20 August
2024
Sylvania Platinum Limited
("Sylvania", the "Company" or the
"Group")
Exploration Update for Northern Limb
Projects
Sylvania (AIM:SLP), the platinum
group metals ("PGM") producer and developer with assets in South
Africa, is pleased to announce the results of the successful
Scoping Study completed on the Volspruit Project, as well as
the declaration of an Exploration Target at the
Hacra Project and an update on the Aurora Project.
The Competent Person's Report ("CPR") presents
the Volspruit Scoping Study, an update on the October 2022 Scoping
Study, following on from the updated Mineral Resource Estimate
("MRE") statement released in February 2024. The contributions from
rhodium ("Rh") content and additional tonnages from the South body
are included in the updated JORC Compliant (2012) CPR.
The full Scoping Study/CPR and the related
appendices are available on the Company's website.
Highlights (100% attributable
basis)
Volspruit
o A
Scoping Study for the North body was completed in 2022 and the MRE
was updated in 2024 to include resources from the South body, as
well as estimates for both Rh and ruthenium ("Ru") which had
previously not been assayed for;
o 28.24 million tonnes ("Mt") (gross in-situ) (2022: 15.4 Mt) at
4E (4E includes platinum ("Pt"), palladium ("Pd"), Rh and gold
("Au")) of 2.36 grammes per tonnes ("g/t") (2022: 2.27 g/t
3E);
o Production rate of 1.8 Mt per annum ("Mtpa") from the North
and South pits;
o A
pre-tax net present value ("NPV") of ZAR1.2 billion / $69.0 million
(2022: ZAR 464 million / $27.3 million at 12.5% discount rate) at a
12% discount rate;
o Pre-tax Internal rate of return ("IRR") 17% (2022:
17.9%);
o Payback period of six years (2022: 4.25
years);
o Life
of mine ("LOM") 14 years (2022: 8.7 years); and
o Peak
funding requirement ZAR4.3 billion / $238.3 million (2022: ZAR 2.5
billion / $147.4 million).
Hacra
o Exploration Target of 20 Mt to 22.5 Mt at an estimated 4E
grade of between 2.18 g/t and 3.32 g/t;
o The
tonnage and grade ranges in this Exploration Target are conceptual
in nature as there has been insufficient exploration to estimate a
Mineral Resource;
o Copper ("Cu") grade of 0.12% to 0.16%; and
o Nickel ("Ni") between 0.08% and 0.10%.
Aurora
o Following the initial October 2022 MRE for the
La Pucella target area, which represents approximately 12% of the
potential total strike length of the Aurora Project,
reinterpretation of historic information has been
completed;
o This
enables the definition of a future work programme aimed at
increasing knowledge over the project's entire strike length with
the aim of increasing the resources for the total Aurora Project;
and
o The
need for future drilling programmes will be assessed based on the
outcomes of both the geophysical survey as well as the processing
test work.
Jaco Prinsloo, CEO of Sylvania, commented:
"While we have slowed down some of our exploration studies
during the past year, to align spend with the current PGM price
environment, I am pleased with the steady
progress we have made to improve the understanding of our
respective exploration assets and to further optimise future
potential.
"I
am encouraged by the results of the updated Scoping Study on our
Volspruit Project. This now benefits from the inclusion of the
South ore body and additional rhodium contributions that were
excluded from previous studies.
The updated Scoping Study resulted in a significant increase
in project pre-tax NPV to $69.0 million for a 14-year LOM, compared
to $27.3 million NPV and nine-year LOM for October 2022 study,
while the IRR is slightly lower at 17%. Although the additional
South body tonnes and rhodium revenue contributed to higher project
revenue, the peak capital and all-in operating costs have
increased, largely impacted by an improved understanding and
updated costs for the processing plant and related
infrastructure.
"The defining of an Exploration Target on the Hacra project
provides sufficient information for the Company to now evaluate
various disposal options and we don't anticipate incurring any
significant further exploration or study costs on this particular
project, where the mineralisation occurs at depth, compared to
shallow occurrences at Volspruit and
Aurora.
