Translate
(via Thenewswire.ca)
Vancouver, February 14, 2012 - IEMR Resources Inc. (IEMR - TSX Venture: IRI) ") is pleased to announce that Mr. Shaun M. Dykes, M.Sc. (Eng), P.Geo, IEMR Resources (IEMR) independent qualified person under National Instrument 43-101 has reported the results of a new 43-101 compliant independent mineral resource estimate for IEMR`s Pine Tree porphyry molybdenum-copper-silver deposit located in Nevada. Giroux Consulting, an independent, internationally recognized mineral industry consultant, calculated the estimate.
The NI 43-101 compliant calculation confirms that the Pine Tree deposit contains, at a $5.00 cutoff:
TABLE 1
-------------------------------------------------------------- |Indicated|Inferred|Metal | |------------------------------------------------------------| |434.3 |591.4 |million pounds of copper (Cu), | |------------------------------------------------------------| |173.6 |111.7 |million pounds of molybdenum oxide(MoO3),| |------------------------------------------------------------| |11.2 |17.4 |million ounces of silver (Ag) and | |------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------| |241.3 |295.7 |million tons | --------------------------------------------------------------
The global mineral resource is divided into two components based on cutoff grades:
Indicated
------------------------------------------------------------- |zone|cutoff |tons |MoS2 |Cu |MoS2 |Cu |Ag | |-----------------------------------------------------------| | |Grade (GMV)|millions|Equiv. %|Equiv. %|% |% |ppm | |-----------------------------------------------------------| |Cu |$5.00 |3.45 |0.030 |0.22 |0.003|0.13|2.61| |-----------------------------------------------------------| |Mo |$5.00 |237.8 |0.062 |0.39 |0.040|0.09|1.58| -------------------------------------------------------------
Inferred
------------------------------------------------------------- |zone|cutoff |tons |MoS2 |Cu |MoS2 |Cu |Ag | |-----------------------------------------------------------| | |Grade (GMV)|millions|Equiv. %|Equiv. %|% |% |ppm | |-----------------------------------------------------------| |Cu |$5.00 |82.9 |0.038 |0.24 |0.004|0.13|3.71| |-----------------------------------------------------------| |Mo |$5.00 |212.8 |0.050 |0.31 |0.028|0.09|1.37| -------------------------------------------------------------
For calculation of Cu Equiv. and MoS2 equiv. see description at end of Table 1
Importantly, the Giroux estimate also shows the presence of higher grade resources in the main Mo zone:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |cutoff |Resource |tons |MoS2 |Cu |MoS2 |Cu |Ag | |--------------------------------------------------------------------| |grade |Class |millions|Equiv. %|Equiv. %|% |% |ppm | |--------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.05 MoS2 equiv|Indicated|70.1 |0.100 |0.63 |0.077|0.10|1.31| |--------------------------------------------------------------------| |($12.50 GMV) |Inferred |21.3 |0.087 |0.55 |0.065|0.09|1.32| ----------------------------------------------------------------------
These higher-grade resources will potentially facilitate rapid recovery of capital costs during the early years of a possible large-scale mining operation.
It should be noted, IEMR's assay results also indicate the presence of significant quantities of gold (0.06 - 0.1 gms/T) , indium (0.3 to 0.5 gms/T), tungsten(30 to 40 gms/T), rhenium(0.040 to 0.050 gms/T) , gallium(15-18 gms/T) and magnetite (1%-1.5%), which due to the lack of continuous assays and unknown metallurgical recoveries were not estimated at this time. Magnetite is especially interesting as the result of the recent developments of nanoparticle technology to clean water of contaminants.
Metallurgical test work will be completed to determine if these metals can be recovered in economic quantities, so that they can be included in future resource calculations.
Giroux Consultants were chosen to complete the 43-101 compliant resource estimate at Pine Tree, because of their extensive work on large tonnage open pit and underground accessible primary molybdenum projects throughout the world. A technical report detailing the resource estimate will be filed on SEDAR within the next 45 days. The specific breakdown of indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources for the Pine Tree deposit above varying cut-off grades is tabulated in Tables 1 and 2.
Giroux's estimate is based on drill core assay results from 8,417 meters (25.252 feet) of drilling in 21 holes completed by Mosquito Consolidated Gold Mines Ltd between 2005 and 2008 and 5,652.7meters (18,545.5 feet) in 9 diamond drill holes completed by IEMR in 2011. Due to mineral zonation the deposit was split into two mineral zones: a Cu zone near surface grading downward into a Mo zone. Cu grades were highest within the Cu Domain while MoS2 were highest in the Mo domain. The grade distribution for each variable was examined in each zone with erratic high grades capped. Uniform 50 ft. composites were formed that honored the boundaries of the two grade zones. Semi variograms were run for each variable and isotropic models were fit to the data. Grades for each variable were interpolated into 50 x 50 x 50 ft. blocks by ordinary kriging. Specific gravities were obtained from drill core and average values were applied to each domain.
