MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE
COPPERHEAD GOLD PROJECT
JULY 2016
PREPARED FOR
HANKING GOLD MINING PTY LTD
© Cube Consulting Pty Ltd
Perth, Western Australia
Cube Project: 2016_062
www.cubeconsulting.com.au
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Prepared By:
Brian Fitzpatrick
BSc (Geol), MAusIMM CP (Geo)
Senior Consultant Geologist – Cube Consulting
…………………...……………………
29th July 2016
Distribution:
Number of Copies
Hanking
Cube Consulting
1 (electronic)
1 (electronic)
Cube Consulting Pty Ltd
ABN 84 094 321 829
Level 4, 1111 Hay Street
West Perth WA 6005
Phone: +61 8 9442 2111
Website: www.cubeconsulting.com.au
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 2 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 9
2.0
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 12
2.1
Scope of Work .......................................................................................................................... 12
2.2
Location and Access ................................................................................................................ 13
2.3
Land Tenure ............................................................................................................................. 13
3.0
EXPLORATION AND MINING HISTORY ..................................................................................... 15
3.1
Gold Discovery and Mining History .......................................................................................... 15
3.2
Exploration History ................................................................................................................... 15
3.3
Recent Exploration Activity ....................................................................................................... 16
4.0
GEOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 18
4.1
Regional Setting ....................................................................................................................... 18
4.2
Local Geology ........................................................................................................................... 18
5.0
DRILLING AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES ................................................................................. 20
5.1
Drilling Summary ...................................................................................................................... 20
5.2
Drilling Methods and Approach ................................................................................................ 21
5.3
Drilling Orientations .................................................................................................................. 23
5.4
Drillhole Surveys ....................................................................................................................... 23
5.5
Drillhole Collar Surveys ............................................................................................................ 23
5.6
Downhole Surveys .................................................................................................................... 24
5.7
Sampling Techniques ............................................................................................................... 24
5.8
Sample Quality ......................................................................................................................... 25
5.9
Logging and Observations........................................................................................................ 25
5.10
Bulk Density Determinations .................................................................................................... 26
6.0
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND QUALITY CONTROL.............................................. 27
6.1
Analytical Laboratories and Procedures ................................................................................... 27
6.2
Sample Security ....................................................................................................................... 28
6.3
Quality Control Reporting for 2010-11 Drilling.......................................................................... 28
6.3.1
QAQC Protocols ................................................................................................................... 28
6.3.2
Certified Reference Material (Standards) ............................................................................. 28
6.3.3
Granulometry Checks ........................................................................................................... 30
6.3.4
Laboratory Checks ............................................................................................................... 30
6.3.5
Comments and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 32
7.0
DATABASE.................................................................................................................................... 33
7.1
Grid System .............................................................................................................................. 33
7.2
Database Compilation .............................................................................................................. 33
7.3
Additional Data Supplied .......................................................................................................... 34
7.4
Database Structure ................................................................................................................... 34
7.5
Geology Records ...................................................................................................................... 36
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 3 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
7.6
Treatment of Below Detection Samples ................................................................................... 36
7.7
Multi-Element Data ................................................................................................................... 37
8.0
DATA VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION .................................................................................... 38
8.1
Data Validation ......................................................................................................................... 38
8.2
Database Hole Ranking Criteria ............................................................................................... 41
8.3
Topography .............................................................................................................................. 42
8.4
Comparison of Data Types ....................................................................................................... 43
8.5
Data Verification ....................................................................................................................... 43
8.5.1
Summary .............................................................................................................................. 43
8.5.2
Significant Intersection Checks ............................................................................................ 44
8.5.3
Hole Twinning ....................................................................................................................... 44
9.0
GEOLOGICAL MODELLING ......................................................................................................... 45
9.1
Surface and Underground Wireframes ..................................................................................... 45
9.2
Geological Interpretation and Wireframing ............................................................................... 46
10.0
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND COMPOSITING .......................................................................... 50
10.1
Sample Flagging ....................................................................................................................... 50
10.2
Sample Lengths ........................................................................................................................ 50
10.3
Compositing .............................................................................................................................. 51
10.4
Statistical Analysis .................................................................................................................... 52
10.4.1 Background........................................................................................................................... 52
10.4.2 Statistical Analysis of Mineralised Domains ......................................................................... 52
10.4.3 High Grade Assay Cuts ........................................................................................................ 55
10.4.4 Metal at Risk Analysis .......................................................................................................... 55
11.0
VARIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 57
11.1
Experimental Variography ........................................................................................................ 57
11.2
Variogram Models for Estimation ............................................................................................. 58
12.0
BLOCK MODELLING AND ESTIMATION .................................................................................... 60
12.1
Block Model Parameters and Definitions ................................................................................. 60
12.2
Block Model Attributes .............................................................................................................. 60
12.2.1 Oxidation............................................................................................................................... 61
12.2.2 Bulk Density .......................................................................................................................... 61
12.2.3 Mineralisation Domains ........................................................................................................ 62
12.2.4 Mining Depletion ................................................................................................................... 62
12.2.5 Classification......................................................................................................................... 63
12.3
Estimation Methodology ........................................................................................................... 63
12.3.1 Estimation Approach ............................................................................................................ 63
12.3.2 Variography and Search Parameters ................................................................................... 64
12.4
Model Validations ..................................................................................................................... 66
12.4.1 Visual Validation ................................................................................................................... 67
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 4 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
12.4.2 Volumetric and Statistical Comparisons ............................................................................... 68
12.4.3 SWATH Plots ........................................................................................................................ 69
12.5
13.0
Approach to Un-estimated Mineralised Material ...................................................................... 71
RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION.................................................................................................... 72
13.1
Summary .................................................................................................................................. 72
13.2
Drill Spacing and Data Quality ................................................................................................. 72
14.0
14.1
MINERAL RESOURCE REPORTING ........................................................................................... 75
Mineral Resource Statement .................................................................................................... 75
15.0
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 76
16.0
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 80
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 5 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Satellite Image Location Plan of the Copperhead Gold Project at Bullfinch, Western Australia
(Google Image) ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 3-1: Collar Locations for 2010-11 Copperhead RC/DD Drilling Program (Peters, 2011) ............. 17
Figure 4-1: Simplified Geology Plan Showing Copperhead mine location in the Southern Cross
Greenstone Belt. (Peters, 2011) ............................................................................................................... 18
Figure 4-2: Local Geology Plan Showing Copperhead Open Pit Geology (Peters, 2011) ...................... 19
Figure 5-1: Drillhole Location Plan by Hole Type ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 5-2: Drillhole Traces Composite Section View Looking North (by Hole Type) ............................. 21
Figure 5-3: 2010-11 Drillhole Traces Showing Interpreted Drill Hole Paths Relative to Interpreted
Geology (Peters, 2011) ............................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 6-1: 2010-11 Copperhead CRMs - (each segment delineated by a vertical blue line is
representative of one ‘lab job day’) (Peters, 2011) .................................................................................. 30
Figure 6-2: 2010-11 Copperhead Pulps - SGS (FA50AAS) vs KAL (FA40AAS) (Peters, 2011) ............. 31
Figure 6-3: 2010-11 Copperhead Pulps- Mean Difference Percentage graph; KAL (FA40AAS) vs SGS
(FA50AAS) (Peters, 2011) ....................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 7-1: Grid Transformation for Copperhead ..................................................................................... 33
Figure 8-1: Copperhead Open Pit Survey with Projected Surface Topography Wireframe ..................... 42
Figure 9-1: Perspective View Showing Open Pit Survey with Projected Surface Topography Wireframe –
.................................................................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 9-2: Copperhead Mineralisation Domains – Perspective View Looking SE ................................. 47
Figure 9-3: Plan View Showing Cross Section References ..................................................................... 48
Figure 9-4: Copperhead Interpretation - Cross Section View Looking West at 1100E ............................ 48
Figure 10-1: Copperhead Database – Assay Length Histogram ............................................................. 50
Figure 10-2: Log Probability Plot – 1m Composites for Northern Series Domains (Au g/t) ..................... 53
Figure 10-3: Log Probability Plot – 1m Composites for Southern Series Domains (Au g/t) .................... 54
Figure 11-1: Back-Transformed Variograms Models for Domain 1001 ................................................... 57
Figure 11-2: Back-Transformed Variograms Models for Domain 2001 ................................................... 58
Figure 11-3: Back-Transformed Variograms Models for Domain 2002 ................................................... 58
Figure 12-1: KNA – Block Selection Area for Domain 1001..................................................................... 64
Figure 12-2: KNA – Minimum/Maximum Sample Analysis for Domain 1001 ........................................... 65
Figure 12-3: KNA – Descretisation Analysis for Domain 1001................................................................. 65
Figure 12-4: July 2016 Copperhead Model – Perspective View Looking SE Showing Gold Grades ...... 67
Figure 12-5: July 2016 Copperhead Model – Cross Section at 1100E Showing Block Grades vs Raw
Data Comparison...................................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 12-6: Swath Plot by Easting – Domain 1001 ................................................................................ 69
Figure 12-7: Swath Plot by Easting– Domain 2001 ................................................................................. 70
Figure 12-8: Swath Plot by Easting – Domain 2002 ................................................................................ 70
Figure 13-1: Copperhead Block Model – Perspective View Looking SE of Resource Classification ...... 73
Figure 13-2: Domain 1001 - Perspective View Looking South of Resource Classification ...................... 74
Figure 13-3: Domains 2001, 2002 - Perspective View Looking SE of Resource Classification .............. 74
Figure 15-1: Plan view showing geological architecture and possible controls to Au mineralisation
(Peters, 2011) ........................................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 15-2: Projection of Western BIF showing gold distribution and drill intercepts (Peters, 2011) ..... 79
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 6 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 : Copperhead Gold Project – All Mineral Resources (3.0 g/t Au) – July 2016 ......................... 10
Table 2-1: Copperhead Tenement Details ............................................................................................... 14
Table 3-1: Historical Gold Production from the Copperhead Gold Mine (CSA Global, 2010) ................. 15
Table 3-2: Summary of Drilling Activities for Copperhead up to 2011. .................................................... 16
Table 5-1: Copperhead Data Set ( as at 8th July 2016) - Summary Drilling Statistics by Drill Type ........ 20
Table 5-2: Summary Drilling Statistics by Years ...................................................................................... 22
Table 5-3: Copperhead – Recent Drilling Specifications....................................................................... 23
Table 5-4: 2010-11 Drilling Collar Records .............................................................................................. 24
Table 5-5: Bulk Density Values for Copperhead (from HGM) .................................................................. 26
Table 6-1: Assay Laboratories and Analytical Methods ........................................................................... 27
Table 6-2: Certified Reference Material (Standards) - Summary of Results for SGS .............................. 29
Table 6-3: Certified Reference Material (Standards) - Summary of Results for KAL .............................. 29
Table 6-4: Univariate and Bivariate Statistics - Pulps Additional Laboratory Check ................................ 30
Table 7-1: Summary of Samples by Hole Type for Copperhead Resource Model .................................. 34
Table 7-2: Cube Drill Drillhole Database Structure for Copperhead Resource Model ............................. 35
Table 7-3: Cube Drill Drillhole Database – Rock Code Legend for Copperhead Resource Model ......... 36
Table 7-4: Summary of Samples by Hole Type for Copperhead Resource Model .................................. 37
Table 8-1: Collar and DH Survey Validation Issues for Copperhead Drilling Data Set ............................ 39
Table 8-2: Missing Assay Records and Sample Errors for Copperhead Drilling Data Set ...................... 40
Table 8-3: Missing Lithology Records for Copperhead Drilling Data Set ................................................. 41
Table 8-4: Cube Drillhole Ranking Criteria ............................................................................................... 42
Table 8-5: 2010-11 Drilling – Significant Intersections ............................................................................. 44
Table 9-1: Copperhead Project – Surface DTM and Underground 3DM Wireframes Listing .................. 45
Table 9-2: Copperhead - Domain Codes, Files and Descriptions ............................................................ 47
Table 10-1: Structure of Surpac Composite Files .................................................................................... 51
Table 10-2: Listing of All Domain Codes and Composites ....................................................................... 52
Table 10-3: Summary of 1m Composite Statistics for Copperhead – Northern Series ........................... 53
Table 10-4: Summary of 1m Composites Statistics for Southern Series ................................................. 54
Table 10-5: Gold Grade Top Cuts for Selected July 2016 Copperhead Model ....................................... 55
Table 10-6: Metal at Risk Sensitivity Analysis for Domain 1001 .............................................................. 55
Table 10-7: Metal at Risk Sensitivity Analysis for Domain 2001 .............................................................. 56
Table 10-8: Metal at Risk Sensitivity Analysis for Domain 2002 .............................................................. 56
Table 11-1: Back-transformed Au Grade Variogram Parameters Used to Run OK Estimates ................ 59
Table 12-1: July 2016 Copperhead Block Model Definition Summary ..................................................... 60
Table 12-2: July 2016 Copperhead Block Model Attributes ..................................................................... 61
Table 12-3: July 2016 Copperhead Block Model - Assigned Oxidation State ......................................... 61
Table 12-4: July 2016 Copperhead Block Model - Assigned Bulk Densities ........................................... 62
Table 12-5: July 2016 Copperhead Block Model - Assigned Mineralisation Domains ............................ 62
Table 12-6: July 2016 Copperhead Block Model - Assigned Classification Domains ............................. 63
Table 12-7: July 2016 Copperhead Block Model - Variogram Parameters for Gold Grade Estimation ... 64
Table 12-8: July 2016 Copperhead Block Model - Search Parameters for Gold Grade Estimation ........ 66
Table 12-9: Volumetric Validation for Block Model Domains vs Wireframe Domain ............................... 68
Table 12-10: Raw Samples vs Estimated Global Mean Gold Grades (ppm) ........................................... 69
Table 14-1 : Copperhead Gold Project – All Mineral Resources (3.0 g/t Au) – July 2016 ....................... 75
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 7 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
JORC TABLE 1 ............................................................................................................ 81
APPENDIX 2
LABORATORY PROTOCOLS ..................................................................................... 99
APPENDIX 3
QAQC DATA (2010-2011 SBM DRILLING) ............................................................... 103
APPENDIX 4
VARIOGRAM PLOTS ................................................................................................. 115
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 8 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Cube Consulting Pty Ltd (“Cube”) was requested by Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd (“HGM”) to undertake
a resource estimate for the Copperhead Gold Project (“Copperhead”). The following report is an
overview of the data provided and parameters used in compilation of the July 2016 Mineral Resource
estimate.
Copperhead is one of the largest mines in the Southern Cross Province of the Archaean Yilgarn Craton
and has a history of both underground and open pit gold mining operations, intermittently worked from
1909 to 2000. The historic mining periods focussed on the mining of the Northern Series (dolomite
hosted), Eastern Southern Series (BIF hosted), and the Western Southern Series (BIF hosted)
mineralisation.
The Copperhead Mineral Resource update dated 28th July 2016 is the result of evaluation of the
following data by Cube:



Review, interpretation and modelling of the Northern and Southern Series mineralisation utilising
the new information from the 2010-2011 diamond drilling program by St Barbara Limited
(“SBL”);
Evaluation and digital update of historic geological and assay level plans and stope sections
data from the underground mining operations by Great Western Consolidated (“GWC”); and
Evaluation of historic and recent drilling data for both the underground and open pit operations
at Copperhead to assist with updating the mineralisation interpretations and modelling for the
mineral resource estimate.
HGM provided Cube with data files containing drilling data sets, survey data, wireframe interpretations of
the mineralised domains, and a surface open pit wireframe.
The SBL Copperhead drilling program (Phases 1 & 2) was completed during the period December 2010
to July 2011. Drilling was primarily focused on achieving two intersections on the down-plunge
extensions of both limbs of the Northern and Southern Series at depths below the 22 level of the historic
underground workings. A total of 18 holes were drilled for 7,3240m. Drilling was primarily completed
using diamond drilling (NQ, HQ, and to a lesser extent PQ sized core) with two holes incorporating RC
precollars. Six intersections with the Western BIF hosted mineralisation were achieved, with the best
being 22.3m @ 7.62g/t Au. Two intersections of the Northern Series lode were made, however they did
not return significant mineralisation. An intersection with the Southern Series lode was not achieved with
the Eastern Series BIF hosted mineralisation proving difficult to target.
Cube Consulting has not had a site visit to the Copperhead workings. Brian Fitzpatrick (Senior
Consulting Geologist), who is acting as the Competent Person, undertook a review of the historic data in
the drillhole database and compared it with the hard copy data in the available files, reports and historic
maps supplied by HGM.
Minor adjustments and amendments to erroneous data were made and these have been logged in the
updated database. Drilling and sampling of unknown origin and methodology has only been used to
assist with the geological and mineralisation interpretation if confirmed by more reliable data, but not
used In the mineral resource estimate. In some cases the assay records were adjusted where there
were gaps in sampling within the mineralised domains. These intervals were assigned a background
values.
The following key points summarise the modelling process and key parameters used by Cube for the
estimation work:

A review and update of the HGM mineralised 3DM interpretations and survey 3DMs domains.
Some of the existing mineralised domains were modified by Cube based on a review of the
available data from historic level plan mapping and assay information;
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 9 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project







A drilling dataset was imported from HGM files into a Cube database format with basic data
validation and verification checks completed, including a review and analysis of available
sample quality control information provided by HGM;
The database was flagged with a unique database code (zone code) for all intervals passing
through the interpreted mineralised domains. Downhole compositing was carried out
independently for each mineralised zone using the unique zone codes stored in the database. A
downhole composite length of 1m was used for all mineralised domains;
Statistical analysis of the downhole composite data was carried out to determine the appropriate
high grade assay cut to apply. A metal sensitivity analysis was combined with the statistical
analysis to quantify the impact that the high cuts would have on metal content;
Ordinary Kriging (“OK”) was used to interpolate gold into the parent cells for all mineralisation
domains. All block estimates were based on interpolation into 5mN x 5mE x 5mRL parent cells
and sub-blocked to 1.25mN x 1.25mE x 1.25mRL to ensure accuracy of block definition through
complex mineralisation boundaries and intersections with historic workings for model depletion;
Search ellipse geometry and size was determined from experimental variograms generated for
each mineralised zone 3DM domain. Hard boundaries were applied between all estimation
domains;
The validation of the block model included visual checks in 3D software, statistical and graphical
spatial comparison checks and volumetric and grade comparisons between composite data and
block model estimates. Validation results showed good correlation of the input data to the
estimated gold grades; and
Blocks were classified as Indicated or Inferred based on drillhole data spacing and search
distance used for the estimation. Indicated Mineral Resources are defined nominally based on
the data spacing being less than 50m x 25m or by level plan and stoping information from the
historic workings data set. Inferred Mineral Resources are defined by data density greater than
50m spaced drilling sections, limited sparse underground ore drive development, and reduced
confidence in the continuity of geology and mineralisation along strike and down plunge.
The Copperhead Mineral Resource has been classified as Indicated and Inferred and reported in
accordance with the 2012 Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves
(“JORC Code”). A JORC Code Table 1 checklist of assessment and reporting criteria is provided in
Appendix 1 of this report.
A summary of the Copperhead Mineral Resources, as at 28th July 2016 is presented in Table 1-1
Table 1-1 : Copperhead Gold Project – All Mineral Resources (> 3.0 g/t Au) – July 2016
Description
Indicated
Inferred
Total
kTonnes
Au g/t
Au kOz
kTonnes
Au g/t
Au kOz
kTonnes
Au g/t
Au kOz
Northern Series
2,393
5.6
427
11
3.8
1
2,404
5.5
429
Southern Series
723
4.4
102
406
4.6
60
1,129
4.5
162
5.3
529
417
4.6
62
3,533
5.2
590
TOTAL
3,116
Note: Rounding errors may occur.
The major changes from the previous mineral resource estimate are;


Re-interpretation of mineralised domains to reflect the 2010-2011 deep drilling data testing the
down plunge extension of the mineralisation domains;
Re-interpretation of mineralised domains based on digital enhancement of plots from the historic
underground level plan mapping and sampling, and stope long hole section information;
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 10 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project




Estimation methodology changed from Inverse Distance Cubed (“ID3”) to Ordinary Kriging
(“OK”);
Changes to search parameters used in the estimation;
Classification boundary changes based on new information from the 2010-2011 drilling; and
The remnant material adjacent to the underground stopes has been included in the July 2016
Mineral Resource estimate.
Resource Risks






Sample gaps in the mineralisation domains from un-sampled intervals were given background
values, resulting in some blocks potentially with overly diluted grades;
Stope and development as built survey errors – this requires further review of source of
underground surveys to investigate possible inaccuracies;
Stope remnants are included In the resources remaining but there is risk if some areas are
sterilised (impractical to mine with current technologies);
Main lithological units and major fault structures currently do not have a 3DM interpretation and
modelling completed in the current data set. The faults and ultramafic contacts are important in
the context of future mining and geotechnical assessments. One of the factors affecting the
closure of the original underground by GWC was given as geotechnical issues as a result of the
ultramafic units; and
Host lithologies for mineralisation are structurally complex with tight to isoclinal folding and fold
backs, as illustrated from the open pit mapping and recent structural analysis of the 2010-11 drill
program core logging. This presents issues with the search and variogram parameters to be
selected for grade interpolation, and subsequently the confidence in the modelling into areas
with limited data. It also affects the interpretation and projection of mineralisation domains.
Logging of tremolite and actinolite may indicate the presence of fibrous material in the rock
matrix for some of the mafic and ultramafic units.
Recommendations







