News
Release 13-10
June 18, 2013
Vancouver, BC --- Barkerville Gold
Mines Ltd. (''Barkerville" or the ''Company'') (TSXV:BGM) today
announced updated Mineral Resources for Cow Mountain at its Cariboo
Gold Project, and clarified technical disclosure on its Cariboo
Gold Project.
On August 14, 2012, the British
Columbia Securities Commission (the "BCSC"), the securities
regulatory authority in the Province of British Columbia, delivered
a letter to Barkerville stating that it had completed a review of
the technical report entitled "Technical Report, Mineral Resources
and Potential, Cariboo Gold Project, Barkerville Gold Mines Ltd.,
Cariboo Gold District, British Columbia" filed by the Company on
August 12, 2012 in support of a resource estimate on the Cow
Mountain sector of the Cariboo Gold Project (the "Original
Technical Report"). The Original Technical Report was filed in
support of a resource estimate announced by the Company in a news
release dated June 29, 2012 (the "June Estimate") and included a
revised resource estimate on the Cow Mountain Sector (the "August
Estimate"). The review by the BCSC identified a number of
disclosure and filing issues with the Original Technical Report.
Based on this, the BCSC issued a cease trade order in respect of
the Company's shares. To revoke the cease trade order, the Company
was required to address the disclosure issues of the BCSC and file
a new Canadian National Instrument 43-101
Standards of Disclosure for
Mineral Projects ("NI 43-101") report
on the Cariboo Gold Project.
Updated Technical Report on the Cariboo Gold Project
Barkerville has now filed an updated
technical report entitled "Technical Report,
Effective Date December 31, 2012, Cariboo Gold Project, Barkerville
Gold Mines Ltd., Cariboo Mining District, British Columbia" (the
"Updated Technical Report"), co-authored by Peter T. George, P.
Geo., of Geoex Limited ("Geoex"), Ivor W.O. Jones, FAusIMM(CP) and
Robert McCarthy, P. Eng., of Snowden Mining Industry
Consultants Inc. ("Snowden"), and Michael B.
Dufresne, P. Geo., of and APEX Geoscience Ltd.
("APEX"), which addresses the disclosure issues
raised by the BCSC.
As part of its response to the BCSC
review, the Company retained Snowden and APEX, both independent
mining and geological consulting firms that had not previously
reported on the property, to co-author a new technical report,
together with previous independent author Peter George, P. Geo., of
Geoex. Snowden assisted Geoex and the Company in the review and
audit of the data validation and verification aspects of the Cow
Mountain data, and the review of the most appropriate estimation
method currently applicable at Cow Mountain, and Snowden completed
an independent Mineral Resource estimate for the Cow Mountain
sector of the Cariboo Gold Project. Snowden also assisted in making
recommendations for the Cariboo Gold Project including the
exploration targets for the property. APEX assisted Snowden, Geoex
and the Company in a review of all exploration data for the
property and in the identification and recommendations for the
exploration targets for the property.
Revised Resource Estimate for Cow Mountain
The mineral resource
estimated is based upon an open pit scenario for the mining of gold
mineralization to a depth of 1,000 ft beneath the surface of Cow
Mountain in an area immediately surrounding the underground
workings of the Cariboo Gold Quartz Mine. The resource estimate
involved the application of Multiple Indicator Kriging ("MIK") for
gold grade estimation of a block model using Datamine mining
software. The following table sets out the
results of the mineral estimation for Cow Mountain.
Cow Mountain
Mineral Resource reported at a cut-off grade of 0.012 oz/t Au,
Effective December 31, 2012
-----------------------------------------------------
|Category |Tonnage|Gold grade |Contained |
| |(Mtons)|(ppm) |Gold (Moz)|
|---------------------------------------------------|
|Measured |- -- -- |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|Indicated |17.7 |2.00 |1.04 |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|Measured + Indicated|17.7 |2.00 |1.04 |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|Inferred |49.2 |2.74 |3.94 |
-----------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Tons and contained ounces have been
rounded and this may have resulted in minor apparent
discrepancies.
Mineral Resources are not Mineral
Reserves. Mineral Resources do not have demonstrated economic
viability and may never be converted into Mineral Reserves.
The underlying premise in the
exploration model is that there are widespread, small scale veins
and pyrite replacement zones that, if encountered during historic
underground mapping, would have been too small to be economically
recovered during the historic underground operations.
