 0.42 | 0.28 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 1.47 | 0.57 |
0.4 | 15,508,000 | 0.46 | 0.31 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 1.54 | 0.63 |
0.5 | 10,330,000 | 0.53 | 0.34 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 1.66 | 0.72 |
0.6 | 6,534,000 | 0.61 | 0.38 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 1.77 | 0.82 |
0.7 | 4,085,000 | 0.69 | 0.41 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 1.85 | 0.92 |
0.8 | 2,618,000 | 0.78 | 0.44 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 1.93 | 1.02 |
0.9 | 1,641,000 | 0.87 | 0.47 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 2.02 | 1.12 |
1.0 | 1,044,000 | 0.95 | 0.48 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 2.11 | 1.22 |
West Graham In-Pit Inferred Resource | |||||||||
0.2 | 3,350,000 | 0.37 | 0.28 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 1.22 | 0.53 |
0.3 | 3,283,000 | 0.37 | 0.28 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 1.24 | 0.53 |
0.4 | 2,857,000 | 0.39 | 0.30 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 1.29 | 0.56 |
0.5 | 1,723,000 | 0.43 | 0.33 | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 1.38 | 0.62 |
0.6 | 758,000 | 0.51 | 0.37 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 1.46 | 0.72 |
0.7 | 341,000 | 0.59 | 0.40 | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 1.60 | 0.82 |
0.8 | 151,000 | 0.65 | 0.46 | 0.02 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 1.69 | 0.91 |
0.9 | 68,000 | 0.71 | 0.52 | 0.02 | 0.17 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 1.98 | 1.00 |
1.0 | 24,000 | 0.80 | 0.55 | 0.02 | 0.17 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 2.61 | 1.11 |
NiEq | Tonnes | Ni % | Cu % | Co % | Pt g/t | Pd g/t | Au g/t | Ag g/t | NiEq %2 |
West | |||||||||
0.6 | 5,184,000 | 0.55 | 0.42 | 0.02 | 0.22 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 2.29 | 0.81 |
0.7 | 3,238,000 | 0.63 | 0.47 | 0.02 | 0.24 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 2.64 | 0.92 |
0.8 | 1,982,000 | 0.72 | 0.52 | 0.02 | 0.25 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 2.95 | 1.04 |
0.9 | 1,240,000 | 0.81 | 0.56 | 0.02 | 0.25 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 3.14 | 1.16 |
1.0 | 794,000 | 0.92 | 0.60 | 0.03 | 0.27 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 3.29 | 1.29 |
1.1 | 596,000 | 0.99 | 0.63 | 0.03 | 0.26 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 3.44 | 1.37 |
1.2 | 451,000 | 1.05 | 0.66 | 0.03 | 0.21 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 3.59 | 1.45 |
West | |||||||||
0.6 | 6,152,000 | 0.59 | 0.39 | 0.02 | 0.20 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 2.01 | 0.85 |
0.7 | 3,867,000 | 0.69 | 0.43 | 0.03 | 0.22 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 2.20 | 0.97 |
0.8 | 2,627,000 | 0.78 | 0.44 | 0.03 | 0.24 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 2.26 | 1.08 |
0.9 | 1,728,000 | 0.90 | 0.45 | 0.03 | 0.24 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 2.18 | 1.21 |
1.0 | 1,298,000 | 0.99 | 0.45 | 0.03 | 0.26 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 2.08 | 1.30 |
1.1 | 993,000 | 1.08 | 0.44 | 0.04 | 0.25 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 1.97 | 1.39 |
1.2 | 756,000 | 1.16 | 0.42 | 0.04 | 0.25 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 1.77 | 1.47 |
(1) | NiEq cutoff grades consider metal prices of |
(2) | NiEq grades are calculated using this formula: Ni (%) + [Cu (%) * 0.369] + [Co (%) * 2.318] + [Pt / 31.1 * 4.779] + [Pd / 31.1 * 8.602] + [Au / 31.1 * 8.124] with price assumptions of |
Table 3: West Graham Resources, Contained Metal in West Graham In-Pit Resource and Out-of-Pit Resource.