"At Aurora, where we have already declared attractive results
and an MRE on a portion of the strike length in 2022, further
studies continue with the aim of declaring an updated MRE and
Scoping Study to be commissioned for the total Aurora Project
area.
"The results from the recently completed and ongoing studies
continue to improve our understanding of the occurrence and value
of resources at our respective exploration assets and provide
guidance on where future efforts need to be focussed to optimise
future value for the Company and all of its
stakeholders."
Further Information
The Company's Northern Limb Minerals Assets comprise
various PGM-Ni-Cu exploration projects located within the Northern
Limb of the Bushveld Igneous Complex ("Bushveld Complex") in South
Africa. Sylvania holds approved Mining Rights for all assets within
its exploration portfolio.
Updated Volspruit Scoping Study
The Volspruit Project is located on the southern end
of the Northern Limb of the Bushveld Complex, approximately 16km
south of the town of Mokopane. The area is well located in terms of
infrastructure and services with a national highway running to the
west of the project area.
A Scoping Study for the North body was completed by
Earthlab Technical Division ("Earthlab") in 2022 which highlighted
the economic potential of the project at the time. The JORC
Compliant (2012) MRE was updated in 2024 by Earthlab to include
resources from the South body as well as estimates for both Rh and
Ru which had previously not been assayed for. The report was
signed off by the competent person ("CP") Mr Gideon du
Plessis. This MRE is shown in Table 1 while a comparison
with the 2022 MRE statement is shown in Table 2.
Table 1a. Mineral Resource Statement for the
Volspruit Project (100% Gross in-situ) (30 January 2024,
Earthlab).
|
Classification
|
Deposit
|
Mt
|
PGM
Grades
|
PGM
Content
|
Base metal
Grades
|
Base metal
Content
|
|
|
|
|
|
4E
(g/t)
|
4E
koz
|
|
Cu
(%)
|
Ni
(%)
|
Cu
(t)
|
Ni
(t)
|
|
Indicated
|
North
|
16.4
|
|
2.52
|
1,335
|
|
0.067
|
0.18
|
9,956
|
27,897
|
|
Total Indicated
|
|
16.4
|
|
2.52
|
1,335
|
|
0.067
|
0.18
|
9,956
|
27,897
|
|
Inferred
|
North
|
1.2
|
|
2.45
|
96
|
|
0.071
|
0.18
|
866
|
2,138
|
|
|
South
|
10.6
|
|
2.11
|
719
|
|
0.063
|
0.20
|
6,728
|
21,307
|
|
Total Inferred
|
|
11.8
|
|
2.15
|
815
|
|
0.070
|
0.20
|
7,594
|
23,445
|
|
Total Resource
|
|
28.2
|
|
2.36
|
2,150
|
|
0.068
|
0.19
|
17,550
|
51,342
|
Table
1b. Mineral Resource Statement for the Volspruit Project (74%
attributable to Sylvania), 30 January 2024
|
Classification
|
Deposit
|
Mt
|
PGM
Grades
|
PGM
Content
|
Base metal
Grades
|
Base metal
Content
|
|
|
|
|
|
4E
(g/t)
|
4E
koz
|
|
Cu
(%)
|
Ni
(%)
|
Cu
(t)
|
Ni
(t)
|
|
Indicated
|
North
|
12.1
|
|
2.52
|
988
|
|
0.067
|
0.18
|
7,367
|
20,644
|
|
Total Indicated
|
|
12.1
|
|
2.52
|
988
|
|
0.067
|
0.18
|
7,367
|
20,644
|
|
Inferred
|
North
|
0.9
|
|
2.45
|
71
|
|
0.071
|
0.18
|
641
|
1,582
|
|
|
South
|
7.8
|
|
2.11
|
532
|
|
0.063
|
0.20
|
4,979
|
15,767
|
|
Total Inferred
|
|
8.7
|
|
2.15
|
603
|
|
0.070
|
0.20
|
5,620
|
17,349
|
|
Total Resource
|
|
20.9
|
|
2.36
|
1,591
|
|
0.068
|
0.19
|
12,987
|
37,993
|
Notes:
· A Troy
ounce = 31.1034768 metric grammes.