The mineral resource reported above
was derived from the original data with default values added to
unsampled intervals. The resultant resource estimates were prepared
using MIK in 25 ft x 25 ft x 25 ft blocks, and the prospect of
economic extraction tested using open pit optimisation. This
demonstrated that the project is worthy of a more rigorous
engineering study to evaluate the economic potential of the mineral
resource identified at Cow Mountain.
The estimates were prepared using
the following steps: data validation; data preparation; geological
interpretation and modelling; establishment of block models;
compositing of assay intervals; exploratory data analysis of gold;
variogram analysis; derivation of kriging plan and boundary
conditions; grade interpolation of gold; validation of gold grade
estimates; classification of estimates with respect to Canadian
Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum ("CIM") guidelines;
and then resource tabulation and resource reporting.
Classification was applied based on
geological confidence, data quality and grade variability. Overall,
after review of all relevant items, the most significant
considerations in preparing the classification were:
-The area has been
subjected to historical underground gold mining. The dimensions of
the underground workings have given Snowden some confidence in the
continuity parameters considered appropriate in
estimation.
-The post 2009 drill
data has QA/QC that indicates no material bias, and has grades
similar to those of the historic drilling (with the exception of
the drill data only selectively sampled).
-Un-sampled intervals
were given either a zero grade (in the database) or a 0.003 ppm
value in the data used for modelling.
Given these considerations, the
remaining part of the classification was based on aspects of the
modelling. This included an assessment as to whether or not a block
was estimated using the surface drill data (which has the best
confidence), or the underground drill data (with which there is
lower confidence).
For the classification of the
estimate to be Indicated, both criteria below must be met:
-The estimate must
have been formed in the first search volume. That is, the estimate
used a nominal search distance of 100 ft by 100 ft by 60 ft, with a
minimum of 12 samples to inform the estimate and a maximum of 10
samples per drillhole with at least 2 drillholes.
-The estimate must
have used mostly surface drill data. There is more confidence in
the surface drillholes than the selectively sampled underground
drillholes.
For the classification Inferred, the
estimate was estimated using either the first or second search
volume, but without achieving the criteria required for an
Indicated Resource.
Classification
Criteria
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Criteria |Indicated |Inferred |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|Nominal Search Distance (ft)|100 x 100 x 60 |200 x 200 x 120|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|Minimum number of samples to|12 |4 |
|inform estimate | | |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|Minimum number of samples to|20 |30 |
|inform estimate | | |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|Maximum number of samples |10 |10 |
|per drillhole | | |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|Number of drillholes to |2 or more |1 or more |
|inform estimate | | |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|Surface or underground holes|Mostly surface holes|Either or both |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cut-off Grade Determination and the Evaluation of Reasonable
Prospects for Economic Extraction
In order to demonstrate that the
mineralization as estimated in the block model has a reasonable
expectation of being mined at some time in the foreseeable future,
Snowden completed a pit optimisation exercise using the parameters
provided in the table below. The work was completed by an engineer
with sufficient experience in this style of work and mineralization
to ensure the robustness of the parameters used. Notwithstanding
the pit optimisation exercise, it has not resulted in an engineered
and operational open-pit mine design.
$1520/oz was the starting point for
the optimisation study and the optimisation was tested for gold
prices from $1005/oz to $2295/oz. The results indicated that the
resource potential, as defined by the optimisation study, was
constrained by the model limits laterally (the optimisation could
not expand past the model boundaries, thereby limiting the
evaluation to the model extents).
Parameters for
testing Prospects of Economic Extraction
----------------------------------------------------------------
|Parameter |Value |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|Gold Price |US$1,520/oz |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|Royalties |None |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|Overall recovery |94% |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|Cut-off grade |0.012 oz/t |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|Processing (including admin and ore haulage) |$20.66/t |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|Mining ore recovery (before diluted) |90% |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|Mining ore dilution (at 0 ppm dilutant grade)|10% |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|Geotechnical slope angles |45 degrees |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|No exclusion areas except the geological | |
|model limits | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|Exchange rate |1.00 USD per CAD|
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|Owner operator mining (but with mining fleet |$3.50/t |
|capital amortisation) | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|The optimisation assumes that processing and | |
|infrastructure capital costs have been sunk | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
Snowden found that, apart from a
small portion of the mineralization that falls below the pit shells
prepared, the majority of the resource block model reports from
within the pit shell. The resource reporting below the pit shell is
not considered a concern (and was not removed from the resource
report) as the small portion is supported by high grade
intersections that would be considered for possible future
underground extraction (should the confidence in the estimates be
improved).