Data verification - Historical drill logs should be transferred to digital format where relevant, This
includes the 1990’s drilling program documentation, QAQC data and missing logs for holes
affecting the current resource estimate;
Stope and development data – transfer to current grid system, check positions; update stope
model boundaries for the remnant coding in the Copperhead DB;
Interpretation and modelling of the lithology and major structures;
Complete level plan transfer draping to current grid and overlay with development surveys –
update interpretation of mineralisation where relevant;
Review of the recent industry protocols where fibrous material (specifically fibrous tremoliteactinolite) has been mined in open pit and underground operations. Check the core samples
from the 2010-2011 drilling, and conduct petrographic analysis if fibrous material is present;
Re-interpretation of Southern Series mineralisation – assess if the folding model similar to
Northern Series should be applied to Southern Series;
Review estimation methodology – assess dynamic kriging for the remainder of the Southern
Series. Due to the inherent complexity of folding of the host units, global estimation and the
adoption of appropriate variogram and search parameters will ensure improvements to the
estimation approach. Important to make use of the underground data from the level plans.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 11 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
2.0
INTRODUCTION
Cube Consulting Pty Ltd was requested by HGM to undertake a mineral resource estimate for the
Copperhead Gold Project. The estimation work commenced in July 2016 and was completed on 29th
July 2016.
Cube is an Australian owned company providing geological and mining engineering consulting services
and software systems to the resources and industrial sectors. The organisation is well resourced with
an established office in Perth, Western Australia and has undertaken work for a substantial number of
clients. Cube Consulting comprises a team of technical professionals dedicated to providing excellence
of services in their field of expertise.
Brian. Fitzpatrick, BSc (Geology) MAusIMM CP, is a Senior Consultant Geologist with Cube and has
worked as a geologist for more than 30 years since graduation from the University of Tasmania.
Relevant experience has been gained from working in the gold - base metal mining and exploration
industry on various provinces throughout Australia and overseas. He is a current Member of the
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (MAusIMM) with Chartered Professional accreditation.
Brian Fitzpatrick has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of
resource under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent
Person as defined in the JORC Code, 2012 Edition. Brian Fitzpatrick has assumed the responsibility of
the Competent Person for the data, the interpretation of mineralisation and for the grade estimation.
2.1
Scope of Work
The aim of Cube’s engagement was as follows:







Review the available drilling data, survey data, geological interpretations and historical
documentation as supplied by HGM with the aim of collating this data to prepare a new mineral
resource estimate;
Undertake database verification and corrections as required;
Apply appropriate compositing, geostatistical analysis, estimation parameters and estimation
methods to interpolate the gold resources for the Copperhead Project;
Provide a resource model that includes the most recent drilling information and based on the
current mineralisation interpretation wireframes:
Estimate global gold resources using Ordinary Kriging based on interpretations, wireframes
and drillhole sample database provided by HGM and modified by Cube and HGM;
Classify and report the gold resources in accordance with the requirements of the 2012
Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code); and
Provide a technical report detailing the estimation processes, parameters and observations for
future targets.
HGM provided Cube with data files containing drilling databases, survey data, interpretations of the
mineralised domains, and the most recent available open pit survey of the Copperhead pit. All drilling
data was entered into a Cube formatted MS Access database and validated prior to reviewing and
updating the interpretations for the mineralised domains. Gold grade estimation was undertaken using
Surpac (Version 6.7.2) mining software.
The Mineral Resource estimates have been prepared by Mr Brian Fitzpatrick BSc (Geology), MAusIMM
(CP), Senior Consultant Geologist at Cube. The Competent Person has not visited site and has
prepared the mineral resource estimate for the Copperhead Gold Project based on the data provided by
HGM personnel
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 12 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
2.2
Location and Access
The Copperhead Gold Project is located 1 km east of Bullfinch and 35 km north of Southern Cross in the
eastern part of the Bullfinch Greenstone Belt in the Southern Cross Province of the Archaean Yilgarn
Craton in Western Australia (Figure 2-1).
Copperhead has been mined intermittently since 1909. There are extensive underground (“UG”)
workings to a depth of approximately 750m below the surface. During the late 1980s up until 2000, the
mine operated as an open pit operation. No significant mining activities have taken place since this
period. The underground workings are flooded and therefore inaccessible. The open pit is partially
flooded as noted from the recent satellite image.
Figure 2-1: Satellite Image Location Plan of the Copperhead Gold Project at Bullfinch, Western Australia
(Google Image)
2.3
Land Tenure
Tenement numbers relating to the Copperhead Gold Project area listed below in the Table 2-1.
HGM has a 100% interest in all tenements located around the Copperhead workings. Mining Leases
have a 21 year life renewable for periods of a further 21 years on a continuing basis.
There are no Joint Venture Agreements with other parties relating to the leases within the Copperhead
mineral resource area. There are no Native Title Claims relating to the leases within the Copperhead
mineral resource area.
Royalty payable on all tenements is noted as follows:


2.5% payable to State of WA;
1.5% payable to 3rd party royalty holder – International Royalty Corporation LLC;
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 13 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project

Royalty Agreement with Newcrest Mining whereby Newcrest entitled to 10% of net profit from
mining areas subject to the aforementioned tenements.
Table 2-1: Copperhead Tenement Details
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Tenement
Holder
Status
Interest
M77/46
Hanking Gold Mining
Live
100%
M77/105
Hanking Gold Mining
Live
100%
M77/299
Hanking Gold Mining
Live
100%
M77/301
Hanking Gold Mining
Live
100%
M77/355
Hanking Gold Mining
Live
100%
M77/356
Hanking Gold Mining
Live
100%
M77/480
Hanking Gold Mining
Live
100%
M77/572
Hanking Gold Mining
Live
100%
M77/1026
Hanking Gold Mining
Live
100%
Page 14 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
3.0
EXPLORATION AND MINING HISTORY
3.1
Gold Discovery and Mining History
Gold was discovered at Copperhead in 1909, and to 1921 had produced 177,000 oz of gold from a
multitude of shallow (40m) shafts and leases. The mine remained essentially dormant till the1950’s, in
which time only approximately 25,000 oz was won by tributers.
Between 1950 and 1963, GWC produced 516,000 oz from 3.25MT of ore in an extensive underground
operation to a depth of 700m. The mine had problems with poor gold reconciliations and poor ground
conditions in the underlay shaft. In addition to these issues there was an apparent weakening of the
orebody at depth, contributed to the mine’s closure in 1963.
In 1987, Burmine Ltd purchased 75% of Copperhead from Cord Mining, and in 1988, acquired 100%
ownership. In 1996, Sons of Gwalia Ltd (“SOG”) merged with Burmine. The open pit mining operations
were then run by SOG. Open pit operations ceased in 2000 and to date, approximately 1M oz of gold
have been produced from the mine’s long history (Andrews, 2004).
Table 3-1: Historical Gold Production from the Copperhead Gold Mine (CSA Global, 2010)
Period
Mining Method
Owner
1910 - 1944
UG
Shafts/Surface
Independent Workings Shafts/Claims
0.57
11.2
205,000
1950-1963
(approx.)
UG & Open Pit
GWC
3.25
5.0
516,000
1988-2000
Open Pit
Burmine/SOG
tba
tba
~210,000
Cube
TOTAL
7.73
3.8
932,000
Snowden
(2004)
1909-1998
3.2
M Tonnes
Au g/t
Au Oz
Source
Whitelock
(1997b)/HGM
Whitelock
(1997b)
Exploration History
Explorations have been conducted by a number of parties, most recently Agip Nucleare, Troy
Resources, Burmine Ltd Sons of Gwalia Ltd and St Barbara Ltd.
The main periods for more recent exploration activities can be summarised as follow:




1978 - Exploration work included surface geological mapping, surveying and gridding, surface,
RAB and RC drilling, old tailings dump drilling;
1986-1987 - A programme of preliminary sampling, gridding, radiometric surveying, vacuum
drilling, and deep percussion drilling were completed to test the potential of a barite vein and
associated elements (U, Cu, Pb, Ag, F);
1994-1995 – Approximately 5,000m of diamond core DD drilling was completed from old UG
workings (Level 4 – 375m RL). A total of 700m of RC drilling was completed from surface.
Drilling was aimed at testing future open pit and UG potential;
1996-1997 – A total of 77 RC and DD holes were drilled between July 1996 and March 1997.
The program was aimed at increasing the Copperhead open pit and UG Resource/Reserve
base. The program targeted the walls of the current pit at that time, and also within the known
mineralisation beneath the current pit.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 15 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
3.3
Recent Exploration Activity
2010 – 2011 Drilling Program (from Peters, 2011)
The Copperhead drilling program (Phases 1 & 2) was completed by SBM during the period December
2010-July 2011.
The drilling program objectives were described by Peters (2011) as follows:



Complete a series of drill holes focussed on the up and down-plunge potential of the significant
intercepts in the Southern Series Western BIF (western BIF), between 400m below surface and
670m below surface intended to achieve an Inferred level of confidence in lode continuity.
Extend holes targeting the western BIF mineralisation to intersect other footwall ore horizons
(Northern Series and Southern Series).
Complete two drill hole intersections on the down-plunge extensions of both limbs of the
Northern and Southern Series below the 22 Level at 670m below surface, with a parent and one
daughter hole. Drilling intended to achieve a ”proof of concept” status result and the basis for
targeting to an Indicated status.
A total of 18 holes were drilled for 7,223.70m. Drilling was principally completed using diamond coring
(NQ, HQ, and to a lesser extent PQ) with two holes incorporating RC precollars. Strong ground trends
encountered resulted in a number of holes being abandoned before planned depths were reached.
The program was revised in March 2011, with focus shifting to drilling out the untested targets of the
Western BIF lode system.
Six intersections with the Western BIF were achieved, with the best being 22.33m @ 7.62 g/t Au. Two
intersections of the Northern Series lode were made, however they did not intersect significant
mineralisation. An intersection with the Southern Series lode was not realised, with the Eastern BIF
proving difficult to target.
Interpretation of results from the drilling highlighted high grade mineralisation interpreted to be tightly
constrained within an intensely folded portion of the Western BIF limb, which is now considered to be
contiguous with mineralisation previously mined in the open pit.
Details of drilling statistics from 2010-11 programs are listed in Table 3-2
Table 3-2: Summary of Drilling Activities for Copperhead up to 2011.
Drill_Type
DDH
RCD
RC
TOTAL
No of
Holes
12
2
4
18
Total
Metres
5,279.76
1,625.94
318.00
7,223.70
Drill Hole locations for drilling 2010-11 programs can be seen in Figure 3-1.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 16 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Figure 3-1: Collar Locations for 2010-11 Copperhead RC/DD Drilling Program (Peters, 2011)
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 17 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
4.0
GEOLOGY
Cube has relied on several sources of information on the geology of the Copperhead Gold Project area,
including relevant published and unpublished third party information, and public domain data, a list of
which is provided in Section 16.0 of this report.
4.1
Regional Setting
Copperhead is situated in the Southern Cross Greenstone Belt that extends along strike for 300km from
Mt Jackson in the north to Hatter Hill in the south. The elongate belt is a strongly deformed,
metamorphosed synformal remnant of a once larger greenstone assemblage and has been shaped and
attenuated by the emplacement of domal (antiformal) syn-tectonic granitoids.
Sheared lithological contacts are the primary control on the distribution of gold mineralisation. Most of
the belt’s production has been derived from shear-hosted deposits (Marvel Loch, Yilgarn Star and
Frasers) and to a lesser extent fold hinge deposits, usually in BIF (Copperhead, Golden Pig and
Bounty).
Figure 4-1 shows a plan of the Southern Cross Greenstone Belt, with the location of the Copperhead
Gold Project and other nearby significant gold occurrences.
.
Figure 4-1: Simplified Geology Plan Showing Copperhead mine location in the Southern Cross Greenstone
Belt. (Peters, 2011)
4.2
Local Geology
The Copperhead mine sequence consists of a layered series of metamorphosed ultramafics, highmagnesium basalt and tuff, banded iron formation and intercalated sediments.
The mine sequence has been intensely isoclinally folded with major folds trending NW to NNW, parallel
to a strongly developed schistose foliation (Figure 4-2).
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 18 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
The mineralisation can be divided into 2 major gold bearing zones, the Northern Series (dolomite
hosted) and Southern Series (BIF hosted). The mineralisation for both Series trend essentially eastwest, and are divided by a poorly mineralised zone known as the Saddle. The east-west trend is at
variance with the regional NW-SE structural trend, and this is evident from airborne magnetics.
The Northern Series is hosted by a tightly folded sequence of tremolite-chlorite-actinolite schists with
irregular quartz veins and stringers. The lode is strongly carbonate altered (“Dolomite Lode”) and has a
strike length of 200m, and a width of 10-25m.
The Southern Series is hosted by an isoclinally folded sequence of banded iron formation (BIF),
surrounded by an irregular talc alteration zone. The BIF mineralisation is interbedded with schistose
mafic/ultramafic flows (Figure 4-2).
The whole orebody sequence plunges approximately 45o to 277 o (local mine grid bearing).
Figure 4-2: Local Geology Plan Showing Copperhead Open Pit Geology (Peters, 2011)
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 19 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
5.0
DRILLING AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES
Cube has relied on several sources of information on the drilling and sampling procedures for the
Copperhead Gold Project, including relevant unpublished third party information, and public domain
data, a list of which is provided in Section 16.0 of this report.
5.1
Drilling Summary
Table 5-1 lists a summary of the drilling statistics by drill type covering the Copperhead mining area for
the history of the project.
Table 5-1: Copperhead Data Set (as at 8th July 2016) - Summary Drilling Statistics by Drill Type
Type
# of holes
metres
ave depth
DDH
2,214
90,711.44
40.97
RCD
18
10,819.16
601.06
RC
224
22,860.00
102.05
RAB
175
3,536.00
20.21
UNK/OTHER
900
34,445.50
38.27
TOTAL
3,531
162,372.10
45.98
Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 show a views of the drilling coverage by hole type specific to the main area of
the Copperhead Gold Project area. The major cluster of DD holes are the short UG DD holes drilling
along the development drives, mostly at 10m intervals along the strike of the main mineralised zones
Figure 5-1: Drillhole Location Plan by Hole Type
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 20 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Figure 5-2: Drillhole Traces Composite Section View Looking North (by Hole Type)
5.2
Drilling Methods and Approach
Table 5-2 is a summary of the drilling type and periods of drilling over the history of the project. A
ranking system has been applied to the collar records in order to filter holes not to be used for the
mineral resource estimate. The ranking codes are explained in the database section of this report.
The main drilling periods where some documentation is available is described below:
1950-1963 UG Drilling
Historical drilling includes UG DD drilling from development drives from 1950 to 1960 at 10m spacing
along the walls of the ore development headings. The holes were drilled at 0 degrees dip both north and
south of the drives. A total of 2,065 holes for 62,760m have been transferred to metric units with collar
survey positions recorded from level plans showing hole locations and traces. Average depth of these
holes is 30m. No descriptions of core size and sampling method are recorded from the available
historical reports.
Underground drilling and sample locations have previously been digitally mapped from historic level
plans and converted to metric and current mine grid by SOG during the 1996-1997 drilling phases
(Whitelock, 1997b).
1986-1987 RAB & RC Drilling
1986-87 drilling consisted of RAB and RC drilling. RC drilling was conducted using Schramm 64 rig,
setup for RC drilling. All RC holes were hammer drilled.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 21 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
1994-1997 RC &DD Drilling
1994-97 drilling included RC and DD. RC specifications and hole diameter of RC holes were not
recorded in the available historical documents. For RC, hole oriented both grid north and south at -90
degrees, average depth of 117m, surveyed at 10m intervals; DD holes (diameter not specified) angled at
-60 degrees with average depth of 167m, surveyed and oriented at 10m intervals using downhole
camera shot.
There have been several drill programs from surface for open pit operations testing all four limbs of the
two lodes, however no NQ drilling was completed below the 22 level (or 670m below surface).
2010-2011 Drilling
2010-11 drilling included angled Navi holes with RC pre-collars drilled to maximum depths of 500m, then
DD core drilling tail (PQ down to HQ). DD tail depths varied between 300m to 500m. DD core was
oriented at 10m intervals using gyroscopic survey instrument.
The drilling contractor initially chosen to undertake this work was HMR Drilling. Unfortunately drilling
proved to be problematic, with the details relating to these issues discussed in Peters (2011). A deep
drilling specialist contractor (Boart Longyear) was mobilised to the project area to continue with the
program as it was largely accepted that Navi drilling would be required in order to reach desired targets.
Table 5-2: Summary Drilling Statistics by Years
Hole Prefix
Type
Ranking
Years
Location
# of holes
metres
ave depth
AR
UNK
5
UNK
Surface
220
3,138.00
14.26
BCM
UNK
4
UNK
Surface
12
570.00
47.50
BCWT
UNK
3
UNK
Surface
1
50.00
50.00
BF
UNK
4
UNK
Surface
21
931.00
44.33
BFR
UNK
4
UNK
Surface
53
2,469.00
46.58
BFRC
RC
3
RC
Surface
23
1,270.00
55.22
CHA
UNK
3
UNK
Surface
98
3,972.00
40.53
CHAR
UNK
4
UNK
Surface
44
1,790.00
40.68
CT
UNK
4
UNK
Surface
82
5,529.00
67.43
H
UNK
3
UNK
Surface/Pit
87
5,313.00
61.07
HVR
UNK
4
UNK
Surface
113
1,605.00
14.20
PDH
UNK
3
UNK
Surface/Pit
149
8,820.00
59.19
SH
UNK
3
UNK
Surface/Pit
7
107.50
15.36
SPH
UNK
3
UNK
Surface/Pit
13
151.00
11.62
CS
DD
2
1947
Surface
C/CC
DD
2
1950-1960
UG
11
4,831.45
439.22
2,065
62,759.28
30.39
B
RAB
5
1986-87
Surface
175
3,536.00
20.21
BCRC
RC
3
1986-87
Surface
31
1,538.00
49.61
CHD
DD
2
1995-96
UG/Pit
138
23,120.71
167.54
CHR
RC
1
1995-97
Surface
170
20,052.00
117.95
CHRD/DD
RC/DD
1
2010-11
Surface
18
10,819.16
601.06
3,531
162,372.10
45.98
TOTAL
Drill rig specifications are described in Table 5-3.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 22 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Table 5-3: Copperhead
– Recent Drilling Specifications
Company
Rig No.
Core size
Rig Desc
Features
Holes Drilles
Leon Marsh
4
RC
400m
6
HMR
1
NQ / HQ
RCD 2506
UDR 1300
Series
NQ to 850m/ HQ to 500m
5
Boart
Longyear
70
NQ / HQ
NQ to 1500m/ HQ to
1000m
7
5.3
uDR 1000 Series
Drilling Orientations
For most of the drilling, it is apparent both RC and RC/DD drilling was designed to intersect the
mineralisation orthogonal to dip and strike of the major mineralisation bodies. Different orientations were
selected to target different portions of the mineralisation depending on whether mineralised structures
dip to the east or west. Some drilling from the open pit floor and berms were drilled vertically in order to
establish optimal drilling capabilities. The complexity of the folding within the two major lithological units
is likely to result in drilling orientations drilled down structures, but the overall trend for the mineralisation
domains is mostly satisfied by each of the drilling stages at Copperhead.
Both surface and UG is predominantly at 0 degrees (UG) or -60 degrees (surface) grid north or grid
south.
The 2010-11 drilling was oriented at steep angles to the north in order to setup for Navi drilling to
intersect deep targets normal to the mineralisation for both the Northern Series and Southern Series as
illustrated in Figure 5-3.
Figure 5-3: 2010-11 Drillhole Traces Showing Interpreted Drill Hole Paths Relative to Interpreted Geology
(Peters, 2011)
5.4
Drillhole Surveys
The grid system has been setup on a local mine grid co-ordinates. Grid conversions applied to
Copperhead are as follows: Local Grid North = Magnetic North + 6.18 degrees; Local Grid RL = MGA94
RL.
5.5
Drillhole Collar Surveys
Collar records were supplied for all holes in the data records received but no information regarding collar
pickups was available in the documents provided. Visual inspection in 3D graphics showed no apparent
inaccuracies with the spatial position of the drillholes.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 23 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Hole collar records were listed for the 2010-2011drilling but no record of the method for collar surveying
was recorded. The holes are listed in
Table 5-4: 2010-11 Drilling Collar Records
Hole ID
Hole
Type
Max
Depth
Orig
RL
NAT Grid
ID
NAT
North
NAT
RL
CHRD001
DDH
474
SX_CPLG
416.9
10261
501.5
MGA94_50
702120
6571420
501.5
CHRD001A
DDH
336.28
SX_CPLG
CHRD001B
DDH
945.51
SX_CPLG
416.9
10261
501.5
416.9
10261
501.5
MGA94_50
702120
6571420
501.5
MGA94_50
702120
6571420
501.5
CHRD001w1
DDH
338.9
SX_CPLG
416.9
10261
501.5
MGA94_50
702120
6571420
501.5
CHRD002
DDH
706.9
SX_CPLG
416.9
10261
501.5
MGA94_50
702120
6571420
501.5
CHRD002A
DDH
657
SX_CPLG
416.9
10261
501.5
MGA94_50
702120
6571420
501.5
CHRD002B
DDH
921.15
SX_CPLG
416.9
10261
501.5
MGA94_50
702120
6571420
501.5
CHRD002C
DDH
1069.6
SX_CPLG
416.9
10261
501.5
MGA94_50
702120
6571420
501.5
CHRD002D
DDH
999.8
SX_CPLG
416.9
10261
501.5
MGA94_50
702120
6571420
501.5
CHRD002E
DDH
967.1
SX_CPLG
416.9
10261
501.5
MGA94_50
702120
6571420
501.5
CHRD004
RC
72
SX_CPLG
524.4
9914.5
501
MGA94_50
702189
6571063
501
CHRD004A
RC
84
SX_CPLG
524.4
9914.5
501
MGA94_50
702189
6571063
501
CHRD004B
RC
60
SX_CPLG
524.4
9914.5
501
MGA94_50
702189
6571063
501
CHRD005
RCD
978.24
SX_CPLG
645.4
9763.2
501
MGA94_50
702292.9
6570899
501
CHRD006
RC
102
SX_CPLG
645.4
9763.2
501
MGA94_50
702292.9
6570899
501
CHRD007
RCD
647.7
SX_CPLG
772.6
9802.3
501
MGA94_50
702424
6570924
501
CHRD008
DDH
755.9
SX_CPLG
524.4
9914.5
501
MGA94_50
702189
6571063
501
CHDD009
DDH
703.08
SX_CPLG
524.4
9914.5
501
MGA94_50
702189
6571063
501
5.6
Orig
Grid ID
Orig
East
Orig North
NAT East
Downhole Surveys
For drilling prior to 2010, RC and DD drillholes were surveyed at the collar and at various downhole
intervals ranging from 10m to 50m, to a single downhole survey at the bottom of the hole. It is assumed
that an Eastman single shot camera was used.
For the 2010-11 drilling, RC precollars were surveyed every 10-30m to ensure directional control for
subsequent Navi drilling. Downhole surveys for DD tails were conducted on a day to day basis
(nominally every 30m) using tools supplied by drilling contractor (All holes were gyro surveyed at least
every 100m in order to maintain directional control of their path, again on completion, and after Navi cuts
on request of the driller.
5.7
Sampling Techniques
Surface DD core, RC, percussion and Rotary Air Blast chips, UG DD holes and UG rock chip sampling
are the main sample types for Copperhead.
No information regarding underground rock chip sampling from underground development was available
for the current work.
RC and percussion chips sampled mostly at 1m intervals. From information where available in historical
reports, a riffle splitter was used to produce a representative sample to be sent to the laboratory for
analysis.
DD core sampling protocols for the 2010-11 drilling are described as follows:
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 24 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project






