Perth Mining Geology Conference

2019 Special Report

www.rscmme.com

A selection of resource and exploration

analytical data
 about
As it was in 2017, RSC is again the Platinum Sponsor of the 2019 International Mining Geology
Conference being held in Perth, Western Australia (25–26 November 2019). The conference
provides the opportunity to take stock of what has been happening since the beginning of
the year and report a global overview of recent mineral resources and exploration drilling.

RSC, in collaboration with opaxe, has prepared this special report on mineral resources and
exploration drilling results. The report uses information published by resources companies
listed on the world’s major stock exchanges between January - October 2019. A larger
dataset was required for some statistics and the footnotes on each page provide information
on the dataset used.

This year RSC has been particularly interested in investigating relationships between
mineralisation style and mineral resource metrics (size/grade). Some of the outcomes of this
investigation are provided here for your interest.

We hope you enjoy the report and look forward to seeing you at the conference should you
be attending (see us at Booth #10). For more information on RSC’s geological project
management and consulting, contract geologist and pXRF rental services please go to
www.rscmme.com.

The RSC team

 3

2019 mineral resources

Location Reports
Oceania 272
North America 231
Africa 105
South America 98
Asia 54
Europe 31
Seabed Resources 1

JORC NI43-101 SAMREC

A total of 792 mineral resources were reported from 01 January to 31 October 2019. The JORC Code was used as the reporting standard for 51% of those
reports. The most active reporting region was Oceania (34%) followed by North America (29%).
A single seabed resource was reported by DeepGreen Metals Inc.
Data only includes initial, updated and upgraded mineral resources reported from 01 January to 31 October 2019. Reports where the mineral resource was unchanged are not included in these statistics.
 4

2019 estimation techniques

Ordinary Kriging
Inverse Distance Methods

Only 64% of resource reports stated an estimation technique. Of the reports which stated a technique, the most Indicator, <1%

popular technique was ordinary kriging (69%), followed by inverse distance methods (25%). Nearest
Neighbour, <1%
Finite
Data relates to the 792 initial, updated and upgraded mineral resources reported between 01 January and 31 October 2019. Element
Method, <1%
 5

2019 resource estimation software

Geo-modelling software Estimation software

Other GS3M Other

10% Datamine 2% 13%
15% Isatis Datamine
Vulcan GEOVIA GEMS 23%
3%
10% 6%
Minesight
2%
Vulcan
13% GEOVIA GEMS
Micromine 8%
13% GEOVIA Surpac
20%

Leapfrog Minesight GEOVIA Surpac

24% 3% Micromine 22%
11%

Leapfrog Edge
2%

Leapfrog, Surpac and Datamine were the most widely used software packages for geo-modelling. Datamine and Surpac were also the most widely used
packages for resource estimation followed by Vulcan and Micromine.
Statistics only relate to those reports which mentioned the software used. Full dataset included 792 initial, updated and upgraded mineral resource reports published between 01 January and 31 October 2019. Only 449 reports mentioned the geomodelling software used and only 441 mentioned the
estimation software used.
 6

2019 resource consulting companies

Number of resource reports published
4
CSA Global Pty Ltd. 37
4
SRK Consulting 28
Proportion of resources Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. 1
23
41% estimated internally by a Optiro Pty Ltd. 3
17
company employee Mining Plus Pty Ltd. 3
11
Golder Associates 11
CJSC Polymetal Engineering 11
2
H&S Consultants Pty Ltd. 9
APEX Geoscience Ltd. 9