Overall, Snowden considers these
assumptions are considered fair for the purpose of determining
reasonable prospects for economic extraction of the Cow Mountain
deposit yet do not demonstrate that the mineralization is economic,
since the exercise is not at the level of a preliminary economic
assessment and does not conform to the studies required for a
preliminary economic assessment.
Snowden is unaware of any issues
that materially affect the Mineral Resource estimate at Cow
Mountain in a detrimental sense. These conclusions are based on the
following:
-The Company has
represented that mineral and surface rights have secure
title.
-There are no known
marketing, political or taxation issues.
-There are no known
infrastructure issues.
There are no issues with respect to
environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic,
marketing, political or other relevant factors that Snowden is
aware of that would materially affect the Mineral Resource.
The Updated Technical Report
includes a full discussion of the assumptions, parameters and
methods used to estimate the mineral resource and identifies known
risks that could materially affect the potential development of the
mineral resources.
Audit of Data Verification, Data Verification and Quality
Assurance/Quality Control ("QA/QC")
Due to concerns with the
documentation of data verification in the Original Technical Report
and, at the request of the Company, the Company drilled nine twin
core holes. Snowden concluded:
"the mineralization recognized in
the new drillholes was consistent in thickness and grade with the
original drillholes."
As part of their engagement, Snowden
conducted an audit of the Cow Mountain database and a review of the
Cow Mountain drilling quality assurance and quality control data.
Snowden concluded that:
"...there are parts of the Cow
Mountain database, where a high level of confidence in the data
cannot be demonstrated (some of the older data where there is
selective sampling and no QA/QC), and parts where the confidence in
the data is relatively high (such as the new surface drilling
data). Snowden's analysis in the comparison of some of the earlier
drill data with the more recent data indicates the fully sampled
drill data has grades consistent with the higher confidence
data.
In Snowden's opinion the database at
Cow Mountain is suitable for use in the estimation of a Mineral
Resource if the following considerations are followed:
-Intervals in the drilling which
were not sampled should be included in the database, with a very
low grade. Snowden has entered a grade of 0.003 ppm, but these
intervals should be sampled where possible and assayed.
-Estimates based on the data
collected prior to 2009 should be limited to an Inferred Mineral
Resource mainly due to the lack of QA/QC results (and selective
sampling issues) in some of the underground data.
-Only estimates based largely on the
2009 data (and later) are suitable to create higher confidence
estimates.
Issues with respect to coarse gold
in the samples have recently raised concerns about the
appropriateness of the older assaying and therefore precision. For
this reason, the confidence in the estimates is restricted to the
Indicated category."
The Development of the Snowden Estimate
The Updated Technical Report
includes a discussion on the reasons for the changes to the Geoex
estimation method as adopted by Snowden.
In 2012, Geoex
completed two estimates of the tonnes and grade of Cow Mountain.
During June, and prior to completion of the Original Technical
Report, Geoex had completed preliminary grade-tonnage estimation
work. The Company decided that the estimate was material to the
shareholders and put out a news release disclosing the estimate on
June 29, 2012. Following the August 2012 grade-tonnage estimates,
the BCSC raised a number of concerns, and Snowden was contracted to
assist the Company and Geoex to address those items.
Between August 2012 and the timing
of the Updated Technical Report (as noted above), Snowden completed
a significant amount of data validation and verification including
twin drilling, QAQC and a database audit.
Further work by Snowden in a review
of the geology and appropriateness of the style of modelling
concluded that:
-Attempts at building
a constrained geological model were found not to constrain the
mineralization appropriately and were discarded in favour of a
model based on an estimate of the proportion of mineralized
material in each block.
-Sampling of drill
intervals that had previously not been sampled indicated gold
mineralization in areas that would have previously been considered
barren (although these were still dealt with by adding a default
grade of 0.003 ppm Au prior to grade estimation).
-Compositing needed
to be at a longer interval. Five feet was chosen for the composite
length as it represents the median of the sample intervals in the
mineralized zone.
-Statistics of the
mineralization showed a strongly skewed distribution. In this
instance, the use of capping to control high grades using linear
methods in grade estimation (such as inverse distance weighting or
ordinary kriging) can either over-estimate or under-estimate the
grade significantly, with the choice of capping being a relatively
arbitrary decision.
