Iemr Announces Re-Filing 43-101 Resources Estimate for Pine TREE
IEMR RESOURCES INC.
IRI-TSX-VENTURE Tel: 604 642 6199 FAX: 604 642 6162
IEMR ANNOUNCES RE-FILING 43-101 RESOURCES ESTIMATE FOR PINE TREE
Vancouver July 16, 2012 – IEMR Resources Inc. (IEMR - TSX Venture: IRI) is pleased announce the re-filing of the completed National Instrument 43-101 technical report on its Nevada-based Pine Tree molybdenum-copper-silver project and its filing with SEDAR (www.sedar.com). The report has been updated in order to remove any questions that the BCSC securities Commission had in regards to the independence of one of the previous authors of the report. The resource numbers previously reported have not changed.
The NI 43-101 compliant calculation confirms that the Pine Tree deposit contains, at a $5.00 cutoff:
TABLE 1
| Indicated | Inferred | Metal |
|---|---|---|
| 434.3 | 591.4 | million pounds of copper (Cu), |
| 173.6 | 111.7 | million pounds of molybdenum oxide(MoO ), 3 |
| 11.2 | 17.4 | million ounces of silver (Ag) and |
| 241.3 | 295.7 | million tons |
The global mineral resource is divided into two components based on cutoff grades:
Indicated
| zone | cutoff | tons | MoS 2 | Cu | MoS 2 | Cu | Ag |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade (GMV) | millions | Equiv. % | Equiv. % | % | % | ppm | |
| Cu | $5.00 | 3.45 | 0.030 | 0.22 | 0.003 | 0.13 | 2.61 |
| Mo | $5.00 | 237.8 | 0.062 | 0.39 | 0.040 | 0.09 | 1.58 |
Inferred
| zone | cutoff | tons | MoS 2 | Cu | MoS 2 | Cu | Ag |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade (GMV) | millions | Equiv. % | Equiv. % | % | % | ppm | |
| Cu | $5.00 | 82.9 | 0.038 | 0.24 | 0.004 | 0.13 | 3.71 |
| Mo | $5.00 | 212.8 | 0.050 | 0.31 | 0.028 | 0.09 | 1.37 |
For calculation of Cu Equiv. and MoS2 equiv. see description at end of Table 1
Importantly, the Giroux estimate also shows the presence of higher grade resources in the main Mo zone:
| cutoff | Resource | tons | MoS 2 | Cu | MoS 2 | Cu | Ag |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| grade | Class | millions | Equiv. % | Equiv. % | % | % | ppm |
| 0.05 MoS equiv 2 | Indicated | 70.1 | 0.100 | 0.63 | 0.077 | 0.10 | 1.31 |
| ($12.50 GMV) | Inferred | 21.3 | 0.087 | 0.55 | 0.065 | 0.09 | 1.32 |
These higher-grade resources will potentially facilitate rapid recovery of capital costs during the early years of a possible large-scale mining operation.
It should be noted, IEMR’s assay results also indicate the presence of significant quantities of gold (0.06 - 0.1 gms/T) , indium (0.3 to 0.5 gms/T), tungsten(30 to 40 gms/T), rhenium(0.040 to 0.050 gms/T) , gallium(15-18 gms/T) and magnetite (1%-1.5%), which due to the lack of continuous assays and unknown metallurgical recoveries were not estimated at this time. Magnetite is especially interesting as the result of the recent developments of nanoparticle technology to clean water of contaminants. Metallurgical test work will be completed to determine if these metals can be recovered in economic quantities, so that they can be included in future resource calculations.
Giroux Consultants were chosen to complete the 43-101 compliant resource estimate at Pine Tree, because of their extensive work on large tonnage open pit and underground accessible primary molybdenum projects throughout the world. The specific breakdown of indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources for the Pine Tree deposit above varying cut-off grades is tabulated in Tables 1 and 2.
Giroux’s estimate is based on drill core assay results from 8,417 meters (25.252 feet) of drilling in 21 holes completed by Mosquito Consolidated Gold Mines Ltd between 2005 and 2008 and 5,652.7meters (18,545.5 feet) in 9 diamond drill holes completed by IEMR in 2011. Due to mineral zonation the deposit was split into two mineral zones: a Cu zone near surface grading downward into a Mo zone. Cu grades were highest within the Cu Domain while MoS2 were highest in the Mo domain. The grade distribution for each variable was examined in each zone with erratic high grades capped. Uniform 50 ft. composites were formed that honored the boundaries of the two grade zones. Semi variograms were run for each variable and isotropic models were fit to the data. Grades for each variable were interpolated into 50 x 50 x 50 ft. blocks by ordinary kriging. Specific gravities were obtained from drill core and average values were applied to each domain.