· Mineral Resources are reported with rounding to reflect the
accuracy of the estimates. Totals may not sum correctly as a result
of the rounding.
· Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and are not
guaranteed to be converted.
· For
Volspruit North, only the portion of the Mineral Resource within
the flood barrier is reported. The metal content reported for Cu
and Ni is only that which is situated within the Volspruit Mining
Right, since the adjacent Mining Right on Zoetveld 294 KR RE (also
held by Sylvania) does not include Cu and Ni. The tonnage within
this portion is 1.0Mt.
· Mineral Resources are discounted by a geological loss factor
of 10%.
· Mineral Resources are reported with consideration of
Reasonable Prospects for Eventual Economic
Extraction ("RPEEE"). At Volspruit North,
this was based on the strip ratio of the 2022 pit shell designed by
Earthlab during a previous study. At Volspruit South, this is based
on a rudimentary pit shell with ~50° pit slopes, for which Earthlab
determined the strip ratio was appropriate. No cut-off grades are
applied to the mineralisation within the pit
shells.
Table 2. Mineral Resource comparison between
2022 and 2024 Earthlab estimates (100% attributable
basis)
|
Parameter
|
Earthlab 2022 (North, 3E)
|
Earthlab 2024 (North and South,
4E)
|
%
Difference
|
|
Total tonnes with 10% geological
loss
|
15.42
Mt
|
28.24
Mt
|
+83%
|
|
3E grade (g/t)
|
2.27
|
2.23
|
-2%
|
|
4E grade (g/t)
|
|
2.36
|
|
|
Au (g/t)
|
0.05
|
0.05
|
0%
|
|
Pd (g/t)
|
1.20
|
1.09
|
-9%
|
|
Pt (g/t)
|
1.02
|
1.09
|
+7%
|
|
Rh (g/t)
|
|
0.14
|
|
|
Cu grade (%)
|
0.062
|
0.068
|
+10%
|
|
Ni grade (%)
|
0.18
|
0.19
|
+5%
|
|
3E metal content (koz)
|
1,125
|
2,023
|
+80%
|
|
4E metal content (koz)
|
|
2,150
|
|
|
Cu metal content (t)
|
9,207
|
17,550
|
+91%
|
|
Ni metal content (t)
|
26,271
|
51,342
|
+95%
|
SRK Consulting (South Africa) ("SRK") was
commissioned by Sylvania in late 2023 to complete a Scoping Study
of the Volspruit Project to assess the economic upside resulting
from the updated MRE statement including the additional South body
resources and previously unreported PGMs. The CPR covering the
Scoping Study was completed in accordance with the JORC Code (2012)
and signed off by the CPs Mr Marcin Wertz and Mr Andrew McDonald in
August 2024.
A mining schedule was produced from pit shells
generated during SRK's optimisation exercise. A production rate of
150,000 tonnes per month (1.8 Mtpa) was used, resulting in a
14-year LOM for the approximately 25 Mt of ore contained within the
North and South bodies. The average strip ratio over the life of
the operation is 6.3. The average 4E grade over the LOM is 2.22
g/t, with 0.19% Ni and 0.06% Cu also present.
65% of the ore is located within the North pit, with
the remainder in the South. Approximately 67% of the ore is from
the Indicated Mineral Resource while the remainder falls into the
Inferred Mineral Resource category, and 9% classed as oxide and
transitional ore.
Metallurgical test work was completed by DRA at
Mintek on ore from both the North and South bodies. 4E recoveries
of 71.6% at a grade of 74 g/t 4E were achieved from the fresh ore,
while lower recoveries were obtained for the oxide and transitional
ores resulting in a blending strategy being utilised in the
production schedule. A standard MF2 type (mill-float-mill-float)
circuit was used in the test work.