The Snowden estimate was based on a
similar block model and the application of MIK to interpolate the
gold grades. MIK, unlike linear methods, is an estimation method
that recognises that high grades have less grade continuity than
lower grades and helps to minimise the smearing of high grades that
can arise in linear estimation methods such as inverse distance and
ordinary kriging.
An additional constraint in the
classification of the resource model over previous models was that
Snowden down-graded the classification of some areas in the model
to Inferred where they had been estimated using the pre-2009 data.
This consideration in the classification was to reflect the lower
confidence in the data collected prior to 2009.
The
Company has adopted the Snowden estimate as the only current
resource estimate on the Cow Mountain deposit. Previous estimates
disclosed by the Company on the Cow Mountain deposit should not be
relied upon.
Bonanza Ledge
The Updated Technical Report notes
that the only prior mining study conducted in the Cariboo Gold
Project area, including costing and economic analysis, was
completed for the Bonanza Ledge deposit and formed part of the
Pre-Feasibility Study prepared by EBA Consultants (Fier et al,
2009); however, the economics of the same are now considered to be
outdated due to:
-Changes to capital
and operating costs over time.
-Changes to metal
prices.
-Purchase of the QR
Mill such that toll milling is no longer applicable.
-Purchase of property
interests such that royalty payments are no longer
applicable.
Consequently, Snowden completed an
update to the economic analysis for Bonanza Ledge in order to
assess the relevance of the mineral reserve under the revised
modifying factors.
At a discount rate of 10%, the
Bonanza Ledge project yields a positive after tax net present value
of $12.8 million, with an internal rate of return of 40.4% under
the base case scenario of long term $1,520/oz Au, 220 tpd. The long
term gold price equates to the three year trailing average,
however, for the first year, a price of $1,400/oz has been
assumed.
Revised Exploration Target Potential Estimates for Further
Exploration
The Company's June news release, as
well as the Original Technical Report, included disclosure on
potential of exploration targets at the Cariboo Gold Project. The
disclosure of the potential exploration targets did not include the
assumptions regarding the exploration targets, or the local data
for the exploration targets.
The
Company advises exploration targets disclosed in the June news
release and the Original Technical Report should not be relied
upon.
Island Mountain
Exploration Target Potential
The geological setting for Island
Mountain is an extension of that of Cow Mountain. The mineralized
trend at Cow Mountain, based upon soils, drilling and trenching,
extends to the northwest into the Island Mountain sector.
Based upon the drillhole and soil
geochemical data in conjunction with the geology, the Island
Mountain trend as an exploration target is comparable to Cow
Mountain with twice the strike length at about 1.5 miles in
length.
The past producing Island
Mountain/Aurum and Mosquito mines (all in Island Mountain) have
underground workings extending to depths greater than 2,000 ft
below the surface. In addition to this, the mine workings from the
Cariboo Gold Quartz Mine at Cow Mountain extend to the northwest
beneath Jack of Club Lake to Island Mountain. The historic workings
in conjunction with the drillhole data indicate that the Island
Mountain exploration target extends to a depth of at least 2,000 ft
below surface.
A strike length of 1.5 miles (7,920
ft), a width of 1,300 ft, a depth of 2,000 ft and a density of 168
lb/ft3 gives a tonnage range of 100 million tons to 350 million
tons. The grade, according to summary statistics of the available
drill data at Island Mountain, however, appears to be higher than
that at Cow Mountain. Based on these grades, a grade range for the
target of between 0.06 oz/t and 0.18 oz/t (2 to 6 ppm) was chosen
resulting in an exploration target with a range of 6 to 21 million
ounces gold. The grades were based on the lower grade from the
contiguous Cow Mountain resource and the higher grade based on the
average grade of the historic drill data from the Rainbow Unit. The
higher tonnage was used with the lower grade value to define the
upper value of contained ounces as it is considered less likely the
higher tonnage would be associated with the higher grade
values.
These results, in combination with
historic underground mining and the existing gold in soil
geochemical anomalies, make the Island Mountain area a high
priority target for further evaluation.
The
foregoing assessments of potential quantity and grade are
conceptual in nature and there has been insufficient exploration to
define a Mineral Resource and it is uncertain if further
exploration will result in any of the exploration targets being
delineated as a Mineral Resource.