Proportion of initial resources AMC Consultants Pty Ltd. 9

1
14% estimated internally by a P&E Mining Consultants Inc.
Micon International Ltd. 2
8

company employee 8
1
Cube Consulting Pty Ltd. 7
1
Snowden Mining Industry Consultants Pty Ltd. 7
2
Payne Geological Services 6
MPR Geological Consultants Pty Ltd. 6
1
CSA Global has produced the most resource IHC Robbins 6
Xenith Consulting Pty Ltd.
reports in 2019 (37 reports). CSA Global and 5
Trepanier Pty Ltd. 5
SRK Consulting have both produced four initial SGS Canada Inc. 1
5
resource reports. Moose Mountain Technical Services 1
5
McElroy Bryan Geological Services Pty Ltd. 5 Initial Resource
Full dataset included 792 initial, updated and upgraded mineral resource reports published 2
between 01 January and 31 October 2019. Graph only includes those companies who Ashmore Advisory Pty Ltd. 5
published 5 or more reports. Of the 792 reports, 23 did not state the affiliation of the Reported Resource
Competent/Qualified Person. A further 32 reports stated that the Competent/Qualified Person Al Maynard & Associates Pty Ltd. 5
was independent of the reporting company but did not provide any further detail.
 7

mineral resource QP/CPs

Number of resource reports published
Martin Wafforn (Pan American Silver Corp.) 51 72% Precious Metals
Lynn Widenbar (Widenbar and Associates Pty Ltd.) 46
Christopher Emerson (Pan American Silver Corp.) 43 24% Base Metals
Eugene Puritch (P&E Mining Consultants Inc.) 39
Valery Tsyplakov (CJSC Polymetal Engineering) 39
24% Industrial Minerals
Daniel Doucet (Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd.) 38
Lauritz Barnes (Trepanier Pty Ltd.) 34
Gary Giroux (Giroux Consultants Ltd.) 31 The most published mineral resource
Simon Tear (H&S Consultants Pty Ltd.) 31 qualified/competent persons were determined
Shaun Searle (Ashmore Advisory Pty Ltd., RPM Global) 29
using opaxe’s full dataset. Twenty-four
Paul Payne (Payne Geological Services) 29
qualified/competent persons have signed off 20
Rob Hutchison (Ramelius Resources Ltd.) 27
or more resource reports, and between them a
Brian Wolfe (International Resource Solutions Pty Ltd.) 26
Ingvar Kirchner (AMC Consultants Pty Ltd.) 26
collective 952 reports have been published. Gold
Christine Standing (Optiro Pty Ltd.) 24
was reported in 64% of those resources.
Stephen Juras (Eldorado Gold Corp.) 23
Hamish McLauchlan (Bathurst Resources Ltd.) 22 The most active qualified/competent person was
Gilles Arsenau (SRK, Arseneau Consulting Services Ltd.) 22 Martin Wafforn who produced 51 reports in the
Robert Sim (SIM Geological Inc.) 22 dataset. Precious metals were estimated in all of
David Williams (CSA Global) 21 his resources.
Reno Pressacco (RPA Inc.) 20
Dataset included 4253 initial, updated and upgraded mineral resource reports published between
Jake Russel (Westgold Resources Ltd.) 20 10 June 2014 and 19 November 2019. Of the 4253 reports, 36 did not state the CP/QP. Graph only
includes the 24 CP/QPs who have published 20 or more resource reports. Commodity type
Dmitry Pertel (CSA Global) 20 statistics represent proportions from the 952 collective reports by the 24 CP/QPs. Some resources
contain multiple commodities (and multiple commodity types), therefore numbers may not add
Andrew Scogings (CSA Global, KlipStone Pty Ltd.) 20 up to the total.
 8

2019 initial resources 63% 38% 33%

Gold 44
Silver 17
Copper 16
Zinc 15
Lead 11 Precious Metals Base Metals Industrial Minerals
Cobalt 8
Lithium 7
Vanadium 6
Iron 6
Nickel 5
Tin 3
Tantalum 3
Silica 3
Aluminium 3
Potassium 2
Graphite 2
Caesium 1
Coal 1
Germanium 1
Ilmenite 1
Indium 1
Magnesium 1
Palladium 1
Phosphorus 1
Platinum 1
Rare Earth 1
Rubidium 1
Sulfur 1 JORC
Titanium 1 NI 43-101
Uranium 1