The business case is based on a contractor miner
being responsible for the mining operations with Sylvania managing
the processing plant, and concentrate being sold to a third-party
off-taker.
The pre-tax NPV of the project at a discount rate of
12% is ZAR1.2 billion with an IRR of 17%. Peak funding required is
ZAR4.3 billion with a payback period of 6 years. Further details of
the investment returns are provided in Table
3.
Table 3. Investment Returns of Volspruit
Project (SRK, July 2024).
|
Investment
Returns
|
Total/Average
|
|
Pre-tax NPV
|
ZAR1.2 billion / $69.0 million
|
|
Pre-tax IRR (real)
|
17%
|
|
Discount rate (real)
|
12%
|
|
Payback period
|
6 years
|
|
Peak Funding requirement
|
ZAR4.3 billion / $238.3 million
|
|
Life of mine
|
14 years
|
|
Operating margin
|
38.7%
|
|
EBITDA per annum (as average operating profit after
payback)
|
ZAR889 million / $49.4 million
|
|
AISC average for LOM (ZAR per 4E oz
payable)
|
ZAR28,488
|
|
AISC average for LOM (ZAR per Pt Equivalent oz
payable)
|
ZAR21,060
|
|
Basket Price ($ per 4E oz payable) (based
on 2029 Long Term prices and prill splits in payable
metal)
|
$1,691
|
The Company cannot confirm at present whether the
associated metals on the Zoetveld mining right transferred from
Grasvally Chrome Mine to Volspruit Mining Company include Cu and
Ni. These have been excluded from the economic evaluation and
reflect in the reported pre-tax NPV of ZAR1.2 billion.
If the Cu and Ni rights can be included, the pre-tax
NPV would increase to ZAR1.5 billion ($82.5 million).
The Scoping Study identified areas in which
improvements could potentially be made to further improve the
economics of the project. These options are currently being
explored by the Company and decisions on continuing with a
Pre-Feasibility Study ("PFS") will be made based on the outcomes of
this work.
Far Northern Limb Projects
Hacra Update
A JORC Compliant (2012) Technical Report was
completed by independent consultants, Earthlab, on the Harriets
Wish North Underground Target ("Hacra") in February 2024. The CP,
Mr Gideon du Plessis, declared an Exploration Target over the
project and recommended that further drilling and geophysical
surveys be completed to allow for RPEEE testing to be undertaken on
the economic viability of the project in line with JORC (2012)
standards. The tonnage and grade ranges in this Exploration Target
are conceptual in nature as there has been insufficient exploration
to estimate a Mineral Resource. It is uncertain if further
exploration will result in the estimation of a Mineral
Resource.
The Exploration Target declared is based on the
reinterpretation of historic geophysical and drill hole
information, drill holes drilled by Sylvania in 2021, and
stratigraphy as defined by Platinum Group Metal's Joint Venture
("PTM") Waterberg Project immediately to the north of Hacra (Figure
1). Information available in the public domain coupled with
academic research has led to the Harriets Wish Succession ("HWS")
and the Troctolite Sequence ("TS") mineralised zones being
reinterpreted as the T- and F-zones as observed on the Waterberg
Project. However, the decision was taken to leave the original
nomenclature in place until sufficient drill hole data exists to
confidently rename the mineralised zones at Hacra.
Figure 1. Location plan of Hacra in
relation to Northern Limb projects and Mines (Earthlab
2024).
Geological modelling was completed utilising a
database comprising 14 historic and 11 new drill holes and
deflections. Seven data points from the Waterberg Project were
included to add confidence to the re-interpretation of the
information. Six of the drill holes contained information related
to the HWS, while five had intersected the TS (Table 4). Structure
was interpreted from all available information.
