Strong Copper-Silver Drill Results Delivered Ahead of San Antonio Resource Upgrade
Announcement
8th September 2022
Strong Copper-Silver Drill Results Delivered Ahead of San Antonio Resource Upgrade
- New copper (Cu) and silver (Ag) intersections from resource up-grade drilling of the high- grade San Antonio resource, part of the Company’s low-altitude, Costa Fuego senior copper development in Chile
- Highlights include:
- 21m grading 1.6% CuEq (1.6% Cu, 3.2g/t Ag) from 74m depth downhole
- 13m grading 1.3% CuEq (1.3% Cu, 3.2g/t Ag) from 133m depth downhole
including 2m grading 3.7% CuEq (3.5% Cu, 7.6g/t Ag)
- 7m grading 1.6% CuEq* (1.5% Cu, 4.8g/t Ag) from 11m depth downhole
including 2m grading 4.0% CuEq (3.9% Cu, 12.9g/t Ag)
- 4m grading 1.7% CuEq (1.7% Cu, 3.9g/t Ag) from 170m depth downhole
- 4m grading 1.6% CuEq (1.4% Cu, 6.4g/t Ag) from 115m depth downhole
- New results positively impact existing Inferred resource (4.2Mt grading 1.2% CuEq), which is set to be upgraded to Indicated classification in next Costa Fuego resource update, expected later this year
- Final drill results from the Valentina high grade copper-silver deposit expected shortly, regulatory application for follow-up drill programme being prepared
- Drilling continuing at Santiago Z porphyry exploration target - five drill holes complete, results pending
- Copper Equivalent (CuEq) reported for the drill holes at San Antonio used the following formula: CuEq% = ((Cu% × Cu price 1% per tonne × Cu_recovery) + (Mo
ppm × Mo price per g/t × Mo_recovery) + (Au ppm × Au price per g/t × Au_recovery) + (Ag ppm × Ag price per g/t × Ag_recovery)) / (Cu price 1% per tonne). The Metal Prices applied in the calculation were: Cu=3.00 USD/lb, Au=1,700 USD/oz, Mo=14 USD/lb, and Ag=20 USD/oz. Average fresh rock metallurgical recoveries were Cu=88%, Au=72%, Mo=88%, and Ag=69%.
Hot Chili Limited (ASX: HCH) (TSXV: HCH) (OTCQX: HHLKF) (“Hot Chili” or “Company”) is pleased to announce new significant results from resource upgrade drilling across the high-grade San Antonio copper deposit, part of the Company’s Costa Fuego, coastal range, copper-gold hub in Chile.
Importantly, several drill holes recorded higher grades than estimated in the current San Antonio Inferred resource model.
The new drill results will upgrade the classification of the existing resource at San Antonio from Inferred to Indicated – allowing the resource to be included in open pit reserve estimates for the Costa Fuego Prefeasibility Study (PFS).
A total of thirteen Reverse Circulation (RC) drill holes for 2,009m were complete across the San Antonio resource window to test extensional potential, as well as in-fill areas of lower geological confidence. Seven RC drill holes recoded significant intersections. In addition, three diamond holes for 495m were completed for metallurgical testwork purposes.
The current resource at San Antonio ((Inferred resource of 4.2Mt grading 1.2% CuEq (1.1% Cu, 2.1g/t Ag) for 48kt Cu and 287koz Ag, reported March 2022) extends from surface over a strike length of approximately 1km, and is amenable to open pit mining with relatively low strip-ratio.
Drilling undertaken across San Antonio, and its neighbouring high grade deposit Valentina, have provided significant encouragement for the addition of two potential high grade, front-end, open pit, ore sources for the combined Costa Fuego coastal copper super-hub.