Mineralization consists of copper, molybdenum, silver, gold, tungsten, indium, rhenium, tungsten and gallium. As a result of the multi-element nature of the mineralization, Mosquito decided to include both a copper and molybdenum equivalent for the resource table. Both equivalents are required as the deposit is zoned See notes below table for explanation of the calculation of copper equivalent (Cu Eq.), MoS2 equivalent (MoS2 Eq.). The presence of the by-product elements gold, tungsten, indium, rhenium, and gallium are very significant in terms of the development of the property.
The Company is also pleased to announce that a detailed examination of the 43-101 report, prepared by Giroux Consultants, and of individual blocks comprising the resource has shown that the Pine Tree project may be amenable to a combination of leaching and mill processing techniques, with lower grade oxide material being sent to leach pads for recovery of copper and silver and higher grade material being processed through standard flotation techniques.
IEMR has decided to create a metallurgical test work program designed to determine the metallurgical recoveries that can be expected from the different types of material. Previous metallurgical test work done in 1957 on two rounds (12 feet) of material from Adit #1 , which indicated 90.82% copper recovery to a concentrate assaying 0.05 oz Au/t, 11.25 oz Ag/ton and 15.5% Copper needs to be confirmed. The program is estimated to take 6 to 9 months to complete.
The work will focus on the two recovery methods that would form a combined operation with the target to establish a minimum 20 year mine life for the project. In addition to copper, molybdenum and silver, recoveries of metals such as gallium, gold, indium, tungsten and magnetite will also be studied.
The results of that work will be used to control the drilling and further development of the project.
Mr. Shaun M. Dykes, M.Sc. (Eng), P.Geo., is the designated qualified person for the Pine Tree Project, and prepared the technical information contained in this news release. Gary Giroux of Giroux Consultants is the qualified person responsible for the resource calculation and the report.
On Behalf of the Board
IEMR RESOURCES INC.
“Hongxue Fu”
Hongxue Fu President and Chief Executive Officer
For further information, contact: Long Wang, Chief Financial Officer IEMR Resources Inc.
Tel: 604 642 6199 E-mail: [email protected]
About IEMR Resources Ltd.
IEMR Resources Ltd. is a mining exploration and development company with a diverse portfolio of high potential precious and base metals projects, located in low political risk environments throughout the world. The Company's primary focus is developing its Nevada-based Pine Tree project. For more information about the company, please visit www.iemr.com.
THIS NEWS RELEASE WAS PREPARED BY MANAGEMENT WHO TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTENTS. THE TSX- VENTURE EXCHANGE DOES NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS RELEASE.
This news release includes certain statements that express management’s expectation or estimates of future performance and may be deemed “forward-looking statements”. These forward-looking statements include plans, estimates, forecasts and statements as to management’s expectations regarding the Pine Tree Project. These forward-looking statements involve assumptions, risks and uncertainties and actual results may vary materially. For these reasons shareholders should not place undue reliance on such forward-looking information.