Barkerville
Mountain Target Potential
The geological setting beneath
Barkerville Mountain is an extension of that of Cow Mountain. The
mineralized trend at Cow Mountain, based upon soils, drilling and
trenching, extends to the southeast across the narrow Lowhee Creek
valley into the Barkerville Mountain sector.
The Barkerville Mountain area, based
upon the extent of the soil geochemical anomaly and gold
mineralization identified in trench sampling and limited drilling
appears to have a potential strike of 1.1 miles.
Given a strike length of 1.1 miles
(5,800 ft), a width of 1,300 ft and a depth of 1,000 ft, the
authors suggest a target with a tonnage range of between 50 million
tons and 100 million tons. Summary statistics of the available
drill data at Barkerville Mountain have been used to estimate a
grade range for the target of between 0.06 oz/t and 0.15 oz/t (2 to
5 ppm) Au and the exploration target a range of 3 to 6 million
ounces gold. The grades were based on the lower grade from the
contiguous Cow Mountain resource and the higher grade based on the
average grade of the historic drill data (above 0.012 oz/t) from
the Rainbow Unit. The higher tonnage was used with the lower grade
value to define the upper value of contained ounces as the authors
considered it less likely the higher tonnage would be associated
with the higher grade values.
The foregoing assessments of
potential quantity and grade are conceptual in nature and there has
been insufficient exploration to define a Mineral Resource and it
is uncertain if further exploration will result in any of the
exploration targets being delineated as a Mineral
Resource.
Total Exploration
Target Potential of Island and Barkerville Mountains
The total exploration target
potential of the 4 mile long mineralized trend including the
Barkerville Mountain target and the Island Mountain target is 150
to 450 million tons (rounded to the nearest fifty) between 0.06
oz/t and 0.15 oz/t (2 to 5 ppm) Au and the target with a range of
between 9 and 27 million ounces gold.
The estimate of exploration target
potential does not include the Cow Mountain Resource.
In addition, there are a number of
other targets including mineralization associated with the Bonanza
Ledge setting and the Rainbow-Baker replacement style for which
there is strong evidence for but not enough work to properly
define.
The foregoing assessments of
potential quantity and grade are conceptual in nature and there has
been insufficient exploration to define a Mineral Resource and it
is uncertain if further exploration will result in any of the
exploration targets being delineated as a Mineral
Resource.
Recommendations for the Cariboo Gold Project
Bonanza Ledge
The Updated Technical Report
recommends that the Bonanza Ledge project be re-assessed into the
much larger Island Mountain / Cow Mountain / Barkerville Mountain
resource evaluation.
Cow Mountain and
Exploration
In order to expand upon the mineral
resource and the potential of the Cow Mountain property, the
following is recommended in the Updated Technical Report:
-Review core sampling records for all drillholes within the Cow
Mountain resource model and execute a core sampling and assaying
programme to provide 100% assay data for all drillcore with
previously un-sampled intervals.
-Create and maintain a robust database including management of
QA/QC.
-Initiate ground work for a preliminary economic assessment at
Cow Mountain.
-Establish and maintain an industry standard secure database for
all drill log information.
-Begin bulk sampling programme of surface
mineralization.
-Construct a comprehensive 3D computer geologic model to develop
regional targets for exploration drilling.
-Conduct Island Mountain drill data validation and
evaluation.
-Evaluate the potential of the exploration targets at Island
Mountain and Barkerville Mountain through further trenching and
drilling.
-Prepare a grade-tonnage estimate of the results of the data
validation and new exploration data.
-Where appropriate, replace original fire assays with metallic
screen fire assays (a technique that employs a larger sample size
for analysis of drillcore) as work to-date indicates the original
assaying did not account for all of the gold in the samples (there
is an apparent bias low).
-Perform continual monitoring of QA/QC results.
-Establish a library of standard operating procedures for all
drill core processing to be established by the Company.
The following phased programme is recommended. Drilling
related costs are based upon actual costs of the 2010 drill
programme (Yin, 2010) escalated by 10%. The all-inclusive drilling
costs include, footage costs, wages and benefits, road and pad
construction, driller bonus, mob-demob, and miscellaneous. Assay
costs have been increased to reflect the higher cost of screened
metallic assaying. Other costs are order of magnitude
estimates.
