TIDMAMC
RNS Number : 3297N
Amur Minerals Corporation
08 August 2017
8 August 2017
AMUR MINERALS CORPORATION
(AIM: AMC)
Alex Stewart Laboratory Confirms Analytical Results
Minimum of variance and well within industry acceptable
standards
Amur Minerals Corporation ("Amur" or the "Company"), a
nickel-copper sulphide mineral exploration and resource development
company focused on the far east of Russia, is pleased to report
that Alex Stewart Laboratories ("ASL") has confirmed the Company's
site generated nickel and copper analytical results for the first
sample batch (containing 561 core sample, plus 104 Quality
Assurance and Quality Control ("QAQC") samples) derived at both the
Kubuk ("KUB") and Ikenskoe / Sobolevsky ("IKEN") 2017 drill
programme.
Over the course of the exploration season, the Company has, and
will continue to report, its internally derived analytical results
which are available from six to eight weeks earlier than the final
and official results generated by the independent certified
laboratory, ASL. This allows Amur with to update shareholders up to
two months earlier than if it waited for the final certified
results.
Highlights:
-- The Company generated Niton XL2 500 X-Ray Fluorescence
("RFA") analytical results for the first 561 drill core sample
results for nickel and copper, which have been independently
verified by ASL of Moscow, Russia.
-- The independently certified ASL results will be used for
future Mineral Resource Estimate ("MRE") updates at KUB and
IKEN.
-- ASL results for 12 ore holes, containing 17 mineralised
intervals, indicate an average mineralised thickness of 16.8 metres
per hole with an average nickel grade of 0.82% and copper of 0.26%.
Previously reported RFA results (announced 20 June 2017 (IKEN) and
28 July 2017 (KUB)) for the same 12 holes had indicated an average
thickness per hole of 16.9 metres with 0.84% nickel and 0.27%
copper average grades.
-- Given that the ASL and RFA results are in line with well
within industry standards of +/-10%, the Company believes the
reporting of the RFA results continues to provide an accurate
representation of drill results with regard to mineralised
thicknesses and contained nickel and copper. The minor differences
between the RFA and ASL results are similar to differences noted
from previous drill seasons.
-- ASL nickel analytical procedures are comprised of two
methods. One for grades of less than 1.0% with the second being for
samples in excess of 1.0%. Again, the ASL results by analytical
method are consistent with the RFA reported results showing an
absence of bias by analytical method.
-- The Company has recently received the final ASL results for
the second sample batch (557 core samples with 217 additional
trench, QAQC and reconnaissance samples) which are now under
management review. The third batch (403 core samples with 320
additional trench, QAQC and reconnaissance samples) is presently in
analysis at ASL with the fourth (355 core samples and additional
QAQC and trench samples) in transit.
-- Use of the RFA unit reduces costs. Fewer samples require
analysis by ASL and the savings to date for this year's programme
is already projected to be in the order of US$ 23,000. Without the
availability of the RFA units and sample preparation facilities
onsite, it is estimated that this year's ASL programme would have
already cost nearly US$ 200,000 due to the additional freight and
sample preparation including the need for crushing, pulverizing,
drying, sieving and blending.
The Company attributes the relatively small difference between
its RFA results and those of the certified ASL to its rigorously
implemented Quality Assurance and Quality Control ("QAQC")
programme. With daily calibration of both of our RFA units, using
available ASL sample results, standards and duplicate analysis of
intervals, the RFA and ASL results should not vary significantly.
Any large variance can be quickly identified and if a unit suffers
a malfunction, the second unit is available to continue work onsite
while repair is undertaken.
Robin Young, CEO of Amur Minerals, commented:
"We are pleased to inform shareholders that our first set of
analytical results, reported within our previous drill update RNS
statements, are being validated by external and certified Alex
Stewart Laboratories, based in Moscow. With a minimum of variance,
well within industry acceptable standards, the newly delivered
analyses will be input into our drill hole data base replacing our
internally derived results for inclusion in future Mineral Resource
Estimate updates on the Kubuk and Ikenskoe / Sobolevksy deposits.
