Tempus Resources Mineral Resource Estimate on the Elizabeth Gold Project
Perth, November 2, 2023 - Tempus Resources Ltd. (ASX: TMR) (TSXV: TMRR) (OTC Pink: TMRFF) ("Tempus" or the "Company") is pleased to announce the results from its Mineral Resource estimate (MRE) at its 100% owned 11,500 hectare Elizabeth Gold Project. The Elizabeth Project is located in the prospective Bralorne - Pioneer gold trend in southern British Columbia, Canada.
Elizabeth Gold Project MRE Highlights
- 60,900 ounces of gold Indicated, plus 35,200 ounces of gold Inferred
- 63% of the MRE gold ounces in the higher confidence Indicated classification: 317,200 tonnes at 5.97g/t for 60,900 gold ounces
- Indicated and Inferred Resources estimated across 5 main vein groups with the Southwest Vein group containing 67% of the total resource tonnes: 253,100 tonnes at 6.63 g/t for 54,000 ounces of gold Indicated plus 172,100 tonnes at 4.21 g/t for 23,300 ounces of gold Inferred
- Average gold grade of Indicated MRE is 4 times higher than the cut-off grade demonstrating excellent potential for future economic extraction
- This MRE is based on potential underground extraction
The MRE reported below (Table 1-1) was completed by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. based on a total of 237 diamond drill holes (41,006 m), 7,904 drill core assays, 345 underground rock samples, 240 bulk density measurements, and preliminary metallurgical test work.
Tempus Resources President and CEO, Jason Bahnsen, commented, "The updated MRE highlights the potential for the Elizabeth Project with over 63% of resource gold ounces being in the Indicated category across five key vein groups that remain open at depth and along strike. Opportunities for expansion of the resource are excellent with fourteen separate veins identified within the Elizabeth Main area with the potential for additional mineralised vein sets at the Elizabeth East and Elizabeth Northwest zones."
Table 1-1: Mineral Resources Per Vein* , Elizabeth Deposit, Lillooet Region, BC
Classification | Vein | Tonnes | Gold (g/t) | Gold Ounces (Oz) | % of Total Oz |
Indicated | No 9 Vein | 6,800 | 5.81 | 1,300 | 1.4% |
Blue Vein | 39,500 | 3.55 | 4,500 | 4.7% | |
SW Vein | 253,100 | 6.63 | 54,000 | 56.1% | |
West Vein | 15,700 | 2.14 | 1,000 | 1.0% | |
Main Vein | 2,100 | 1.88 | 100 | 0.1% | |
Subtotal | 317,200 | 5.97 | 60,900 | 63.4% | |
Inferred | No 9 Vein | 84,300 | 2.51 | 6,800 | 7.1% |
Blue Vein | 50,700 | 2.81 | 4,500 | 4.7% | |
SW Vein | 172,100 | 4.21 | 23,300 | 24.2% | |
West Vein | 5,300 | 2.20 | 400 | 0.4% | |
Main Vein | 2,600 | 2.05 | 200 | 0.2% | |
Subtotal | 315,000 | 3.48 | 35,200 | 36.6% | |
TOTAL | 632,200 | 4.73 | 96,100 | 100.0% |
* Notes to accompany the Mineral Resource statement
- Mineral resources are not mineral reserves as they do not have demonstrated economic viability
- As defined by NI 43-101, the Independent and Qualified Person is Ms. S. Ulansky, PGeo of SRK Consulting (Canada) who has reviewed and validated the Mineral Resource Estimate
- The effective date of the Mineral Resource Estimate is October 18, 2023
- The number of metric tonnes and ounces were rounded to the nearest hundred. Any discrepancy in the totals are due to rounding
- Reported underground resources are reported in-situ and undiluted at a cut-off grade of 1.5 g/t Au contained within a constrained shape
- The cut-off grade is based on a gold price of US$1,800 per ounces of gold
- Estimates are metric units (meters, tonnes and g/t). Metals are reported in troy ounces (metric tonne x grade / 31.10348)
- CIM definitions were followed for the classification of mineral resources
- The model has been depleted for blocks above surface topography and within old underground workings
- The barren felsic dyke material is set to a default of 0.08 g/t Au
- Neither the company nor SRK is aware of any known environmental, permitting, legal, title-related, taxation, socio-political, marketing or other relevant issue that could materially affect this mineral resource estimate
A total of fourteen mineralization veins were interpreted and constructed, as shown in both plan view (Figure 1) and a cross section of the Southwest Vein (Figure 2) below. Models were developed for each vein using the drill core field logs and assays, and represent continuous gold constrained with a nominal grade of 1.5 g/t gold to a minimum thickness of 0.15 m drill core length. The 3-D constraining domain wireframes were treated separately for the purposes of rock coding, statistical analysis, compositing limits, and definition of the extent of potentially economic mineralization. All mineralization veins were clipped by the overburden surface.