Phase 1 (for completion
during 2013)
Infill sampling of approximately
100,000 ft of un-sampled core from the period 2007 to 2011
Assume average 5 ft length 20,000 samples at
$41/sample
............................................................$820,000
Cow Mountain PEA
.............................................................$80,000
Bonanza Ledge Pre-Feasibility Study
.............................................................$250,000
Phase 2 (for completion by
the end of 2014)
Complete 50,000 ft of drilling in the Barkerville
Mountain area
50,000 ft of drilling, $85 per ft (all-inclusive)
............................................................$4,250,000
Sampling and assays (assume average 5 ft length 10,000
samples) at $41/sample
............................................................$410,000
Complete 100,000 ft of infill drilling in Island
Mountain study area
100,000 ft of drilling, $85 per ft (all-inclusive)
............................................................$8,500,000
Sampling and assays (assume average 5 ft length 20,000
samples) at $41/sample
.............................................................$820,000
Miscellaneous and Overhead Costs
.............................................................$1,400,000
Phase 2 is not contingent upon the results of Phase
1.
"J. Frank Callaghan"
J. Frank Callaghan
President and CEO
Staff at the BCSC (the "Staff") reviewed the Company's Updated
Technical Report in the context of issues and deficiencies
identified by their previous review of the Company's Original
Technical Report filed on or about August 13, 2012. Staff have not
approved the Updated Technical Report. Staff have relied on the
Company and the opinions and certificates of the qualified persons
that the Updated Technical Report contains a summary of all
material scientific and technical about the Cariboo Gold Project
and has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form
43-101F1. In addition, Staff have not approved, endorsed or
otherwise passed on the merits of the scientific and technical
information contained in the Updated Technical Report or in this
news release and including, but not limited to, estimates of
exploration targets, mineral resources and mineral reserves. Any
representation to the contrary may constitute a breach of section
55 of the British Columbia Securities Act.
About
Barkerville Gold Mines Ltd.
Since the mid-1990s the
Company has focused on exploration and development of gold projects
in the Cariboo Mining District in central B.C. The Company's
mineral tenures cover 1,174 km2 along a strike length of 60 km and
approximate width of 20 km, encompassing seven past producing hard
rock mines and three NI 43-101 gold deposits. The QR Property was
acquired in February 2010 and includes a 900 tonne/day gold milling
facility and a permitted gold mine located approximately 110
kilometers by highway and all-weather road from the Barkerville
Gold Camp. The Company began pouring dore gold in September 2010,
continued until December 2011, and resumed in January 2013. In
November 2010, the Company acquired a second permitted mill
currently on care and maintenance in Revelstoke, B.C. In November
2010, the Company and the Lhtako Dene First Nation also signed a
Project Agreement in relation to its Bonanza Ledge and Cariboo Gold
Projects. The Company has completed significant drilling and
exploration programs and, together with the historical data, is
compiling all information to determine the geologic models and
updated technical reports to continue with exploration and
development of the Cariboo Gold projects. This news release has
been prepared on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Company
which takes full responsibility for its contents.
TECHNICAL
INFORMATION AND QUALIFIED PERSON/QUALITY CONTROL NOTES
The mineral resource estimate for
the Cow Mountain sector, data verification, and QA/QC were prepared
by Mr. Ivor W.O. Jones, FAusIMM (CP), of Snowden, a Qualified
Person ("QP") for the purposes of NI 43-101. Mr. Jones also
co-authored the recommendations section contained in the Updated
Technical Report. Mr. Jones is independent of the Company and has
not previously reported on the Cariboo Gold Project. The other
scientific and technical information regarding Cariboo Gold Project
contained herein is based on information prepared by or under the
supervision of each of Mr. Peter George, P. Geo., of Geoex, Robert
McCarthy, P. Eng., of Snowden, and Michael B. Dufresne, P. Geo., of
APEX, who are also QPs for the purposes of NI 43-101. Each of the
remaining QPs herein is independent of the Company, and Messrs.
McCarthy and Dufresne have not previously reported on the Cariboo
Gold Project. An Updated Technical Report under NI 43-101 on the
Cariboo Gold Project, as co-authored by the QPs, and which includes
the updated resource and estimate for Cow Mountain, has now been
filed by the Company on SEDAR. All of above QPs have reviewed and
approved the contents of this news release.