Table 4. Summary of drill holes available for
wireframe modelling and resource estimation (Earthlab
2024).
|
Company
|
Campaign
|
Drill hole ID
|
HWS intersected
|
TS Intersected
|
Notes
|
|
Hacra
|
IGS 2012
|
HW023
|
No
|
No
|
Stopped short due to hole caving,
assuming a fault zone
|
|
|
|
HW024
|
No
|
Yes
|
Beyond the HWS
extent
|
|
|
|
HW024W1
|
No
|
Yes
|
Beyond the HWS
extent
|
|
|
|
HW025
|
No
|
Yes
|
Beyond the HWS
extent
|
|
|
|
HW025W1
|
No
|
Yes
|
Beyond the HWS
extent
|
|
|
|
HW026
|
No
|
No
|
Beyond the Rustenburg Layered Suite
("RLS") extent
|
|
|
|
HW027
|
No
|
No
|
Beyond the RLS
extent
|
|
|
|
HW028
|
No
|
No
|
Beyond the RLS
extent
|
|
|
|
HW029
|
Yes
|
No
|
Stopped before it could potentially
intersect TS at a very deep level
|
|
|
|
HW029W1
|
Yes
|
No
|
Stopped before it could potentially
intersect TS at a very deep level
|
|
|
|
HW029W2
|
Yes
|
No
|
Stopped before it could potentially
intersect TS at a very deep level
|
|
|
|
HW030
|
No
|
No
|
Presumably, fault displacement
caused Main Zone to be at a much deeper level. Only Upper Zone
intersected below the Waterberg Group
|
|
|
|
HW031
|
No
|
No
|
Presumably, fault displacement
caused Main Zone to be at a much deeper level. Only Upper Zone
intersected below the Waterberg Group
|
|
|
|
HW032
|
Yes
|
No
|
Stopped before it could potentially
intersect TS at a very deep level
|
|
|
Earthlab 2021
|
HW201
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Stopped before reaching TS footwall
due to hole caving. Meaningful mineralisation could potentially
exist just below the current drill hole bottom
|
|
|
|
HW202_D0
|
Yes
|
No
|
The drill hole was only planned for
HWS interception, and not aimed at going as deep as the
TS
|
|
|
|
HW202_D1
|
Yes
|
No
|
The drill hole was only planned for
HWS interception, and not aimed at going as deep as the
TS
|
|
|
|
HW202_D2
|
Yes
|
No
|
The drill hole was only planned for
HWS interception, and not aimed at going as deep as the
TS
|
|
|
|
HW203_D0
|
Yes
|
No
|
The drill hole was only planned for
HWS interception, and not aimed at going as deep as the
TS
|
|
|
|
HW203_D1
|
Yes
|
No
|
The drill hole was only planned for
HWS interception, and not aimed at going as deep as the
TS
|
|
|
|
HW204_D0
|
Yes
|
No
|
The drill hole was only planned for
HWS interception, and not aimed at going as deep as the TS. HWS at
a higher elevation due to suspected faulting. Significantly lower
grades could be due to the nearby fault plane
|
|
|
|
HW204_D1
|
Yes
|
No
|
The drill hole was only planned for
HWS interception, and not aimed at going as deep as the TS. HWS at
a higher elevation due to suspected faulting. Significantly lower
grades could be due to the nearby fault plane
|
|
|
|
HW204_D2
|
Yes
|
No
|
The drill hole was only planned for
HWS interception, and not aimed at going as deep as the TS. HWS at
a higher elevation due to suspected faulting. Significantly lower
grades could be due to the nearby fault plane
|
|
|
|
HW205
|
No
|
Yes
|
Beyond the HWS
extent
|
|
|
|
HW206
|
No
|
Yes
|
Beyond the HWS extent. Stopped
before reaching the TS footwall due to hole caving. Proper
mineralisation could exist just below the current drill hole
bottom
|
|
PTM
|
na
|
WB003
|
Yes
|
No
|
Only PTM's T-Zone intercept depths.
No assay data
|
|
|
|
WB004
|
|
|
|
WB005
|
|
|
|
WB008
|
|
|
|
WB009
|
|
PTM
|
na
|
WB005
|
No
|
Yes
|
Only PTM's F-Zone intercept depths.