A total of 79 initial resources have been reported in 2019. Oceania reported the most initial resources (29), followed by North America (23). The JORC Code was the most popular reporting standard, being
used for a total of 48 reports. The remaining 39% of initial resource reports were reported under NI 43-101. Most initial resources estimated precious metals (gold or silver). Base metals were estimated in
38% of the initial resources.
Full dataset included 79 initial mineral resource reports published between 01 January and 31 October 2019. Some resources contain multiple commodities (and multiple commodity types), therefore numbers may not add up to the total.
 Number initial resources

2
4
8

0
6
10
Jan-16
Feb-16
Mar-16
Apr-16
May-16
Jun-16
Jul-16
Aug-16

above NI 43-101 on a monthly basis.

Sep-16
Oct-16
Nov-16
Dec-16
Jan-17
Feb-17
Mar-17
Apr-17
May-17
Jun-17
Jul-17
Aug-17
Sep-17
Oct-17
Nov-17
Dec-17
Jan-18
Feb-18
Mar-18
Apr-18
May-18
Jun-18
Jul-18
Aug-18
Sep-18
Oct-18
Nov-18
Dec-18
Jan-19
initial resource reporting codes

Feb-19
Mar-19
Apr-19
May-19
Jun-19
Jul-19
Aug-19
Sep-19
Oct-19
JORC

Between January 2016 and October 2019, a total of 199 initial resources have been reported. Since March 2019, JORC Code usage for initial resources has been trending consistently
NI43-101
9
 10

2019 initial resources – precious metals

20,000,000
Distribution of Au Ounces
18,000,000
Europe, 3% Forty-four initial resources from
16,000,000
Asia, 6% 2019 contained gold1. Those
14,000,000
resources have a combined total of
Au Ounces

12,000,000 North America, 32%

18.6 Moz contained Au (14.4 Moz
10,000,000 South
Inferred, 4.1 Moz Indicated and
America,
8,000,000 0.042 Moz Measured).
11%
6,000,000
4,000,000
Oceania, 25%
2,000,000 Africa, 23%
0
Inferred Indicated Measured Total Distribution of Ag Ounces
300,000,000 Oceania
4%
250,000,000

200,000,000
Sixteen initial resources from 2019 Africa
Ag Ounces

North America
150,000,000
contained silver1. Those resources 62%
10%
have a combined total of 291.4 Moz
South
100,000,000 contained Ag (110.9 Moz Inferred, America
178.9 Moz Indicated and 1.5 Moz 5%
Europe
50,000,000 Measured). 19%
0
Inferred Indicated Measured Total 1Full dataset included 79 initial mineral resource reports published between 01 January and 31 October 2019. Some resources contain multiple commodities
(and multiple commodity types), therefore numbers may not add up to the total.
 11

deposit styles: initial gold resources

Lode Au
Big Strike, Braveheart Resources Inc.
Monster Lake, IAMGOLD Corp. Epithermal (adularia-sericite)

Bellevue, Bellevue Gold Ltd. Porphyry

10 Eastmain Mine, Eastmain Resources Inc.
Kuroko-type VAMS
Carlin
Au Resource grade (g/t)

Cloncurry-type IOCG
Skarn
Granite-related
Bolcana, Eldorado Gold Corp. Intrusion-related Au
1
Intrusion-related Cu-Au Telfer
CRD Manto deposit
Merensky Reef-type Ni-PGE
Placer Au
Star Mountains, Highlands Pacific Ltd. Porphyry exocontact vein
Bubble size represents contained Au ounces Cascabel, SolGold Plc
Cobar style Pb-Zn-Cu-Au
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Total Resource (Mt)

A total of 69 initial gold resources were reported between 01 July 2017 and 30 June 2019. The largest initial gold resource was Solgold Plc’s Alpala porphyry
deposit with 12.3 Moz contained Au. The most common mineralisation style was lode gold.
 12

deposit styles: initial silver resources

Bawdwin, Myanmar Metals Ltd.
Epithermal (adularia-sericite)
500 Bayhorse, Bayhorse Silver Inc. Las Chispas, SilverCrest Metals Inc.
Kuroko VAMS