RC chips from pre-collars were not sampled;
DD core was geologically logged and sampled to lithological contacts or changes in the nature
of mineralisation;
Average sample lengths of 0.85m average sample length holes, with a minimum sample length
of 0.1m;
Core was half core sampled;
Core was split along a plane passing through the basal orientation mark, or an equivalent point
representing an axis of fabric symmetry, using a diamond saw; and
The upper or right-hand side of the core was submitted for sample analysis, with each one
metre of half core providing between 2.5 – 3 kg of material as an assay sample.
For the 2010-11 program, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique
is suitable for the mineral resource estimation.
5.8
Sample Quality
Drilling data used in the estimation process was from multiple historic datasets. As these were
contributed over many years by different companies the amount of information on drilling, sampling and
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (“QAQC”) procedures varies from adequate to none.
For some drilling programs there are no details of any QAQC program available. It is noted that some
reports pertaining to these datasets may be located in historical records at the time this report was
prepared.
For this report, no descriptions or measurements relating to core loss were able to be gathered from the
available historical reports and data records provided. Therefore analysis of diamond tails recovery has
not been conducted so that representative nature of the samples is not known. No analysis on
relationship between sample core recovery and grade has been undertaken due to the lack of data
currently available.
5.9
Logging and Observations
Many of the historical logging records are not recorded in the data set received although digital logs
were available from historical annual drilling reports. Total length of all drilled data is 162,372.1m as
estimated from the raw data files received on 8th July 2016. The total amount of relevant drill data
utilised for this estimate is 136,780m (RC, DD and percussion holes), of which 27% was digitally entered
as logged and 37,374m was flagged as mineralised intercepts.
Many holes prior to 1995 have no geological logging entered into the databases but historical
documents in PDF format containing drill hole logs were made available for review. Open hole
percussion drilling and RAB were sampled and some logging information is available.
Underground level plans from the historical workings (1950-1960) with geological mapping and wall
sample assays have been used to support mineralisation interpretation and Mineral Resource
estimation. Wall samples were not used in the grade estimation.
For the 2010-11 SBL drilling program, all holes were subject to comprehensive geological logging and
capture of structural measurements which were entered into a “made for purpose” MS Excel
spreadsheet for later loading into the company's DataShed database. Holes were logged using the SBL
logging codes. Previous work by SOG (Whitelock, 1997b), identified four primary rock units in the mine
sequence:



Amphibolite (meta-basalt; mafic);
Chlorite-actinolite schist (meta-komatiite; ultramafic);
Quartz-magnetite +/- grunerite BIF; and
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 25 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project

Dolomite Lode horizon (carbonate-rich bedding parallel fault/shear zone fill, or meta-dolerite).
Rock types encountered throughout the program were typical of a greenstone sequence and contiguous
with Whitelock (1997b) descriptions; dominantly chlorite-actinolite altered mafics with minor sedimentary
units and tremolite-talc-chlorite ultramafic interflows. Whitlock (1997b) also made note of a possible fifth
unit; a unique andalusite-rich marker horizon distinguishable by andalusite porphyroblasts. The true
nature of the unit is unknown, with both an ultramafic and pelitic unit offered as a possible proto-lith. This
horizon is interpreted to have been intersected by a number of holes (CHRD002E) and provides a useful
litho-stratigraphic marker.
The Western BIF was observed as a laminated banded iron with strong silica +/- carbonate +/- grunerite
and varying degrees of veining and sulphide mineralisation (Po, Py). In some zones (CHRD002D) it was
intensely deformed, with multiple parasitic fold hinges evident and a pervasive crenulation cleavage. In
the highly deformed units there was a local increase in veining (axial planar & cross cutting) and
sulphides (Po, Py).
The Northern Series manifested itself as extremely sheared and carbonate altered units with the Eastern
limb also displaying diopside alteration and weak to strong sulphide concentrations.
5.10 Bulk Density Determinations
Previous block models have applied oxide and fresh bulk density (“BD”) determinations with no details
on what the values are based on.
There are no reported details on the methodology used for collecting BD measurements from any of the
available recent or historical documents for Copperhead. Resource Engineering (“RE”), reported the
following statement (Third, 1998):


Variations in specific gravity reflect the variability of mineralogy and ore composition; and
RE noted density of 1.9t/m3, presumably for oxide material, and also noted BIF/sulphide
material with BD as high as 3.4t/m3. RE also noted figures of 2.4 and 2.7 representing the open
pit, but did not specify the rock type for these readings.
It is not recorded in the RE report how the BD determinations were derived.
BD values used for the current mineral resource estimate are assumed. The values are derived from
block model parameter file for both a 1997 model and a 2000 model for Copperhead and are listed in
Table 5-5.
Table 5-5: Bulk Density Values for Copperhead (from HGM)
Rock Type
Oxide
Fresh
Non BIF
2.8
3
BIF
3
3.2
Stope backfill
2
Waste Dumps
1.8
Source - block model parameters.xls (4th Dec 2000 Copperhead Block
Model).
Cube recommends BD measurements of core and field samples to be undertaken across each of the
lithological units when future drilling and in-situ rock sampling takes place. This will allow a more
accurate data set of measured BD determinations from core and field samples. Future BD
determinations will provide a data set with which to improve the confidence in the BD values assigned
for the various rock units and weathering profiles for future mineral resource estimation.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 26 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
6.0
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND QUALITY CONTROL
6.1
Analytical Laboratories and Procedures
Information on analytical procedures includes input from relevant company reports and documents
provided by HGM for the 2010-11 drilling program only. There are no active or recent drilling programs
at the Copperhead Gold Project in order to review and verify sampling practices and analysis. No
original company records or laboratory files were available for review and verification.
The laboratory initially chosen to undertake testing of the samples was SGS (Kalgoorlie branch),
however owing to a slow turnaround time, in early May 2011 it was decided to employ KalAssay
(Kalgoorlie branch). There is no information whether an umpire laboratory was used for Quality
Assurance checks on original assay data.
Table 6-1: Assay Laboratories and Analytical Methods
Lab
Generic Method
Element
Description
Detection Limit%
SGS, Kalgoorlie
(SGS)
FAA505
Au ppm
Gold by AAS after
Fire Assay, 50g
0.01
KalAssay (KAL)
FA40AAS
Au ppm
40 g, Fire assay,
AAS finish
0.01
Procedures described below are referenced from sample protocol flow charts for both laboratories, and
directly relate the 2010-11 drill programs only.
SGS Procedures





Samples is dried, crushed and pulverised using an LM5 to 90% passing106um;
A 200g pulp is scooped from the pulverised sample and weighed;
Fire assay is performed on a 50g sub sample, using the standard flux, fusion and cupellation in
50 sample batches;
Sample batches contain seven QAQC samples included internal lab standards, repeats,
duplicates and blanks; and
The prills from the cupellation are digested in a mixture of nitric and hydrochloric acids and
assays are determined by Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry.
KalAssay Procedures








Samples are dried, crushed (if sizing is greater than 3mm), split (if sample size is greater than
3kg), pulverised using a Labtech LM5 Ring Mill to 90% passing 75um homogenised pulp (tested
and reported by the laboratory at a rate of 1 in 50 samples);
The sample preparation area uses a vacuum system to clean the ring mills between individual
samples and an exhaust fan vent system to minimise dust contamination between samples, as
well as for dust suppression for the sample preparation staff;
The ring mills are usually operated in pairs or triples;
A 40g subsample is fluxed, fused and cupelled in 50 sample batches as per standard fire assay
techniques with 5 laboratory inserted standards included in each batch;
The resulting prills are digested in nitric and hydrochloric acids to digest gold and other precious
metals into solution;
The solution is analysed by Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry;
Instruments are calibrated for each 50 samples being read;
The laboratory undertakes internal standard assay regimes and re-assays every 20th sample;
and
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 27 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project

6.2
Sample weights were recorded by the laboratories.
Sample Security
No active or recent drilling programs have taken place at the Copperhead Gold Project in order to review
the protocols for sample security. There is description of sample security protocols recorded by SBM for
the 2010-11 drilling in the available report.
No information relating to routine sampling, submission and storage procedures is described in the
available historical reports.
6.3
Quality Control Reporting for 2010-11 Drilling
Cube reviewed the QAQC procedures currently in place and undertook an analysis of standards, assay
blanks and duplicate control samples submitted as part of the QAQC process for the Copperhead Gold
Project. The analysis covers the period from December 2010 to July 2011 for the HGM database
received on July 7th 2016.
This analysis covers the entire Copperhead Gold Project database and so includes sample data outside
of the Copperhead resource area.
6.3.1 QAQC Protocols
The QAQC program implemented for the Copperhead drilling program included:



Insertion of one commercial batch CRM per 20 half core samples;
Sample pulp residues for parts of holes CHRD002B and CHRD002C were sent to KalAssay
Kalgoorlie for secondary gold analysis; and
SBL ensured accuracy in standard preparation by employing a recently introduced procedure of
pre-bagging and detailing sets of 4 CRMs which would then later be selected by the geologist
for submission with core samples.
A summarised description of the QA/QC analysis is outlined in the following headings with some of the
most significant plots for each of the control sample types presented in Appendix 3.
6.3.2 Certified Reference Material (Standards)
The standards used by HGM were obtained from Geostats Pty Ltd, based in Australia.
A summary of the CRM statistics is noted below:




A total of 13 different CRMs were utilised throughout the program;
CRM grades ranged from 0.21g/t Au to 13.66 g/t;
A total of 93 CRMs were submitted:
o 33 CRMs to SGS;
o 60 CRMs to KAL;
The majority of KAL returned CRMs fell within two standard deviations of the recommended
mean, and similarly, no major systematic errors were identified.
The data is summarised in Table 6-2 and Table 6-3 for each laboratory.
Comparison of CRM data showed that SGS returned three CRMs with a significant divergence from the
mean value. However this was not seen as a cause for concern as there were no major systematic
adverse trends indicating that the results were unlikely to be biased by failures in the laboratories
procedures. The majority of KAL CRMs returned standards that fell within two standard deviations of the
recommended mean, and similarly, no major systematic errors were identified (Figure 6-1).
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 28 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Table 6-2: Certified Reference Material (Standards) - Summary of Results for SGS
CRM ID
Cert
Mean
No. of
Samples
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
SD
G306-1
0.41
4
0.41
0.41
0.33
0.48
0.06
G901-9
0.69
3
0.75
0.67
0.64
0.93
0.16
G900-5
3.21
3
2.68
2.87
2.19
2.97
0.42
G997-1
0.41
3
0.37
0.38
0.33
0.39
0.03
G305-1
0.21
4
0.22
0.21
0.2
0.24
0.02
G996-7
5.99
1
6.61
-
-
-
-
G996-7C
5.99
3
5.58
5.62
5.42
5.69
0.14
G904-3
13.66
5
13.1
13.2
12.1
13.9
0.64
G302-7C
2.14
2
2.38
2.38
1.91
2.86
0.67
G302-3
2.33
3
2.24
2.29
2.09
2.33
0.13
G907-3
2.88
2
2.85
2.85
Notes: Units in ppm; Lab Method = FA AAS
2.85
2.86
0.01
Table 6-3: Certified Reference Material (Standards) - Summary of Results for KAL
CRM ID
Cert
Mean
No. of
Samples
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
SD
G901-9
0.69
4
0.67
0.68
0.65
0.69
0.02
G997-1
0.41
5
0.39
0.39
0.37
0.43
0.03
G305-1
0.21
6
0.19
0.2
0.17
0.21
0.02
G996-7
5.99
4
5.57
5.55
5.31
5.88
0.27
G904-3
13.66
7
14.11
14.09
13.4
15
3.4
G302-7C
2.14
10
2.08
2.09
1.94
2.15
0.06
G302-3
2.33
2
2.35
2.35
2.3
2.4
0.07
G907-3
2.88
6
2.83
2.78
2.72
2.95
0.1
G907-6
7.25
3
6.79
6.6
6.57
7.21
0.36
G302-7
5.99
1
2.06
-
-
-
-
G995-1
2.74
2
2.77
2.77
2.72
2.83
0.08
G305-7
9.59
5
8.96
8.87
8.78
9.31
0.22
G903-6
4.13
5
3.98
3.98
Notes: Units in ppm; Lab Method = FA AAS
3.83
4.1
0.12
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 29 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Figure 6-1: 2010-11 Copperhead CRMs - (each segment delineated by a vertical blue line is representative of
one ‘lab job day’) (Peters, 2011)
6.3.3 Granulometry Checks
The SGS specification for pulverization of samples is a minimum of 90% passing a 75μm test screen.
The KalAssay specification for pulverisation of samples is a minimum of 85% passing a 75μm test
screen. Routine particle analysis by wet screening was completed by the laboratory.
No issues were identified for the granulometry checks.
6.3.4 Laboratory Checks
The term duplicate is a generic name for a repeat measure of the original sample. Duplicates are used
to verify the repeatability and degree of precision of the analyses. They can also be used to verify the
quality of the sample preparation process. In addition, when duplicates are sent to a secondary
laboratory, they can also be utilized to verify the accuracy of the results of the primary laboratory.
On the decision to change laboratories, a total of 145 sample pulp residues returned from SGS were
forwarded to KalAssay, for gold analysis by 40g fire assay (FA40AAS). The data is considered to be well
correlated, with a correlation coefficient of 0.994. The results of the analysis of these samples are
outlined in Table 6-4.
Table 6-4: Univariate and Bivariate Statistics - Pulps Additional Laboratory Check
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
SGS
KAL
Mean
0.29
0.3
Median
0.05
0.005
Min
0.0005
0.005
Max
19.5
20.68
Range
19.5
20.67
No. of Samples
145
145
Variance
2.65
3.06
CV
5.68
5.82
Population SD
1.63
1.75
Bias
‐4.91%
Correlation Coefficient
0.994
Page 30 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
There is a minor negative bias towards KalAssay (-4.91%) which is most pronounced at very low grades
(<0.5 g/t) as indicated by both Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3.
It is considered that this bias would be unlikely to impact any conclusions drawn from the program or
future resource estimates.
Figure 6-2: 2010-11 Copperhead Pulps - SGS (FA50AAS) vs KAL (FA40AAS) (Peters, 2011)
Figure 6-3: 2010-11 Copperhead Pulps- Mean Difference Percentage graph; KAL (FA40AAS) vs SGS
(FA50AAS) (Peters, 2011)
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 31 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
6.3.5 Comments and Recommendations
Overall, the performance of QAQC samples indicates the sample data is of an acceptable standard.
Cube has concluded that the Copperhead 2010-11 drilling data set is suitable for mineral resource
estimation.
Cube has made the following comments and recommendations for consideration as part of any future
QAQC work:
1. Coarse duplicate samples and pulp duplicate samples should be produced and analysed as
additional checks on the precision and reproducibility of the results. This was not done as a
routine and neither duplicate type are available from either SGS or KAL.
2. Although the performance of the blank assay samples is very good, the natural variability in the
assays for the Blank (internal material) makes the determination of possible contamination
issues difficult. A certified blank assay sample should be sourced to ensure a more
homogenous and predictable assay result.
3. It is recommended that a duplicate pulp sample be taken and analysed at the rate of a minimum
1:40 at the same time as the original pulp sample. This ensures that errors due to sampling
procedure and analytical method are removed. In addition, when the samples are pulverised
regular routine wet screening should be done in order to check that the grind size of the pulp is
to contract specifications.
4. It is recommended that coarse duplicates be prepared and analysed at the same lab at a rate of
a minimum 1:40 samples per batch.
5. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of further Au variability, it is recommended that all
laboratories be instructed to use the same amount of material for Au fire assay.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 32 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
7.0
DATABASE
7.1
Grid System
Grid conversions applied to Copperhead are as follows:
Local Grid North = Magnetic North + 6.18 degrees;
Local Grid RL = MGA94 RL
The grid conversion calculation is outlined in Figure 7-1.
Figure 7-1: Grid Transformation for Copperhead
7.2
Database Compilation
The data types and information sources contributing to the resource estimation work were as follows:






Drillhole data imported from the Hanking database on 08th July 2016;
Historic geological logging codes tables;
UG face assays in point data format;
Wireframes and DTMs for mineralisation interpretations, UG development and stopes, UG
shafts, and open pit survey;
Historic level plans (in PDF format) containing geological mapping and assay information; and
Historic and recent drilling and other technical reports for Copperhead.
Collar, survey, assay, geology and structural data from relevant drilling data were provided by HGM to
Cube as ASCII file format (*.csv).
A total of 3,531 holes were in the extracted files from HGM. Of these 2,684 holes were selected for use
in the mineral resource estimation. The selected holes contained 96,978 samples varying sample
lengths. A breakdown of holes types and drillhole statistics is summarised in Table 7-1.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 33 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Table 7-1: Summary of Samples by Hole Type for Copperhead Resource Model
Hole
Prefix
Type
Rank
Years
Location
BCRC
RC
3
1986-87
Surface
C/CC
DD
2
19471960
UG
CHA
PD
3
-
CHD
DD
2
CHR
RC
CHRD/
DD
# of
holes
metres
ave
depth
#
samples
sample
length
Ave
length
31
1,538
49.61
769
1,538.0
2.00
1,962
58,055
29.59
47,194
39,397.0
0.83
Surface
98
3,972
40.53
1,792
5,706.0
3.18
1995-96
UG/Pit
138
23,121
167.54
11,154
11,827.5
1.06
1
1995-97
Surface
170
20,052
117.95
19,593
19,593.0
1.00
RC/
DD
1
2010-11
Surface
18
10,819
601.06
1,867
1,596.4
0.86
CS
DD
2
1947
Surface
11
4,831
439.22
516
453.7
0.88
H
RC
3
-
87
5,313
61.07
5,313
5,313.0
1.00
PDH
PD
3
-
149
8,820
59.19
8,544
8,758.0
1.03
SH
RC
3
-
7
107.50
15.36
85
85.0
1.00
SPH
RC
3
-
13
151
11.62
151
151.0
1.00
2,684
136,780
50.96
5,829
5,766.70
0.99
Surface/
Pit
Surface/
Pit
Surface/
Pit
Surface/
Pit
TOTAL
7.3
Additional Data Supplied
HGM provided Cube with the following additional digital information during the resource estimation work;