SAPMET003 mineralisation in altered sandstone containing ~5% sulphides (pyrite and chalcopyrite) from 140m downhole which graded 3.7% CuEq (3.5% Cu, 7.6g/t Ag)
Expanded Drill Programme Planned for Valentina
Recent drill results from San Antonio’s neighbouring deposit Valentina recorded a number of outstanding shallow results, including 3m grading 12.1% CuEq (11.8% Cu & 52.6g/t Ag) within a broader drilling
intersection of 12m grading 4.6% CuEq (4.5% Cu & 16.5g/t Ag) from 25m depth down-hole (VALMET0002 as reported on 24th August 2022).
High grade copper-silver mineralisation at Valentina is defined over 300m and is open along strike and at depth.
Importantly, these new high grade drill results recorded in VALMET002, which lie 120m south of the historical Valentina underground mine, remain open and untested to the south below a shallow cover sequence of gravels.
A regulatory clearing application is being prepared to facilitate follow-up drilling at Valentina, which will expand resource drill definition across this potentially high-impact future resource addition to Costa Fuego.
The Company looks forward to releasing final drill results from Valentina shortly as well as an update on first-pass drilling activities across the Santiago Z porphyry exploration target.
This announcement is authorised by the Board of Directors for release to ASX and TSXV.
For more information please contact:
Christian Easterday Tel: +61 8 9315 9009
Managing Director – Hot Chili Email: [email protected]
Penelope Beattie Tel: +61 8 9315 9009
Company Secretary – Hot Chili Email: [email protected]
ASX Investor
Investor & Public Relations (Australia) Email: [email protected]
Harbor Access Email: [email protected]
Investor & Public Relations (Canada)
Email: [email protected]
or visit Hot Chili’s website at www.hotchili.net.au
Figure 1 Location of Cortadera, Productora, San Antonio and Valentina in relation to coastal range infrastructure of Hot Chili’s combined Costa Fuego copper-gold project, located 600km north of Santiago in Chile
Reported on a 100% Basis - combining Mineral Resource estimates for the Cortadera, Productora and San Antonio deposits. Figures are rounded, reported to appropriate significant figures, and reported in accordance with CIM and NI 43-101. Metal rounded to nearest thousand, or if less, to the nearest hundred. Total Resource reported at +0.21% CuEq for open pit and +0.30% CuEq for underground. Refer to Announcement “Hot Chili Delivers Next Level of Growth” (31st March 2022) for JORC Table 1 information related to the Costa Fuego Mineral Resource estimates.
- Copper Equivalent (CuEq) reported for the resource were calculated using the following formula: CuEq% = ((Cu% × Cu price 1% per tonne ×
Cu_recovery) + (Mo ppm × Mo price per g/t × Mo_recovery) + (Au ppm × Au price per g/t × Au_recovery) + (Ag ppm × Ag price per g/t × Ag_recovery)) / (Cu price 1% per tonne). The Metal Prices applied in the calculation were: Cu=3.00 USD/lb, Au=1,700 USD/oz, Mo=14 USD/lb, and Ag=20 USD/oz. For Cortadera and San Antonio (Inferred + Indicated), the average metallurgical recoveries were Cu=83%, Au=56%, Mo=82%, and Ag=37%. For Productora (Inferred + Indicated), the average metallurgical recoveries were Cu=83%, Au=43% and Mo=42%. For Costa Fuego (Inferred + Indicated), the average Metallurgical Recoveries were Cu=83%, Au=51%, Mo=67% and Ag=23%.