Mineralization consists of copper, molybdenum, silver, gold, tungsten, indium, rhenium, tungsten and gallium. As a result of the multi-element nature of the mineralization, Mosquito decided to include both a copper and molybdenum equivalent for the resource table. Both equivalents are required as the deposit is zoned See notes below table for explanation of the calculation of copper equivalent (Cu Eq.), MoS2 equivalent (MoS2 Eq.). The presence of the by-product elements gold, tungsten, indium, rhenium, and gallium are very significant in terms of the development of the property.
Pine Tree has an excellent configuration for potential open-pit mining. The thick mineralization is very continuous with almost no internal waste and is persistent over a broad area measuring 1.5 km by 1 km. Mineralization begins right at the bedrock surface at the south, which is covered only by a thin layer of overburden and broken rock ranging from 4 to 20 meters thick, indicating the deposit will have a low strip ratio. The deposit is currently 500-600 meters thick and open to the northwest and west.
Immediate plans for the Pine Tree deposit are, to develop the drill parameters for definition of measured and indicated resources, complete metallurgical test work, continue drilling to define the full extent of the deposit and expand the higher grade zone, complete a preliminary sizing/scoping study that will facilitate the start of environmental base line measurements for the mine permitting process and collect engineering data for specific mine, mill and infrastructure design.
Specific attention will be focused on following up the high grade silver intersection encountered in Hole PT11-30 that assayed 9.14 meters (30 feet) grading 1256.5 grams Ag/T (36.6 oz/t) and to determining other metal recoveries for the deposit.
Drill core samples were cut in half using a diamond saw. Half the core was sent for analysis and the other half has been kept and stored at the core facility located on site. Following cutting, the samples were picked up directly by ALS Chemex personnel and delivered to their fully accredited analytical laboratory in Reno, Nevada. They were first analyzed for 47 elements using a four (4) acid digestion with analysis by Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma Optical Mass Spectrometer (ICP-MS). Copper and Molybdenum bearing samples were then checked by using a larger five gram sample and analyzed using pressed powder pellet X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRF). In addition, duplicates, blanks, and standards were analyzed to ensure analytical accuracy and reproducibility. All rejects are being kept for further analysis and for use in metallurgical testing.
Mr. Shaun M. Dykes, M.Sc. (Eng), P.Geo., is the designated qualified person for the Pine Tree Project, and prepared the technical information contained in this news release. Gary Giroux of Giroux Consultants is the qualified person responsible for the resource calculation.
On Behalf of the Board
IEMR RESOURCES INC.
"Hongxue Fu"
Hongxue Fu
President and Chief Executive Officer
For further information, contact: Long Wang, Chief Financial Officer
IEMR Resources Inc.
Tel: 604 642 6199
E-mail: info@iemr.ca
About IEMR Resources Ltd.
IEMR Resources Ltd. is a mining exploration and development company with a diverse portfolio of high potential precious and base metals projects, located in low political risk environments throughout the world. The Company's primary focus is developing its Nevada-based Pine Tree project. For more information about the company, please visit www.iemr.com.
THIS NEWS RELEASE WAS PREPARED BY MANAGEMENT WHO TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTENTS. THE TSX-VENTURE EXCHANGE does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
This news release includes certain statements that express management's expectation or estimates of future performance and may be deemed "forward-looking statements". These forward-looking statements include plans, estimates, forecasts and statements as to management's expectations regarding the Pine Tree Project. These forward-looking statements involve assumptions, risks and uncertainties and actual results may vary materially. For these reasons shareholders should not place undue reliance on such forward-looking information.
United States residents are cautioned that some of the information that may be published by IEMR may not be consistent with United States Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure rules and may be materially different from what the Company is permitted to disclose in the United States and therefore United States residents should not rely on such information.