Lode Au

MVT style Pb-Ag-Zn

Ag Resource grade (g/t)

Granite-related
50
Cobar style Pb-Zn-Cu-Au

CRD Manto deposit

Intrusion-related Cu-Au Telfer

DeLamar, Integra Resources Corp. Irish-style Pb-Zn
5
Porphyry

Sediment-hosted Cu-Ag-Co

Skarn

Bubble size represents contained Ag ounces Historic Mine slag

0.5
0.1 1 10 100
Total Resource (Mt)

A total of 28 initial silver resources were reported between 01 July 2017 and 30 June 2019. The largest initial silver resource was Myanmar Metals’ Bawdwin
project, a Kuroko-type volcanic-associated massive sulfide deposit containing 128.3 Moz Ag. The most common mineralisation style was epithermal (adularia-
sericite).
 13

2019 initial resources – base metals Distribution of Zn Tonnes

3000000

Distribution of Cu Tonnes North

Oceania
16%
America
32% Africa
2500000 Oceania 12%
Cu
6%
Zn South
North America Africa
Europe America
Pb 87% 1%
17% 23%
2000000
South America
2%
Resource Tonnes

Europe
4%
1500000

Distribution of Pb tonnes
A total of 2.97 Mt Cu, 2.81 Mt Zn
1000000 and 0.986 Mt Pb were added across
Oceania
the reported initial resources in 13%
20191. Africa
North America 10%
32%
500000 North America hosts an extensive South America
87% of the initial Cu resources. 13%
Highland Copper Company’s White
Europe
Pine North project amounted to an 32%
0 impressive 2.4Mt of contained Cu.
Inferred Indicated Measured Total
1Full dataset included 79 initial mineral resource reports published between 01 January and 31 October 2019. Some resources contain multiple commodities
(and multiple commodity types), therefore numbers may not add up to the total.
 14

deposit styles: initial copper resources

5
Kuroko VAMS
La Plata, Toachi Mining Inc.
Porphyry

Collerina, Collerina Pantera, Avanco Resources Ltd. Clarion Clipperton Zone, DeepGreen Metals Inc. Skarn
Bonya, Thor Mining Plc
Sediment-hosted Cu-Ag-Co
Farellon, Altiplano Minerals Ltd.
Cloncurry IOCG

Granite-related
Cu Resource grade (%)

Irish Pb-Zn

Komatiitic-hosted nickel sulphide

0.5
Intrusion-related Cu-Au Telfer

Porphyry exocontact vein

Cascabel, SolGold Plc. Lode Au

Mocoa, Libero Mining Corp. Kipushi Cu-Zn-Pb

Mn-Ni-Co-nodules

Merensky Reef Ni-PGE

Cobar style Pb-Zn-Cu-Au

Bubble size represents contained Cu tonnes
Historic tailings
0.05
0 1 10 100 1000
Total Resource (Mt)

A total of 30 initial copper resources were reported between 01 July 2017 and 30 June 2019. The largest initial copper resource was DeepGreen Metals’ Clarion
Clipperton Zone polymetallic nodule deposit with 9.8 Mt contained Cu. Kuroko-type volcanic-associated massive sulfides and porphyries were the most
common mineralisation classes.
 15

2019 exploration drilling

Location Reports
Oceania 997
North America 859
Africa 248
South America 202
Asia 61
Europe 109
Seabed Resources 0

JORC NI43-101 (no code)

A total of 2476 exploration drilling reports have been released in 2019. Oceania reported the most drilling results (997) followed by North America (859).
Fifty percent of drilling results were reported under NI 43-101. The JORC Code was used as the reporting standard for 47% and the remaining 3% did not
mention a reporting code.
Reports published between 01 January and 31 October 2019. Dataset does not include amended or clarified reports.
 16