Table 1 New Significant RC and DD Results at San Antonio
| Hole ID _ | Coordinates | Azim | Dip | Hole | Intersection | Interval | Copper | Gold | Silver | Molybdenum | Cu Eq | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Depth | ||||||||||||||||||
| North | East | RL | From | To | (m) | (% Cu) | (g/t | (ppm | (ppm Mo) | (% Cu | ||||||||
| Au) | Ag) | Eq) | ||||||||||||||||
| SAP0042 | 6819270 | 342486 | 1204 | 89.4 | -80 | 150 | 95 | 97 | 2 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 2.5 | 4.8 | 0.9 | ||||
| SAP0044 | 6818761 | 342438 | 1208 | 240 | -60 | 170 | 100 | 104 | 4 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 3.9 | 0.5 | 1.7 | ||||
| Including | 147 | 150 | 3 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 4.1 | 0.3 | 1.2 | ||||||||||
| SAP0047 | 6818793 | 342448 | 1213 | 200 | -75 | 200 | 146 | 151 | 5 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 1.0 | ||||
| SAP0048 | 6818509 | 342288 | 1233 | 329 | -59 | 100 | 11 | 18 | 7 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 4.8 | 3.1 | 1.6 | ||||
| Including | 12 | 14 | 2 | 3.9 | 0.2 | 12.9 | 7.5 | 4.0 | ||||||||||
| SAP0049 | 6818601 | 342317 | 1235 | 14.9 | -60 | 120 | 85 | 88 | 3 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 1.3 | ||||
| SAP0053 | 6818402 | 342314 | 1267 | 347 | -60 | 200 | 115 | 119 | 4 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 6.4 | 18.0 | 1.6 | ||||
| SAP0054 | 6818545 | 342409 | 1217 | 239 | -60 | 162 | 12 | 14 | 2 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 4.1 | 0.8 | 0.8 | ||||
| SAPMET-001 | 6818913 | 342555 | 1178 | 330 | -60 | 165.2 | 149 | 150 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 2.8 | 0.8 | ||||
| SAPMET-002 | 6818824 | 342424 | 1210 | 255 | -60 | 130 | 54 | 60 | 6 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 3.9 | 1.0 | 1.3 | ||||
| 74 | 95 | 21 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 1.6 | |||||||||||
| SAPMET-003 | 6818628 | 342432 | 1192 | 321 | -61 | 200 | 133 | 146 | 13 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 2.2 | 1.3 | ||||
| Including | 140 | 142 | 2 | 3.5 | 0.1 | 7.6 | 1.0 | 3.7 | ||||||||||
| 175 | 177 | 2 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 3.4 | 0.7 | 2.0 |
Significant intercepts are calculated above a nominal cut-off grade of 0.5% Cu, with a minimum estimated true thickness of 1.5m. These parameters are aligned with marginal economic cut-off grades for narrow, high-grade polymetallic copper deposits of similar grade in Chile and elsewhere in the world.
Down-hole significant intercept widths are estimated to be at or around 70 per cent of true-widths of mineralisation
- Copper Equivalent (CuEq) reported for the drill holes at San Antonio used Costa Fuego averages (as no metallurgical testwork has been completed) using the following formula:
CuEq% = ((Cu% × Cu price 1% per tonne × Cu_recovery) + (Mo ppm × Mo price per g/t × Mo_recovery) + (Au ppm × Au price per g/t × Au_recovery) + (Ag ppm × Ag price per g/t × Ag_recovery)) / (Cu price 1% per tonne). The Metal Prices applied in the calculation were: Cu=3.00 USD/lb, Au=1,700 USD/oz, Mo=14 USD/lb, and Ag=20 USD/oz. Average fresh rock metallurgical recoveries were Cu=83%, Au=56%, Mo=82%, and Ag=37%.
Figure 2. Long section (along the plane of mineralisation) showing significant intersections from phase 1 RC drilling at San Antonio. Current Resource Model (May 2022) shown for reference (filtered to show Inferred blocks above 0.2% CuEq). Note southern high-grade drill intersections (SAP0048 and SAP0053) recorded outside resource envelope.
Qualifying Statements
Costa Fuego Combined Mineral Resource (Reported 31st March 2022)
Reported on a 100% Basis - combining Mineral Resource estimates for the Cortadera, Productora and San Antonio deposits. Figures are rounded, reported to appropriate significant figures, and reported in accordance with CIM and NI 43-101. Metal rounded to nearest thousand, or if less, to the nearest hundred. Total Resource reported at +0.21% CuEq for open pit and +0.30% CuEq for underground. Refer to Announcement “Hot Chili Delivers Next Level of Growth” (31st March 2022) for JORC Table 1 information related to the Costa Fuego Mineral Resource estimates.