No assay data
|
|
|
|
WB009
|
A 1 g/t 4E cut-off was applied at a sample level with
an allowance for a 2m waste interval in defining the mineralised
zone. Wireframe models of the mineralised zones were developed, and
volumes calculated. Ratios for each mineralised intersection were
calculated to determine the ratio of the volume above the cut-off
grade relative to the total model's volume (Figure 2). Polygonal
methods were then utilised to estimate grades in the wireframes.
The top end of the grade ranges was calculated using samples above
the 1 g/t 4E sample cut-off, while the global geometric mean was
used as an estimate of the lower grade range.
Figure 2. Plan highlighting drill
holes utilised in wireframe modelling for the two mineralised zones
at Hacra. Interpreted structure is shown on the plan (Earthlab
2024).
The declared Exploration Target is given below in
Table 5.
Table 5. Hacra Exploration Target at 100%
attributable basis (Earthlab, February 2024)
|
Unit
|
Tonnage
at 20%
geoloss
(Mt)
|
Tonnage
at 10%
geoloss
(Mt)
|
Grade
Ranges
|
|
4E
(g/t)
|
Pt
(g/t)
|
Pd
(g/t)
|
Rh
(g/t)
|
Au
(g/t)
|
Cu
(%)
|
Ni
(%)
|
|
Harriets Wish Succession
(HWS)
|
10.56
|
11.88
|
2.62 -
4.32
|
0.90 -
1.27
|
1.32 -
2.34
|
~0.01
|
0.39 -
0.70
|
0.21 -
0.28
|
0.08 -
0.11
|
|
Troctolite Sequence
(TS)
|
9.48
|
10.67
|
1.68 -
2.29
|
0.62 -
0.79
|
0.98 -
1.37
|
~0.03
|
0.05 -
0.10
|
0.03 -
0.05
|
0.09 -
0.10
|
|
Combined
|
20.04
|
22.55
|
2.18 -
3.32
|
0.77 -
1.03
|
1.16 -
1.86
|
~0.02
|
0.23 -
0.40
|
0.12 -
0.16
|
0.08 -
0.10
|
Based on the recommendations by the CP, further
exploration work that includes a magnetic survey and further
drilling would be required to gain improved confidence in the
re-interpretation of the mineralised zones and to determine if
there is sufficient tonnage and grade if the Company wish to
declare a maiden resource in future.
Aurora Update
The October 2022 MRE for the Aurora Project contained
approximately 16.3 Mt of Mineral Resources in the Measured and
Indicated categories at a grade of 2.63 g/t 3E but was only for the
La Pucella Target area that represents just 12% of the combined
Aurora Project area.
Subsequent studies were aimed at compiling and
reassessing data to compile a geological model to guide a decision
on whether to implement further drilling campaigns to assess gaps
in the current database that could allow for an updated MRE and
Scoping Study to be commissioned for Aurora if results warrant.
Geophysical surveys have been planned for the entire
strike length of the project which will provide valuable
information on the downdip extent of the mineralisation as well as
aid with the overall structural interpretation of the area.
Metallurgical process test work is planned for
samples from previous drilling campaigns to assess the processing
characteristics of the mineralised zone.
The need for future drilling programmes will be
assessed based on the outcomes of both the geophysical survey as
well as the processing test work.