As each set of results is delivered, we shall continue to review
the results and provide further updates as our independent
information accumulates over the course of our drill season.
"We also note that our sample preparation facilities, results
generated onsite and the sample selection procedure for external
assaying have been externally audited and our methods and
procedures have been approved by the independent mining consultancy
of RPM Global. Use of our two Niton XL2 500 X-Ray Fluorescence
units and procedures at site, have already reduced our costs for
assaying by approximately US$ 23,000. Without the X-Ray units and
approved onsite sample preparation facilities, the projected cost
to have implemented our analytical programme to date would already
total nearly US$200,000."
Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) Disclosure
Certain information contained in this announcement would have
been deemed inside information for the purposes of Article 7 of
Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 until the release of this
announcement.
For additional information, visit the Company's website,
www.amurminerals.com.
Please follow the links below to view additional information
related to the reported drill results and an audio overview.
http://amurminerals.com/content/wp-content/uploads/ASL-vs-RFA-Batch-1.pdf
http://amurminerals.com/content/wp-content/uploads/8-August-2017-RNS-audio.mp3
Enquiries:
Company Nomad and Broker Public Relations
Amur Minerals S.P. Angel Corporate Yellow Jersey
Corp. Finance LLP
Robin Young Ewan Leggat Charles Goodwin
CEO Soltan Tagiev Harriet Jackson
Dominic Barretto
+44 (0)203
+7(4212)755615 +44(0)2034 700 470 735 8825
Notes to Editors
The information contained in this announcement has been reviewed
and approved by the CEO of Amur, Mr. Robin Young. Mr. Young is a
Geological Engineer (cum laude), a Professional Geologist licensed
by the Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing,
and is a Qualified Professional Geologist, as defined by the
Toronto and Vancouver Stock Exchanges. An employee of Amur for 13
years, previously Mr. Young was employed as an exploration and mine
geologist, mining engineer, construction manager of a mine startup
as well as independent consultant with Fluor Engineers, Fluor
Australia and Western Services Engineering, Inc. during which time
his responsibilities included the independent compilation of
resources and reserves in accordance with JORC standards. In
addition, he has been the lead engineer and project manager in the
compilation of numerous studies and projects requiring the
compilation of independent Bankable Studies utilised to finance
small to large scale projects located worldwide. Mr. Young is
responsible for the content of this announcement which includes
information sourced from Alex Stewart Laboratories based in Moscow,
Russia.
Reporting Protocol on Analytical Results
Over the course of an exploration season, the Company has, and
will continue to report, its internally derived analytical results
which are available from six to eight weeks earlier than that of
the final and official results generated by the independent
certified laboratory, ASL. This provides Amur with the ability to
update shareholders up to two months earlier than if it waited for
the final certified results. It is possible to report these
internal results as the Company believes these are both
representative and mutually supportive of the contained nickel and
copper metal that is ultimately to be reported by ASL, a certified
independent laboratory. We note that it is the ASL certified
results used in the compilation of Mineral Resource Estimates
("MRE") and we therefore provide this most critical information
when available.
Company Generated Results
The Company reports the internally generated results derived
from using its two Niton XL2 500 X-Ray Fluorescence units ("RFA").
To assure the accuracy of the results on a daily basis, these units
are calibrated against existing standards and previously derived
ASL results. The RFA generated results have historically been, and
should continue to be, mutually supportive of all certified and
independent results. For this reason, the Company is able to report
its results in advance of the certified analytical results allowing
for expedited reporting of drill results. All RNS releases related
to the 2017 drill season have thus far been reported based on the
RFA results.
For Quality Assurance and Quality Control ("QAQC") purposes, the
geological staff insert blind blanks (waste), blind duplicates of
samples from within each drill hole and samples from which
previously derived ASL results have been derived to ensure the site
based analytical team are generating results are of a high
standard. The QAQC results are monitored by the geological team
allowing the Company to identify any suspect or potential erroneous
results which trigger an immediate re-assay procedure.
Benefits in using these units include:
-- Adjustments to the drill programme can be made in drill hole
site selection and identification of a holes depth optimising our
drilling and related expenditures. This can be done within days
(often within 24 hours) of receiving the RFA results. This "review
and adjust effort" reduces the number of barren holes than would
typically be drilled along the periphery of the ore bodies had the
RFA results not been available.