Copper Equivalent (CuEq) reported for the resource were calculated using the following formula: CuEq% = ((Cu% × Cu price 1% per tonne × Cu_recovery) +(Mo ppm × Mo price per g/t × Mo_recovery) + (Au ppm × Au price per g/t × Au_recovery) + (Ag ppm × Ag price per g/t × Ag_recovery)) / (Cu price 1% per tonne). The Metal Prices applied in the calculation were: Cu=3.00 USD/lb, Au=1,700 USD/oz, Mo=14 USD/lb, and Ag=20 USD/oz. For Cortadera and San Antonio (Inferred + Indicated), the average Metallurgical Recoveries were: Cu=83%, Au=56%, Mo=82%, and Ag=37%. For Productora (Inferred + Indicated), the average Metallurgical Recoveries were: Cu=83%, Au=43% and Mo=42%. For Costa Fuego (Inferred + Indicated), the average Metallurgical Recoveries were: Cu=83%, Au=51%, Mo=67% and Ag=23%.
** Note: Silver (Ag) is only present within the Cortadera Mineral Resource estimate
Competent Person’s Statement- Exploration Results
Exploration information in this Announcement is based upon work compiled by Mr Christian Easterday, the Managing Director and a fulltime employee of Hot Chili Limited whom is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG). Mr Easterday has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a ‘Competent Person’ as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’ (JORC Code). Mr Easterday consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on their information in the form and context in which it appears.
Competent Person’s Statement- Costa Fuego Mineral Resources
The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources for Cortadera, Productora and San Antonio which constitute the combined Costa Fuego Project is based on information compiled by Ms Elizabeth Haren, a Competent Person who is a Member and Chartered Professional of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Ms Haren is a full-time employee of Haren Consulting Pty Ltd and an independent consultant to Hot Chili. Ms Haren has sufficient experience, which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and types of deposits under consideration and to the activities undertaken, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code of Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. Ms Haren consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on her information in the form and context in which it appears. For further information on the Costa Fuego Project, refer to the technical report titled "Resource Report for the Costa Fuego Technical Report", dated December 13, 2021, which is available for review under Hot Chili's profile at www.sedar.com.
Reporting of Copper Equivalent
Copper Equivalent (CuEq) reported for the resource were calculated using the following formula: CuEq% = ((Cu% × Cu price 1% per tonne × Cu_recovery)+(Mo ppm × Mo price per g/t × Mo_recovery)+(Au ppm × Au price per g/t × Au_recovery)+ (Ag ppm × Ag price per g/t × Ag_recovery)) / (Cu price 1% per tonne). The Metal Prices applied in the calculation were: Cu=3.00 USD/lb, Au=1,700 USD/oz, Mo=14 USD/lb, and Ag=20 USD/oz. For Cortadera and San Antonio (Inferred + Indicated), the average Metallurgical Recoveries were: Cu=83%, Au=56%, Mo=82%, and Ag=37%. For Productora (Inferred + Indicated), the average Metallurgical Recoveries were: Cu=83%, Au=43% and Mo=42%. For Costa Fuego (Inferred + Indicated), the average Metallurgical Recoveries were: Cu=83%, Au=51%, Mo=67% and Ag=23%.
Forward Looking Statements
This Announcement is provided on the basis that neither the Company nor its representatives make any warranty (express or implied) as to the accuracy, reliability, relevance or completeness of the material contained in the Announcement and nothing contained in the Announcement is, or may be relied upon as a promise, representation or warranty, whether as to the past or the future. The Company hereby excludes all warranties that can be excluded by law. The Announcement contains material which is predictive in nature and may be affected by inaccurate assumptions or by known and unknown risks and uncertainties and may differ materially from results ultimately achieved.
