Oceanic Iron Ore Corp. (TSX VENTURE: FEO)(OTCQX: FEOVF) (the
"Company", "Oceanic") owns 100% of the Ungava Bay Property which
comprises three project areas: Hopes Advance, Roberts Lake and
Morgan Lake.
The Company is pleased to announce that it has received the
results of a National Instrument 43-101 resource estimate prepared
by Micon International Limited ("Micon") in respect of the Hopes
Advance Project Area ("Hopes Advance").
Highlights:
-- 358.3 million tonnes of indicated in-pit resource at a 31.8% total iron
with a 38.2% crude to concentrate weight recovery at a total iron cut-
off of 25%
-- 872.4 million tonnes of inferred in-pit resource at a 32.4% total iron
with a 39.0% crude to concentrate weight recovery at a total iron cut-
off of 25%
-- The new resource estimate is significantly larger than the historic
resource by a factor of over 180%
-- It is expected that the results of a Preliminary Economic Assessment
("PEA") will be released shortly
-- A resource estimate update upon receipt of additional assay data from
approximately 70 drill holes is expected before the end of this calendar
year
Steven Dean, Chairman and CEO noted: "The resource estimate
prepared by Micon in respect of Hopes Advance exceeds our resource
target set earlier this year. The new resource estimate is 180%
larger than the historic resource and is expected to increase once
we take into account additional assay data that is still to be
received. There is also significant potential upside from the
Roberts Lake and Morgan Lake project areas, which are not addressed
in this resource estimate and which have historic resources of
approximately 1.8 billion tonnes(i)."
(i) These are historical resource estimates that do not comply
with the current Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and
Petroleum Resources (CIM) Definition Standards on Mineral Resources
and Mineral Reserves as required by National Instrument 43-101 (NI
43-101) Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. These
historical resource estimates were described as "drill indicated"
and "potential" at the time of reporting which does not correspond
to the categorization set forth in sections 1.2 and 1.3 of NI
43-101. Although these historical resource estimates are relevant
to support the presence of large areas of iron mineralization,
these estimates are speculative, are based on very limited
exploration drilling and will require extensive new exploration and
metallurgical efforts to validate. They should not be treated as
current mineral resources or reserves or relied upon until
confirmed by current exploration and a Qualified Person. A
Qualified Person has not done sufficient work to upgrade or
classify these historical resource estimates as current NI-43-101
compliant mineral resources. The Roberts Lake historic resource was
reported in 1970 from drilling in the late 1950s and the Morgan
Lake historic resource was reported in 1957 and 1964. Further
information in respect of these historic resources is outlined in a
43-101 technical report prepared by Micon entitled "Technical
Report on the Ungava Iron Property - Ungava Bay Region, Quebec,
Canada" dated Oct. 29, 2010, available on SEDAR.
Exploration Program
The 2011 exploration drilling program on Hopes Advance consisted
of 115 drill holes with 11,581 m of NQ calibre drilling. At Kayak
Bay (in the Robert's Lake region) 11 drill holes have been
completed totaling 1,086 m of NQ calibre drilling.
At Hopes Advance, 67 historical drill holes were twinned. The
twinned drill holes were within one meter of the historical drill
hole site maintaining the same orientation and dip angle. All the
historical drill hole sites were located and surveyed as well as
the drill holes from the current program. The new drill holes were
all logged and sampled with sample lengths being collected up to a
maximum length of two meters. Assay samples collected are sent to
ALS Chemex for Whole Rock analysis by lithium borate fusion and XRF
(oxides), ferrous iron by H2SO4 - HF and acid digestion and
titrimetric finish, and Total Sulphur by the LECO method. The total
Fe assays and geological interpretation between the historical
drill holes and the current drilling are very comparable. Composite
samples within similar iron formation units have been prepared on
each drill hole and are being sent to SGS Lakefield to conduct
bench scale metallurgical testing on some 800 samples from Hopes
Advance. The bench scale testing will include head assays, Mozley
table gravity testing, and Davis tube testing.
At Hopes Advance, 43 exploration holes were completed on Castle
Mountain, Zone 4, Iron Valley, Bay Zone B, Bay Zone C, Bay Zone D,
Bay Zone E, and Bay Zone F. The new exploration drilling has
successfully extended mineralization on Castle Mountain, Zone 4,
Iron Valley, Bay Zone B and Bay Zone F. On a number of zones,
Castle Mountain, Zones 2 and Bay Zone F in particular, certain
drill hole intersections demonstrate greater iron mineralization
thicknesses than originally expected from the historical drill
holes. The assay results reported to date from thirty-eight drill
holes continue to show low levels of sulphur and phosphorous.