CONTACT DETAILS
|
For
further information, please contact:
|
|
|
Jaco Prinsloo CEO Lewanne Carminati
CFO
|
+27 11 673 1171
|
|
Nominated Adviser and Broker
|
|
|
Panmure Liberum Limited
|
+44 (0) 20 3100 2000
|
|
Scott Mathieson / John More / Joshua
Borlant
|
|
Communications
|
|
|
BlytheRay
|
+44 (0) 20 7138 3205
|
|
Tim Blythe / Megan Ray
|
sylvania@BlytheRay.com
|
|
|
|
CORPORATE INFORMATION
|
Registered and postal address:
|
Sylvania Platinum Limited
|
|
|
Clarendon House
|
|
|
2 Church Street
|
|
|
Hamilton HM 11
|
|
|
Bermuda
|
|
SA
Operations postal address:
|
PO Box 976
|
|
|
Florida Hills, 1716
|
|
|
South Africa
|
Sylvania Website:
www.sylvaniaplatinum.com
About Sylvania Platinum
Limited
Sylvania Platinum is a lower-cost
producer of platinum group metals (PGM) (platinum, palladium and
rhodium) with operations located in South Africa. The Sylvania Dump
Operations (SDO) comprises six chrome beneficiation and PGM
processing plants focusing on the retreatment of PGM-rich chrome
tailings materials from mines in the Bushveld Igneous Complex. The
SDO is the largest PGM producer from chrome tailings re-treatment
in the industry. Additionally, the Thaba JV comprises chrome
beneficiation and PGM processing plants, which will treat a
combination of run of mine (ROM) and historical chrome tailings
from the JV partner, adding a full margin chromite concentrate
revenue stream. The Group also holds mining rights for PGM projects
in the Northern Limb of the Bushveld Complex.
For more information visit
https://www.sylvaniaplatinum.com/
The information contained within
this announcement is deemed by the Company to constitute inside
information for the purposes of Article 7 of Regulation (EU)
no.596/2014 as amended by the Market Abuse (Amendment) (EU Exit)
Regulations 2019.
For the purposes of MAR and Article
2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1055, this
announcement is being made on behalf of the Company by Jaco
Prinsloo.
In accordance with the AIM Rules -
Note for Mining and Oil & Gas Companies, the information
contained in this announcement regarding Mineral Resource Estimates
has been reviewed and signed off by Mr. Deon du Plessis, a
qualified professional Geologist (Pr.Sci.Nat. - 400050/05) and
Fellow with the Geological Society of South Africa (FGSSA -
963338), who has over 21 years' relevant experience within the
mining sector.
In accordance with the AIM Rules -
Note for Mining and Oil & Gas Companies, the information
contained in this announcement regarding the Volspruit Project
(under the 2024 CPR) has been reviewed and signed off by Mr. Marcin
L Wertz, a qualified professional Engineer registered with the
Engineering Council of South Africa (Reg No. 1995/012890/07) and
Fellow of the Southern African Institute for Mining and Metallurgy,
having more than five years of experience that is relevant to the
style of mineralisation and the type of deposit described in the
Report.
In accordance with the AIM Rules -
Note for Mining and Oil & Gas Companies, the information
contained in this announcement regarding the Volspruit Project
(under the 2024 CPR) has been reviewed and signed off by Mr. Andrew
J McDonald, a registered Chartered Engineer with the Engineering
Council of the United Kingdom (Registration No. 334987) and Fellow
of the Southern African Institute for Mining and Metallurgy and a
Member of the Institution of Materials, Minerals and Mining in the
UK, having more than five years of experience that is relevant to
the style of mineralisation and the type of deposit described in
the Report.
ANNEXURE
GLOSSARY OF TERMS - Results of Optimisation Studies for
Northern Limb Mineral Assets The following definitions apply
throughout the announcement:
|
MRE
|
Mineral Resource Estimate - The
process of subjecting known geological evidence and knowledge
required for the estimation of Mineral Resources, and must include
sampling data of a type, and at spacings, appropriate to the
geological, chemical, physical, and mineralogical complexity of the
mineral occurrence, for all classifications of Inferred, Indicated
and Measured Mineral Resources. A Mineral Resource cannot be
estimated in the absence of sampling information. Any adjustment
made to the data for the purpose of making the Mineral Resource
estimate, for example by cutting or factoring grades, should be
clearly stated and described in the Public Report.
