par Blackwolf Copper And Gold Ltd (NASDAQ:BWCGF)
Blackwolf Updates NI43-101 Mineral Resource Estimate for Niblack Cu-Au-Zn-Ag Deposit, Alaska
VANCOUVER, BC / ACCESSWIRE / February 16, 2023 / Blackwolf Copper and Gold ("Blackwolf", or the "Company") (TSXV:BWCG), (OTC PINK:BWCGF) is pleased to announce an updated Mineral Resource Estimation ("MRE") for its Niblack property in southeastern Alaska. The 100% owned Niblack project, located on Prince of Wales Island in southeast Alaska, hosts high-grade Cu-Au-Ag-Zn VMS-style mineralization within a series of felsic volcanic flows and breccias, typically as stringer, semi-massive to massive chalcopyrite and sphalerite-rich replacement-style mineralization, commonly with pyrite. Multiple deposits of both exhalative and replacement-style mineralization occur within a folded prospective horizon of volcanic rocks. Highlights of the updated MRE include:
Highlights:
- Indicated Mineral Resource of 5.85 million tonnes at 0.94% Copper, 1.83 g/t Gold, 1.73% Zinc, and 29 g/t Silver and an Inferred Mineral Resource of 0.21 million tonnes at 0.93% Copper, 1.52 g/t Gold, 1.38% Zinc, and 18 g/t Silver from the Lookout and Trio deposits using a US$100/tonne cut-off.
- A higher-grade zone comprised of multiple, subparallel, interconnected lenses of sulfide mineralization on the Lookout deposit comprised of 3.790 million tonnes at 1.06% Copper, 2.19 g/t Gold, 2.07% Zinc, and 35 g/t Silver in an Indicated category using a US$130/tonne cut-off.
- Both Lookout and Trio are open along strike and up/down-dip of the Mineral Resource with significant additional exploration potential across the property.
- Other areas of mineralization on the Property such as Niblack Mine area and Dama Zones require additional drilling and data validation are required prior to an initial Mineral Resource Estimation and are therefore not included in this MRE.
"Our updated mineral resource estimation includes subsequent rounds of drilling as compared to the previous 2011 mineral resource estimate as well as cost parameter guidance from current underground operations, in accordance with the new CIM guidelines. The wide nature of mineralization, particularly at the Lookout Zone is potentially amenable to underground bulk mining methods such as longhole stoping," said Rob McLeod, President and CEO of Blackwolf Copper and Gold. "Mineralization at multiple zones is wide open for expansion along strike and down dip and our revised geological interpretation has opened up new areas for discovery on the Property. Niblack's proximity to tidewater with a production-size underground ramp, site infrastructure including a water treatment facility, positions Niblack as one of the most advanced, largest and highest-grade polymetallic deposits in the Pacific Northwest."
Mineral Resource Estimate
This MRE represents the first resource evaluation of the Niblack property by the Company since the previous estimate conducted by the Company (formerly Heatherdale Resources Ltd.) and Niblack Mine Development Inc. in 2011. The updated MRE was completed to incorporate three additional rounds of drilling on the Property, to evaluate the potential of including additional resources from other target areas on the Property and to reflect current economic parameters.
The MRE was conducted by Arseneau Consulting Services ("ACS") and is reported within the guidelines of the Canadian Securities Administration National Instrument 43-101 ("NI 43-101"). ACS carried out database verification, grade shell geometry, and variography; utilizing a resource drill hole database with a total of 57,891 meters of sampling from 197 drill holes. Mineral resources were estimated in a single three-dimensional block model using Geovia Gems version 6.8.4 software. Precious and base metal grades within the mineralized domains were estimated in three successive passes by ordinary kriging for the Lookout deposit and by inverse distance squared interpolation for the Trio deposit. Search parameters were generally set to match the correlogram parameters but also designed to capture sufficient data to estimate a grade in the blocks. All assays were composited to 2.0 m and capped at the 97 or 98 percentiles before estimation.
The Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources were classified according to the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum ("CIM") definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves by Dr. Gilles Arseneau, P.Geo., of ACS, a "qualified person" as defined by NI 43-101. The Company intends to publish an updated technical report within 45 days of this news release which will include the mineral resource estimate. The report will be available at that time on SEDAR and the Company's website.