Table 1a 2011 Indicated Resource Estimate for Pine Tree (GMV cutoff) (after Giroux 2011)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Cut-off|Tonnage |Grade |Contained|Contained|contained| | | | | | > | | | | | | | | |Cut-off | | | | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |GMV |(short |MoS2 | |Ag |Million |Million |Million |MoS2 |Cu | | |tons) |(%) |Cu |(g/t)| | | | | | | | | |(%) | | | | | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |(US$) | | | | |lbs MoO3 |lbs Cu |ozs AG |Eq. |Eq. | | | | | | | | | |% |% | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |1.00 |264,730,000|0.037|0.09|1.50 |176.2 |476.5 |11.59 |0.058|0.37| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |2.00 |264,120,000|0.037|0.09|1.50 |175.8 |475.4 |11.57 |0.058|0.37| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |3.00 |260,860,000|0.038|0.09|1.51 |178.3 |469.5 |11.50 |0.059|0.37| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |4.00 |252,160,000|0.039|0.09|1.55 |176.9 |453.9 |11.41 |0.060|0.38| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |5.00 |241,280,000|0.040|0.09|1.59 |173.6 |434.3 |11.20 |0.062|0.39| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |6.00 |231,810,000|0.041|0.10|1.63 |170.9 |463.6 |11.03 |0.065|0.41| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |7.00 |221,800,000|0.042|0.10|1.65 |167.5 |443.6 |10.69 |0.066|0.41| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |8.00 |212,250,000|0.043|0.10|1.67 |164.1 |424.5 |10.35 |0.067|0.42| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |9.00 |200,770,000|0.045|0.10|1.67 |162.5 |401.5 |9.79 |0.069|0.43| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |10.00 |187,290,000|0.047|0.10|1.67 |158.3 |374.6 |9.13 |0.071|0.45| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |11.00 |172,560,000|0.049|0.11|1.65 |152.1 |379.6 |8.31 |0.075|0.47| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |12.00 |157,810,000|0.052|0.11|1.62 |147.6 |347.2 |7.46 |0.078|0.49| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1b 2011 Inferred Resource Estimate for Pine Tree (GMV cutoff) (after Giroux 2011)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Cut-off|Tonnage |Grade |Contained|Contained|contained| | | | | | > | | | | | | | | |Cut-off | | | | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |GMV |(short |MoS2 | |Ag |Million |Million |Million |MoS2 |Cu | | |tons) |(%) |Cu |(g/t)| | | | | | | | | |(%) | | | | | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |(US$) | | | | |lbs MoO3 |lbs Cu |ozs AG |Equ. |Eq. | | | | | | | | | |% |% | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |1.00 |337,760,000|0.019|0.09|1.87 |115.4 |608.0 |18.44 |0.041|0.26| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |2.00 |334,490,000|0.019|0.09|1.88 |114.3 |602.1 |18.36 |0.041|0.26| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |3.00 |323,260,000|0.020|0.10|1.93 |116.3 |646.5 |18.22 |0.044|0.28| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |4.00 |311,860,000|0.020|0.10|1.98 |112.2 |623.7 |18.03 |0.044|0.28| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |5.00 |295,710,000|0.021|0.10|2.02 |111.7 |591.4 |17.44 |0.046|0.29| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |6.00 |278,950,000|0.022|0.10|2.07 |110.4 |557.9 |16.86 |0.047|0.29| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |7.00 |259,880,000|0.023|0.10|2.12 |107.5 |519.8 |16.09 |0.048|0.30| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |8.00 |239,980,000|0.025|0.11|2.18 |107.9 |528.0 |15.28 |0.052|0.33| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |9.00 |214,060,000|0.026|0.11|2.23 |100.1 |470.9 |13.94 |0.053|0.33| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |10.00 |183,310,000|0.028|0.11|2.28 |92.3 |403.3 |12.20 |0.055|0.35| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |11.00 |151,960,000|0.031|0.11|2.26 |84.7 |334.3 |10.03 |0.058|0.37| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |12.00 |122,200,000|0.034|0.12|2.23 |74.7 |293.3 |7.96 |0.063|0.40| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2a 2011 Indicated Resource Estimate for Pine Tree (MoS2 equiv cutoff) (after Giroux 2011)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Cut-off|Tonnage |Grade |Contained|Contained|contained| | | | | | > | | | | | | | | |Cut-off | | | | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |MoS2 |(short |MoS2 | |Ag |Million |Million |Million |MoS2 |Cu | |(%) |tons) |(%) |Cu |(g/t)| | | | | | | | | |(%) | | | | | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | |lbs MoO3 |lbs Cu |ozs AG |Eq. |Eq. | | | | | | | | | |% |% | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.01 |240,370,000|0.040|0.09|1.52 |172.9 |423.1 |10.64 |0.061|0.38| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.02 |176,010,000|0.050|0.10|1.47 |158.3 |334.4 |7.58 |0.072|0.45| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.03 |128,030,000|0.059|0.10|1.39 |135.9 |243.3 |5.21 |0.081|0.51| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.04 |93,250,000 |0.069|0.10|1.35 |115.7 |180.9 |3.66 |0.091|0.58| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.05 |70,150,000 |0.077|0.10|1.31 |97.1 |138.9 |2.69 |0.100|0.63| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.06 |53,800,000 |0.084|0.10|1.30 |81.3 |108.7 |2.04 |0.107|0.67| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.07 |39,100,000 |0.091|0.10|1.26 |64.0 |78.2 |1.43 |0.114|0.72| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.08 |27,480,000 |0.098|0.10|1.23 |48.4 |55.0 |0.99 |0.121|0.76| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.09 |18,220,000 |0.105|0.10|1.20 |34.4 |36.1 |0.64 |0.127|0.80| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.10 |10,950,000 |0.112|0.10|1.19 |22.1 |22.1 |0.38 |0.135|0.85| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.11 |5,280,000 |0.121|0.11|1.26 |11.5 |11.3 |0.19 |0.145|0.91| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2b 2011 Inferred Resource Estimate for Pine Tree (MoS2 equiv cutoff) (after Giroux 2011)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Cut-off|Tonnage |Grade |Contained|Contained|contained| | | | | | > | | | | | | | | |Cut-off | | | | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |MoS2 |(short |MoS2 | |Ag |Million |Million |Million |MoS2 |Cu | |(%) |tons) |(%) |Cu |(g/t)| | | | | | | | | |(%) | | | | | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | |lbs MoO3 |lbs Cu |ozs AG |Eq. |Eq. | | | | | | | | | |% |% | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.01 |196,510,000|0.030|0.09|1.35 |106.0 |341.9 |7.76 |0.050|0.32| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.02 |141,690,000|0.036|0.09|1.36 |91.7 |252.2 |5.62 |0.057|0.36| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.03 |76,140,000 |0.046|0.09|1.41 |63.0 |141.6 |3.14 |0.068|0.43| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.04 |44,150,000 |0.054|0.09|1.33 |42.9 |82.1 |1.71 |0.076|0.48| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.05 |21,270,000 |0.065|0.09|1.32 |24.9 |40.0 |0.82 |0.087|0.55| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.06 |10,330,000 |0.077|0.10|1.32 |14.3 |20.0 |0.40 |0.099|0.63| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.07 |6,090,000 |0.086|0.10|1.33 |9.4 |11.7 |0.24 |0.108|0.68| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.08 |3,600,000 |0.094|0.09|1.21 |6.1 |6.6 |0.13 |0.115|0.72| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.09 |2,420,000 |0.099|0.09|1.07 |4.3 |4.3 |0.08 |0.119|0.75| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.10 |1,080,000 |0.105|0.09|1.00 |2.0 |1.9 |0.03 |0.125|0.79| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |0.11 |180,000 |0.112|0.07|0.65 |0.4 |0.3 |0.00 |0.127|0.80| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: All tables are taken directly from Giroux, 2011.
GMV is a gross metal value
Due to TSX exchange rules only the cutoff can be reported prior to feasibility, not the actual values.
a Copper equivalent (Cu. Equiv.) and Molybdenite Equiv. (MoS2 Equiv.) are based on the following metal prices(all in US$): Copper $2.50/lb, Molybdenum Oxide ($14/lb), Silver $0.58/gram
Other factors include 1% = 20 pounds; 1 ppm = 1 gm/T; 1000 ppb =1 ppm = 1 gm/T.
Molybdenum is sold as either ferro-molybdenite or molybdenum oxide.
The price used is $14 per pound Molybdenum oxide.
To obtain the amount of Molybdenum oxide that can be produced from MoS2, the following is required: convert MoS2 to Mo by dividing MoS2 by 1.6681 then convert to MoO3 (Molybdenum Oxide) by multiplying by 1.5. Therefore the amount of molybdenum oxide is pounds MoS2 times 1.5 / 1.6681.
Metallurgical recoveries are currently assumed to be 100% as no full scale metallurgical test work has been completed.
Formulas :
GMV= ((Cu*20*$)+((MoS2*20*(1.5/1.6681)*$(MoO3))+(Ag*$))
Cu. Equiv. = GMV / ($(Copper) *20)
MoS2. Equiv. = GMV / ((1.6681/1.5)* $(MoO3)*20)
Mineral Resources do not have demonstrated economic viability.
An Indicated Mineral Resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade can be estimated with a level of confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.
An Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade can be estimated, on the basis of geological evidence and limited sampling and reasonably assumed geological and grade continuity.
Copyright (c) 2012 Thenewswire.ca - All rights reserved.