2019 exploration drilling Project Status

Gold 1860
Silver 624
Copper 590
Zinc 319
Lead 242
Cobalt 162
Nickel
Lithium
133
111
79% Resource Development
Tin 55
34%
Molybdenum 43
Uranium 40
Vanadium 37 Precious Metals
Graphite 31
Pursuing Resource
32%
Iron 31
Definition
Tantalum 28
44%
Platinum 23
Pursuing Technical
Palladium 22
Study
Tungsten 21
6%
Silica 16
Rare Earth 16
Base Metals Active Mining &
Magnesium 14 Production Mine Development
Titanium 14 12% 4%
Aluminium
Potassium
13
12
17%
Arsenic 11
Mine in Care &
Manganese 11
Maintenance
Coal 11
<1%
Bismuth 10 Industrial Minerals

Of the 2476 exploration drilling reports published in 2019, 1970 included precious metals, 781 included base metals and 418 included industrial
minerals. Gold was the most reported commodity and was included in 1860 reports. These results come from projects at a variety of project levels. Only
12% of the reports came from a project that is actively mining and 44% of the reports came from projects with no defined mineral resources.
Reports published between 01 January and 31 October 2019. Dataset does not include amended or clarified reports. Some results contain multiple commodities (and multiple commodity types), therefore numbers may not add up to the total. Graph only shows commodities with 10 or more mentions.
 17

2019 in-depth on porphyry exploration

Opaxe’s deposit type data can be used to provide objective comparisons between drill intersections for projects of similar mineralisation style. Exploration drilling
results have been reported for 35 porphyry projects in 2019. The standout results were from the Filo del Sol, Thorn, Productora, Antakori, Freegold Mountain and
Tatogga projects.
Dataset included drilling reports for porphyry projects published between 01 January 2019 and 30 September 2019.
All projects have been classified as a porphyry project based on the interpretation of the mineralisation of that project as stated in the companies’ intercept announcement itself. For comparative purposes the top intercept for each unique porphyry project has been converted into an Au-equivalent
grade (g/tonne) x length (m) shown by the bubble size. See details relevant to AuEq conversions on page 19.
The number in each bubble corresponds to the name of the project in the table. Projects labelled as (R) represent projects in the resource development stage. Projects labelled (E) represent projects in the exploration/resource definition stage.
The change in the share price of the company associated with the announcement is shown and has been calculated as per:
- X% (24 hrs) = the difference between the closing share price on the trading day preceding and the opening share price on the trading day after the announcement
- X% (4 day) = the difference between the closing share price on the trading day preceding the announcement and the opening share price on the 4th trading day following the day of the announcement.
 18

2019 in-depth on pegmatite exploration

12
1

1 Alvarroes (R), -7% (24hr), -4% (4 day)

10
2 Lake Roe (R), 0% (24hr), 0% (4 day)
3 Zoro (R), 0% (24hr), 0% (4 day)
4 Karibib (R), -11% (24hr), -6% (4 day)
8 18
5 Piedmont (R), 5% (24hr), 9% (4 day)
5 6 Pilgangoora (R), 3% (24hr), 5% (4 day)
AuEq. (g/t)

13
7 Irgon (E), 0% (24hr), 0% (4 day)
6 12 8 Bougouni (R), -6% (24hr), -6% (4 day)
8
9 9 Mina do Barroso (R), -1% (24hr), 1% (4 day)
6 10 Buldania (E), -12% (24hr), -3% (4 day)
14
4 15 17 11 Tansim (E), 0% (24hr), 0% (4 day)
2 4 12 Finniss (R), -4% (24hr), -7% (4 day)
10
7 11 13 Ewoyaa (E), -1% (24hr), -1% (4 day)
3 16
2 14 Kathleen Valley (R), -14% (24hr), -6% (4 day)
15 Uis (E), -4% (24hr), -1% (4 day)
16 Pioneer Dome (R), 5% (24hr), 110% (4 day)