-- Nickel mineralised intervals, attendant dilution and internal
waste can be readily identified for selection and submission to ASL
for analysis, thereby allowing the Company to substantially reduce
the number of waste samples in the hanging wall above the ore zones
requiring certified analyses for use in MRE definition. The removal
of a large number of identified waste samples provides the
advantage of a more rapid turnaround in the generation of the
official ASL results as fewer samples need to be processed without
impacting the development and estimation of MRE's.
-- The combination of fewer waste holes, better mineral
targeting and the reduction in total number of samples that require
ASL verification results improves our staff productivity and
provides a substantial cost savings to the Company.
The site sample preparation facility and analytical teams work
every day and provide a daily update to our head office in
Khabarovsk and to our Amur management team. This information is
considered to be inside information.
Alex Stewart Laboratory Certified Analytical Results
Sample pulps are recovered from the site on the return segment
of resupply helicopter flights and delivered to our Khabarovsk head
office core storage facility. These samples (weighing 300 to 400
grams each) are transshipped by train to ASL's Moscow, Russia
facility. Concurrent with extraction of these samples, the
remaining half of the sawn core for the ore intervals is also
delivered to our core storage facility where it is available for
year round inspection whenever required.
As for sample processing, ASL completes the following work:
-- The particle size of all samples is examined to ensure that
the Company delivered a properly prepared sample for ensuing
analytical work.
-- An ME-ICP41 spectral analysis is completed on all samples.
-- Samples indicated to contain more than 1.0% nickel are
analysed a second time using the ME-ICPORE method which is more
accurate for these higher grade samples.
-- Two separate atomic absorption tests ("AA45) are completed
allowing for nickel, copper and silver determination.
-- Gold, platinum and palladium are determined using the PGM-ICP23 method.
-- Included within the submitted batch of samples are blanks
(samples of zero metal content), blind duplicates and blind samples
from previously derived ASL allowing the Company to monitor ASL's
results for QAQC purposes.
-- In addition, ASL will also select numerous samples for
re-assay to enable its implementation of a QAQC programme.
Lastly, to further ensure the accuracy of the ASL results, a
subset of the samples is provided to a second independent
laboratory for analysis which should replicate the ASL results.
This external control has historically replicated the ASL results
and is a key component to maintaining an industry standard set of
analytical results. By implementation of these QAQC procedures, a
comprehensive and representative analytical data set can be
confidently reported and used in the compilation of the MRE's at
Kun-Manie in accordance to JORC (Dec 2012) standards.
Management Review of RFA and ASL Results
Management conducts a review and comparison of the results to
identify any anomalous results allowing for a re-assay request by
either or both of its team results (RFA) and ASL of these specific
anomalous results. Due to the detail of the information, this is a
complex and critical final step in establishing the highest quality
analytical data base for MRE derivation. This carefully implemented
review takes time due to the large number of samples and the number
of elements (11).
Status of ASL Analytical Programme
To date, a total of four batches of sample pulps have been
extracted from site. A summary of the status of each batch is
provided in the table below. The first batch of ASL results have
been received and passed through the Management Review process and
are the subject of this RNS.
Alex Stewart Laboratory Core Sample Status Update
Excludes QAQC, Trench and Reconnaissance Samples)
Batch Number Of Status
ID Samples
Core Only
------ ----------- --------------------
Complete - Reported
1 561 Herein
Under Management
2 557 Review
In Analysis by
3 403 ASL
In Transit to
4 355 Moscow
------ ----------- --------------------
"Please note that the total number of samples within Sample
Batch 3 was 723 and not 273, as previously reported in the
announcement dated 28 July 2017."
Comparative Analysis By Grade Range
A total of 561 sample pulps were analysed by ASL from the first
batch of samples. Of these, a total of 247 samples contained nickel
grades in excess of 0.15% nickel averaging 0.62% nickel and .019%
copper. The comparative RFA results were 0.64% nickel and 0.19%
copper. The RFA results for nickel were approximately 2.3% higher
than those derived by ASL. There was no difference in copper.