The Announcement contains “forward-looking statements”. All statements other than those of historical facts included in the Announcement are forward-looking statements including estimates of Mineral Resources. However, forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed, projected or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such risks include, but are not limited to, copper, gold and other metals price volatility, currency fluctuations, increased production costs and variances in ore grade recovery rates from those assumed in mining plans, as well as political and operational risks and governmental regulation and judicial outcomes. The Company does not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to any “forward-looking statement” to reflect events or circumstances after the date of the Announcement, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as may be required under applicable securities laws. All persons should consider seeking appropriate professional advice in reviewing the Announcement and all other information with respect to the Company and evaluating the business, financial performance and operations of the Company. Neither the provision of the Announcement nor any information contained in the Announcement or subsequently communicated to any person in connection with the Announcement is, or should be taken as, constituting the giving of investment advice to any person
Disclaimer
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
Appendix 1. JORC Code Table 1 for Cortadera
Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data
| Criteria | JORC Code explanation | Commentary | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sampling technique s | Sampling | Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc.). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling. Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information. | Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, | Drilling undertaken by Hot Chili Limited (“HCH” or “the Company”) | |
| technique | random chips, or specific specialised industry standard | includes both Diamond and Reverse Circulation (RC). Drilling has | |||
| s | measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under | been carried out under Hot Chili (HCH) supervision by an | |||
| investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or | experienced drilling contractor (BlueSpec Drilling). | ||||
| handheld XRF instruments, etc.). These examples should | |||||
| not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling. | The majority of DD drilling completed by HCH comprises RC pre- | ||||
| collars to an average depth of 200m, one drillhole was drilled PQ | |||||
| Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample | DD from surface to a depth of 115m. RC and PQ DD collars are | ||||
| representivity and the appropriate calibration of any | followed by HQ DD core to an average depth of 520m, followed by | ||||
| measurement tools or systems used. | NQ2 DD core from depths greater than approximately 520 metres, | ||||
| up to 1473.5m. | |||||
| Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are | |||||
| Material to the Public Report. | Samples were obtained using both reverse circulation (RC) and | ||||
| diamond drilling (DD). | |||||
| In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done | |||||
| this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation | RC drilling produced a 1m bulk sample and representative 2m | ||||
| drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg | cone split samples (nominally a 12.5% split) were collected using | ||||
| was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). | a cone splitter, with sample weights averaging 5 kg. | ||||
| In other cases more explanation may be required, such | |||||
| as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling | Geological logging was completed, and mineralised sample | ||||
| problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types | intervals were determined by the geologists to be submitted as 2m | ||||
| (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of | samples for RC. In RC intervals assessed as unmineralised, 4m | ||||
| detailed information. | composite (scoop) samples were collected for analysis. If these | ||||
| 4m composite samples return results with anomalous grade the | |||||
| corresponding original 2m split samples are then submitted to the | |||||
| laboratory for analysis. | |||||
| PQ diamond core was drilled on a 1.5m run, HQ and NQ2 were | |||||
| drilled on a 3m run unless ground conditions allowed for a 6m run | |||||
| in the NQ2. The core was cut using a manual core-saw and half | |||||
| core samples were collected on 2m intervals. | |||||