In the Roberts Lake Area, 1,086 m were drilled on the Kayak Bay
Zone. Eight historical drill holes were twinned on six sections
stretching over an iron formation strike length of 2,300 m with
widths of 50 m plus.
The Company is awaiting the assay results on the 69 remaining
drill holes.
Resource Estimate
The Company has access to an extensive amount of historical data
in respect of all three of its project areas (Hopes Advance,
Roberts Lake and the Morgan Lake Project Areas). Hopes Advance has
been the initial focus of work completed to date given the extent
of work done historically on this particular deposit. Drill holes
have been targeted and twinned based on historical information,
along with certain extension targets identified and drilled.
Eight different mineralized areas were identified at Hopes
Advance for inclusion into a resource estimate. These eight areas
included Castle Mountain, Zone 2, Zone 4, Iron Valley, Bay Zone F,
Bay Zone E, Bay Zone D, and Bay Zone C. Three additional
historically identified mineralized areas (Bay Zones A and B, and
McDonald Zone) were not considered in the resource estimate at this
time due to limited available historic drill hole results and
assays from recent drill holes that have not yet been received.
Each individual mineralized area was developed separately as a
discrete block model and estimated using inverse distance cubed
interpolation. Based on the very strong correlation between the
historic and modern drilling, the historic drillhole data was also
used in the resource estimate. The resource model is stratigraphic
in nature and during resource estimation an unfolding technique was
used to ensure that iron grades tracked along the stratigraphy.
The mineral resource estimate is effective as of the 9th of
September 2011. There are approximately 115 holes that the Company
has completed at Hopes Advance, both twinned and step-out, that are
in the process of being analyzed and as such, the Company expects
to release an updated resource estimate later this year reflecting
the holes that are yet to be reported. All of the new drilling at
Hopes Advance was used to delineate the stratigraphic model used in
the various block models. Using a 25% total iron cut-off, the
global mineral inventory is shown below in Table 1.
Table 1 - NI 43-101 Global Mineral Inventory for Hopes Advance (at a 25% Fe
cut-off)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude to
Resource Resource Concentrate
Classification Tonnes Fe (%) Weight Recovery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicated 461,533,000 32.0 38.5%
Inferred 1,030,455,000 32.3 38.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not have
demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of mineral resources may
be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title,
socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.
2. The mineral resources presented here were estimated using a block model
with parent blocks of 50x50x15 meters sub-blocked to a minimum size of
25x25x1 meters and using Inverse Distance Cubed methods for grade
estimation. A total of 8 individual mineralized areas were identified
and each estimated into a separate block model. Given the continuity of
the iron assay values, no top cuts were applied. All resources are
reported using an iron cut-off of 25%.
3. The quantity and grade of reported inferred resources in this estimation
are uncertain in nature and there has been insufficient exploration to
define these inferred resources as an indicated or measured mineral
resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in
upgrading them to an indicated or measured mineral resource category.
4. The mineral resources in this press release were estimated using the
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), CIM
Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines
prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions and
adopted by CIM Council on November 27, 2010.
Using each block model, Whittle economic pit optimization was
completed and economic pit shells developed. These shells were then
used to develop detailed mine designs including ramps and berms
from which an in-pit mineral resource estimate was generated. Table
2 below describes the in-pit mineral resources for Hopes
Advance.
Table 2 - NI 43-101 In-Pit Mineral Resource Estimate Hopes Advance Bay (25%
Cut-off)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight
Total Recovery
Category Tonnes Fe (%) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicated 358,362,000 31.8% 38.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inferred 872,423,000 32.4% 39.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not have
demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of mineral resources may
be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title,
socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.
2. The mineral resources were estimated using a block model with parent
blocks of 50x50x15 sub-blocked to a minimum size of 25x25x1 and using
Inverse Distance Cubed methods for grade estimation. A total of 8
individual mineralized domains were identified and estimated. Given the
continuity of the iron assay values, no top cuts were applied. For a
"potential open pit" mineral resource a cut-off grade of 25% total iron
is based on a Whittle optimized pit shell and a mining recovery of 100%.
Using this Whittle optimized shell as a basis, mineable pit shapes were
developed for each mineralizing domain.
3. The quantity and grade of reported inferred resources in this estimation
are uncertain in nature and there has been insufficient exploration to
define these inferred resources as an indicated or measured mineral
resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in
upgrading them to an indicated or measured mineral resource category.