Further statistical analyses by grade groupings were completed
to establish the potential for resource increase in the advent
there is a significant increase in the price of nickel which could
ultimately result in the addition of currently undefined low grade
mineral tonnes (open pit potential) and to allow for direct
comparison of the results by ASL based on its two implemented
analytical method:
-- Grouped by cutoff grade ("COG") ranging from 0.15% nickel to
0.399% nickel. This category was examined to evaluate the potential
of identifying open pit potential not included in current 10
February 2017 MRE modeling approach where a mineralised limit of
0.4% nickel COG was utilisedd. For this sample group, there was no
difference between the average nickel or copper content. A
substantial increase (to $7.50 per pound - $16,530 per tonne) in
the nickel price could expand the resource by an addition of 16%
more tonnage averaging 0.25% nickel and 0.11% copper which is not
presently considered in the MRE.
-- Grouped by COG from 0.4% nickel to 0.999% nickel. These
samples were evaluated by ASL using the ME-ICP41 spectral analysis
method. The RFA results were marginally higher for both nickel
(4.4%) and copper (3.8%). The RFA nickel average was projected to
be 0.70% with ASL results being 0.67%. For copper, the average RFA
content was 0.23% with ASL being 0.22%.
-- The final examined grouping was for those samples in excess
of 1.0% nickel content analysed by ASL using the ME-ICPORE method.
The RFA results were 0.7% higher for nickel and 3.3% higher for
copper than those derived by ASL. The RFA nickel grade was 1.30%
nickel with ASL being 1.29% nickel. RFA copper was calculated to be
0.30% with ASL copper content being 0.29%.
RFA vs ASL Nickel and Copper Comparison
Grouping Samples RFA ASL Ni RFA ASL Cu
By Difference Difference
Nickel Content (%) (%)
----------------- -------- ----- ----- ------------ ----- ----- ------------
>0.15% to
<0.40% 101 0.25 0.25 0.0% 0.11 0.11 0.0%
----------------- -------- ----- ----- ------------ ----- ----- ------------
0.40% to
0.999% 96 0.70 0.67 4.4% 0.23 0.22 3.8%
----------------- -------- ----- ----- ------------ ----- ----- ------------
>1.00% 50 1.30 1.29 0.7% 0.30 0.29 3.3%
----------------- -------- ----- ----- ------------ ----- ----- ------------
Total 247 0.64 0.62 2.3% 0.19 0.19 0.0%
----------------- -------- ----- ----- ------------ ----- ----- ------------
In conclusion, the results are considered to be mutually
supportive and a pure RFA to ASL sample comparative basis.
Comparative Analysis by Length Weighted Analysis
The final comparison was based on a length weighted basis for
intervals that are identified as potential ore intervals suitable
for use in the generation of MRE's at a 0.4% COG. This required
minimum thickness of the mineralisation is three metres.
Twelve holes within the first batch of samples contained ore
intervals meeting the current MRE modeling parameters. The length
weighted comparison indicates that the RFA and ASL were again
mutually supported and displayed a minimal difference. Observations
include the following.
-- The total mineralised length between RFA and ASL differed by
0.5 meters representing a difference of only 0.25%. The total RFA
minerlised length was 202.3 metres whilst that of ASL was 201.8
metres.
-- The average RFA length weighted nickel grade was 0.84% nickel
and 0.82% for ASL. The RFA results were marginally higher by 2.4%
than those based on the ASL results.
-- The average RFA length weighted copper grade was 0.27% with
ASL being 0.26%. Again the RFA results were marginally higher by
3.8% than that of ASL.