|
|
3E PGMs
|
3E ounces include the
precious metal elements platinum, palladium and gold
|
|
4E PGMs
|
4E ounces include the
precious metal elements platinum, palladium, rhodium and
gold
|
|
Exploration Target
|
A statement or estimate of the
exploration potential of a mineral deposit in a defined geological
setting where the statement or estimate, quoted as a range of
tonnes and a range of grade (or quality), relates to mineralisation
for which there has been insufficient exploration to estimate a
Mineral Resource.
|
|
Feasibility Study
|
A comprehensive technical and
economic study of the selected development option for a mineral
project that includes appropriately detailed assessments of
applicable Modifying Factors together with any other relevant
operational factors and detailed financial analysis that are
necessary to demonstrate at the time of reporting that extraction
is reasonably justified (economically mineable). The results of the
study may reasonably serve as the basis for a final decision by a
proponent or financial institution to proceed with, or finance, the
development of the project. The confidence level of the study will
be higher than that of a Pre-Feasibility Study.
|
|
Geoloss
|
A geological loss is an area or
volume with no reef or ore developed due to disruption by a
geological feature. Geological loss is expressed as a percentage by
which a Mineral Resource is discounted and is based on the
geological condition of an orebody. There are two types termed
"Known" and "Unknown" losses. Mineral Resources are discounted by
the total geological losses. A Known geological loss is
known/expected before mining takes place, and is often indicated by
remote sensing, or is the extension of a feature, which has been
exposed by current mining activities. These types of geological
features are in general occurrences of a linear type of features
(examples include faults, dykes, shear zones, and other localised
features). Unknown geological losses are generally associated with
those features which have not been determined by various
geophysical techniques.
|
|
Indicated
|
An 'Indicated Mineral Resource' is
that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade (or
quality), densities, shape and physical characteristics are
estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of
Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and
evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Geological
evidence is derived from adequately detailed and reliable
exploration, sampling and testing gathered through appropriate
techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits,
workings and drill holes, and is sufficient to assume geological
and grade (or quality) continuity between points of observation
where data and samples are gathered. An Indicated Mineral Resource
has a lower level of confidence than that applying to a Measured
Mineral Resource and may only be converted to a Probable Ore
Reserve.
|
|
Inferred
|
An 'Inferred Mineral Resource' is
that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade (or
quality) are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence
and sampling. Geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not
verify geological and grade (or quality) continuity. It is based on
exploration, sampling and testing information gathered through
appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches,
pits, workings and drill holes. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a
lower level of confidence than that applying to an Indicated
Mineral Resource and must not be converted to an Ore Reserve. It is
reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral Resources
could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued
exploration.
|
|
JORC
|
Joint Ore Reserves Committee - The
Australian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral
Resources and Ore Reserves ('the
JORC Code') is a professional code of practice that sets minimum
standards for Public Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral
Resources and Ore Reserves.
|
|
Measured
|
A 'Measured Mineral Resource' is
that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade (or
quality), densities, shape, and physical characteristics are
estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the application of
Modifying Factors to support detailed mine planning and final
evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Geological
evidence is derived from detailed and reliable exploration,
sampling and testing gathered through appropriate techniques from
locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill
holes, and is sufficient to confirm geological and grade (or
quality) continuity between points of observation where data and
samples are gathered. A Measured Mineral Resource has a higher
level of confidence than that applying to either an Indicated
Mineral Resource or an Inferred Mineral Resource. It may be
converted to a Proven Ore Reserve or under certain circumstances to
a Probable Ore Reserve.
|
|
PGM-Ni-Cu
|
Platinum Group Elements, Nickel and
Copper
|
|
Resource
Classification
|
Defined as classes or categories as
per the JORC Code (2012) in decreasing confidence levels as
Measured, Indicated and Inferred.
|
|
Scoping Study
|
An order of magnitude technical and
economic study of the potential viability of Mineral Resources. It
includes appropriate assessments of realistically assumed Modifying
Factors together with any other relevant operational factors that
are necessary to demonstrate at the time of reporting that progress
to a Pre-Feasibility Study can be reasonably justified.
|