0 17 PAK (R), -4% (24hr), 4% (4 day)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 18 Manono (R), -10% (24hr), -32% (4 day)

Interval (m)

Exploration drilling results have been reported for 18 pegmatite projects in 2019. The standout results were from the Manono, PAK, Ewoyaa and Finniss
projects.
Dataset included drilling reports for pegmatite projects published between 01 January 2019 and 31 October 2019.
All projects have been classified as a pegmatite project based on the interpretation of the mineralisation of that project as stated in the companies’ intercept announcement itself. For comparative purposes the top intercept for each unique pegmatite project has been converted into an Au-equivalent
grade (g/tonne) x length (m) shown by the bubble size. See details relevant to AuEq conversions on page 19.
The number in each bubble corresponds to the name of the project in the table. Projects labelled as (R) represent projects in the resource development stage. Projects labelled (E) represent projects in the exploration/resource definition stage.
The change in the share price of the company associated with the announcement is shown and has been calculated as per:
- X% (24 hrs) = the difference between the closing share price on the trading day preceding and the opening share price on the trading day after the announcement
- X% (4 day) = the difference between the closing share price on the trading day preceding the announcement and the opening share price on the 4th trading day following the day of the announcement.
 19

disclaimer and compliance warning:

Reports included in this special report are from the public reporting domain, using internationally recognised reporting codes and national instruments such as JORC, SAMREC, NI 43-
101, PERC and other codes in line with CRIRSCO. Technical reports include publicly released exploration drilling results, resource estimations, PEAs, scoping studies, PFS and feasibility
study reports, optimisation studies, and supporting acquisition full technical reports. Transaction reports are Public Reports relating to the transactions of mineral exploration, resource
development and mining properties, including property acquisitions, company acquisitions and takeovers.
The information in this special report does not qualify as a Public Report as defined by clause 6 of the JORC Code (2012). It is not prepared for the purpose of informing investors or
potential investors or their advisors, and is not published for or on behalf of any of the companies mentioned in this report. Opaxe has no equity or other interest in any of the companies
mentioned in this bulletin.
Opaxe takes no responsibility for the compliance of the Public Reports reviewed for this special report. It is up to each individual company to make sure that mineral resources are
reported in a material and transparent manner in compliance with the relevant reporting codes for the respective jurisdiction. Investors or potential investors using the information in
this special report are recommended to download the full reports directly from the company’s website.
Any of the companies mentioned in this special report should not use excerpts of this bulletin in their public reporting, including company presentations, websites or social media
unless these comply with the relevant clauses of the reporting code for the respective jurisdiction. For ASX-listed companies, this includes clauses 26 and 50 of the JORC Code (2012).
Drill intercept grades on pages 17 and 18 have been converted into AuEq using metal prices (USD) sourced from www.uxc.com, www.quandl.com/collections/markets/commodities,
markets.businessinsider.com/commodities or www.metalbulletin.com/lithium-prices-update. Intercept grades were converted to AuEq. using metal prices from the week of the public
announcement. To view the metal prices used please see the opaxe Resource Report Bulletin from the relevant week.
The formula used to convert drill intercept grades to gold equivalence using stated metal price is as follows:
𝐶𝑛 ($/𝑔)
𝐴𝑢𝐸𝑞 𝑔/𝑡 = σ𝑧𝑛=1 𝐶𝑛 𝑔/𝑡 x 𝐴𝑢 $/𝑔

Where z is the number of listed components (e.g. Au, Ag, Pb, Cu, Zn, Li) and C n is the nth component in that list.
Gold has been chosen as the metal equivalent for all conversions as it is the most widely-used and best-understood benchmark.
Opaxe has not investigated and is not aware of the detail of metallurgical recoveries for these mineral resources. Metallurgical recoveries have not been taken into consideration in the
conversions of each mineral resource mentioned in this special report. It is uncertain that all the elements included in the metal equivalent calculations have a reasonable potential to
be recovered and sold. The reader needs to use reasonable caution to avoid being misled in these instances.