| Both RC and DD samples were crushed and split at the laboratory, | |||||
| with up to 1kg pulverised, and a 50g pulp sample analysed by | |||||
| industry standard methods - ICP-OES (33 element, 4 acid digest) | |||||
| and Au 30 gram fire assay. | |||||
| Every 50th metre downhole was also assayed by ME-MS61 (48 | |||||
| element, 4 acid digest) for exploration targeting purposes. | |||||
| Sampling techniques used are deemed appropriate for exploration | |||||
| and resource estimation purposes for this style of deposit and | |||||
| mineralisation. | |||||
| Data compiled from historical drilling has been collated from | |||||
| documents supplied by SCM Carola. | |||||
| All historical drilling was diamond core (DD) from surface. | |||||
| Historical diamond sampling was predominantly HQ3 half core. | |||||
| 99% of the sample data comprises 2m composited samples (taken | |||||
| at 2m intervals). | |||||
| Assay techniques for legacy data comprise 30g fire assay for gold, | |||||
| and for copper, either 4-acid or 3-acid digest followed by either an | |||||
| ICP-OES, ICP-MS, ICP-AAS or HF-ICP-AES. | |||||
| HCH has verified as much as possible the location, orientation, | |||||
| sampling methods, analytical techniques, and assay values of | |||||
| legacy data. HCH has completed a review of SCM Carola QA/QC | |||||
| data with no issues detected in that review. | |||||
| Drilling technique s | Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). | HCH drilling consisted of RC with face sampling bit (143 to 130mm diameter) ensuring minimal contamination during sample extraction. HCH DD drilling uses NQ2 bits (50.5mm internal diameter), HQ bits (63.5mm internal diameter) and PQ bits (85mm internal |
| diameter). DD core was oriented using a Reflex ACT III RD tool. At the end of each run, the low side of the core was marked by the drillers and this was used at the site for marking the whole drill core with a reference line. Historical DD drilling by Minero Fuego used HQ3 bits (61.1mm internal diameter). Historical drill core was not oriented. | |||
| Drill sample recovery | Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material. | Core recovery was measured and recorded continuously from the | |
| start of core drilling to the end of the hole for each drill hole. The | |||
| end of each 1.5m, 3m or 6m length run was marked by a core | |||
| block which provided the depth, the core drilled and the core | |||
| recovered. Generally, the core recovery was >99%. | |||
| All DD drilling utilised PQ, HQ and NQ2 core with sampling | |||
| undertaken via half core cutting and 2m sample intervals. | |||
| Previous Table 1 for Cortadera incorrectly reported the use of HQ3 | |||
| core sampling by HCH. | |||
| Drilling techniques to ensure adequate RC sample recovery and | |||
| quality included the use of “booster” air pressure. Air pressure | |||
| used for RC drilling was 700-800psi. | |||
| Logging of all samples followed established company procedures | |||
| which included recording of qualitative fields to allow discernment | |||
| of sample quality. This included (but was not limited to) recording: | |||
| sample condition (wet, dry, moist), sample recovery (poor, | |||
| moderate, good), sample method (RC: scoop, cone; DD core: half, | |||
| quarter, whole). | |||
| The majority of HCH drilling had acceptable documented recovery | |||
| and expectations on the ratio of wet and dry drilling were met, with | |||
| no bias detected between the differing sample conditions. | |||
| Historical DD core recovery has not been quantitatively assessed. | |||
| However, inspection of core photography has been undertaken, | |||
| with good core recovery observed, and no material issues noted. | |||
| Methods taken to maximise historical sample recovery, quality and | |||
| condition are unknown, however it is noted that the drill method | |||
| (HQ3 DD) is consistent with best practice for sample recovery. No | |||
| analysis of historical samples weights, sample condition or | |||
| recovery has been undertaken. | |||
| Twin analysis of RC and DD drilling has identified a slight sample | |||
| bias. RC samples appear to display a negative bias for assay | |||
| results, meaning that RC samples appear to under call the assay | |||
| grades. This is not yet fully understood or confirmed and requires | |||
| further analysis and investigation with future twin holes. Additional | |||
| twinned drilling had commenced following assay cut off for MRE. | |||