NiEq | Category | Tonnes | Ni lbs (Millions) | Cu lbs (Millions) | Co lbs (Millions) | Pt (ozs) | Pd (ozs) | Au (ozs) | Ag (ozs) |
West Graham In-Pit Contained Metals | |||||||||
0.3 | Indicated | 19,326,000 | 179.1 | 121.0 | 5.1 | 39,000 | 12,000 | 15,000 | 911,000 |
0.3 | Inferred | 3,283,000 | 26.7 | 20.6 | 0.8 | 10,000 | 3,000 | 3,000 | 131,000 |
West | |||||||||
0.7 | Indicated | 3,238,000 | 45.7 | 34.0 | 1.5 | 25,000 | 6,000 | 7,000 | 275,000 |
0.7 | Inferred | 3,867,000 | 59.5 | 36.9 | 2.4 | 27,000 | 7,600 | 7,000 | 273,000 |
(1) | NiEq cutoff grades consider metal prices of |
In addition to the West Graham Deposit, the property also hosts the 100% owned high-grade LKE Deposit (formerly called the Lockerby East Deposit). Located 200 metres down-dip of the West Graham Resource (Figure 2), the deposit is comprised of a lens of high-grade Ni-Cu-PGM massive sulphide where historical drilling returned values as high as 5.60% Ni and 1.26% Cu over a core length of 10.0 metres (see reference section). In 2009,
Mineral Resource Estimate Notes:
(1) | The Mineral Resource Estimate was estimated by |
(2) | The classification of the current Mineral Resource Estimates for the West Graham Deposit into Indicated and Inferred is consistent with current 2014 CIM Definition Standards - For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. |
(3) | All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate and numbers may not add due to rounding. |
(4) | All mineral resources are presented undiluted and in situ, constrained by continuous 3D wireframe models (the constraining volumes), and are considered to have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. |
(5) | Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to an Indicated Mineral Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral Reserve. It is reasonably expected that most of the Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued exploration. |
(6) | The validated database for the West Graham Deposit provided by |
(7) | The West Graham resource model is based on 256 mineralized intercepts from 236 drill holes and 17 rock channels, including mineralized intercepts from all 85 drill holes completed by SPC. The mineralized database included 7,953 assay samples, average length of 1.30 m and 7,119 1.5 m composites. |
(8) | The West Graham Mineral Resource Estimate is based on a three-dimensional ("3D") resource model, constructed in GEOVIA GEMS version 6.8.3 software ("GEMS"). |
(9) | Grades for nickel, copper, cobalt, platinum, palladium, gold and silver were estimated were interpolated into a block model, with block dimensions of 10 * x 5 (y) x 5 (z) m, using 1.5 m capped composites assigned to that model. To generate grade within the blocks, the inverse distance squared (ID2) interpolation method was used. The resource estimate search parameters are based on drill hole spacing, and size, shape and orientation of the resource domain. The classification of resource into Inferred and Indicated is based primarily on drill hole spacing. |
(10) | An average density value for the West Graham Deposit was assigned based on a database of 6,295 mineralized samples. A value of 2.92 is used for West Graham. Values ranging from 2.85 to 3.00 are used for waste. Waste densities are based on a database of 7,039 samples. |
(11) | The West Graham Deposit mineralization is considered amenable to open-pit and underground extraction. |
(12) | It is envisioned that parts of the West Graham Deposit may be mined using open pit mining methods. In-pit mineral resources for the West Graham Deposit are reported at a base case cutoff grade of 0.3 % NiEq within a conceptual pit shell. Whittle™ pit optimization software (GEOVIA Whittle 2022) was used for pit optimization. The results from the pit optimization are used solely for the purpose of testing the "reasonable prospects for economic extraction" by an open-pit and do not represent an attempt to estimate mineral reserves. There are no mineral reserves on the Property. The results are used as a guide to assist in the preparation of a Mineral Resource statement and to select an appropriate resource reporting cutoff grade. The West Graham in-pit Mineral Resource grade blocks are quantified above the base case cutoff grade, above the constraining pit shell, below topography and within the constraining mineralized domain (the constraining volumes). |
(13) | Underground Mineral Resources for the West Graham Deposit are estimated from out of the pit shell and are reported at a base case cutoff grade of 0.7 % NiEq. The West Graham underground resource grade blocks were quantified above the base case cutoff grade, out of the constraining pit shell and within the constraining mineralized domain (the constraining volume). |
(14) | Based on the size, shape and orientation of the deposit, it is envisioned that the West Graham underground resource may be mined using the longhole open stoping mining method (a bulk mining method that has long been utilized in the |
(15) | NiEq cutoff grades consider metal prices of |
(16) | NiEq grades are calculated using this formula: Ni (%) + [Cu (%) * 0.369] + [Co (%) * 2.318] + [Pt / 31.1 * 4.779] + [Pd / 31.1 * 8.602] + [Au / 31.1 * 8.124] with price assumptions of |
(17) | For the West Graham Deposit, pit optimization and the in-pit base case cutoff grade of 0.3% NiEq considers a mining cost of |
(18) | The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues. |
Technical Report on the 2009 Resource Estimate for the Depth, East and Upper West Zones,
News Release, First Nickel Reports: 10 Metres Of 5.60% Ni and 1.26% Cu Hosted in Footwall from
The Mineral Resource Estimate was estimated by
Technical elements of this news release have been approved by Mr.
Except for statements of historical fact contained herein, the information in this news release constitutes "forward-looking information" within the meaning of Canadian securities law. Such forward-looking information may be identified by words such as "plans", "proposes", "estimates", "intends", "expects", "believes", "may", "will" and include without limitation, statements regarding estimated capital and operating costs, expected production timeline, benefits of updated development plans, foreign exchange assumptions and regulatory approvals. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate; actual results and future events could differ materially from such statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include, among others, metal prices, competition, risks inherent in the mining industry, and regulatory risks. Most of these factors are outside the control of
Neither
SOURCE
© Canada Newswire, source