United States residents are cautioned that some of the information that may be published by IEMR may not be consistent with United States Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure rules and may be materially different from what the Company is permitted to disclose in the United States and therefore United States residents should not rely on such information.
Table 1a 2011 Indicated Resource Estimate for Pine Tree (GMV cutoff) (after Giroux 2011)
| Cut-off | Tonnage | Grade > Cut-off | Contained | Contained | contained | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GMV | (short tons) | MoS2 (%) | Cu (%) | Ag (g/t) | Million | Million | Million | MoS2 | Cu |
| (US$) | lbs MoO3 | lbs Cu | ozs AG | Eq. % | Eq. % | ||||
| 1.00 | 264,730,000 | 0.037 | 0.09 | 1.50 | 176.2 | 476.5 | 11.59 | 0.058 | 0.37 |
| 2.00 | 264,120,000 | 0.037 | 0.09 | 1.50 | 175.8 | 475.4 | 11.57 | 0.058 | 0.37 |
| 3.00 | 260,860,000 | 0.038 | 0.09 | 1.51 | 178.3 | 469.5 | 11.50 | 0.059 | 0.37 |
| 4.00 | 252,160,000 | 0.039 | 0.09 | 1.55 | 176.9 | 453.9 | 11.41 | 0.060 | 0.38 |
| 5.00 | 241,280,000 | 0.040 | 0.09 | 1.59 | 173.6 | 434.3 | 11.20 | 0.062 | 0.39 |
| 6.00 | 231,810,000 | 0.041 | 0.10 | 1.63 | 170.9 | 463.6 | 11.03 | 0.065 | 0.41 |
| 7.00 | 221,800,000 | 0.042 | 0.10 | 1.65 | 167.5 | 443.6 | 10.69 | 0.066 | 0.41 |
| 8.00 | 212,250,000 | 0.043 | 0.10 | 1.67 | 164.1 | 424.5 | 10.35 | 0.067 | 0.42 |
| 9.00 | 200,770,000 | 0.045 | 0.10 | 1.67 | 162.5 | 401.5 | 9.79 | 0.069 | 0.43 |
| 10.00 | 187,290,000 | 0.047 | 0.10 | 1.67 | 158.3 | 374.6 | 9.13 | 0.071 | 0.45 |
| 11.00 | 172,560,000 | 0.049 | 0.11 | 1.65 | 152.1 | 379.6 | 8.31 | 0.075 | 0.47 |
| 12.00 | 157,810,000 | 0.052 | 0.11 | 1.62 | 147.6 | 347.2 | 7.46 | 0.078 | 0.49 |
Table 1b 2011 Inferred Resource Estimate for Pine Tree (GMV cutoff) (after Giroux 2011)
| Cut-off | Tonnage | Grade > Cut-off | Contained | Contained | contained | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GMV | (short tons) | MoS2 (%) | Cu (%) | Ag (g/t) | Million | Million | Million | MoS2 | Cu |
| (US$) | lbs MoO3 | lbs Cu | ozs AG | Equ. % | Eq. % | ||||
| 1.00 | 337,760,000 | 0.019 | 0.09 | 1.87 | 115.4 | 608.0 | 18.44 | 0.041 | 0.26 |
| 2.00 | 334,490,000 | 0.019 | 0.09 | 1.88 | 114.3 | 602.1 | 18.36 | 0.041 | 0.26 |
| 3.00 | 323,260,000 | 0.020 | 0.10 | 1.93 | 116.3 | 646.5 | 18.22 | 0.044 | 0.28 |
| 4.00 | 311,860,000 | 0.020 | 0.10 | 1.98 | 112.2 | 623.7 | 18.03 | 0.044 | 0.28 |
| 5.00 | 295,710,000 | 0.021 | 0.10 | 2.02 | 111.7 | 591.4 | 17.44 | 0.046 | 0.29 |
| 6.00 | 278,950,000 | 0.022 | 0.10 | 2.07 | 110.4 | 557.9 | 16.86 | 0.047 | 0.29 |
| 7.00 | 259,880,000 | 0.023 | 0.10 | 2.12 | 107.5 | 519.8 | 16.09 | 0.048 | 0.30 |
| 8.00 | 239,980,000 | 0.025 | 0.11 | 2.18 | 107.9 | 528.0 | 15.28 | 0.052 | 0.33 |
| 9.00 | 214,060,000 | 0.026 | 0.11 | 2.23 | 100.1 | 470.9 | 13.94 | 0.053 | 0.33 |
| 10.00 | 183,310,000 | 0.028 | 0.11 | 2.28 | 92.3 | 403.3 | 12.20 | 0.055 | 0.35 |
| 11.00 | 151,960,000 | 0.031 | 0.11 | 2.26 | 84.7 | 334.3 | 10.03 | 0.058 | 0.37 |
| 12.00 | 122,200,000 | 0.034 | 0.12 | 2.23 | 74.7 | 293.3 | 7.96 | 0.063 | 0.40 |
Table 2a 2011 Indicated Resource Estimate for Pine Tree (MoS2 equiv cutoff) (after Giroux 2011)
| Cut-off | Tonnage | Grade > Cut-off | Contained | Contained | contained | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MoS2 (%) | (short tons) | MoS2 (%) | Cu (%) | Ag (g/t) | Million | Million | Million | MoS2 | Cu |
| lbs MoO3 | lbs Cu | ozs AG | Eq. % | Eq. % | |||||
| 0.01 | 240,370,000 | 0.040 | 0.09 | 1.52 | 172.9 | 423.1 | 10.64 | 0.061 | 0.38 |
| 0.02 | 176,010,000 | 0.050 | 0.10 | 1.47 | 158.3 | 334.4 | 7.58 | 0.072 | 0.45 |