CAUTIONARY NOTE TO
UNITED STATES INVESTORS CONCERNING ESTIMATES OF INDICATED AND
INFERRED RESOURCES
This news release has been prepared
in accordance with the requirements of Canadian provincial
securities laws which differ from the requirements of U.S.
securities laws. Unless otherwise indicated, all mineral reserve
and resource estimates included in this news release have been
prepared in accordance with the CIM classification systems, as
required under NI 43-101. NI 43-101 is a rule developed by the
Canadian Securities Administrators that establishes standards for
all public disclosure an issuer makes of scientific and technical
information concerning mineral projects. These standards differ
significantly from the requirements of the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), and reserve and resource
estimates disclosed in this news release may not be comparable to
similar information disclosed by U.S. companies.
In addition, this news release uses
the terms "indicated resources" and "inferred resources" to comply
with the reporting standards in Canada. The Company advises United
States investors that while those terms are recognized and required
by Canadian regulations, the SEC does not recognize them. United
States investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all
of the mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted
into mineral reserves. Further, "inferred resources" have a great
amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they
can be mined legally or economically. Therefore, United States
investors are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of
the "inferred resources" exist. In accordance with Canadian
securities laws, estimates of "inferred resources" cannot form the
basis of feasibility or other economic studies. It cannot be
assumed that all or any part of "indicated resources" or "inferred
resources" will ever be upgraded to a higher category or are
economically or legally mineable. In addition, disclosure of
"contained ounces" is permitted disclosure under Canadian
securities laws; however, the SEC only permits issuers to report
mineralization as in place tonnage and grade without reference to
unit measures. NI 43-101 also permits the inclusion of disclosure
regarding the potential quantity and grade, expressed as ranges, of
a target for further exploration provided that the disclosure (i)
states with equal prominence that the potential quantity and grade
is conceptual in nature, that there has been insufficient
exploration to define a mineral resource and that it is uncertain
if further exploration will result in the target being delineated
as a mineral resources, and (ii) states the basis on which the
disclosed potential quantity and grade has been determined.
Disclosure regarding exploration potential has been included in
this news release. United States investors are cautioned that
disclosure of such exploration potential is conceptual in nature by
definition and there is no assurance that exploration will result
in any category of NI 43-101 mineral resources being
identified.
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT ON
FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
Certain information in
this news release is forward-looking within the meaning of certain
securities laws, and is subject to important risks, uncertainties
and assumptions. This forward-looking information includes, among
other things, information with respect to the Company's beliefs,
plans, expectations, anticipations, estimates and intentions,
including the listing and trading of the Company's common shares on
the TSX Venture Exchange. The words "may", "could", "should",
"would", "suspect", "outlook", "believe", "anticipate", "estimate",
"expect", "intend", "plan", "target" and similar words and
expressions are used to identify forward-looking information. The
forward-looking information in this news release describes the
Company's expectations as of the date of this news release.
The results or events
anticipated or predicted in such forward-looking information may
differ materially from actual results or events. Material factors
which could cause actual results or events to differ materially
from such forward- looking information include, among others, the
Company's ability to engage and retain qualified key personnel,
employees and affiliates, to obtain capital and credit and to
protect its property rights.
The Company cautions
that the foregoing list of material factors is not exhaustive. When
relying on the Company's forward-looking information to make
decisions, investors and others should carefully consider the
foregoing factors and other uncertainties and potential events. The
Company has assumed a certain progression, which may not be
realized. It has also assumed that the material factors referred to
in the previous paragraph will not cause such forward-looking
information to differ materially from actual results or events.
However, the list of these factors is not exhaustive and is subject
to change and there can be no assurance that such assumptions will
reflect the actual outcome of such items or factors.
THE FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
CONTAINED IN THIS NEWS RELEASE REPRESENTS THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE
COMPANY AS OF THE DATE OF THIS NEWS RELEASE AND, ACCORDINGLY, IS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE AFTER SUCH DATE. READERS SHOULD NOT PLACE UNDUE
IMPORTANCE ON FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION AND SHOULD NOT RELY UPON
THIS INFORMATION AS OF ANY OTHER DATE. WHILE THE COMPANY MAY ELECT
TO, IT DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO UPDATE THIS INFORMATION AT ANY
PARTICULAR TIME.
Neither
the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as
that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange)
accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news
release.
__________
Barkerville Gold Mines (TSXV:BGM)
Historical Stock Chart
From Mar 2024 to Apr 2024
Barkerville Gold Mines (TSXV:BGM)
Historical Stock Chart
From Apr 2023 to Apr 2024