All Indicated and Inferred Resources were categorized as meeting "reasonable prospects for economic extraction" by underground methods utilizing a stope optimizer and 5m x 5m x 5m block model at a US$100 dollar equivalent value cut-off. The Mineral Resource Statement and assumptions and economic parameters used to calculate the resource are presented in Tables 1 and 4 below:
Table 1: Updated Niblack Mineral Resource Statement, February 14, 2022
Area | Classification | Cut-off (US$) | Tonnes (000) | Cu (%) | Cu Mlb | Zn (%) | Zn Mlb | Au (g/t) | Au oz | Ag (g/t) | Ag oz |
Lookout | Indicated | 100 | 5,391 | 0.92 | 108.9 | 1.72 | 204.9 | 1.88 | 326,600 | 30 | 5,168,200 |
Inferred | 159 | 0.93 | 3.3 | 1.31 | 4.6 | 1.63 | 8,300 | 18 | 93,300 | ||
Trio | Indicated | 100 | 460 | 1.16 | 11.8 | 1.75 | 17.7 | 1.30 | 19,200 | 20 | 293,800 |
Inferred | 55 | 0.91 | 1.1 | 1.61 | 1.9 | 1.20 | 2,100 | 18 | 31,700 | ||
Total | Indicated | 100 | 5,851 | 0.94 | 120.7 | 1.73 | 222.6 | 1.83 | 345,800 | 29 | 5,462,000 |
Inferred | 214 | 0.93 | 4.4 | 1.38 | 6.5 | 1.52 | 10,400 | 18 | 125,000 |
- Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and have not demonstrated economic viability.
- The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.
- The Inferred Mineral Resource in this estimate has a lower level of confidence than that applied to an Indicated Mineral Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral Reserve. It is reasonably expected that the majority of the Inferred Mineral Resource could be upgraded to an Indicated Mineral Resource with continued exploration.
- The Mineral Resources were estimated using the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves. Definitions and Guidelines prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions and adopted by the CIM Council.
- Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
- Metal prices are derived from the London Energy & Metals Consensus Forecast. Recoveries are derived from preliminary metallurgical testwork on Niblack and operating costs are derived from benchmarking against similar deposits in Alaska and Canada, assuming primarily longhole stope mining methods. See Table 2 for details.
Table 2: Parameters used to derive the "reasonable prospect of eventual economic extraction" for Underground Mining Conditions
Parameter* | Value | Unit |
Copper Price | 3.50 | US$ per pound |
Copper Recovery | 94.30 | percent |
Zinc Price | 1.10 | US$ per pound |
Zinc Recovery | 90.20 | percent |
Gold Price | 1,650 | US$ per Oz |
Gold Recovery | 72.00 | percent |
Silver Price | 20.00 | US$ per Oz |
Silver Recovery | 76.00 | percent |
Mining Costs | 48.00 | US$ per tonne mined |
Milling Costs | 28.00 | US$ per tonne of feed |
G & A Costs | 24.00 | US$ per tonne of feed |
Mining Rate | 1,500 | Tones per day |
Total Costs | 100.00 | US$ |
Cut-off (total value) | 100.00 | US$ |
Note*: Metal prices are derived from the London Energy & Metals Consensus Forecast. Recoveries are derived from preliminary metallurgical tests and are assumed to be 100% payable. Operating costs are derived from benchmarking against similar deposits in Alaska and assuming longhole stoping mining methods.
Table 3: Sensitivity Analysis of the Indicated Mineral Resource at Various Cut-off Grades
Cut-off (US$) | Tonnes (000) | Cu (%) | Zn (%) | Au (g/t) | Ag (g/t) |
160 | 2,890 | 1.23 | 2.45 | 2.43 | 40 |
150 | 3,253 | 1.18 | 2.32 | 2.33 | 38 |
140 | 3,634 | 1.13 | 2.20 | 2.24 | 36 |
130 | 4,081 | 1.09 | 2.07 | 2.15 | 34 |
120 | 4,603 | 1.04 | 1.96 | 2.04 | 32 |
110 | 5,190 | 0.98 | 1.84 | 1.94 | 31 |
100(1) | 5,851 | 0.94 | 1.73 | 1.83 | 29 |
90 | 6,554 | 0.89 | 1.62 | 1.74 | 27 |
80 | 7,332 | 0.84 | 1.53 | 1.64 | 26 |
70 | 8,189 | 0.80 | 1.43 | 1.54 | 24 |
60 | 9,183 | 0.75 | 1.33 | 1.44 | 22 |
50 | 10,278 | 0.70 | 1.24 | 1.34 | 21 |
Note 1: Base Case
Table 4: Sensitivity Analysis of Inferred Mineral Resource at Various Cut-off Grades
Cut-off (US$) | Tonnes (000) | Cu (%) | Zn (%) | Au (g/t) | Ag (g/t) |
160 | 85 | 1.21 | 2.01 | 2.13 | 23 |
150 | 96 | 1.15 | 1.96 | 2.09 | 22 |
140 | 114 | 1.10 | 1.84 | 1.98 | 21 |
130 | 136 | 1.05 | 1.71 | 1.87 | 20 |
120 | 154 | 1.02 | 1.62 | 1.77 | 19 |
110 | 179 | 0.98 | 1.52 | 1.65 | 19 |
100(1) | 214 | 0.93 | 1.38 |