| 0.03 | 128,030,000 | 0.059 | 0.10 | 1.39 | 135.9 | 243.3 | 5.21 | 0.081 | 0.51 |
| 0.04 | 93,250,000 | 0.069 | 0.10 | 1.35 | 115.7 | 180.9 | 3.66 | 0.091 | 0.58 |
| 0.05 | 70,150,000 | 0.077 | 0.10 | 1.31 | 97.1 | 138.9 | 2.69 | 0.100 | 0.63 |
| 0.06 | 53,800,000 | 0.084 | 0.10 | 1.30 | 81.3 | 108.7 | 2.04 | 0.107 | 0.67 |
| 0.07 | 39,100,000 | 0.091 | 0.10 | 1.26 | 64.0 | 78.2 | 1.43 | 0.114 | 0.72 |
| 0.08 | 27,480,000 | 0.098 | 0.10 | 1.23 | 48.4 | 55.0 | 0.99 | 0.121 | 0.76 |
| 0.09 | 18,220,000 | 0.105 | 0.10 | 1.20 | 34.4 | 36.1 | 0.64 | 0.127 | 0.80 |
| 0.10 | 10,950,000 | 0.112 | 0.10 | 1.19 | 22.1 | 22.1 | 0.38 | 0.135 | 0.85 |
| 0.11 | 5,280,000 | 0.121 | 0.11 | 1.26 | 11.5 | 11.3 | 0.19 | 0.145 | 0.91 |
Table 2b 2011 Inferred Resource Estimate for Pine Tree (MoS2 equiv cutoff) (after Giroux 2011)
| Cut-off | Tonnage | Grade > Cut-off | Contained | Contained | contained | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MoS2 (%) | (short tons) | MoS2 (%) | Cu (%) | Ag (g/t) | Million | Million | Million | MoS2 | Cu |
| lbs MoO3 | lbs Cu | ozs AG | Eq. % | Eq. % | |||||
| 0.01 | 196,510,000 | 0.030 | 0.09 | 1.35 | 106.0 | 341.9 | 7.76 | 0.050 | 0.32 |
| 0.02 | 141,690,000 | 0.036 | 0.09 | 1.36 | 91.7 | 252.2 | 5.62 | 0.057 | 0.36 |
| 0.03 | 76,140,000 | 0.046 | 0.09 | 1.41 | 63.0 | 141.6 | 3.14 | 0.068 | 0.43 |
| 0.04 | 44,150,000 | 0.054 | 0.09 | 1.33 | 42.9 | 82.1 | 1.71 | 0.076 | 0.48 |
| 0.05 | 21,270,000 | 0.065 | 0.09 | 1.32 | 24.9 | 40.0 | 0.82 | 0.087 | 0.55 |
| 0.06 | 10,330,000 | 0.077 | 0.10 | 1.32 | 14.3 | 20.0 | 0.40 | 0.099 | 0.63 |
| 0.07 | 6,090,000 | 0.086 | 0.10 | 1.33 | 9.4 | 11.7 | 0.24 | 0.108 | 0.68 |
| 0.08 | 3,600,000 | 0.094 | 0.09 | 1.21 | 6.1 | 6.6 | 0.13 | 0.115 | 0.72 |
| 0.09 | 2,420,000 | 0.099 | 0.09 | 1.07 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 0.08 | 0.119 | 0.75 |
| 0.10 | 1,080,000 | 0.105 | 0.09 | 1.00 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 0.03 | 0.125 | 0.79 |
| 0.11 | 180,000 | 0.112 | 0.07 | 0.65 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.00 | 0.127 | 0.80 |
Notes: All tables are taken directly from Giroux, 2011.
GMV is a gross metal value
Due to TSX exchange rules only the cutoff can be reported prior to feasibility, not the actual values. a Copper equivalent (Cu. Equiv.) and Molybdenite Equiv. (MoS2 Equiv.) are based on the following metal prices(all in US$): Copper $2.50/lb, Molybdenum Oxide ($14/lb), Silver $0.58/gram Other factors include 1% = 20 pounds; 1 ppm = 1 gm/T; 1000 ppb =1 ppm = 1 gm/T.
Molybdenum is sold as either ferro-molybdenite or molybdenum oxide.
The price used is $14 per pound Molybdenum oxide.
To obtain the amount of Molybdenum oxide that can be produced from MoS2, the following is required: convert MoS2 to Mo by dividing MoS2 by 1.6681 then convert to MoO3 (Molybdenum Oxide) by multiplying by 1.5. Therefore the amount of molybdenum oxide is pounds MoS2 times 1.5 / 1.6681.
Metallurgical recoveries are currently assumed to be 100% as no full scale metallurgical test work has been completed.
Formulas :
GMV = ((Cu*20*$)+((MoS2*20*(1.5/1.6681)*$(MoO3))+(Ag*$))
Cu. Equiv. = GMV / ($(Copper) *20)
MoS2. Equiv. = GMV / ((1.6681/1.5)* $(MoO3)*20)
Mineral Resources do not have demonstrated economic viability.
An Indicated Mineral Resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade can be estimated with a level of confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.
An Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade can be estimated, on the basis of geological evidence and limited sampling and reasonably assumed geological and grade continuity.