The Mineral Resource was classified as either Indicated or Inferred based on the drill hole spacing, geological interpretation, and variogram performance. Indicated Mineral Resources were classified within the veins using at least two holes within a spacing of 30 m or less. Inferred Mineral Resources were classified for vein blocks using at least two drill holes at drilling densities between 30 m and 100 m. The Elizabeth Project mineralisation is considered to be potentially amenable to underground mining methods, and the Mineral Resource Estimate reported herein is based on a gold cut-off of 1.5 g/t. The reader is cautioned that Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Drilling, assaying and exploration work on the Elizabeth deposit demonstrate spatial continuity of the mineralization within potentially mineable shapes, and are sufficient to indicate a reasonable potential for economic extraction, thus qualifying it as a Mineral Resource in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators' National Instrument 43-101. The Mineral Resource was estimated in conformity with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum ("CIM") "Estimation of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines" (November 2019) and the definitions set out in the 2014 CIM Definition Standards.
A Technical Report to support the initial Mineral Resource Estimate for the Elizabeth Gold Project, prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-101, will be filed on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) within 45 days of this news release.
Figure 1 - Elizabeth Vein Modelling Plan View (elevation 2,230 masl) Showing Indicated (Green) and Inferred Resources (Blue)
To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7585/186052_f00f20b044ef1a4a_001full.jpg
Figure 2 - South West Vein Modelling Cross Section (Facing Northwest) Showing Indicated (Green) and Inferred Resources (Blue)
To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7585/186052_f00f20b044ef1a4a_002full.jpg
Note 1: Section view is clipped to +/- 70 metres
Competent Persons Statement
The Mineral Resource Estimate for the Elizabeth Gold Project was prepared by Sheila Ulansky MSc, PGeo, of SRK Consultants (Canada) Inc., an Independent Qualified Persons as defined by National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. Ms Ulansky has reviewed and approved the technical contents of this news release.
This announcement has been authorised by the Board of Directors of Tempus Resources Ltd..
For further information:
Melanie Ross - Director/Company Secretary Phone: +61 8 6188 8181
About Tempus Resources Ltd
Tempus Resources Ltd. ("Tempus") is a growth orientated gold exploration company listed on ASX ("TMR") and TSX.V ("TMRR") and OTC ("TMRFF") stock exchanges. Tempus is actively exploring projects located in Canada and Ecuador. The flagship project for Tempus is the Blackdome-Elizabeth Project, a high grade gold past producing project located in Southern British Columbia. Tempus is currently midway through a drill program at Blackdome-Elizabeth that will form the basis of an updated NI43-101/JORC resource estimate. On September 21, 2023, Tempus announced the acquisition of an option over the White Rabbit and Cormorant lithium exploration projects located in Central Manitoba. In addition, the Company holds two exploration projects located in located in South East Ecuador, the Rio Zarza and the Valle del Tigre projects.