RFA vs ASL Ore Grade Interval Comparison
Source RFA Ore Intercepts ASL Ore Intercepts
Hole From To Length Ni Cu From To Length Ni Cu
ID (m) (m) (m) (%) (%) (m) (m) (m) (%) (%)
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
341 86.6 92.4 5.8 0.65 0.11 86.6 92.4 5.8 0.62 0.10
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
342 81.0 84.0 3.0 0.60 0.20 81.0 84.0 3.0 0.54 0.11
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
343 83.7 86.7 3.0 1.10 0.24 83.7 86.7 3.0 0.90 0.25
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
344 51.4 54.4 3.0 0.40 0.21 51.4 54.4 3.0 0.42 0.19
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
62.0 69.0 7.0 0.89 0.21 62.0 69.0 7.0 0.89 0.21
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
346 4.0 13.5 9.5 0.72 0.29 4.0 14.5 10.5 0.67 0.27
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
24.0 37.6 13.6 0.62 0.25 24.0 37.6 13.6 0.60 0.25
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
347 39.6 51.2 11.6 1.14 0.25 39.6 51.2 11.6 1.15 0.26
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
57.2 76.4 19.2 1.02 0.29 58.7 76.4 17.7 1.09 0.28
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
348 146.8 167.4 20.6 1.14 0.32 146.8 167.4 20.6 1.12 0.30
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
182.6 185.6 3.0 0.61 0.17 182.6 185.6 3.0 0.65 0.17
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
349 74.4 87.9 13.5 0.92 0.35 74.4 87.9 13.5 0.90 0.32
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
146.3 153.8 7.5 0.65 0.29 146.3 153.8 7.5 0.65 0.28
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
446 6.8 37.7 30.9 0.82 0.25 6.8 37.7 30.9 0.74 0.36
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
447 40.5 47.2 6.7 0.86 0.22 40.5 47.2 6.7 0.84 0.21
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
448 82.0 98.3 16.3 0.88 0.22 82.0 98.3 16.3 0.89 0.22
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
451 200.2 228.3 28.1 0.62 0.35 200.2 228.3 28.1 0.60 0.21
------- ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
Total / Average 202.3 0.84 0.27 201.8 0.82 0.26
----------------------- ------- ----- ----- -------------- ------- ----- -----
Per Interval 11.9 0.84 0.27 11.9 0.82 0.26
----------------------- ------- ----- ----- -------------- ------- ----- -----
Per Hole 16.9 0.84 0.27 16.8 0.82 0.26
----------------------- ------- ----- ----- -------------- ------- ----- -----
The 300 series holes have been drilled at the IKEN deposit.
The 400 series holes have been drilled at the KUB deposit.
RFA vs ASL Conclusion
The RFA results are well within the industry standard of +/-10%
accuracy of the results generated by the certified ASL results. The
mutually supportive results provide support in the Company's
reporting of its RFA results in advance of obtaining the final ASL
results which are available substantially later (from six to eight
weeks). The Company does note that the RFA results are marginally
higher but not of a sufficient difference to halt its reporting
procedure and process allowing for more rapid reporting of drill
results.
Cost Savings Related to Use of the RFA Units.
The ASL incurred cost per sample is presently US$ 8.83 including
transport to the Moscow based laboratory facility. Use of the RFA
unit allows the Company to identify and send a subset (the
mineralised samples including internal waste and dilution) of the
total number of drill sample intervals. To date, 36.9% (1,876
samples from the total of 5,078 sample intervals) of the drilled
metres have been forwarded to ASL. Without the RFA units, the waste
interval samples would have also had to been shipped and analysed.
To date, the RFA units have already reduced our total external
assaying cost by approximately US$ 23,000.
Without the onsite sample preparation facility (independently
inspected and its procedures approved by RPM Global) and use of the
RFA units, these costs would be substantially higher as the Company
would being shipping a far greater weight per sample (half core
samples) as well as all ore and waste intervals to ASL for
analysis. The half core samples would have to be crushed,
pulverised, dried, sieved and blended as well as completing the
final analysis. The estimated all in cost using this approach would
be in the order of US$ 40.00 per sample versus that of US$ 8.83.
Without the RFA units, it is projected that an analytical cost
would already be in the order of US$ 200,000.
This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
END
MSCOKODPPBKDFFK
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
August 08, 2017 02:00 ET (06:00 GMT)
Amur Minerals (LSE:AMC)
Historical Stock Chart
From Mar 2024 to Apr 2024
Amur Minerals (LSE:AMC)
Historical Stock Chart
From Apr 2023 to Apr 2024