7.4
Additional historical technical reports for information on precious drilling activities;
A spreadsheet containing bench by bench mine reconciliation data;
Resource parameter file containing BD assignment for 2000 resource estimate;
Previous block model files from 1995, 1997 and 2000 resource estimates for Copperhead; and
Bulk density information was sourced from previous estimation parameter files for block
modelling.
Database Structure
All the supplied drillhole data was compiled into an MS Access drillhole database
(Cube_CPH_DB_2016_07_08.mdb). The database was then mapped to Surpac mining software
(version 6.7.2). A description of the database and the relevant tables and fields is shown in Table 7-2.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 34 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Table 7-2: Cube Drill Drillhole Database Structure for Copperhead Resource Model
DB Table
Cube Field
hole_id
Collar
Collar Easting
y
Collar Northing
z
Collar RL
max_Depth
Total Hole Depth
hole_path
Downhole trace (Linear or Curved)
Rank
Drill Loc
Driill Collar location - Surface, Pit or UG
DDH, RD, RC, RAB, AC
Year Drilled
Year Drilled
hole_id
Hole Name
dip
azimuth
dhs_method
Downhole Depth of Survey
Drillhole Inclination
Drillhole Azimuth (MGA) or Mag Azimuth
Downhole survey method
Priority
Coding for using in data or ignoring
Orig Azi
Original azimuth record
Mag Azi
Magnetic Azimuth Record
Nat Grid ID
Grid ID
hole_id
Hole Name
samp_id
Sample Id
depth_from
depth_to
Interval
Sample Type
au_use
au_ppm_org
Interval Depth From
Interval Depth To
Sample Interval
Sample type- RC chip; core; rock chip, etc
Au ppm Cube amended record - negative, 0, blank values
have assigned background values
Au ppm original client record
Au_equ
Au_equivalent calculation
hole_id
Hole Name
depth_from
depth_to
Interval
Interval Depth From
Interval Depth To
Lith Interval
Rock Code
Cube Assigned Major Rock code unit (SBL Legend)
Lith 1 Code
Amended descriptions from Orginal Lith codes received
Lith 1 Grainsize
Sample grainsize desc
Lith 1 Texture
Sample texture desc
Lith 1 Code Orig
Lithology
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Drill Program assigned number
Name of Project
depth
Geology
Completeness of data; design v. survey
Project
hole_type
Assay
Hole Name
x
Program Code
Survey
Description
Original Lith codes from data received
Main Lithology code
Page 35 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
7.5
Geology Records
For the geology records, as there are several generations of logging codes in the data set supplied, a
generalised rock code convention has been adopted, based on the SBL Geology Legend system
(Peters, 2010). Cube has made a new field in the Geology records called Rock_Code but has
maintained the historic lithology code fields for future reference and amendments where required.
Table 7-3: Cube Drill Drillhole Database – Rock Code Legend for Copperhead Resource Model
7.6
Cube
Rock_Code
Description
Legend Colour name
NR
Not recorded
grey
NL
No Logging record
grey
VOID
UG Void
white
XBF
Backfill
white
Xx
Unknown Unit
white
Zm
Unknown Unit
white
SOIL
Soils
brown
CLAY
Laterite, Sap clays
maize
U
Ultramafics
plum
Uu
UM, tcs schists/rock
plum
M
Mafics
forest green
Ma
Mafic Amphib
forest green
Mb
Mafic basalts
forest green
Mu
Mafic undiff, CT Rock
forest green
MD
Dolerite Dyke
blue
I
Intermediate
orange
F
Felsics
pale pink
Asy
Syenite Rock
pale pink
Acb
Carbonate Rock
cyan
BIF
Banded Iron Fm
orchid
S
Sediments
pale yellow
DOM
Dolomite
yellow
QR
Quartz Rock
red
Vn
Veins Undiff
red
MZ
Min Zone
red
FZ
Fault Zone
blue
Legend
Colour
Treatment of Below Detection Samples
During database validation and verification by Cube the following changes were made to the Cube MS
Access database:


All sample intervals within the assay records with au ppm below detection limit and recorded as
either 0 or -0.01 have been entered as 0.001 ppm Au.
Sample gaps, or missing have had the interval recorded as -2.0 in the database and given a
value of 0.0 for compositing where intervals are within the mineralised domains.
A summary of the changes to the Au_ppm field are listed in Table 7-4.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 36 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Cube created a new field called au_use to make these amendments and kept the original au_ppm field
in the Cube database in order to maintain a reference to the original record if further amendments were
required.
The conversion of negative numbers to an assigned background value allows for more representative
data for compositing during the exploratory data analysis. Having an assigned negative value for
missing samples and samples lost in process means these intervals can be ignored by the compositing
routine.
Table 7-4: Summary of Samples by Hole Type for Copperhead Resource Model
7.7
HGM Au_ppm
Field
Cube – Au_use
Field
-1
0.001
5,206
Below detection sample
-0.02
0.001
1,386
Below detection sample
-0.01
0.001
1,408
Below detection sample
-0.005
0.001
293
Below detection sample or lost/destroyed
-0.001
0.001
753
Below detection sample
0
0.001
14,199
Blank Field
-2
22
Interval not sampled or unknown.
Interval not
recorded
-2
17
Un-sampled interval or no record in HGM
data.
No. of
records
Explanation
All assumed to be below detection samples.
Multi-Element Data
No multi-element analysis data is present in the data set provided for this mineral resource estimate.
Both pyrite and pyrrhotite have been logged in some high grade mineralised veins at Copperhead,
indicating a possible correlation with gold mineralisation.
Cube recommends that future drilling includes some multi-element analysis for a suite of elements in
order to assess which elements may be related with gold mineralisation, and to further assess any
deleterious elements associated with the mineralised zones.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 37 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
8.0
DATA VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION
Validation and verification of drillhole data was conducted for the Copperhead drilling database.
8.1
Data Validation
The HGM validation process includes checking for negative, overlapping or missing assays and assays
outside expected range and survey data.
Cube also completed data validation checks prior to exploratory data analysis for resource estimation.
The drilling data was found to have some selective sampling in the older holes within the mineralised
domains. These sample gap intervals within the domains were highlighted and assigned as new records
back into the Cube database and given a -2 value in the final assay field used for gold estimation. All -2
intervals were given a value of 0.0g/t Au in the data analysis and estimation.
A listing of holes with no assay and/or geology records was recorded during the data validation. No
other material discrepancies were detected in the collar, survey, assay and geology data.
These validations included the following checks









Check for hole collar outliers for Easting, Northing, RL that may be erroneous;
Any discrepancies in maximum hole depths between collar data and assay, survey and geology
records;
Checks for duplicate numbering, missing data, and interval error checks using validation rules in
MS Excel before importing records into MS Access;
The survey table drillhole azimuths were checked and verified to be within the 0 to 360 degrees
expected range;
The survey table was checked for any positive or near zero drillhole inclinations;
The assay table was checked for overlaps of assay sample intervals;
The assay table was checked for negative assays, missing assays or assays outside of
expected ranges;
Checking drillholes using visual inspection of the drillholes in Surpac 3D workspace to identify
inconsistencies of drillhole traces (un-natural hole deviations); and
Checking in Surpac 3D workspace of drillhole collar positions to the topography, noting the open
pit location and surface works (e.g. waste dumps) with respect to holes drilled pre-mining and
post-mining.
All relevant database validation errors and adjustments to data by Cube are recorded and noted in the
Cube database for any future review.
Collar Records
Cube has noted that as no topography DTM was supplied with the data set then surface drilling collar
positions could not be validated. There are many holes in the database drilled from within the open pit
and from UG levels for which there are supplied DTMs and 3DM information that has been checked for
accuracy of the collar positions.
Only one UG hole was noted that had the drill hole trace extending above the estimated topographic
surface.
Downhole Survey Records
For the down hole survey records, there were several obvious un-natural hole deviations in the
downhole trace for several UG holes. Where this was found to occur the cause was due to the lack of
downhole survey near the end of hole depth and was corrected by copying the last downhole survey
with azimuth and dip to the end of hole depth. As many of the old holes used Eastman single camera
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 38 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
shots, where drilling has intersected BIF units there is the likelihood of some magnetic interference. The
holes drilled in the 2010-11 drill program used gyroscopic downhole survey tool to counter any magnetic
interference.
There are many holes in the data set that have relatively short hole depths so any effects of hole
deviation either caused by magnetic interference or instrument error on the accuracy of sample locations
and mineralisation domain boundary definitions would be minimal.
Collar and survey validation discrepancies and adjustments by Cube are listed in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1: Collar and DH Survey Validation Issues for Copperhead Drilling Data Set
Hole ID
Validation Query
Action
EOH Amended to Assay Max
Depth
EOH Amended to Assay Max
Depth
EOH Amended to Assay Max
Depth
C2001
Assay depth = 66.29, collar EOH = 8.53
C2002
Assay depth = 138.68, collar EOH = 12.34
C2006
Assay depth = 19.05, collar EOH -= 16.15
H091
Apparent Northing Error
AR001
Northing record out of range ("38820")
C2542
No DHS data
C1987
Azimuth - un-natural variation b/w collar & next record
Removed DH reading
C2002
Azimuth - un-natural variation b/w collar & next record
Removed DH reading
C2003
Azimuth - un-natural variation b/w collar & next record
Removed DH reading
C2004
Azimuth - un-natural variation b/w collar & next record
Removed DH reading
C2005
Azimuth - un-natural variation b/w collar & next record
Removed DH reading
C2006
Azimuth - un-natural variation b/w collar & next record
Removed DH reading
C2262
Azimuth - un-natural variation b/w collar & next record
Removed DH reading
C2003
DHS depth 11.43 is greater than the maximum collar
depth of 5.64.
Amended Collar Depth = DHS
depth
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Northing Amended to 9950 N
Replaced with dummy value
consistent with drill fence
Added Azi dummy record CHECK in SURPAC
Cube Comment
Not affecting
Resources
Not used in
Estimation
Page 39 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Assay and Geology Records
A number of historic holes were found not to contain assay and lithological data. These holes are listed
in Table 8-2and Table 8-3. For the geology records Cube received PDF files of Annual Drilling reports
containing drill logs for some holes listed.
Table 8-2: Missing Assay Records and Sample Errors for Copperhead Drilling Data Set
Hole ID
Validation Query
Action
Cube Comment
BCM46
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Not used in Estimation
C1756
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Hole ignored in resource
C1866
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Hole ignored in resource
C2209
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Hole ignored in resource
CC181
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Hole ignored in resource
CHD383
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Hole ignored in resource
CHD459
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Hole ignored in resource
CHD503
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Hole ignored in resource
CHRD001A
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Abandoned Hole
CHRD001W1
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Abandoned Hole
CHRD002
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Abandoned Hole
CHRD002A
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Abandoned Hole
CHRD004
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Abandoned Hole
CHRD004A
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Abandoned Hole
CHRD004B
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Abandoned Hole
CHRD006
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Abandoned Hole
CS8
No Assay Records for this hole
Allocated -2 Value: 0m to EOH
Hole ignored in resource
C1987
Sample interval overlap at 6.1m
Interval Error corrected
C1988
Sample interval overlap at 6.1m
Interval Error corrected
C702
Sample interval overlap at 39.63m
Interval Error corrected
C702
Sample interval overlap at 40.4m
Interval Error corrected
C702
Sample interval overlap at 41.16m
Interval Error corrected
CS9
Sample interval overlap at 388.62m
Interval Error corrected
CS9
Sample interval overlap at 390.45m
Interval Error corrected
CS9
Sample interval overlap at 392.12m
Interval Error corrected
CS9
Sample interval overlap at 393.65m
Interval Error corrected
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 40 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Table 8-3: Missing Lithology Records for Copperhead Drilling Data Set
Hole ID
Validation Query
Action
Cube Comment
AR Series
No Logging Records
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
Not used in Estimation
BCWT6
No Logging Records
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
Not used in Estimation
BF Series
No Logging Records
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
Not used in Estimation
BFR Series
No Logging Records
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
Not used in Estimation
BFRC Series
No Logging Records
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
C4 to C3002
Most Logging records not in digital
format
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
CC181
No Logging Records for this hole
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
CHD307 - 390
No Logging Records for this hole
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
CHD400 - 402
No Logging Records for this hole
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
CHD459
No Logging Records for this hole
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
CHD503
No Logging Records for this hole
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
CHR508 - 527
No Logging Records for this hole
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
CHRD001W1
No Logging Records for this hole
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
Hole Abandoned
CHRD004
No Logging Records for this hole
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
Hole Abandoned
CHRD004B
No Logging Records for this hole
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
Hole Abandoned
CS Series
No Logging Records
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
CT Series
No Logging Records
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
H Series
No Logging Records
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
HVR125
No Logging Records
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
PDH Series
No Logging Records
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
SH Series
No Logging Records
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
SPH Series
No Logging Records
Allocated NL Code: 0m to EOH
8.2
Some logging in database & on
level plots
Not used in Estimation
Database Hole Ranking Criteria
A range of criteria was applied for the ranking, starting with the hole quality (e.g. RAB and percussion
holes are used to assist with interpretations but not used in the compositing and estimation work due to
sample quality). Holes Ranked 4 and 5 were not used in the estimate. Holes ranked 1 to 3 were used in
the estimate; the explanation for the rankings is listed in Table 8-4.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 41 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Table 8-4: Cube Drillhole Ranking Criteria
Collar Record
Rank
8.3
Description
1
All Data present, preliminary validation completed
2
DH survey information for collar only (design); some design co-ords; Assay & Lith all data present.
3
Collar & DH Survey - some are design data; All assay present; No Lith present.
4
Collar & DH Survey - some are design data; No Assay present; All Lith present.; Issues with DH surveys
5
Collar & DH Survey - some are design data; No Assay and Lith present; maybe design holes or abandoned
holes. RAB & Percussion Holes.
Topography
A topographic surface was not provided with the data received. An open pit DTM surface was provided
and surface RL from the crest of the pit was expanded to cover the resource area. As near surface
mineralisation has been depleted, a topography surface was not required for the mineral resource
estimation.
An expanded surface was created from the pit crest to encompass the mineral resource estimation
boundary (Figure 8-1). A value of 500m RL was created for the area surrounding the open pit out to the
boundary limit.
The approximate topography model is considered to be adequate for the purposes of resource
estimation, evaluation and reporting as there were no mineralisation domains projected to the surface
for the estimate. Surface drillhole collar positions however, were unable to be validated in the absence
of a topographic surface.
Figure 8-1: Copperhead Open Pit Survey with Projected Surface Topography Wireframe
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 42 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
For final mining infrastructure designs for engineering studies, additional ground surveys of local terrain
would be required around old workings to accurately produce a surface topography DTM.
8.4
Comparison of Data Types
The drillholes used for the Copperhead mineral resource were completed by a number of historic
exploration companies and HGM, using a variety of drilling methods and assaying laboratories. RC, DD
and percussion drilling have all been employed for the resource estimates.
No quantitative test work has been done on the relative accuracy of the different drilling methods
employed for the resource. It is assumed that DD and RC drilling methods have similar sampling
confidence. RAB and percussion drilling was used to help constrain the geological boundaries of the
model only. No sample assay data from RAB drilling was included in the exploratory data analysis and
used for the block model estimation work.
Laboratory checks analysis reported in Section 6.3.4 was completed by SBL for the 2010-11 drilling to
assess the same data from different laboratories for resource estimation purposes. As noted the data is
considered to be well correlated, with a correlation coefficient of 0.994.
Cube has concluded that the Copperhead dataset is suitable for mineral resource estimation. For future
updates it is recommended that comparison of data types be completed for the following data:




8.5
Surface RC & DD holes versus historic UG DD holes – assay data statistical analysis for upper
area with denser drill spacing covering each of the holes types;
RC Drilling versus DD drilling – compare assay data for any bias;
Upper Zone versus Lower Zone – compare assay data statistics for denser drilling pattern
versus areas of sparse drilling;
Northern Series versus Southern Series – compare data statistics for analysis of variation
between the two host units (dolomite host vs BIF host).
Data Verification
8.5.1 Summary
No recent drilling programs have taken place at the Copperhead Gold Project, and therefore no
independent sampling has been undertaken by Cube.
Drillhole Collar Survey
Collar co-ordinates in the database have not been checked by Cube against the survey pick-up report
as there are no records available.
The surface terrain is flat, with generally good access to drill sites apart from old workings and areas of
the open pit which are currently inaccessible. Any minor difference between the design and surveyed
collar positions will not make a material difference to the current resource estimate.
Downhole Survey
Downhole surveys checks by Cube have only been done on the HGM data contained within the ASCII
file as supplied. Downhole surveys have not been checked against original survey photographic discs,
contract drillers or surveyors electronic survey data files, or transcribed information on the drillhole logs
or summary sheets.
Any significant corrections made by HGM are recorded in the database survey records comment field.
As part of the validation work, Cube checked drillhole traces visually using Surpac software to ensure
there were no errors as a result of grid transformations between the local grid (mine grid) and MGA grid.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 43 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Assay Data
Drillhole assay data has not been checked against the original hardcopy laboratory assay reports and
historical drilling results from available Annual Reports by the operating company at the time of drilling.
UG wall sampling assays plotted on level plans have been checked where there are significant intervals
within the resource area.
Data entry and conversion to metric of historical data was completed by the companies which have
operated at Copperhead and are described in historical documents relating to the corresponding periods
of operation.
Cube has reviewed the sample preparation and analysis flow sheets for both laboratories used for the
2010-11 drilling program as part of the data verification process. All aspects of the sample preparation
and analysis for gold mineralisation are suitable for this mineral resource estimation.
Cube has not undertaken independent sampling of material from the Copperhead mineralised zones.
Geological Logging
For all drilling historical and new all geological logging codes have been standardised by Cube and
entered into the database. Cube was supplied with limited geological logging data. No original logs from
the 2010-11 drilling were supplied, although detailed structural analysis and core photo images were
supplied with the SBL Drilling Report (Peters, 2011).
8.5.2 Significant Intersection Checks
For significant interval estimates for reporting from the 2010-11 drilling in Table 8-5, length weighting is
used to ensure a logical mean grade is determined. The primary assay results have been used for
reporting of all significant intersections, and for mineral resource estimation. No averaging with field
duplicates or laboratory repeats was done.
Cube has verified selected intercepts within the mineralised domains using downhole composite
calculations in Surpac or by manual calculations in MS Excel.
Table 8-5: 2010-11 Drilling – Significant Intersections
Hole ID
From
To
Assay
(au ppm)
Width
Intercept
Target
CHRD002D
784.56
806.89
7.62
22.33
22.33m @ 7.62g/t
Western BIF
CHRD002D
817.1
822.18
4.16
5.08
5.08m @ 4.16 g/t
Western BIF
8.5.3 Hole Twinning
No hole twinning analysis has been conducted in the resource area. Underground wall sampling and UG
DD drilling has been compared against the surface DD and RC drilling in close proximity and shows
good correlation with the mineralisation domain structures.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 44 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
9.0
9.1
GEOLOGICAL MODELLING
Surface and Underground Wireframes
An open pit surface wireframe file and 3DMs for the Copperhead UG were imported into Surpac by
Cube from the original files received from HGM. The files were validated and saved as DTM and 3DM
surfaces (Table 9-1).
The topographic surface validated UG 3DMs as illustrated in Figure 9-1, are included in the final model
for designation of material type for the assignment of depletion.
The surface and UG depletions were used to ensure all mineralisation wireframes were depleted by the
voids with all material above the surface and inside depletions set to zero for grade and density.
Table 9-1: Copperhead Project – Surface DTM and Underground 3DM Wireframes Listing
Description
Copperhead
Open Pit
HGM File Name
Cube Convention File Name
Cube Comments
ch_pit.dtm.dm
hgm_ch_pit_2016.dtm
Cube expanded pit crest survey to extend
topo layer and cover block model area
UG Shafts
shaft below level 10.dtm
cube_cph_shaft_2016.dtm
UG Shaft Locations, 3DM validated
UG
Development
copperhead_ug_develop
ment_modified.dtm
cube_cph_dev_all_2016.dtm
UG Development, 3DM validated
UG Stopes Northern
northern_series_stopes_
met.dtm
cube_cph_stopes_nth_2016.dtm
UG Stopes, 3DM validated
UG Stopes Southern
southern_series_stopes
_met.dtm
cube_cph_stopes_sth_2016.dtm
UG Stopes, 3DM validated
Figure 9-1: Perspective View Showing Open Pit Survey with Projected Surface Topography Wireframe –
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 45 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
9.2
Geological Interpretation and Wireframing
Oxidation Surfaces
Reports reviewed from the open pit mining period at Copperhead noted oxide and transitional zones
during the mining activities. However, no oxidation surfaces were supplied with the data set received
from HGM. Based on previous information from the 2000 mineral resource estimate parameter file, a
base of oxidation was set at an RL of 420m RL for all lithological units and used for the assignment of
BD values for the 2000 estimate. Cube has adopted this RL as the boundary for the Top of Fresh Rock
and BD assignment for the July 2016 mineral resource estimate. No oxidation records were included in
the logging data set received in order to review and update the oxidation boundaries for the Copperhead
estimation.
The July 2016 mineral resource estimate is located below the nominated RL for Top of Fresh Rock
(420m RL), therefore the lack of oxidation data is not material to this resource estimate.
Cube recommends future updates to the resource estimate should include following up of oxidation
logging in the geology logs and interpretation of new surfaces for the oxidation boundaries.
Lithological and Structural Interpretation and Wireframing
No geological or structural interpretation models were supplied with the data set received from HGM.
Cube recommends future updates to the resource estimate should include following up of lithological
logging in the geology logs and available level plans and pit mapping information.
Updated interpretations of lithological and structural domains boundaries can be used to improve future
mineral resource modelling and estimation for Copperhead.
Mineralisation Interpretation and Wireframing
The known Copperhead mineralisation extends continuously in two major shoots (Northern Series and
Southern Series) over 750m vertical depth and plunges toward the NW over 1km length from the
surface.
The following comments describe the process for interpretation and modelling of the mineralisation
domains:





Mineralised zone interpretations were initially provided by HGM as 3DMs;
All mineralisation 3DMs were validated and saved as new 3DMs using Cube conventions for
naming mineralisation domains (Table 9-2);
Adjustments were made to some of the domains where 3DM validation errors were detected
and amendments made in order to improve continuity and wireframe integrity;
All of the drillholes ranked from 1 to 3 in the Cube database and drilled in the vicinity of the
resources were used to delineate the domain boundaries for later statistical, compositing and
variography work; and
Cube compared historical drilling data with available logging records to assist with a review of
the mineralisation interpretations. Several historical UG level plans were used to assist with
confirming lithological trends and assessing complexity and continuity of the major units hosting
gold mineralisation.
Cube recommends for future updates to the interpretation and mineralisation domain modelling, the
Southern Series interpretation be reviewed as there is likely to be a correlation between the folding
structures observed and modelled for the Northern Series Domain 1001, and with the Southern Series
BIF hosted domains.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 46 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
For the current interpretation, the Southern Series main BIF hosted mineralisation has been split
between an upper steep zone (Domain 2002) and a lower shallower dipping zone (Domain 2001). It is
possible these mineralised zones are linked and occur as a folded structure, similar to the dolomite
hosted Northern Series zone (Domain 1001).
Table 9-2: Copperhead - Domain Codes, Files and Descriptions
Cube
Domain
Code
HGM File Name
Cube File Name
Lithological
Unit
Description
1001
north_series_1607.dtm
cube_cph_dom_1001
Dolomite
North Main Folded Domain
1002
"
cube_cph_dom_1002
Dolomite
North Minor - Steep
2001
south_series_east_swing.dtm
cube_cph_dom_2001
BIF
South Lower Domain - Shallow
2002
south_series_west_swing.dtm
cube_cph_dom_2002
BIF
South Main Domain - steep
2003
"
cube_cph_dom_2003
BIF
South Minor Domain - steep
The mineralisation domains for Copperhead as illustrated in Figure 9-2. Cross Section reference and a
cross section slice of the mineralisation domains are illustrated in Figure 9-3 and Figure 9-4.
Figure 9-2: Copperhead Mineralisation Domains – Perspective View Looking SE
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 47 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Figure 9-3: Plan View Showing Cross Section References
Figure 9-4: Copperhead Interpretation - Cross Section View Looking West at 1100E
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 48 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Overall the confidence in the geological interpretation is good as a result of a predominance of DD core,
and the historical information recorded from both UG and more recent open pit operations. Both open pit
mining and underground development and wall mapping of the mineralisation confirm earlier drill hole
logging.
Previous Interpretation Findings (from Reference Sources)
Open Pit Geology Observations
The Copperhead geology is structurally complex, with at least 3 ductile (folding) events interpreted by
mine geologist during the open pit operation. Overall the mineralisation envelope plunges at 45 o to 277 o.
Within this overall plunge the host unit fold dramatically, and the mineralisation within these folds and
within the plunge has another preferred orientation.
Both historical UG workings and more recent open pit mining have provided exposure to some of the
rock types, structures and styles of mineralisation at Copperhead. The open cut and historic UG data
allowed the open pit mine geologists to do detailed interpretation of the orebody extents. Interpretation
was based on all available data, including drilling (grade distribution), structural and lithological, and was
done from plan, to section, back to plan on 10m intervals.
A re-interpretation of the structure/litho-stratigraphy of the Copperhead gold deposit through mine
geology work was undertaken by Whitelock (1997b), who interpreted that gold mineralisation at
Copperhead, is controlled by one or a series of ductile deformation events. He noted three major
deformation events D1-D3, each of which was observed to have associated gold, making it difficult to
ascertain the mineralisation’s absolute timing. Indeed previous interpretations of the structural history at
Copperhead have been many and varied, and it’s highly likely that the mineralisation history is equally
as complex. What is largely accepted is that there has been preferential concentration of gold within fold
hinges and re-fold hinges, largely owing to, ‘a near-orthogonal relationship between D1-D2-D3’ allowing,
‘significant structural parting of these structurally thickened zones facilitating attack by mineralising
fluids’ Whitlock(1997b). Mineralisation is also thought to be enhanced by the physio-chemical attributes
of the BIF and dolomite altered Northern Series.
2010-11 Drilling Observations
SBL carried out structural logging and analyses on oriented DD core which assisted with the
interpretation and modelling process. Previous reports had indicated the Southern Series as becoming
less significant with depth. Drilling from the 2010-11 programs however resulted in one intersection at
depth containing 22.33m @ 7.62 g/t Au. The anomalous mineralisation intersected in this drillhole
appears to correlate with the plunge continuation of the Southern Series mineralisation.
Logging information recorded from the 2010-2011 drilling noted the following: Mineralisation within the
Southern Series (Western BIF) corresponds with an increased intensity of folding; sulphidation (Po
replacement along BIF banding); and fracturing (filled with Po and +/- Cb).
Interpretation of the 2010-11 drilling data suggests that high-grade mineralisation is more tightly
constrained than originally thought, with grade almost exclusively present in a thin shoots within an
intensely deformed portion of the Southern series BIF western limb.
Analysis of initial structural data proved inconclusive; although stereo projections supported the overall
plunge of the mine sequence 45o to 277o (providing confidence in both the model and the structural
measurements themselves), they failed to provide the orientation and plunge folding thought to control
mineralisation.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 49 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
10.0 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND COMPOSITING
10.1
Sample Flagging
Drilling intervals within mineralisation domains were flagged with a unique database code in the
following manner:





10.2
Within the Cube Copperhead MS Access database, a table named “zonecode” was created to
store the unique codes;
The mineralised domain was initially coded using the drillhole intersect wireframe process in
Surpac to write a unique code representing the interpreted domain;
A four digit numbering system was created to define the domains which were stored in the
‘zone_code’ field within the zonecode table (e.g. 1001 = Copperhead domain 1001;
Cube then graphically checked each intercept and made manual adjustments where necessary;
and
The zonecode table unique codes were then used to extract sample and composite data
combinations for later statistical analysis and estimation.
Sample Lengths
Within the Copperhead database there are a total of 94,418.63m of sample intervals of varying sample
lengths as illustrated below (Figure 10-1). The histogram shows that most of the sampled intervals were
less than or equal to 1m lengths. The average sample length is 0.84m, and median value of 0.76 m
(equivalent to standard length of samples for most of the old UG DD drilling).
Figure 10-1: Copperhead Database – Assay Length Histogram
Note: Histogram data includes only sample data used for the July 2016 Copperhead resource model.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 50 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
10.3
Compositing
Several factors were considered when determining the most appropriate compositing length for the
mineralisation for the Copperhead model:




Sample length statistics;
Mineralisation complexity and dimensions;
Homogeneity of gold mineralisation in the zones; and
Suitability of the composites for the Mineral Resource estimate.
For all mineralised domains a 1m downhole composites was applied in order to reduce the variability
inherent in raw samples or a smaller composite length relative to estimation resource model block
dimensions. The mineralisation has been shown to be complex and often undulating and in narrow
zones relating to the isoclinal folding within the host rock units.
The compositing approach for the Copperhead Mineral Resource was carried out in the following
manner:







For grade modelling, RAB and percussion assay data was not used for the interpolation process
due to the potential for downhole smearing from this drilling method (rank code of 4 & 5);
Compositing was done using Surpac software on samples selected inside the mineralised
domain being modelled;
Composites were extracted from the ‘au_use’ field within the Cube Copperhead MS Access
database table ‘Assays’;
Intervals with the -2 assay value in the au_use field were given null values in the compositing
routine (mostly un-sampled intervals from the UG DD holes);
Sample data was composited to 1m downhole length using a best fit-method, to ensure equal
weighting within each interval, but maintaining a length as close as possible to the 1m interval;
Composites that failed the length threshold of 50% (0.5m) were length weighted and added
back into the preceding full composite; and
The composite files for each mineralised domain were viewed in Surpac to analyse spatial
grade distribution as part of spatial data analysis.
The structure for composite files created in Surpac is summarised in Table 10-1.
Table 10-1: Structure of Surpac Composite Files
Field
Description
D1
Au g/t – Uncut composite (1m or 2m interval
D2
Hole ID
D3
Interval Depth From
D4
Interval Depth To
D6
Downhole Composite Length
D15
Zonecode (Domain number)
D20
Au g/t – Cut composites grades
A complete listing of the mineralisation zonecodes and number of composites is shown in Table 10-2.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 51 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Table 10-2: Listing of All Domain Codes and Composites
Zone
Composite File Name
Domain
Code
Wireframe Vol.
(undiluted) (m3)
Composite
Length
# of
Holes
# of Comps
Northern
Series
comp_cph_1m_cut_1001
1001
3,743,102
1
1,486
23,510
comp_cph_1m_cut_1002
1002
181,222
1
37
341
comp_cph_1m_cut_2001
2001
1,947,368
1
189
4,219
comp_cph_1m_cut_2002
2002
4,751,239
1
305
6,517
comp_cph_1m_cut_2003
2003
555,425
1
112
2,611
Total
5
11,178,356
Southern
Series
10.4 Statistical Analysis
10.4.1 Background
Statistical and visual analysis for gold was undertaken to validate the overall domain controls on
mineralisation and to determine whether further domaining was required on the basis of drill method or
weathering. The aim was also to evaluate the need for special treatment of obvious statistical outliers.
The statistical analysis undertaken can be summarised as:




Domain Analysis – to investigate whether interpreted domains contained similar gold population
distributions;
Weathering Analysis – to investigate whether composites required sub-domaining based on
weathering (not completed for Copperhead);
High Cut Sensitivity Analysis – to investigate outliers to determine whether high grade assay
limits were to be applied to the composite data; and
Metal at Risk Analysis – assessment of the impact of applying a range of gold top cuts.
10.4.2 Statistical Analysis of Mineralised Domains
This analysis involved assessing the gold grade populations for all domains to determine whether
domaining has provided adequate grouping of mineralisation populations.
Northern Series (Dolomite Hosted Mineralisation)
When comparing the two domains for the Northern Series, there are some variations at the higher grade
populations, but overall there is no evidence of significant variances in the grade populations (Table
10-3 and Figure 10-2). Domain 1002 has only a small amount of sample data but still displays a similar
population trend. Raw data lower grade inflection occurs around 1.0g/t Au.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 52 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Table 10-3: Summary of 1m Composite Statistics for Copperhead – Northern Series
Domain #
Data Type
1001
RAW
1002
1m comp
Uncut
1m Comp
Cut100
RAW
1m comp
Uncut
1m Comp
Cut25
Number
28,069
23,510
23,510
335
341
341
Minimum
0.001
0
0
0.001
0
0
Maximum
849.71
733.75
100.00
79.36
56.23
25.00
TOP CUT
100
25
Mean
3.27
3.05
2.79
3.70
2.73
2.30
Median
0.31
0.446
0.446
0.26
0.075
0.075
Std Dev
17.321
13.677
8.275
10.208
7.589
5.289
Variance
300.033
187.05
68.481
104.197
57.595
27.97
Std Error
0.001
0.001
0
0.03
0.022
0.016
Coeff Var
5.296
4.484
2.961
2.761
2.782
2.299
Figure 10-2: Log Probability Plot – 1m Composites for Northern Series Domains (Au g/t)
Southern Series (BIF Hosted Mineralisation)
The three Southern Series domains were compared on the same log normal (“LN”) distribution plot for
population similarities and to check for any domain mixing and for the impacts of grade outliers.. The
graphical data did not suggest any evidence of mixing of grades despite the complexity of the
mineralised structures observed from the historical logging reports and open pit mapping.
Tabulation of statistics and log-probability plots are shown in Table 10-4 and in Figure 10-3
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 53 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
The graphical comparisons between similar BIF hosted domains shows well correlated population
trends. The lower grade inflection appears around lower grades than for the Northern Series
mineralisation. Any indication of domain mixing within these zones is not considered material to the
mineral resource estimate.
Table 10-4: Summary of 1m Composites Statistics for Southern Series
Domain #
Data Type
2001
RAW
2002
1m
comp
Uncut
1m
Comp
Cut30
RAW
2003
1m
comp
Uncut
1m
Comp
Cut40
RAW
1m
comp
Uncut
1m
Comp
Cut20
Number
4,450
4,219
4,219
6,506
6,517
6,517
2,628
2,611
2,611
Minimum
0.001
0
0
0.001
0
0
0.001
0
0
Maximum
109.16
68.28
30.00
608.69
450.73
40.00
51.62
51.62
20.00
TOP CUT
30
40
20
Mean
1.41
1.22
1.17
1.43
1.25
1.13
0.97
0.91
0.89
Median
0.09
0.137
0.137
0.2
0.214
0.214
0.13
0.17
0.17
Std Dev
4.87
3.645
3.117
9.157
6.954
2.957
2.972
2.506
2.186
Variance
23.712
13.289
9.715
83.844
48.354
8.741
8.832
6.28
4.781
Std Error
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0
0.001
0.001
0.001
Coeff Var
3.449
2.996
2.654
6.388
5.569
2.618
3.068
2.750
2.472
Figure 10-3: Log Probability Plot – 1m Composites for Southern Series Domains (Au g/t)
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 54 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
10.4.3 High Grade Assay Cuts
Composite gold grade distributions within all the mineralised domains were assessed by Cube to
determine if a high grade cut should be applied.
Cube used grade histograms, log-transformed probability plots and percentile analysis for each
individual domain to identify population outliers. Spatial location of the outliers was taken into
consideration for the application of high grade cuts. The top cuts selected for each domain are listed
along with raw statistical comparisons in Table 10-5.
Table 10-5: Gold Grade Top Cuts for Selected July 2016 Copperhead Model
Domain
No. of
comps.
Top Cut
(Au g/t)
No. of
Comps.
cut
Mean
raw
comp. Au
g/t
CV of
Raw
Comps
Mean of
Cut
comp. Au
g/t
CV of Cut
Comps
Mean of
Decl Cut
comp. Au
g/t
CV of
Decl Cut
Comps
1001
23,510
100
48
3.05
4.48
2.79
2.96
2.57
3.07
1002
341
25
10
2.73
2.78
2.30
2.30
1.61
2.54
2001
4,219
30
9
1.22
3.00
1.17
2.65
1.13
2.74
2002
6,517
40
13
1.25
5.57
1.13
2.62
0.93
2.87
2003
2,611
20
10
0.91
2.75
0.89
2.47
0.81
2.59
10.4.4 Metal at Risk Analysis
A metal at risk was undertaken to quantify the proportion of contained metal after applying various top
cuts attributed to the composites for each mineralised domain. Several factors were reviewed in
assessing the impact of applying a range of gold accumulation top cuts including:



Number of values above top cut;
Impact of top cut on average grade of the resource estimate; and
Amount of metal removed after top cutting.
The data in Table 10-6, Table 10-7 and Table 10-8 shows a range of top cuts selected for raw 1m
composites and declustered composite data for the main estimation domains (Domains 1001, 2001 and
2002). For the top cuts applied to the major domains in general, relatively small numbers of outlier
values were affected by the application of the top cut to the estimation domains.
Examination of the metal at risk for high grade top cuts for the minor domains is not considered material
to the July 2016 model for Copperhead.
Table 10-6: Metal at Risk Sensitivity Analysis for Domain 1001
.
Top
Cut
# Comps
Raw Comps
Rank %ile
Declust. Comps
Au Mean
Au CV
% Metal
Au Mean
Au CV
% Metal
None
0
100.00%
3.00
4.59
0.00%
2.67
4.44
0.00%
200
16
99.93%
2.87
3.55
-4.41%
2.58
3.53
-3.30%
150
26
99.88%
2.82
3.30
-6.08%
2.55
3.34
-4.46%
100
48
99.77%
2.74
3.00
-8.76%
2.49
3.07
-6.63%
75
69
99.67%
2.67
2.81
-10.99%
2.44
2.90
-8.49%
50
139
99.33%
2.55
2.55
-14.97%
2.34
2.64
-12.40%
40
220
98.93%
2.47
2.40
-17.82%
2.26
2.49
-15.27%
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 55 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Table 10-7: Metal at Risk Sensitivity Analysis for Domain 2001
Top Cut
# Comps
Au Mean
Raw Comps
Au CV
% Metal
Rank %ile
Declust. Comps
Au Mean
Au CV
% Metal
None
0
100.00%
1.22
3.00
0.00%
1.19
3.25
0.00%
100
0
0.00%
1.22
3.00
0.00%
1.19
3.25
0.00%
50
5
99.91%
1.21
2.90
-0.79%
1.18
3.07
-1.54%
40
7
99.86%
1.19
2.77
-2.07%
1.15
2.89
-3.34%
30
9
99.81%
1.17
2.65
-3.48%
1.13
2.74
-5.23%
25
17
99.62%
1.16
2.58
-4.74%
1.11
2.65
-6.64%
20
30
99.31%
1.13
2.47
-6.89%
1.09
2.53
-8.88%
Table 10-8: Metal at Risk Sensitivity Analysis for Domain 2002
Top Cut
# Comps
Au Mean
Raw Comps
Au CV
% Metal
Rank %ile
Declust. Comps
Au Mean
Au CV
% Metal
None
0
100.00%
1.25
5.57
0.00%
1.01
5.72
0.00%
100
3
99.97%
1.18
3.29
-5.49%
0.96
3.47
-4.36%
50
7
99.91%
1.14
2.76
-8.41%
0.94
3.00
-6.67%
40
13
99.82%
1.13
2.62
-9.55%
0.93
2.87
-7.58%
30
16
99.77%
1.11
2.44
-11.24%
0.92
2.71
-8.94%
25
21
99.69%
1.10
2.35
-12.28%
0.91
2.63
-9.85%
20
31
99.54%
1.08
2.24
-13.86%
0.89
2.50
-11.61%
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 56 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
11.0 VARIOGRAPHY
11.1
Experimental Variography
The experimental variograms were modelled using a nugget and a number of spherical structures. The
nugget component was guided by the down-the-hole variogram from the corresponding estimation
domain. All variography work was completed using Snowden Supervisor (v8.6).
The variogram modelling for the Domains 1002 and 2003 resulted in generally poor variograms being
produced.
For each resource area there is the likely mixing as a result of data mixing due to some of the following
issues:




Mixing of oxide/transition with primary mineralisation;
Mixing of data of varying sample type (small diameter UG core versus larger diameter DD core
versus drill chips);
Complexity of structural orientation of the tight to isoclinal folding affecting mineralisation
orientations; and
The upper resource area below the pit has the issue of drillholes oriented sub-parallel to the
interpreted mineralisation direction due to the holes being drilled at a non- optimal intersection
angle from the open pit berms. This data is in sterilised areas – either potential crown pillar
areas, or areas that have been stoped out previously by UG mining.
Variogram models are illustrated in Figure 11-1, Figure 11-2 and Figure 11-3.
Figure 11-1: Back-Transformed Variograms Models for Domain 1001
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 57 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Figure 11-2: Back-Transformed Variograms Models for Domain 2001
Figure 11-3: Back-Transformed Variograms Models for Domain 2002
11.2
Variogram Models for Estimation
Variograms to be used in the estimation for all domains were generated by transforming the gold grade
data to Gaussian space (Normal Score), modelling the variogram, and then back-transforming the result
to real space. The back-transformed variogram model parameters are displayed in Table 11-1.
Detailed variography plots are presented in Appendix 4.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 58 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Table 11-1: Back-transformed Au Grade Variogram Parameters Used to Run OK Estimates
Domain
# of
structures
Nugget
Sill 1
Range 1
(m)
Sill 2
Range 2
(m)
1001
2
0.59
0.29
11
0.12
60
Structures
1&2
(Bearing,
Plunge,
Dip)
050/60/0
1002
2
0.59
0.29
11
0.12
60
2001
2
0.22
0.36
6
0.43
2002
2
0.44
0.34
17
2003
2
0.39
0.23
6
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Major/
Semi Ratio
Major/
Minor
Ratio
1
4
140/55/0
2
5
30
120/40/0
1.5
2
0.22
75
200/80/0
3
2
0.39
30
200/80/0
1.5
1.5
Page 59 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
12.0 BLOCK MODELLING AND ESTIMATION
12.1
Block Model Parameters and Definitions
A single block model was created by Cube with dimensions extended out to cover the entire
Copperhead resource areas. The model parameters were optimised for data spacing, volume fill and
mine planning purposes. Several key points to consider when taking into account the selection of an
appropriate estimation block size are:




Evaluate the parent cell size with the drill density in the X (easting) and Y (northing) dimensions;
Consider the approach to mining and minimum SMU dimensions when deciding on the vertical
block size (Z);
Ensure sufficient sub-celling to fill the wireframes in the most efficient manner. More sub-celling
will be required with the complex, folded zones and narrow mineralised structures in the hanging
domains; and
Optimise the block model dimensions to the immediate confines of the interpreted area to
reduce processing time and block model size.
The final block model was generated in Surpac Mining software and flagged with the appropriate
estimation domains and topographical surfaces. The parent block size used is 5mN x5m E x 5mRL and
sub-blocked to 1.25mN x 1.25mE x 1.25mRL. The drilling data spacing is highly variable with surface
RC and DD spaced at 20m x 20m, UG drilling spaced at 10m along the strike of ore development drives,
then up to widely spaced holes targeting the deeper down plunge extents of the mineralisation.
The block model parameters are summarised in Table 12-1.
Table 12-1: July 2016 Copperhead Block Model Definition Summary
cube_cph_bm_2016_07_22.mdl
Type
Northing (y)
Easting (x)
RL (z)
Origin
9600
300
-600
Extent
1000
1500
1150
Parent Block Size
5
5
5
Sub-Cell Minimum
1.25
1.25
1.25
Rotation
12.2
Model Setup
0,0,0
Block Model Attributes
The block model attributes created for the Copperhead block model file are summarised in Table 12-2.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 60 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Table 12-2: July 2016 Copperhead Block Model Attributes
Attribute
Name
Type
Dec.
Default
au_ppm_fin
Float
3
0.005
Au ppm - Reporting Final Estimate
au_ppm_id2
Float
3
0.005
Au ppm - ID2 Check Estimate
au_ppm_ok
Float
3
0.005
Au ppm - OK Estimate
avd
Float
2
0
density
Float
2
3
depletion
Intege
r
-
1
dynamic_dip
Float
1
-1
controls dip component of dynamic estimate
dynamic_dipd
Float
1
-1
controls dip direction component of dynamic estimate
geo_material
Intege
r
-
1
Material Type - Numeric: 0=Air, 1=BIF, 2=DOM, 3=OTHER
ns
Float
-
0
Number of Samples - OK estimation
-
2
Oxidation - Numeric: 0=Air, 1=Oxide (above 420rl, 2=Fresh (below 420rl)
-
0
Reporting Flag - Numeric: 0=Not Reported, 1=Reported
-
4
Resource Classification - Numeric: 0=Air, 1=Measured, 2=Indicated,
3=Inferred, 4=Unclassified
oxidation
rep_flag
res_cat
Intege
r
Intege
r
Intege
r
Desc
Average Distance to Samplesv - OK estimation
Density: Air=0, Oxide Non-BIF = 2.8, Fresh Non-BIF = 3.0, Oxide BIF = 3.0,
Fresh BIF = 3.2
Depletion - Numeric: 0= Air, 1=Insitu, 2 = Open Pit, 3 = UG Mined, 4 = Stope
Fill
sor_au
Float
2
0
Slope of regression - Au_ppm - OK estimation
zonecode
Intege
r
-
0
Mineralised Domain Code - Numeric: 1000s= North Series, 2000s=South
Series
12.2.1 Oxidation
There are no available oxidation surface DTM files in order to code the oxidation values into the block
model. The oxidation (or weathering) codes were assigned within the block model attribute ‘oxidation’
based on the 2000 block model nominal RL used to separate “fresh” material from “oxide” material and
are detailed below in Table 12-3.
Table 12-3: July 2016 Copperhead Block Model - Assigned Oxidation State
Weathering Type
Air
Oxide
Fresh
Oxidation
Code
0
1
2
Constraint
Constraint ID
Above
Above
Below
cube_cph_topo_pit_2016.dtm
420m RL
420m RL
12.2.2 Bulk Density
The bulk density assigned in the Copperhead 2000 block model, were also applied to the July 2016
block model.
Bulk density was assigned within the block model attribute ‘density’ according to the oxidation code as
outlined previously and noted in Table 12-4.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 61 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Table 12-4: July 2016 Copperhead Block Model - Assigned Bulk Densities
Geological
Domain/Type
Density Value
Constraint
Air
0
Above
cube_cph_topo_pit_2016.dtm
Non BIF - Oxide
2.8
Above
Above 420m RL/ Not in BIF Domains
Non BIF - Fresh
3
Below
Below 420m RL/ Not in BIF Domains
BIF - Oxide
3
Inside/Above
BIF - Fresh
3.2
Inside/Below
Stope backfill
2
Inside
Waste Dumps
1.8
NA
Constraint ID
Above 420m RL/ Inside Domains
2001,2002,2003
Below 420m RL/ Inside Domains
2001,2002,2003
cube_cph_stopes_nth_2016/
cube_cph_stopes_sth_2016
Not Applied for model
12.2.3 Mineralisation Domains
The mineralised domains acted as hard boundaries to control the mineral resource estimate. Geological
domains were assigned within the block model attribute ‘zonecode’ according to 3D wireframes and are
summarised in Table 12-5.
Table 12-5: July 2016 Copperhead Block Model - Assigned Mineralisation Domains
Domain Code
Range
Constraint
Constraint ID (*.dtm)
1001
Inside
cube_cph_dom_1001
1002
Inside
cube_cph_dom_1002
2001
Inside
cube_cph_dom_2001
2002
Inside
cube_cph_dom_2002
2003
Inside
cube_cph_dom_2003
12.2.4 Mining Depletion
The supplied survey DTMs and 3DMs (after validation) were used to code depletion into the block
model. The open pit survey DTM was expanded to cover the block model area with the topography area
currently given a value at 500m RL.
Depletion Type
Model Value
Constraint
Constraint ID
Air
0
Above
cube_cph_topo_pit_2016.dtm
In Situ
1
Below/Outside
cube_cph_topo_pit_2016.dtm/
Outside Stopes & Dev Surveys
Open Pit Mined
2
Above/Below
hgm_pit_2016.dtm/500m RL
UG Mined
3
Inside
cube_cph_dev_all_2016.dtm
Stope Backfill
4
Inside
cube_cph_stopes_nth_2016.dtm/
cube_cph_stopes_sth_2016.dtm
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 62 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
12.2.5 Classification
Resource classification boundaries were created in Surpac for each mineralised domain following grade
interpolation and model validation. The classification boundaries are discussed further in Section 13.0.
Assigned codes used for classifying the block model below the surface (and depleted by mining) as
Indicated, Inferred and Unclassified are summarised in Table 12-6.
Table 12-6: July 2016 Copperhead Block Model - Assigned Classification Domains
12.3
Classification
Type
Rescat Code
Constraint
Constraint ID
Air
0
Above/ Inside
cube_cph_topo_pit_2016.dtm / UG
Stope and Dev Surveys
Measured
1
na
na
Indicated
2
Above
cube_cph_ind_bdy_9999.dtm
Inferred
3
Above/Below
cube_cph_inf_bdy_9999.dtm/
cube_cph_ind_bdy_9999.dtm
Unclassified
4
Below
cube_cph_inf_bdy_9999.dtm
Estimation Methodology
12.3.1 Estimation Approach
The block model was constructed using interpolation of grade via a combination of Ordinary Kriging
(OK) and Dynamic Kriging interpolation (DK).
Dynamic Interpolation (Domain 1001)
The Dynamic Kriging interpolation approach was used for the folded mineralisation Domain 1001 in
order to best honour the changes in dip and orientation of the data points within the block cells.
A “Panel” method approach has been developed by Cube and is applied by using a specifically
designed script for estimating grades within the folded mineralised domain. The method relies upon the
use of relatively small panels (gridded cells) to apply the estimate in a sequential fashion.
Variography and search parameters are defined in an isotropic fashion with the dynamic process
providing local orientation parameters (in a dip and dip direction format) sourced from the wireframe
processing and anisotropic ratios fixed by the user. For Domain 1001, the upper zone of mineralisation
where there is denser and better informed data, was used to define variogram parameters.
Ordinary Kriging Method
For the other mineralisation domains, the OK method was utilised to estimate cut and uncut gold grades
into a 3D block model for the Domains 1003 and 2001 to 2003 where there was sufficient data to
develop suitable variograms.
In some poorly populated domains (Domain 1002 and 2003) search parameter assumptions were made
based on similar styles of mineralisation in the surrounding mineralised domains (upper zone of Domain
1001 and Domain 2002 respectively). This approach aims to improve the interpolation in areas of low
confidence.
Computer software used for the modelling and grade interpolation was Surpac (v.6.7.2) with Snowden
Supervisor software (v.8.6) used to conduct variography and KNA for all mineralisation domains.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 63 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
12.3.2 Variography and Search Parameters
Variogram Parameters
Variogram Modelling methodology has previously been described in Section 11. Variogram parameters
used for the grade interpolation in Surpac are detailed in Table 12-7.
Table 12-7: July 2016 Copperhead Block Model - Variogram Parameters for Gold Grade Estimation
Domain
# of
structures
Nugget
Sill 1
Range 1
(m)
Sill 2
Range 2
(m)
1001(upper)
2
0.59
0.29
11
0.12
60
Structures
1&2
(Bearing,
Plunge,
Dip)
050/60/0
1002
2
0.59
0.29
11
0.12
60
2001
2
0.22
0.36
6
0.43
30
2002
2
0.44
0.34
17
0.22
2003
2
0.39
0.23
6
0.39
Major/
Semi Ratio
Major/
Minor
Ratio
1
4
140/55/0
2
5
120/40/0
1.5
2
75
200/80/0
3
2
30
200/80/0
1.5
1.5
KNA Analysis
The selection of the search parameters were guided by an interactive kriging quality analysis using the
Snowden Supervisor (v8.6) KNA windows. Variable block size analysis was conducted for well-informed
area of the Domain 1001 as illustrated in Figure 12-1. Analysis was also conducted for minimum and
maximum samples using the Kriging Efficiency plotted for a range of samples from 1 to 50, and for
discretisation (Figure 12-2 and Figure 12-3).
Figure 12-1: KNA – Block Selection Area for Domain 1001
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 64 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Figure 12-2: KNA – Minimum/Maximum Sample Analysis for Domain 1001
Figure 12-3: KNA – Descretisation Analysis for Domain 1001
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 65 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Search Parameters
Appropriate search strategies defined by Domain 1001 were adopted for used with the other domains
due to the variable nature of the data spacing and variable quality of the variogram modelling as a result
of the very high nugget in some of the variograms.
All block estimates were based on interpolation into 5mN x 5mE x 5mRL parent cells using the
estimation search parameters summarised in Table 12-8.
Interpolation parameters were set to a minimum number of 4 composites and a maximum number of 24
composites for the estimate. A maximum search ellipse of 200 metres was used. Block discretisation
points were set to 3(y) x 3(x) x 3(z).
Search parameters based on the KNA review and used for the grade interpolation in Surpac are listed in
Table 12-8.
Table 12-8: July 2016 Copperhead Block Model - Search Parameters for Gold Grade Estimation
Estimation
Domain
Min No.
of
Samples
Max No.
of
Samples
Search
Direction
Search
Radius Run 1
Max
Vert
Search
Search
Radius Run 2
Major/
Semimajor
Major/
Minor
Az/Plunge/Dip
(m)
(m)
(m)
ratio
ratio
Descret.
1001
7
28
Dynamic
Intepol
200
999
na
1
4
3;3;3
1002
7
28
140/55/0
200
999
500
2
5
3;3;3
2001
7
28
120/40/0
200
999
500
1.5
1
3;3;3
2002
7
28
200/80/0
200
999
500
3
2
3;3;3
2003
7
28
200/80/0
200
999
500
1.5
1.5
3;3;3
12.4
Model Validations
The block model validation was undertaken by the following means:




Visual inspection of block model estimation in relation to drill data on a section by section basis;
Volumetric comparison of the 3D wireframe volume to that of the block model volume for each
domain;
Global statistical comparisons of input and block grades; and
Semi-local comparison of composite and block grades (by easting, northing and RL) using
relationship plots (Swath Plots).
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 66 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
12.4.1 Visual Validation
Figure 12-5 shows a perspective view of the July 2016 block model following the assignment of domain
boundaries coded into the model and the gold grade interpolation in Surpac. The visual data is
inspected with DTMs and 3DM data to ensure correct coding of domains, oxidation, density assignment,
and depletion. Block grades are inspected in sectional and plan views and compared against the raw
data drill hole grades to ensure block grades honour the raw data, and also the OK estimation is
honouring the orientation interpretation identified during interpretation and variography analysis.
Figure 12-5 shows a cross section example of visual inspection for validating the block model carried out
on section by section basis in Surpac. The modelled block grades and the composite data for the minor
domains appear to track each other as expected for most mineralised domains. Where there is
significant variance, the drill spacing is sparse or where the sample gaps have affected the mean
grades.
Overall the raw samples with block grade estimates demonstrated that the estimates have honoured the
raw samples within a reasonable level of accuracy. The blocks grades have been affected in part by the
sample gaps for UG drilling where these intervals have heavily diluted large block areas and are
potentially undervaluing areas of the block model. Holes drilled down the structure from the open pit are
potentially smearing grade down the structure and should be removed from the composite data for
future model updates.
Figure 12-4: July 2016 Copperhead Model – Perspective View Looking SE Showing Gold Grades
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 67 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Figure 12-5: July 2016 Copperhead Model – Cross Section at 1100E Showing Block Grades vs Raw Data
Comparison
12.4.2 Volumetric and Statistical Comparisons
The volume variance between the wireframes and the block models was acceptable for the intended use
of the model (Table 12-9).
Table 12-9: Volumetric Validation for Block Model Domains vs Wireframe Domain
Domain
Wireframe
vol. (m3)
BM Vol.
(m3)
WF vol. vs.
BM vol.
1001
3,743,102
3,740,398
-0.07%
1002
181,222
181,256
0.02%
2001
1,947,368
2,129,109
8.54%
2002
4,751,239
4,750,588
-0.01%
2003
555,425
555,422
0.00%
11,178,356
11,356,773
1.57%
TOTAL
Comments
Domain overlap with Domain
1001 - corrected
Statistics of the modelled and composites grades were compared for Copperhead mineralised domains
Table 12-10).
Global sample to estimate mean comparisons can often be problematic due to difficulties in the choice
of a sample declustering method. The data spacing variability, nature of mineralisation, and variable
sample types may all contribute to the variance in the mean data comparisons. The block grade
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 68 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
estimates have in all cases diluted the raw sample grades, which is acceptable considering the nature of
the drill spacing variability, but indicates an opportunity for further targeting where there are gaps in the
drilling information.
Table 12-10: Raw Samples vs Estimated Global Mean Gold Grades (ppm)
Domain
1m Comp
- Au g/t
1m Comp
cut Au g/t
declust 1m
Comp cut
Au g/t
BM est.
au_final (>0
g/t Au)
Est Au v. Comp
cut Au
1001
3.05
2.79
2.57
2.01
-22%
1002
2.73
2.30
1.61
2.17
+35%
2001
1.22
1.17
1.36
1.36
+21%
2002
1.25
1.13
0.93
0.67
-28%
2003
0.91
0.89
0.81
0.84
+3%
12.4.3 SWATH Plots
The correspondence between samples and estimates is good, as evident in the swath plots for the
major mineralised domains (Figure 12-6 to ).
It is clear that the estimates have honoured the conditioning sample data well. The modelled block
grades and the composite data appear to track each other quite closely apart from in Domain 2001
toward the poorly informed data spacing toward the deeper down plunge western area of this domain.
For domain 2001 there is a positive bias in the block model away from where composite data is more
numerous. This effect is the result of smoothing of grades by the OK interpolation parameters into areas
of less dense drilling.
Figure 12-6: Swath Plot by Easting – Domain 1001
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 69 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Figure 12-7: Swath Plot by Easting– Domain 2001
Figure 12-8: Swath Plot by Easting – Domain 2002
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 70 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
12.5
Approach to Un-estimated Mineralised Material
The Copperhead block model contains mineralised blocks which were un-estimated in the first pass. A
second pass run during the interpolation process was carried out to ensure remaining blocks were filled
with a block gold grade. The 2nd pass maximum search was 500m. All blocks in the 2 nd pass search
were categorised as Unclassified for the resource classification.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 71 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
13.0 RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION
13.1 Summary
The Copperhead Mineral Resource estimates have been classified in accordance with The 2012
Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code).
A range of criteria were considered by Cube when addressing the suitability of the classification
boundaries. These criteria include:





Geological continuity and volume;
Drill spacing and drill data quality;
Modelling technique;
Estimation properties including search strategy, number of informing composites, average
distance of composites from blocks and kriging quality parameters; and
Risk or uncertainty present in the estimated gold grades.
Cube is confident that the geological continuity and volume accuracy of the mineralised surfaces have
been classified appropriately based on the modelling process and model validation as described in
described in Section 9.0 and Section 12.0.
13.2 Drill Spacing and Data Quality
The resource classification for Copperhead is mostly based on drill data spacing in combination with
kriging parameters and number of composites used for the estimation.
Blocks have been classified as Indicated or Inferred essentially based on data spacing and using a
combination of search volume and number of data used for the estimation. No material in the Mineral
Resource estimate has been classified as Measured Mineral Resources.
The drill spacing criteria for classification is as follows:
1. Indicated Mineral Resources are defined nominally by 50m x 25m to 25m x 25m spaced drilling.
2. Inferred Mineral Resources are defined by data density greater than 50m x 25m spacing and
confidence that the continuity of geology and mineralisation can be extended along strike and at
depth.
Figure 13-1 provides a visual overview summarising the resource classification categories for the
Copperhead Mineral Resource. Figure 13-2 and Figure 13-3 illustrate how the Indicated and Inferred
classification boundaries relate to the drill spacing for the two major resource areas.
Northern Series
Geology and grade continuity is very good up to the final UG development where it was noted grades
were depleted. The extent of the Indicated classification corresponds to the end of the stoping areas for
the historic UG development. Although portions of the domains are depleted by stoping, the stope
widths are narrow in comparison with the dolomite hosted mineralisation and shows that there is still
economic mineralisation that can be reviewed for further economic extraction in the remnant areas.
Maximum classification depths are:



Indicated = -180mRL
Inferred = -300m RL
Unclassified = -320mRL
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 72 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Southern Series
Grade continuity is less well defined for the BIF hosted mineralisation, and the effect of the un-sampled
intervals from the UG DD holes has resulted in large zones of very low grade in the areas of sparse drill
intersections. Data from development down to 200m RL shows good continuity of the BIF unit, and the
2010-11 drilling intersections indicate there is potential for continuity into the down plunge zones shown
in the mineralised domain projection. Some intersections are still in the unclassified category but further
review of the domains using level plan mapping and sampling data may provide more confidence in the
resource classification.
Upper portions of Domain 2001 have been stoped from UG which has increased confidence sufficiently
for Indicated classification to be assigned. As with the Northern Series, there are areas that potentially
contain economic mineralisation where portions of the mineralised remnants may be accessed.
Maximum classification depths are:



Indicated = -200mRL
Inferred = -300m RL
Unclassified = -500mRL
Figure 13-1: Copperhead Block Model – Perspective View Looking SE of Resource Classification
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 73 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Figure 13-2: Domain 1001 - Perspective View Looking South of Resource Classification
Figure 13-3: Domains 2001, 2002 - Perspective View Looking SE of Resource Classification
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 74 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE REPORTING
14.1 Mineral Resource Statement
The Copperhead Mineral Resources have demonstrated sufficient geological and grade continuity to
support the definition of a Mineral Resource and enable classification under the JORC Code (2012
edition).
The Mineral Resource estimate appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the resource.
A summary of the Copperhead Mineral Resources, as at 28th July 2016 is presented in Table 14-1
Table 14-1 : Copperhead Gold Project – All Mineral Resources (>3.0 g/t Au) – July 2016
Description
Indicated
kTonnes
Au g/t
Inferred
Au kOz
kTonnes
Au g/t
Total
Au kOz
kTonnes
Au g/t
Au kOz
Northern Series
2,393
5.6
427
11
3.8
1
2,404
5.5
429
Southern Series
723
4.4
102
406
4.6
60
1,129
4.5
162
5.3
529
417
4.6
62
3,533
5.2
590
TOTAL
3,116
Note: Rounding errors may occur.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 75 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
15.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The Copperhead Mineral Resources have demonstrated sufficient geological and gold grade continuity
to support the definition of a Mineral Resource for classification under the JORC Code (2012 edition).
The major changes from the previous mineral resource estimates are;






Re-interpretation of mineralised domains to reflect the 2010-2011 deep drilling data to define the
down plunge extension of the mineralisation domains;
Re-interpretation of mineralised domains based on digital enhancement of plots from the historic
underground level plan mapping and sampling, and stope long hole section information;
Estimation methodology changed from Inverse Distance Cubed (“ID3”) to Ordinary Kriging
(“OK”);
Changes to search parameters used in the estimation;
Classification boundary changes based on new information from the 2010-2011 drilling; and
Remnant material has been included in the mineral resource estimate at the request of HGM.
Risk Assessment and Recommendations
During the resource work, several issues are noted for further review and are listed as follows:






Sample gaps in mineralisation domains – un-sampled intervals were given background values,
resulting in some blocks potentially with overly diluted grades;
Stope and development as built survey errors – further review of source of UG surveys to
investigate in-accuracies is required;
Stope remnants are included In the remaining resources but there is risk that some areas are
sterilised and impractical to mine with current technologies;
The main lithological units and major fault structures currently do not have a 3DM interpretation
and a completed model in the current data set. The faults and ultramafic contacts are important
in the context of future mining and geotechnical assessments. One of the factors affecting the
closure of the original UG by GWC was given as geotechnical issues as a result of the
ultramafic units.
Host lithologies for mineralisation are structurally complex with tight to isoclinal folding and fold
backs, as illustrated from the open pit mapping and recent structural analysis of the 2010-11 drill
program core logging. This presents issues with the search and variogram parameters to be
selected for grade interpolation, and subsequently confidence in the modelling into areas with
limited data; and
Logging of tremolite-actinolite may indicate the presence of fibrous material in the rock matrix for
some of the mafic- ultramafic units.
Cube recommends the following list of actions in order to mitigate some of the risks noted:




Data verification: - Historical drill logs transferred to digital format where relevant. For the
1990’s drilling program documentation of the QAQC data and the missing logs for the holes
affects the current resource estimate;
Stope and development data – transfer to the current grid system, check positions; update
stope model boundaries for the remnant coding in the Copperhead database;
Interpretation and modelling of the lithology and major structures;
Complete level plan transfer draping to the current grid and overlay with the development
surveys and update the interpretation of mineralisation where relevant;
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 76 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project



Review the recent industry protocols where fibrous material (specifically fibrous tremoliteactinolite) has been mined in open pit and UG operations. Check current core samples from
2010-2011 drilling, and conduct petrographic analysis if fibrous material is present;
Re-interpretation of the Southern Series – assess folding model to see if a similar interpretation
to the Northern Series should be applied to Southern Series; and
Further review of the estimation methodology – assess dynamic kriging for the remainder of the
Southern Series. Due to the inherent complexity of folding of the host units, global estimation
and adopting appropriate variogram and search parameters to ensure improvements to the
estimation approach is an issue. It is important to make use of the UG data from the level plans
to improve the resource modelling.
Resource Potential Recommendations
Whitelock (1997b) noted the following recommendations for resource potential at Copperhead:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Remnants within the Northern Series down to the extent of GWC mining;
The Southern Series below 8 Level (approximately 250m depth);
The whole orebody below 700m;
The wedge of ultramafics (mine sequence) which increases in width with depth at the
eastern fault contact between the mine sequence and amphibolite. The mine sequence
plunges at 45 degrees, while the amphibolite contact dips at 60-70 degrees, both
approximately to the west; and
The mine sequence on the western side of the western fault contact with amphibolite,
which appears to be cut by this fault (as suggested by missing BIF). If this fault is a
normal fault (with some component of downward throe) then the western block may be
present at depth.
2010-2011 Results – Conclusions (Peters 2011)
Peters (2011) noted the following recommendations for resource potential at Copperhead:
A diamond drill program consisting of 4 holes at approximately 2,800m ($1M drilling costs) could be
undertaken to investigate the untested interval of the Western BIF-axial zone intersection. As illustrated
by Figure 9 the former still represents an area of interest. If however, intersections failed to return
promising gold grades then the likely potential resource would be significantly reduced (<500,000oz)
and drilling costs would be inflated owing to increased complexity of targeting.
Any future drilling undertaken should be contracted to a deep drilling specialist (Boart Longyear/DDH1)
with access to their own directional tracking software (Compass). Future holes should be planned taking
into account the strong ground trends in the area, and programs costed on the basis that navi work
(>100m per hole) will be required.
Conclusions Recommendations - Structural Core Review – (Peters, 2011)
Structural geologists reviewed drill core to identify controls on gold mineralisation in the Western Series
at Copperhead.
Findings:




Mineralisation in CHRD002D is related to increased intensity of folding, fracturing and
sulphidation;
Folding plunges moderately to WSW along a moderately WSW-dipping axial zone;
A high-grade shoot occurs about the intersection of the moderately WSW-dipping axial zone
with the Western BIF;
This intersection extends over 750m vertical and greater than 450m of this vertical interval is
poorly tested; and
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 77 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project

Further carefully planned drilling of this ore shoot is warranted.
Recommendations



A moderately WSW-dipping planar orientation has been recognised as important for the
localisation of gold;
Similar orientations can be identified within the gold grade data in other parts of the deposit (ie
footwall fault and Northern series); and
Further review of the structure and lithological setting of the deposit may provide drill targets in
other regions.
Based on the orientation of the axial planar fracturing (550 to 2550) the recent intercept in drill
core CHRD002D can be shown to link with the base of mineralisation within the Copperhead
pit and also the eastern end of mineralisation on the 10 level drive ( Figure 15-1). This provides a
potential zone of mineralisation over a vertical interval of greater than 750 m, which has been poorly
tested from 350mbs.
A plan view interpretation at -170 RL (Figure 15-2) shows the geological relationships between faults,
folds and rock units. Note: the potential importance of the moderately WSW-dipping (550 to 2550)
orientation of the mineralisation in both the Western and Northern Series lodes. This orientation is
reflected in the axial plane of the folds and also the major fault at the base of the orebody. Note: the
intersection of the Western and Southern Series BIF suggests a simpler folded rock sequence.
Figure 15-1: Plan view showing geological architecture and possible
controls to Au mineralisation (Peters, 2011)
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 78 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Figure 15-2: Projection of Western BIF showing gold distribution and
drill intercepts (Peters, 2011)
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 79 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
16.0 REFERENCES
Andrew M, 2004, Geological Review of Copperhead, Hopes Hill and Corintha Mines and Bullfinch
Tenements, Snowden Report for Sons of Gwalia Ltd, 8th June 2004
Annual Report, 1978, Annual Report for Mineral Claim 09/2122, Agip Nucleare Aus. Pty Ltd, April 1978.
Annual Report, 1987, Annual Report for, Bullfinch - Copperhead Gold Mine for Tenements M77/80,
P77/121 to P77/130, P77/470 , P77/1252, P77/1291, P77/1320, For Period 26 April 1986 to 25 April
1987; Troy Resources Ltd, 8 June 1987.
Annual Report, 1996, Combined Annual Mineral Exploration Report, Copperhead Gold Mine for
Tenements GML 77/4933, M77480, M77/105, M77/46, M77/301, M77/105, M77/355, M77/356,
GML/4607, Annual Report for 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1995; Burmine Operations Pty Ltd, 1996.
Annual Report, 1998 (Griffin K), Bullfinch Operations – Copperhead Gold Mine, Bullfinch, for Tenements
GML 77/4933, M77480, M77/105, M77/46, M77/301, M77/209, M77/355, M77/356, Annual Report for 1
January 1997 to 31 December 1997; Sons of Gwalia Ltd, 31st March 1998.
Collings PS 1997, Review of Resource Estimates for the Copperhead Gold Mine, Mining and Resource
Technology, Technical Report for Sons of Gwalia Ltd, September 1997.
Peters N, 2011, COPPERHEAD PROJECT – Drilling Completion Report, St Barbara Ltd, September
2011
Third RJ, 1998, COPPERHEAD FEASIBILITY STUDY, Resource Engineering Pty Ltd, Technical Report
for Burmine Ltd, 4th May 1998.
Whitelock J, 1996, COMPILATION AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS FROM 1996 IN-PIT RC
RESOURCE DRILLING PROGRAM OF THE SOUTHERN SERIES OREBODY, Technical Note for
Sons of Gwalia Ltd, June 1996.
Whitelock J, 1997a, COPPERHEAD UNDERGROUND RESOURCE ESTIMATE, Technical Report for
Sons of Gwalia Ltd, June 1997.
Whitelock J, 1997b, COMPILATION AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS FROM ALL DRILLING AT
COPPERHEAD DOWN TO THE OLD GWC 10 LEVEL (APPROX. 310m), WITH SPECIFIC EMPHASIS
ON THE RECENT (JULY 1996-MARCH 1997) RESOURCE DRILLING PROGRAM, Technical Report
for Sons of Gwalia Ltd, October 1997.
Hanking Gold Mining Pty Ltd
Page 80 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
APPENDIX 1 JORC Table 1
(28th July 2016)
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 81 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data
Criteria
Sampling
techniques
Drilling
techniques
JORC Code explanation

Nature and quality of sampling (eg 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 (eg
‘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.

Commentary



Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, openhole 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).





Hanking Gold Mining
Surface Diamond Drill (DD) core, RC,
percussion and Rotary Air Blast chips,
underground (UG) DD holes and UG
rock chip sampling are the main sample
types.
DD core from the 2010-11 drilling
programs was geologically logged and
sampled to lithological contacts or
changes in the nature of mineralisation.
Average sample lengths of 0.85m
average sample length holes, with a
minimum sample length of 0.1m. Core
was half core sampled.
RC and percussion chips sampled
mostly at 1m intervals. From information
where available in historical reports, a
riffle splitter was used to produce a
representative sample to be sent to the
laboratory for analysis.
No information regarding underground
rock chip sampling from underground
development was available for the
current work.
2010-11 drilling included angled Navi
holes with RC pre-collars drilled to
maximum depths of 500m, then a DD
core drilling tail (PQ down to HQ). DD
tail depths varied between 300m to
500m. DD core was oriented/ surveyed
at 10m intervals using gyroscopic
survey instrument.
1994-97 drilling included RC and DD.
RC specifications. Hole diameter of RC
holes were not recorded in the available
historical documents. For RC, hole
oriented both grid north and south at -90
degrees, average depth of 117m,
oriented/surveyed at 10m intervals; DD
holes (diameter not specified) angled at
-60 degrees with average depth of
167m, oriented/surveyed at 10m
intervals using downhole camera shot.
1986-87 drilling consisted of RAB and
RC drilling. RC drilling was conducted
using Schramm 64 rig, setup for RC
drilling. All RC holes were hammer
drilled.
Historical drilling includes UG DD
drilling from development drives from
1947 to 1960 at 10m spacing along the
walls of the ore development headings.
The holes were drilled at 0 degrees dip
both north and south of the drives. A
total of 2065 holes for 62,760m have
been transferred to metric units with
collar survey positions recorded from
level plans showing hole locations and
traces. Average depth of these holes is
30m. No descriptions of core size and
Page 82 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Criteria
JORC Code explanation
Commentary
sampling method are recorded in the
available historical reports.
Drill
sample
recovery



Logging



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.

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.








Subsampling
techniques
and sample
preparation




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
Hanking Gold Mining


No descriptions or measurements
relating to core loss were able to be
gathered from the available historical
reports and data records provided.
Therefore analysis of diamond tails
recovery has not been conducted so
that representative nature of the
samples is not known.
Therefore no analysis on relationship
between sample core recovery and
grade has been undertaken due to the
lack of data currently available.
2010 -11 DD core and RC chips were
geologically and structurally logged to a
level of detail to support appropriate
Mineral Resource estimation.
Many holes prior to 1995 have no
geological logging entered into the
databases but historical documents in
PDF format containing drill hole logs
were made available for review.
Open hole percussion drilling and RAB
were sampled and some logging
information available. These are
included in the database but not used in
this resource interpretation due to
uncertainty with sample quality.
Underground level plans from the
historical workings (1947-1960) with
geological mapping and wall sample
assays have been used to support
mineralisation interpretation and Mineral
Resource estimation. Wall samples
were not used in the grade estimation.
Total length of all drilled data is
162,372.1m as estimated from the raw
data files received on 8th July 2016. The
total amount of relevant drill data
utilised for this estimate is 136,780m
(RC, DD and percussion holes), of
which 27% was digitally entered as
logged and 37,374m was flagged as
mineralised intercepts.
Logging has been conducted both
qualitatively and quantitatively –
description of lithologies, and structural
measurements and comments are
noted, as well as historical documents
with geological descriptions based on
the drilling from both surface and
underground.
For 2010-11 drilling program the
sampling boundaries were geologically
defined but mostly consisted of one
metre lengths unless significant
geological features warranted a change
from this standard unit.
Core was split along a plane passing
through the basal orientation mark, or
an equivalent point representing an axis
of fabric symmetry, using a diamond
saw. The upper or right-hand side of the
Page 83 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Criteria
JORC Code explanation


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.
Commentary



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.







Hanking Gold Mining
core was submitted for sample analysis,
with each one metre of half core
providing between 2.5 – 3 kg of material
as an assay sample.
The minimum sample length was 0.1m
and the average sample length was
0.86m.
For the 2010-2011 program, the nature,
quality and appropriateness of the
sample preparation technique is
industry standard.
For previous drilling, no information
regarding sub-sampling procedures,
sample preparation, and QAQC
protocols was able to be sourced from
available records.
Sample preparation and analysis was
completed by two laboratories - SGS,
Kalgoorlie (SGS) and KalAssay,
Kalgoorlie (KAL) with the protocols
outlined by St Barbara Drilling
Completion Report (September 2011).
Samples were analysed for gold using
fire assay with a 50gm (SGS)/ 40gm
(KAL) charge and analysis by flame
atomic absorption spectrometry. The
methods (FA50AAS/FA40AAS) both
offer a detection limit of 0.01ppm, with
an accuracy of +/- 10%.
The QAQC program implemented for
the 2010-11 Copperhead drilling
program included: Insertion of one
commercial batch standard per 20 half
core samples (approximately); Sample
pulp residues for parts of holes
CHRD002B and CHRD002C were sent
to KAL for secondary gold analysis; St
Barbara Ltd (SBL) ensured accuracy in
standard preparation by employing a
procedure of pre-bagging and detailing
sets of 4 standards later selected by the
geologist for submission with core
samples.
All sample batches submitted to SGS
Laboratory and KAL labs for analytical
work contained certified reference
material (CRM) from Geostats Pty Ltd
on a proportion of approximately one
reference pulp per 20 half core
samples.
A total of 13 different CRMs were
utilised throughout the program, ranging
in grade from 0.21g/t to 13.66 g/t Au. In
total 93 CRMs were submitted (33 to
SGS, 60 to KAL).
The majority of KAL results from
returned CRMs fell within two standard
deviations of the recommended mean,
and similarly, no major systematic
errors were identified.
The SGS specification for pulverization
of samples is a minimum of 90%
passing a 75μm test screen. The KAL
specification for pulverisation of
samples is a minimum of 85% passing a
Page 84 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Criteria
JORC Code explanation
Commentary

Verification
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.






Location of
data points



Accuracy and quality of surveys used to
locate drill holes (collar and down-hole
surveys), trenches, mine workings and other
locations used in Mineral Resource
estimation.
Specification of the grid system used.
Quality and adequacy of topographic control.
Hanking Gold Mining


75μm test screen. Routine particle
analysis by wet screening was
completed by the KAL. No issues were
identified.
After changing laboratories, a total of
145 sample pulp residues returned from
SGS and were forwarded to KAL for
gold analysis by 40g fire assay
(FA40AAS). The data is considered to
be well correlated, with a correlation
coefficient of 0.994. There is a minor
negative bias towards KAL (-4.91%)
which is most pronounced at very low
grades (<0.5 g/t).
No current or recent drilling programs
have taken place at the Copperhead
Gold Project, and therefore no
independent sampling has been
undertaken by Cube.
Drillhole assay data has not been
checked against the original hardcopy
laboratory assay reports. Historical
drilling results from available Annual
Reports and UG wall sampling assays
plotted on level plans have been
checked where there are significant
intervals within the resource area.
No hole twinning analysis has been
conducted in the resource area.
Underground wall sampling and UG DD
drilling has been compared against the
surface DD and RC drilling in close
proximity and shows good correlation
with the mineralisation domain
structures.
Data entry and conversion to metric of
historical data was completed by the
companies which have operated at
Copperhead and are described in
historical documents relating to the
corresponding periods of operation.
All sample intervals within the assay
records with au_ppm below detection
limit and recorded as either 0 or -0.01
have been entered as 0.001 ppm Au. .
Sample gaps, or missing have had the
interval recorded as -2.0 in the
database and given a value of 0.0 for
compositing where intervals are within
the mineralised domains.
Collar records were supplied for all
holes in the data records received but
no information regarding collar pickups
was available in the documents
provided.
For the 2010-11 drilling, RC precollars
were surveyed every 10-30m to ensure
directional control for subsequent Navi
drilling. Downhole surveys for DD tails
were conducted on a day to day basis
(nominally every 30m) using tools
supplied by drilling contractor (All holes
were Gyro surveyed at least every
100m in order to maintain directional
Page 85 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Criteria
JORC Code explanation
Commentary





Data
spacing
and
distribution



Data spacing for reporting of Exploration
Results.
Whether the data spacing and distribution is
sufficient to establish the degree of geological
and grade continuity appropriate for the
Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve
estimation procedure(s) and classifications
applied.
Whether sample compositing has been
applied.



Orientation
of data in
relation to
geological
structure
Sample
security



Whether the orientation of sampling achieves
unbiased sampling of possible structures and
the extent to which this is known, considering
the deposit type.
If the relationship between the drilling
orientation and the orientation of key
mineralised structures is considered to have
introduced a sampling bias, this should be
assessed and reported if material.

The measures taken to ensure sample
security.

Hanking Gold Mining

control of their path, again on
completion, and after Navi cuts on
request of the Driller.
For previous drilling programs,
downhole surveys have been taken with
an Eastman single shot survey tool
every 10m for both RC and DD holes.
Underground drilling and sample
locations have previously been digitally
mapped from historic level plans and
converted to metric and the current
mine grid.
The grid system has been setup on a
local mine grid co-ordinates. Grid
conversions applied to Copperhead are
as follows: Local Grid North = Magnetic
North + 6.18 degrees; Local Grid RL =
MGA94 RL.
A topographic surface was not provided
amongst the data received. An open pit
DTM surface was provided and surface
RL from the crest of the pit expanded to
cover the resource area. As near
surface mineralisation has been
depleted, a topography surface was not
required for the mineral resource
estimation.
Visual inspection in 3D graphics
showed no apparent inaccuracies with
the spatial position of the drillholes.
Drill Data spacing is variable ranging
from a nominal 10m x 10m
(underground drilling) up to 20m x 20m
(surface RC) for the majority of drilling
used for the Mineral Resource estimate.
This spacing is adequate to determine
the geological and grade continuity for
reporting of Mineral Resources.
Underground wall assay data was
spaced at 1m intervals along
development drives in specific areas
within the mineralisation.
No sample compositing was applied to
the sample data used in the mineral
resource estimate work.
Drilling is oriented normal to the dip and
plunge of the major mineralisation
bodies. The different orientations were
selected to target different portions of
the mineralisation. Both surface and UG
is predominantly at 0 degrees (UG) or 60 degrees (surface) grid north or grid
south.
Recent deep hole targeting was
oriented at steep angles to the north in
order to setup for Navi drilling to
intersect deep targets normal to the
mineralisation.
No active or recent drilling programs
have taken place at the Copperhead
Gold Project in order to review the
protocols for sample security. There is
description of sample security protocols
recorded by SBM for the 2010-11
Page 86 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Criteria
JORC Code explanation
Commentary

Audits
or
reviews

The results of any audits or reviews of
sampling techniques and data.


Hanking Gold Mining
drilling in the available report.
No information relating to routine
sampling, submission and storage
procedures is described in the available
historical reports.
There is no information in the available
records indicating whether any audits or
reviews have been undertaken on any
of the recent or historical drilling
programs.
Cube conducted a data compilation
review and validation prior to resource
estimation which involved reading of
historical reports relating the drilling
activities, checks for duplicate surveys,
downhole surveys errors, assays and
geological intervals beyond drillhole
total depths, overlapping intervals, and
gaps between intervals.
Page 87 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
Criteria
JORC Code explanation
Mineral
tenement and
land tenure
status


Type, reference name/number, location and
ownership including agreements or material
issues with third parties such as joint
ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties,
native title interests, historical sites,
wilderness or national park and
environmental settings.
The security of the tenure held at the time of
reporting along with any known impediments
to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.
Commentary






Exploration
done by other
parties

Acknowledgment and appraisal of
exploration by other parties.






Hanking Gold Mining
Tenement numbers relating to the
Copperhead Gold Project area are M
77/46, M 77/105, M 77/299, M 77/301,
M 77/355, M 77/356, M 77/480,
m77/572, and M 77/1026.
HGM has a 100% interest in all
tenements.
Mining Leases have 21 year life and
renewable for periods of 21 years on a
continuing basis.
Joint Venture Agreements – none.
Royalty payable on all tenements 2.5% payable to State of WA; 1.5%
payable to 3rd party royalty holder –
International Royalty Corporation LLC;
Royalty Agreement with Newcrest
Mining whereby Newcrest entitled to
10% of net profit from mining areas
subject to the aforementioned
tenements.
No native title claims are current over
these tenements
Copperhead first discovered in 1909
and mined up to 1940 (~200,000oz
Au). Great Western Consolidated
(GWC) operated UG mine from 1950
to 1963, producing 3.25Mt at 5g/t for
516,000 oz Au (Snowden Report,
2004).
Exploration has been conducted by a
number of parties, most recently Agip
Nucleare, Troy Resources, Burmine
Ltd Sons of Gwalia Ltd, and St Barbara
Ltd.
1978 - Exploration work included
surface geological mapping, surveying
and gridding, surface, RAB and RC
drilling, old tailings dump drilling.
1986-1987 - A programme of
preliminary sampling, gridding,
radiometric surveying, vacuum drilling,
and deep percussion drilling were
completed to test the potential of a
barite vein and associated elements
(U, Cu, Pb, Ag, F).
1994-1995 – Approximately 5,000m of
DD core drilling was completed from
old UG workings (Level 4 – 375m RL).
A total of 700m of RC drilling was
completed from surface. Drilling was
aimed at testing future open pit and
UG potential.
1996-1997 – A total of 77 RC and DD
holes were drilled between July 1996
and March 1997. The program was
aimed at increasing the Copperhead
open pit and UG Resource/Reserve
base. The program targeted the walls
of the current pit at that time, and also
Page 88 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Criteria
JORC Code explanation
Commentary



Geology

Deposit type, geological setting and style of
mineralisation.



Hanking Gold Mining
within the known mineralisation
beneath the current pit.
2010-2011 – SBM completed a series
of RC pre-collar/DD tails with wedge
holes using Navi drilling method. The
holes were focussed on intersecting
the up and down-plunge potential of
the significant intercepts in the
Southern Series Western BIF (WBIF),
between 400m to 670m below the
surface (100m RL to -170m RL) and
intended to achieve an Inferred level of
confidence in lode continuity. Other
objectives included: Extend holes
targeting the WBIF lode to intersect
other footwall ore horizons (Northern
Series and Southern Series); complete
two drill hole intersections on the
down-plunge extensions of both limbs
of the Northern and Southern Series
below the 22 Level at -170m RL, with a
parent and one daughter hole. Drilling
was intended to provide evidence for
the prevailing conceptual geological
model of the mineralisation, and to
provide a basis for targeting to an
Indicated status.
A total of 18 holes were drilled for
7,223.70m. Drilling was principally
completed using diamond coring (NQ,
HQ, and to a lesser extent PQ) with
two holes incorporating RC precollars.
Strong ground trends encountered
resulted in a number of holes being
abandoned before planned depths
were reached.
Six intersections with the Western BIF
were achieved, with the best being
22.33m @ 7.62 g/t. Two intersections
of the Northern Series lode were
made, however they did not intersect
significant mineralisation. An
intersection with the Southern Series
lode was not realised, with the Eastern
BIF proving difficult to target.
Regional Geology (SBM report, 2011):
The Copperhead Gold Project is
situated in the Southern Cross
Greenstone Belt that extends along
strike for 300km from Mt Jackson in
the north to Hatter Hill in the south.
The elongate belt is a strongly
deformed, metamorphosed synformal
remnant of a once larger greenstone
assemblage and has been shaped and
attenuated by the emplacement of
domal (antiformal) syn-tectonic
granitoids.
Sheared lithological contacts are the
primary control on the distribution of
gold mineralisation. Most of the belt’s
production has been derived from
shear-hosted deposits (Marvel Loch,
Yilgarn Star and Frasers) and to a
lesser extent fold hinge deposits,
Page 89 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Criteria
JORC Code explanation
Commentary





Drill
hole
Information


A summary of all information material to the
understanding of the exploration results
including a tabulation of the following
information for all Material drill holes:
o easting and northing of the drill hole
collar
o elevation or RL (Reduced Level –
elevation above sea level in metres) of
the drill hole collar
o dip and azimuth of the hole
o down hole length and interception depth
o hole length.
If the exclusion of this information is justified
on the basis that the information is not
Material and this exclusion does not detract
from the understanding of the report, the
Competent Person should clearly explain
why this is the case.