Forward-Looking Information and Statements
This press release contains certain "forward-looking information" within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. Such forward-looking information and forward-looking statements are not representative of historical facts or information or current condition, but instead represent only the Company's beliefs regarding future events, plans or objectives, many of which, by their nature, are inherently uncertain and outside of Tempus's control. Generally, such forward-looking information or forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as "plans", "expects" or "does not expect", "is expected", "budget", "scheduled", "estimates", "forecasts", "intends", "anticipates" or "does not anticipate", or "believes", or variations of such words and phrases or may contain statements that certain actions, events or results "may", "could", "would", "might" or "will be taken", "will continue", "will occur" or "will be achieved". The forward-looking information and forward-looking statements contained herein may include, but are not limited to, the ability of Tempus to successfully achieve business objectives, and expectations for other economic, business, and/or competitive factors. Forward-looking statements and information are subject to various known and unknown risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the ability of Tempus to control or predict, that may cause Tempus' actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from those expressed or implied thereby, and are developed based on assumptions about such risks, uncertainties and other factors set out herein and the other risks and uncertainties disclosed under the heading "Risk and Uncertainties" in the Company's Management's Discussion & Analysis for the year ended June 30, 2023 dated September 28, 2023 filed on SEDAR. Should one or more of these risks, uncertainties or other factors materialize, or should assumptions underlying the forward-looking information or statements prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those described herein as intended, planned, anticipated, believed, estimated or expected. Although Tempus believes that the assumptions and factors used in preparing, and the expectations contained in, the forward-looking information and statements are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on such information and statements, and no assurance or guarantee can be given that such forward-looking information and statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such information and statements.
The forward-looking information and forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of the date of this press release, and Tempus does not undertake to update any forward-looking information and/or forward-looking statements that are contained or referenced herein, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking information and statements attributable to Tempus or persons acting on its behalf are expressly qualified in its entirety by this notice.
Neither the ASX Exchange, the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Service Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
Section 1 - Sampling Techniques and Data
(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)
Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary | ||
Sampling techniques |
|
| ||
Drilling techniques |
|
| ||
Drill sample recovery |
|
|
Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
Logging |
|
|
Sub- sampling techniques and sample preparation |
|
|
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests |
|
|
Verification of sampling and assaying |
|
|
Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary | |
Location of data points |
|
| |
Data spacing and distribution |
|
| |
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure |
|
| |
Sample s Security |
|
| |
Audits or Reviews |
|
|
Section 2 - Reporting of Exploration Results
(Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section)
Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary | |
Mineral tenement and land tenure status |
|
| |
Exploration done by other parties |
|
|
Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
Mining operations lasted six months and ended in May of 1999. During this period, 6,547 oz of Au and 17,300 oz of Ag were produced from 21,268 tons of ore. Further exploration programs were continued by Claimstaker over the following years and a Japanese joint venture partner was brought onboard that prompted a name change to J-Pacific Gold Inc. This partnership was terminated by 2010, resulting in another name change to Sona Resources Corp.
| ||
Geology |
|
|
Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
Geochemical studies (Vivian, 1988) have shown these rocks to be derived from a "calc-alkaline" magma in a volcanic arc type tectonic setting. Eocene age granitic intrusions at Poison Mountain some 22 kilometres southwest of Blackdome are host to a gold bearing porphyry copper/molybdenum deposit. It is speculated that this or related intrusions could reflect the source magmas of the volcanic rocks seen at Blackdome. There is some documented evidence of young granitic rocks several kilometres south of the mine near Lone Cabin Creek. The youngest rocks present are Oligocene to Miocene basalts of the Chilcotin Group. These are exposed on the uppermost slopes of Blackdome Mountain and Red Mountain to the south.
|
Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
Drill hole Information |
|
|
Data aggregation methods |
|
|
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths |
|
|
Diagrams |
|
|
Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
Balanced reporting |
|
|
Other substantive exploration data |
|
|
Further work |
|
|
Section 3 - Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resource
(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 corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes. Data validation procedures used. |
|
Site visits | Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case. |
|
Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
Geological interpretation | Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit. Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made. The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation. The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation. The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology. |
|
Dimensions | The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource. |
|
Estimation and modelling techniques |
|
Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used. The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data. The assumptions made regarding recovery of by- products. Estimation of deleterious elements or other non- grade variables of economic significance (e.g. sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. Any assumptions about correlation between variables. Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available. |
|
Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
Moisture | Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content. |
|
Cut-off parameters | The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied. |
|
Mining factors or assumptions | Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining factors or assumptions made. |
|
Metallurgical factors or assumptions | The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made. |
|
Environmental factors or assumptions | Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made. |
|
Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
Bulk density | Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples. The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit. Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials. |
|
Classification | The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories. Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (i.e. relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data). Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person's view of the deposit. |
|
Audits or Reviews | The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates. |
|
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence | Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate. The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used. These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available. |
|
Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary |
|
To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/186052