| Logging | Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies. Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography. The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged. | HCH Drilling: Detailed descriptions of RC chips and diamond core were logged qualitatively for lithological composition and texture, structures, veining, alteration, and copper speciation. Visual percentage estimates were made for some minerals, including sulphides. Geological logging was recorded in a systematic and consistent manner such that the data was able to be interrogated accurately using modern mapping and 3D geological modelling software programs. Field logging templates were used to record details related to each drill hole. Historical Drilling: Geological logs were provided as part of historical data from SCM Carola. These logs have been reviewed and are deemed to be of an appropriate standard. HCH has also completed verification and re-logging programmes of historical diamond drill core and has aligned the codification of both generations of geological data to one unified coding system. Core reconstruction and orientation was completed where possible prior to structural and geotechnical observations being recorded. The depth and reliability of each orientation mark is also recorded. All logging information is uploaded into an acQuire™ database which ensures validation criteria are met upon upload. |
| Sub- sampling technique s and sample preparatio n | If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling. Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled. | PQ (85mm), HQ (63.5mm) and NQ2 (50.5mm) diamond core was |
| sawn in half, with half core collected in a bag and submitted to the | ||
| laboratory for analysis, the other half was retained in the tray and | ||
| stored. All DD core was sampled at 2m intervals. | ||
| RC drilling was sampled at two metre intervals by a fixed cone | ||
| splitter with two nominal 12.5% samples taken: with the primary | ||
| sample submitted to the laboratory, and the second sample | ||
| retained as a field duplicate sample. Cone splitting of RC drill | ||
| samples occurred regardless of the sample condition. RC drill | ||
| sample weights range from 0.3kg to 17kg, but typically average | ||
| 4kg. | ||
| All HCH samples were submitted to ALS La Serena Coquimbo | ||
| (Chile) for sample preparation before being transferred to ALS | ||
| Lima (Peru) for multi-element analysis and ALS Santiago (Chile) | ||
| for Au and Cu overlimit analysis. | ||
| Due to transport restrictions during Covid-19 pandemic, samples | ||
| were sent to ALS Vancouver (Canada) from March to April 2020. | ||
| A small number of samples were also analysed in ALS Lulea | ||
| (Sweden). The sample preparation included: | ||
| DD half core and RC samples were weighed, dried and crushed | ||
| to 70% passing 2 mm and then split using a rotary splitter to | ||
| produce a 1kg sub-sample. The crushed sub-sample was | ||
| pulverised with 85% passing 75 μm using a LM2 mill and a 110 g | ||
| pulp was then subsampled, 20 g for ICP and 90g for Au fire assay | ||
| analysis. | ||
| ALS method ME-ICP61 involves a 4-acid digestion (Hydrochloric- | ||
| Nitric-Perchloric-Hydrofluoric) followed by ICP-AES | ||
| determination. | ||
| Samples that returned Cu grades >10,000ppm were analysed by | ||
| ALS “ore grade” method Cu-AA62, which is a 4-acid digestion, | ||
| followed by AES measurement to 0.001%Cu. | ||
| Samples determined by geologists to be either oxide or transitional | ||
| were also analysed by Cu-AA05 method to determine copper | ||
| solubility (by sulphuric acid). | ||
| Pulp samples were analysed for gold by ALS method Au-ICP21; a | ||
| 30g lead-collection Fire Assay, followed by ICP-OES to a | ||
| detection limit of 0.001ppm Au. ALS method ME-MS61 is | ||
| completed on pulps for every 50th metre downhole, it involves a | ||
| 4-acid digestion (Hydrochloric-Nitric-Perchloric-Hydrofluoric) | ||
| followed by ICP-MS determination. | ||
| Historical half DD core was routinely sampled on 2m intervals. All | ||
| samples were submitted to accredited laboratories - ACTLAB, | ||
| ACME Labs (now Bureau Veritas), ALS Global and Andes | ||
| Analytical Assay. | ||
| Typical analysis methods used for historical samples included; | ||
| For copper and multi-element; either 4-acid or 3-acid digest | ||
| followed by either an ICP-MS, ICP-AAS, or a HF digest with ICP- | ||
| AES. E.g. ACTLAB method 3ACID-AAS, ALS method Cu-AA61, | ||
| Andes Analytical Assay method (4A-AAS1E01 or | ||
| ICP AES HH22). _ _ | ||
| Gold grades were analysed for Fire Analysis (30g charge). E.g. | ||
| ACTLABS method FA-AAS, ALS method Au-AA23, Andes | ||
| Analytical Assay method AEF AAS1EE9. _ | ||
| HCH has verified historical sampling methods, analytical | ||
| techniques, and assay values with no material issues identified. | ||
| Field duplicates were collected for RC drill samples at a rate of 1 | ||
| in 50 drill metres ie. 1 in every 25 samples (when 2m sampling | ||