Data
aggregation
methods

Hanking Gold Mining
In reporting Exploration Results, weighting
averaging techniques, maximum and/or
minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of
high grades) and cut-off grades are usually

usually in BIF (Copperhead, Golden
Pig and Bounty).
Local Geology (SBM Report, 2011):
The Copperhead mine sequence
consists of a layered series of
metamorphosed ultramafics, highmagnesium basalt and tuff, banded
iron formation and intercalated
sediments.
The mine sequence has been
intensely isoclinally folded with major
folds trending NW to NNW, parallel to
a strongly developed schistose
foliation.
The Northern Series is hosted by a
tightly folded sequence of tremolitechlorite-actinolite schists with irregular
quartz veins and stringers. The lode is
strongly carbonate altered (“Dolomite
Lode”) and has a strike length of
200m, and a width of 10-25m.
The Southern Series is hosted by an
isoclinally folded sequence of banded
iron formation (BIF), surrounded by an
irregular talc alteration zone. The BIF
lodes are interbedded with schistose
mafic/ultramafic flows.
Detailed information in relation to the
historic drill holes forming the basis of
this Mineral Resource estimate are not
included in this report. The information
is not material in the context of this
report and its exclusion does not
detract from the understanding of this
report. For the sake of completeness,
the following background information is
provided in relation to the drill holes.
Easting, Northing and RL of the drill
hole collars are in local Mine Grid
coordinates.
Dip is the inclination of the hole from
the horizontal. For example a vertically
down drilled hole from the surface is 90°. Azimuth is reported in magnetic
degrees as the direction toward which
the hole is drilled.
Down hole length of the hole is the
distance from the surface to the end of
the hole, as measured along the drill
trace.
Interception depth is the distance down
the hole as measured along the drill
trace. Intersection width is the
downhole distance of an intersection
as measured along the drill trace.
It is the opinion of the Competent
Person that the exclusion of the
historic drilling data in the Table 1 does
not detract from the understanding of
the report.
Detailed information in relation to data
aggregation methods is not relevant as
no exploration results are being
Page 90 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Criteria
JORC Code explanation


Relationship
between
mineralisation
widths
and
intercept
lengths



Diagrams

Balanced
reporting

Other
substantive
exploration
data

Further work


Hanking Gold Mining
Material and should be stated.
Where aggregate intercepts incorporate
short lengths of high grade results and
longer lengths of low grade results, the
procedure used for such aggregation should
be stated and some typical examples of
such aggregations should be shown in
detail.
The assumptions used for any reporting of
metal equivalent values should be clearly
stated.
These relationships are particularly
important in the reporting of Exploration
Results.
If the geometry of the mineralisation with
respect to the drill hole angle is known, its
nature should be reported.
If it is not known and only the down hole
lengths are reported, there should be a clear
statement to this effect (eg ‘down hole
length, true width not known’).
Appropriate maps and sections (with scales)
and tabulations of intercepts should be
included for any significant discovery being
reported These should include, but not be
limited to a plan view of drill hole collar
locations and appropriate sectional views.
Where comprehensive reporting of all
Exploration Results is not practicable,
representative reporting of both low and high
grades and/or widths should be practiced to
avoid misleading reporting of Exploration
Results.
Other exploration data, if meaningful and
material, should be reported including (but
not limited to): geological observations;
geophysical survey results; geochemical
survey results; bulk samples – size and
method of treatment; metallurgical test
results; bulk density, groundwater,
geotechnical and rock characteristics;
potential deleterious or contaminating
substances.
The nature and scale of planned further
work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth
extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).
Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of
possible extensions, including the main
geological interpretations and future drilling
areas, provided this information is not
commercially sensitive.
Commentary
reported in this Mineral Resource
report. The information is not material
in the context of this report and its
exclusion does not detract from the
understanding of this report.

Detailed information in relation to
mineralisation and intercept widths is
not relevant as exploration results are
not being reported in this Mineral
Resource report. The information is not
material in the context of this report
and its exclusion does not detract from
the understanding of this report.

Maps and sections are included in the
mineral resource estimation report.
There has been no recent drilling
which has not already been reported.

Drillholes and resource blocks with
significant results are shown in cross
section in the mineral resource
estimation report.

All meaningful and material exploration
data has previously been reported.

HGM is currently formulating its
strategy for further exploration and
resource upgrades, however, no
detailed plans are available for
reporting at this time.
Page 91 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources
Criteria
Database
integrity
JORC Code explanation


Measures taken to ensure that data has not
been corrupted by, for example, transcription
or keying errors, between its initial collection
and its use for Mineral Resource estimation
purposes.
Data validation procedures used.
Commentary



Site visits


Geological
interpretation





Comment on any site visits undertaken by the
Competent Person and the outcome of those
visits.
If no site visits have been undertaken indicate
why this is the case.

The Competent Person has not visited
site but has propose a site visit during
July 2016 to view open pit workings and
the core storage facility containing
historic DD core from the Copperhead
mine. The UG workings are inaccessible
as at July 2016.
Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty
of) the geological interpretation of the
mineral deposit.
Nature of the data used and of any
assumptions made.
The effect, if any, of alternative
interpretations on Mineral Resource
estimation.
The use of geology in guiding and controlling
Mineral Resource estimation.
The factors affecting continuity both of grade
and geology.

The confidence in the geological
interpretation is good as a result of a
predominance of DD core, and the
historical information recorded from both
UG and more recent open pit operations.
Both open pit mining and underground
development and wall mapping of the
mineralisation confirm earlier drill hole
logging.
All drilling data with available logging
information was used to assist with
geological interpretation. Historical UG
level plans were used to assist with
confirming lithological trends and
assessing complexity and continuity of
the major units hosting Au
mineralisation.
Previous reports have indicated the
Southern Series as becoming less
significant with depth. Drilling from the
2010-11 programs however resulted in
one intersection at depth containing
22.33m @ 7.62 g/t Au. The anomalous
mineralisation intersected in this drillhole
appears to correlate with the plunge
continuation of the Copperhead
mineralisation for the Southern Series.
Logging information recorded from the
2010-2011 drilling noted the following:
Mineralisation within the Southern Series
(Western BIF) corresponds with an
increased intensity of folding;
sulphidation (pyrrhotite (Po) replacement
along BIF banding); and fracturing (filled
with Po and +/- Cb).
The Copperhead deposit is structurally
complex, with at least 3 ductile (folding)
events interpreted by the mine





Hanking Gold Mining
Database is maintained by HGM, who
compiled the electronic data from
previous companies that have operated
at Copperhead.
Cube carried out a database validation
review of the supplied drilling data,
supplied DTM and 3DM validation
checks prior to undertaking the resource
estimation update.
Validation checks on the database
included comparing collar points to the
topography, maximum hole depths,
checks between tables and the collar
data. Cube also verified the data using
visual inspection of the drillholes in 3D to
identify inconsistencies of drill hole
traces.
Page 92 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Criteria
JORC Code explanation
Commentary

Dimensions

Estimation
and modelling
techniques










The extent and variability of the Mineral
Resource expressed as length (along strike or
otherwise), plan width, and depth below
surface to the upper and lower limits of the
Mineral Resource.
The nature and appropriateness of the
estimation technique(s) applied and key
assumptions, including treatment of extreme
grade values, domaining, interpolation
parameters and maximum distance of
extrapolation from data points. If a computer
assisted estimation method was chosen
include a description of computer software
and parameters used.
The availability of check estimates, previous
estimates and/or mine production records and
whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes
appropriate account of such data.
The assumptions made regarding recovery of
by-products.
Estimation of deleterious elements or other
non-grade variables of economic significance
(eg sulphur for acid mine drainage
characterisation).
In the case of block model interpolation, the
block size in relation to the average sample
spacing and the search employed.
Any assumptions behind modelling of selective
mining units.
Any assumptions about correlation between
variables.
Description of how the geological
interpretation was used to control the
resource estimates.
Discussion of basis for using or not using
grade cutting or capping.
The process of validation, the checking
process used, the comparison of model data
to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation
data if available.

The mineralisation extends continuously
in two major shoots (Northern Series
and Southern Series) over 750m vertical
depth and plunges toward the NW over
1km length from the surface.

The estimation methodology used was
Ordinary Kriging. Surpac version 6.7
was used for estimation. Variogram
ranges and search distances were
defined in Snowden Supervisor
software.
For the Northern Series folded domain
Cube applied a dynamic interpolation
estimation methodology. This method is
where the estimation parameters
(specifically search and variography
orientation) are modified in a frequent or
dynamic sense to suit the orientation of
the mineralisation domain being
modelled, whilst maintaining 3D space.
Control of the mineral resource
estimation orientation is done using
sectional panels of a specific size or
orientation.
A search radius of 200m was used with
a minimum and maximum number of
samples of 7 and 28 respectively.
No by-product recoveries were
considered.
Estimations of any deleterious elements
were not completed for the Mineral
Resource - no other elements were
included for the assay records in data
supplied. Pyrrhotite and Sphalerite are
known to be associated with gold
mineralisation but no other elements
were estimated for this model.
Metallurgical testwork in 1988 reported
that “the transition ore sample tested
was high in leachable copper. High
copper ores must be identified in this
project.”
Block size used is 5mN x 5m E x 5mRL
and sub-blocked to 1.5mN x 1.5mE x
1.5mRL. The bulk of the drilling data was
on 10m x 20m (UG DD) and 20m x 20m
spaced sections (surface RC).
No assumptions of selective mining units
were made.






Hanking Gold Mining
geologists during the open pit operation.
Overall the mineralisation envelope
plunges at 45o to 277 o plunge. Within
this overall plunge the host unit fold
dramatically, and the mineralisation
within these folds and within the plunge
has another preferred orientation.
The open cut and historic UG data
allowed the mine geologists to do
detailed interpretation of the orebody
extents. Interpretation was based on all
available data, including drilling (grade
distribution), structural and lithological,
and was done from plan, to section,
back to plan on 10m intervals.
Page 93 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Criteria
JORC Code explanation
Commentary







No correlation between elements was
conducted as only Au grades were
supplied in the assay records with the
drilling data.
The mineralised domain acted as a hard
boundary to control the Mineral
Resource estimate.
The influence of extreme grade values
was reduced by top-cutting for all
mineralisation domains. The top-cut
levels were determined using a
combination of top-cut analysis tools
(grade histograms, log probability plots
and CVs). Top-cuts were reviewed and
applied on a domain basis.
Each of the mineralisation domains were
initially digitised on to cross-section then
to 10m levels in plan view, using 3D
strings and then wireframed to generate
solids. Geology was used to separate
the different mineralised zones, within
these zones at a threshold grade of
0.4g/t Au. This was used to separate
mineralised rock form un-mineralised
rock. Drillhole sample data was flagged
using domain codes generated from the
three dimensional mineralisation
domains.
Sample data was composited to 1m
downhole length using a best fit-method.
There were consequently no residuals.
Intervals with no assays were excluded
from the compositing routine.
Block model validation was undertaken
using the comparison of block model
grade estimate to drill hole data
composite grade values. Validation also
comprised visual checking in 3D, global
statistical comparisons of input and
block grades, and local grade (by
northing) relationship plots (SWATH
plots).
Reconciliation data from open pit mine
production was reviewed but data
compilation was incomplete at the time
the current resource was reported.
Moisture

Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry
basis or with natural moisture, and the
method of determination of the moisture
content.

Moisture was not considered in the
density assignment. The mineralisation
modelled in this resource estimate
occurs entirely within the fresh or
sulphide zone and is estimated as dry
tonnes.
Cut-off
parameters

The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or
quality parameters applied.

Cut-off grade for reporting is 3.0g/t Au
for this Mineral Resource Estimate; in
line with approximate economic cut-offs
for UG operations in the Yilgarn
Province.
HGM have nearby operations in the
Southern Cross Belt, and where
operational costs can be correlated with
the mining, processing and other costs
when considering COG parameters. This
includes haulage costs to the Marvel

Hanking Gold Mining
Page 94 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Criteria
JORC Code explanation
Commentary
Loch treatment plant.
Mining factors
or
assumptions
Metallurgical
factors
or
assumptions


Assumptions made regarding possible mining
methods, minimum mining dimensions and
internal (or, if applicable, external) mining
dilution. It is always necessary as part of the
process of determining reasonable prospects
for eventual economic extraction to consider
potential mining methods, but the
assumptions made regarding mining methods
and parameters when estimating Mineral
Resources may not always be rigorous. Where
this is the case, this should be reported with
an explanation of the basis of the mining
assumptions made.

The basis for assumptions or predictions
regarding metallurgical amenability. It is
always necessary as part of the process of
determining reasonable prospects for
eventual economic extraction to consider
potential metallurgical methods, but the
assumptions regarding metallurgical
treatment processes and parameters made
when reporting Mineral Resources may not
always be rigorous. Where this is the case,
this should be reported with an explanation of
the basis of the metallurgical assumptions
made.





No mining factors were considered
during the interpretation and 3D
modelling of the mineralisation.
Minimum mining widths were not
considered during the interpretation and
3D modelling of the mineralisation. A
minimum width of 1m was used in
interpretation of the mineralisation in
order to preserve 3D wireframe integrity
and continuity.
UG and Open Pit mining have previously
taken place at Copperhead, with
documentation on mining methods and
open pit reconciliation providing
background for future mining
considerations.
No metallurgical factors were considered
during the interpretation and 3D
modelling of the mineralisation.
UG and open pit mining and processing
have previously taken place at
Copperhead, with documentation on
metallurgical aspects providing
background for future mining
considerations.
A feasibility report completed in 1988 by
Resource Engineering Pty Ltd noted - for
deeper transition and sulphide ores,
there is a need for finer grinding. This
arises from gold associated with
sulphides and coarser solids, especially
above 75 micron size. While the ores
treated in the testwork are generally
lower in deleterious contaminants, the
transition ore sample tested was high in
leachable copper. High copper ores
must be identified in this project.
Environmental
factors
or
assumptions

Assumptions made regarding possible waste
and process residue disposal options. It is
always necessary as part of the process of
determining reasonable prospects for
eventual economic extraction to consider the
potential environmental impacts of the mining
and processing operation. While at this stage
the determination of potential environmental
impacts, particularly for a greenfields project,
may not always be well advanced, the status
of early consideration of these potential
environmental impacts should be reported.
Where these aspects have not been
considered this should be reported with an
explanation of the environmental assumptions
made.

No assumptions were made regarding
environmental restrictions.
Bulk density

Whether assumed or determined. If assumed,
the basis for the assumptions. If determined,
the method used, whether wet or dry, the
frequency of the measurements, the nature,
size and representativeness of the samples.
The bulk density for bulk material must have
been measured by methods that adequately
account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc),

Bulk Density (BD) values used for the
current mineral resource estimate are
assumed. The values are derived from
the block model parameter file for both
the 1997 model and the 2000 model for
Copperhead.
The following values were used: NonBIF = 2.8 (Surface to 120mRL), 3.0

Hanking Gold Mining

Page 95 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Criteria
JORC Code explanation

moisture and differences between rock and
alteration zones within the deposit.
Discuss assumptions for bulk density
estimates used in the evaluation process of
the different materials.
Commentary



Classification



The basis for the classification of the Mineral
Resources into varying confidence categories.
Whether appropriate account has been taken
of all relevant factors (i.e. relative confidence
in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of
input data, confidence in continuity of geology
and metal values, quality, quantity and
distribution of the data).
Whether the result appropriately reflects the
Competent Person’s view of the deposit.





Audits
reviews
or

Hanking Gold Mining
The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral
Resource estimates.

(below 420mRL); BIF = 3.0 (Surface to
420mRL), 3.2 (below 420mRL). There
are no available records which explain
how these BD values were derived.
Resource Engineering Pty Ltd (RE), in
May 1988 reported the following:
Variations in specific gravity reflect the
variability of mineralogy and ore
composition.RE noted density of 1.9t/m3,
presumably for oxide material, and also
noted BIF/sulphide material with BD as
high as 3.4t/m3. RE also noted figures of
2.4 and 2.7 representing the open pit,
but did not specify the rock type for
these readings. It is not recorded in the
RE report how the BD determinations
were derived.
Other reports describe oxide and
transitional zones within the open pit
mining operations. The only
consideration for weathering is the 420m
RL used to distinguish full or partial
oxidation from fresh material. The
mineralised domains interpreted for this
resource estimate lies entirely within the
primary or fresh sulphide zone based on
this assumption.
There are no bulk density determinations
reported from the other available
historical documents for Copperhead.
Resource blocks have been classified as
Indicated or Inferred on the basis on a
range of criteria.
Indicated resources are defined as being
informed by a nominal 50m x 50m or
better spaced drilling or declustered data
spacing, and by the confidence in the
down plunge extension of mineralisation
below the open pit and historic UG
workings that have ore drive.
Inferred resources are defined by
historical extent of workings (stoping and
ore drive development and confidence
that the continuity of geology and
mineralisation can be extended down
plunge to north-west for both the
Northern and Southern Series domains.
Both Indicated and Inferred Material
reported for this resource includes
remnant material in close proximity to
historical stoping. Considerations as to
what material is to be coded as sterilised
are required for future resource updates
and Mineral Reserve estimates.
Previous reports have indicated that the
extent of the stoping has been a plotted
from historic GWC development plan
data and stope long sections.
The Mineral Resource estimate
appropriately reflects the Competent
Person’s view of the deposit.
Several reviews have been undertaken
on previous Mineral Resource
estimations including an external review
completed by a third party consultant,
Page 96 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Criteria
JORC Code explanation
Commentary



Discussion of
relative
accuracy/
confidence



Where appropriate a statement of the relative
accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral
Resource estimate using an approach or
procedure deemed appropriate by the
Competent Person. For example, the
application of statistical or geostatistical
procedures to quantify the relative accuracy
of the resource within stated confidence
limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed
appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the
factors that could affect the relative accuracy
and confidence of the estimate.
The statement should specify whether it
relates to global or local estimates, and, if
local, state the relevant tonnages, which
should be relevant to technical and economic
evaluation. Documentation should include
assumptions made and the procedures used.
These statements of relative accuracy and
confidence of the estimate should be
compared with production data, where
available.





Hanking Gold Mining
and internal reviews discussing both
resource modelling and reconciliation
conducted by Sons of Gwalia during the
open pit mining operations.
For the current reported mineral
resource estimate, an internal peer
review was conducted by Cube on the
geostatistical parameters and estimation
methodology, and technical report draft.
Following the database validation, a
review was undertaken with HGM
regarding the use of the historic UG DD
holes for the mineral resource
estimation. A total of 103 UG DD holes
were removed from the mineral resource
estimation due to broad intervals within
the mineralised domains that were not
sampled and which did not reflect the
sample values from more recent drilling
in close proximity where the entire
mineralised domain was sampled.
The interpreted mineralisation
wireframes are based on 3DMs supplied
by HGM. The Southern Series 3DMs
were modified by Cube based on a
review of digitised historic level plans
mapping and ore drive face sampling
values.
The 2010-2011 drilling program has
provided evidence of down dip and
down plunge continuity of gold
mineralisation in the Southern Series at
Copperhead below historic UG workings.
Due to wide spaced drilling in the deeper
areas, local variations can be expected
within the narrow, tight to isoclinal
folding noted from open pit mapping for
both the dolomite and BIG hosted rock
units.
The variogram and search parameters
adopted for the estimation are
complicated by the complexity of the
style of mineralisation, most notably
described by mine geologists from open
pit mapping and the core logging results
following the 2010-2011 drilling program.
The orientation of localised gold
mineralisation may also be affected by
regular structural offsets and
bifurcations.
From historical production and RC and
diamond drill logging, it is evident both
dolomite and BIF hosted rock units are
known to host the gold. The use of
broad search within hard boundary
domains modelled for the host units has
been adopted in order to minimise the
risk of conditional bias caused by high
nugget effects.
The use of OK has assisted in reducing
the risk associated with the high nugget
observed in the gold distribution. The
additional benefit of OK is it inherently
assists in declustering the data during
the estimate.
Page 97 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Criteria
JORC Code explanation
Commentary



Hanking Gold Mining
The Mineral Resources constitute a
global resource estimate.
The current mineral resource includes
stope remnants classified as Indicated or
Inferred. Historic production data from
the extensive historic underground
workings and more recent open pit
mining operation confirms the presence
of gold mineralisation as intersected by
the various phases of drilling over the life
of the Copperhead mining history.
Subsequent mining and close spaced
sampling has shown the local variability
of the gold mineralisation in between drill
holes. This implies a medium level of
confidence in the estimate.
Page 98 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
APPENDIX 2 Laboratory Protocols
(ref. Peters, 2011)
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 99 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Kal Assay – Sample Preparation & FA Analysis Flow Chart (DD Samples) – 2010-11 Drilling
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 100 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
SGS – Sample Preparation (LTK60 & NQ(Half) Core Samples) – 2010-11 Drilling
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 101 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
SGS – Sample Preparation (BQ Core Samples)
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 102 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
APPENDIX 3 QAQC Data (2010-2011 SBM Drilling)
For Period 01/01/2011 to 28/09/2011 (ref. Peters, 2011)
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 103 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
CRM (Standards) Plots
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 104 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 105 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 106 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 107 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 108 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Selected Blanks Plots
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 109 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Selected Duplicates Plots
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 110 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 111 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 112 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Explanation of Terms
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 113 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 114 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
APPENDIX 4 Variogram Plots
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 115 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Northern Series - Domain 1001
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 116 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 117 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Southern Series - Domain 2001
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 118 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 119 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
Southern Series - Domain 2002
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 120 of 121
Mineral Resource Estimate – July 2016
Copperhead Gold Project
.
Hanking Gold Mining
Page 121 of 121