4. The mineral resources in this press release were estimated using the
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), CIM
Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines
prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions and
adopted by CIM Council November 27, 2010.
Table 3 below presents the tonnes and grades from the block
model used for the Mineral Resource estimate at a range of cut-off
grades within a Whittle pit shell in order to demonstrate the
sensitivity of the estimates. The cut-off value of 25% total iron
"potential open pit" was derived using the parameters listed in
Table 4 below. Please note that a hard, metallurgical iron cut-off
of 25 percent total iron was used as well as the economic cut-off.
This hard cut-off was applied to reflect an optimal minimum iron
grade for processing in the concentrator.
Table 3 - Whittle Sensitivity of the "Potential Open Pit" Resource Estimates
at Various Cut-off Grades
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measured + Indicated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource Weight Concentrate
Cutoff Tonnes Fe (%) Recovery Tonnes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.0 513,998,000 31.1 37.4% 192,406,000
22.5 506,290,000 31.3 37.6% 190,383,000
25.0 461,533,000 32.0 38.5% 177,540,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.5 387,254,000 33.1 39.8% 154,169,000
30.0 325,140,000 33.9 40.8% 132,629,000
32.5 237,839,000 34.8 41.9% 99,647,000
35.0 107,871,000 36.0 43.3% 46,723,000
37.5 2,755,000 38.1 45.8% 1,262,000
40.0 0 0.0 0.0% 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inferred
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource Weight Concentrate
Cutoff Tonnes Fe (%) Recovery Tonnes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.0 1,167,385,000 31.3 37.7% 439,874,000
22.5 1,146,541,000 31.5 37.9% 434,466,000
25.0 1,030,455,000 32.3 38.9% 401,004,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.5 873,426,000 33.4 40.2% 351,308,000
30.0 724,009,000 34.4 41.4% 299,676,000
32.5 548,893,000 35.4 42.6% 233,717,000
35.0 284,985,000 36.9 44.4% 126,408,000
37.5 82,343,000 38.6 46.4% 38,227,000
40.0 8,788,000 40.7 49.0% 4,308,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 - Hopes Advance Bay Whittle Economic Pit Optimization Assumptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Units $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mining Cost $/t all material $2.71
Process Cost $/t resource $14.87
Pipeline $/t product $1.08
Port $/t product $3.00
Camp $/t product $1.50
G&A C$/t product $1.50
Royalty % 2.0%
Concentrate Value $/t product $100.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that the resource numbers presented in Table
4 above are for resulting Whittle pit shells and not the designed
in-pit mineral resources presented in Table 2, or any Preliminary
Economic Analysis being completed in respect of Hopes Advance.
It is expected that a high percentage of the inferred tonnes
will convert to an indicated status upon receipt of positive
metallurgical data over the next two months.
Comparison to Historic Resource Data
Extensive work in the 1950's defined a historic resource at
Hopes Advance of 591 million tonnes "Drill Indicated" at 35.7%
Soluble Iron and 228.6 million tonnes "Potential" at 35.0% Soluble
Iron.
These are historical resource estimates that do not comply with
the current Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
Resources (CIM) Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and
Mineral Reserves as required by National Instrument 43-101 (NI
43-101) Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. These
historical resource estimates were described as "drill indicated"
and "potential" at the time of reporting which does not correspond
to the categorization set forth in sections 1.2 and 1.3 of NI
43-101. Although these historical resource estimates are relevant
to support the presence of large areas of iron mineralization,
these estimates are speculative, are based on very limited
exploration drilling and will require extensive new exploration and
metallurgical efforts to validate. They should not be treated as
current mineral resources or reserves or relied upon until
confirmed by current exploration and a Qualified Person. A
Qualified Person has not done sufficient work to upgrade or
classify these historical resource estimates as current NI-43-101
compliant mineral resources. The Hopes Advance historic resource
was reported in 1958. Further information in respect of these
historic resources is outlined in a 43-101 technical report
prepared by Micon entitled "Technical Report on the Ungava Iron
Property - Ungava Bay Region, Quebec, Canada" dated Oct. 29, 2010,
available on SEDAR.
Results from the current NI 43-101 compliant resource estimate
shows that the current work has expanded the historic resource on
an "area by area" basis, and the Company believes that further
expansion is likely. This is primarily due to the fact that the
Company has identified a number of instances where mineralization
continues where historically the assumption had been that
mineralization had stopped. In addition, the Company has conducted
45 step-out holes of which only the geology has been taken into
account. Assays for these step-out holes are still pending and
should further expand the resource base beyond the historical
resource area. These assays have not yet been taken into account in
estimating the resource estimate herein, but suggest that the
mineralization extends past the current pit boundaries.