| intervals observed). The procedure involves placing a second | ||
| sample bag on the cone splitter to collect a duplicate sample. | ||
| Field duplicates for DD samples were submitted at a rate of 1 in | ||
| 50 drill metres (ie. 1 in 25 samples). The half core was sampled, | ||
| and the lab (instructed by Hot Chili) collected a second coarse | ||
| duplicate sample after the initial crushing process of the original | ||
| sample. Crushed samples were split into two halves, with one half | ||
| flagged as the original sample and the other half flagged as the | ||
| duplicate sample |
| Review of duplicate results indicates that there is strong | |||
| correlation between the primary and duplicate assay values, | |||
| implying that the selected sample size is reasonable for this style | |||
| of mineralisation. | |||
| The selected sample sizes and sample preparation techniques are | |||
| considered appropriate for this style of mineralisation, both for | |||
| exploration purposes and MRE. | |||
| Quality of assay data and laboratory tests | The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established. | All HCH drill samples were assayed by industry standard methods through accredited ALS laboratories in Chile, Peru, Canada and Sweden. Typical analytical methods are detailed in the previous section and are considered ‘near total’ techniques. HCH undertakes several steps to ensure the quality control of assay results. These include, but are not limited to, the use of duplicates, certified reference material (CRM) and blank media: Routine ‘standard’ (mineralised pulp) Certified Reference Material (CRM) was inserted at a nominal rate of 1 in 25 samples. Routine ‘blank’ material (unmineralised quartz) was inserted at a nominal rate of 3 in 100 samples at the logging geologist’s discretion - with particular weighting towards submitting blanks immediately following mineralised field samples. Routine field duplicates for RC and DD samples were submitted at a rate of 1 in 25 samples. Analytical laboratories provided their own routine quality controls within their own practices. No significant issues have been noted. All results are checked in the acQuire™ database before being used, and analysed batches are continuously reviewed to ensure they are performing within acceptable tolerance for the style of mineralisation. Assessment of historical QA/QC data was undertaken as part of the MRE. CRM and duplicate assay data were reviewed with no significant issues identified. Umpire laboratory checks undertaken by Minera Fuego on historical drilling were reviewed, analysis found good repeatability for Cu, Au and Mo. Majority of samples in the historic umpire program returned Ag results below detection limit. Follow up umpire sampling of historic Ag is recommended. Historical assay data comprised approximately 10% of QA/QC data. | |
| Verificatio n of sampling and assaying | The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. The use of twinned holes. Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. Discuss any adjustment to assay data. | All DD sample intervals were visually verified using high quality | |
| core photography, with selected samples taken within mineralised | |||
| intervals for petrographic and mineragraphic microscopy. | |||
| All assay results have been compiled and verified by an | |||
| independent database consultant to ensure veracity of assay | |||
| results and the corresponding sample data. This includes a review | |||
| of QA/QC results to identify any issues prior to incorporation into | |||
| the Company’s geological database. | |||
| No adjustment has been made to assay data following electronic | |||
| upload from original laboratory certificates to the database. Where | |||
| samples returned values below the detection limit, these assay | |||
| values were set to half the lowest detection limit for that element | |||
| for the purposes of MRE. | |||
| The capture of drill logging data was managed by a computerised | |||
| system and strict data validation steps were followed. The data is | |||
| stored in a secure acQuire™ database with access restricted to | |||
| an external database manager. | |||
| Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data | |||
| verification and data storage protocols have all been validated | |||
| through internal database checks and by a third-party audit as part | |||
| of the Cortadera MRE. | |||
| Visualisation and validation of drill data was also undertaken in 3D | |||
| using multiple software packages - Datamine and Leapfrog with | |||
| no errors detected. | |||
| Twinned drilling was completed by HCH, to compare the results of | |||
| RC samples to historical HQ DD samples. Four sets of twin drill | |||
| holes were completed, with no appreciable assay variance |