Resource Statement
The mineral resource estimates in this press release use the
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM),
Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions and
Guidelines prepared by CIM Standing Committee on Reserve
Definitions and adopted by CIM Council on November 27, 2010. The
mineral resource estimates provided in this report are classified
as "measured", "indicated", or "inferred" as defined by CIM.
According to the CIM definitions, a Mineral Resource must be
potentially economic in that it must be "in such form and quantity
and of such grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for
economic extraction". For the Hopes Advance iron deposit, an iron
cut-off grade was assigned based on economic assumptions and
metallurgical parameters and was used in the resource estimations.
Table 3 above shows the economic parameters used in the iron
cut-off grade calculation. Resources reported in this press release
use an estimated potential open pit iron cut-off of 25% total iron
content.
The mineral resource estimate presented in Tables 1 and 2 is
effective as of 9 September 2011. The mineral resources listed in
Tables 1 and 2 were estimated by Sam J. Shoemaker, Jr., M.AusIMM,
and Registered Member-SME. Mr. Shoemaker is a QP as defined in NI
43-101 and is independent of the Company.
Eddy Canova, P.Geo.(Q403), the Exploration Manager for the
Company and a Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101, has
reviewed and is responsible for the technical information contained
in this news release.
The complete report in respect of the resource estimate will be
filed on SEDAR and on the Company's website within 45 days of this
news release.
OCEANIC IRON ORE CORP. (www.oceanicironore.com)
On behalf of the Board of Directors,
Steven Dean, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
This news release includes certain "Forward-Looking Statements"
as that term is used in applicable securities law. All statements
included herein, other than statements of historical fact,
including, without limitation, statements regarding potential
mineralization and resources, exploration results, and future plans
and objectives of Oceanic Iron Ore Corp. ("Oceanic", or the
"Company"), are forward-looking statements that involve various
risks and uncertainties. In certain cases, forward-looking
statements can be identified by the use of words such as "plans",
"expects" or "does not expect", "scheduled", "believes", or
variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain
actions, events or results "potentially", "may", "could", "would",
"might" or "will" be taken, occur or be achieved.
There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be
accurate, and actual results could differ materially from those
expressed or implied by such statements. Forward-looking statements
are based on certain assumptions that management believes are
reasonable at the time they are made. In making the forward-looking
statements in this presentation, the Company has applied several
material assumptions, including, but not limited to, the assumption
that: (1) there being no significant disruptions affecting
operations, whether due to labour/supply disruptions, damage to
equipment or otherwise; (2) permitting, development, expansion and
power supply proceeding on a basis consistent with the Company's
current expectations; (3) certain price assumptions for iron ore;
(4) prices for availability of natural gas, fuel oil, electricity,
parts and equipment and other key supplies remaining consistent
with current levels; (5) the accuracy of current mineral resource
estimates on the Company's property; and (6) labour and material
costs increasing on a basis consistent with the Company's current
expectations. Important factors that could cause actual results to
differ materially from the Company's expectations are disclosed
under the heading "Risk Factors" in the Company's Filing Statement
dated November 22, 2010 (a copy of which is publicly available on
SEDAR at www.sedar.com under the Company's profile) and elsewhere
in documents filed from time to time, including MD&A, with the
Toronto Stock Exchange and other regulatory authorities. Such
factors include, among others, risks related to the ability of the
Company to obtain necessary financing and adequate insurance; the
economy generally; fluctuations in the currency markets;
fluctuations in the spot and forward price of iron ore or certain
other commodities (e.g., diesel fuel and electricity); changes in
interest rates; disruption to the credit markets and delays in
obtaining financing; the possibility of cost overruns or
unanticipated expenses; employee relations. Accordingly, readers
are advised not to place undue reliance on Forward-Looking
Statements. Except as required under applicable securities
legislation, the Company undertakes no obligation to publicly
update or revise Forward-Looking Statements, whether as a result of
new information, future events or otherwise.
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services
Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX
Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or
accuracy of this release.
Contacts: Oceanic Iron Ore Corp. Steven Dean Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer +1-604-566-9080 604-566-9081 (FAX)
www.oceanicironore.com
Oceanic Iron Ore (PK) (USOTC:FEOVF)
Gráfico Histórico do Ativo
De Dez 2024 até Jan 2025
Oceanic Iron Ore (PK) (USOTC:FEOVF)
Gráfico Histórico do Ativo
De Jan 2024 até Jan 2025
