Slide 1: Systematic soil sampling for copper-silver mineralization using a portable XRF
Systematic soil sampling for copper-silver mineralization using a portable XRF. - a case study from the Amazon foreland basin, eastern Peru - 2021-07-02 Lars Dahlenborg, President Hannan Metals Ltd TSXV : HAN | OTC: HANNF 1
Slide 2: Disclaimer
Disclaimer Accuracy of Information: Readers are directed to the public disclosure of Hannan Metals Limited (“Hannan”) available under Hannan’s profile on the System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval (“SEDAR”) at www.sedar.com. Information contained in this presentation was believed to b
Slide 3: Introduction
Introduction Hannan Metals Limited is a top 10 in-country Peru explorer with >2,000 sqkm of tenure This case study will focus on the San Martin project: a sediment- hosted copper-silver target located in the Huallaga Basin of north central Peru. TSXV : HAN | OTC: HANNF 3
Slide 4: Project Overview
Project Overview ✓ Stratabound sediment-hosted copper-silver target. ✓ New regional play with evidence of basin wide mineralizing system active over 100s of kilometers. ✓ Key characteristics of stratabound sediment- hosted copper deposits are high grade mineralization in shales that are a few decime
Slide 5: Project Overview
Project Overview Climate and Vegetation ✓ Rainforest with a 4-5 month dry season. ✓ Steep topography, dense jungle Logistics and field conditions ✓ Between 1-3h walk from “4x4 road” to field camp ✓ Renting houses in small settlements close to work areas. ✓ Conditions are basic but adequate. TSXV : H
Slide 6: Project de-risking
Project de-risking ✓Prospecting creeks and stream sediment sampling are effective methods to reduce the search space. ✓The dense vegetation in combination with very limited outcropping makes it challenging to prove the continuity of mineralization between outcrops ✓Systematic soil sampling chosen to
Slide 7: Soil survey overview
Soil survey overview 2.5 km wide 1100mRL Soil survey 2000-2500 sample points 125 to 250 m line spacing 10-20 m sample spacing 800mRL TSXV : HAN | OTC: HANNF 7
Slide 8: Conventional soil sampling
Conventional soil sampling ✓ Slow and heavy - every two weeks up to 800kg of soil samples was transported by horse to 4x4 road. ✓ Slow decision times due to logistics and laboratory TAT ✓ Slow results meant difficulty to align work with first response social permitting teams ✓ Multiple mobilization
Slide 9: pXRF soil sampling
pXRF soil sampling Early realization that the pXRF could replace the conventional soil sample at the project. • needed to make sure we collected robust and fit-for- purpose data • that our staff was appropriately trained • that we had proper quality control programs in place TSXV : HAN | OTC: HANNF
Slide 10: Fit-for-purpose data
Fit-for-purpose data The prize we were after was real time decision making during soil sampling and all the good things that follow: ➢ Higher sampling rate = larger areas sampled ➢ Easier logistics ➢ Results that could be communicated in a timely manner to social teams and so on Listing key pathfind
Slide 11: Fit-for-purpose data
Fit-for-purpose data ✓ Laboratory 4-acid ICP-MS outperforms the pXRF in most elements. ✓ The pXRF still produces fit-for- purpose data for many key pathfinders including copper as well as major elements. pXRF fit-for purpose: Cu, Zn, Mn, Fe, As, Ni K, Ca, Mg, Ba, Si, Ti TSXV : HAN | OTC: HANNF 11
Slide 12: Orientation studies
Orientation studies To determine the most cost effective but fit-purpose sampling and pXRF assay protocol ✓ Excellent spatial correlation between ALS and pXRF copper data. Comparison to known sites of ✓ Detection of the same anomalies, similar dynamic range of anomalies. mineralization: ✓ Very good
Slide 13: Orientation studies
Orientation studies To nut out the most cost effective but still fit-purpose sampling and pXRF assay protocol ✓ Excellent spatial correlation between ALS and pXRF copper data. ✓ Detection of the same anomalies, similar dynamic range of anomalies. Comparison to known sites of ✓ Very good correlation
Slide 14: Orientation studies
Orientation studies To determine the most cost effective but still fit-purpose sampling and pXRF assay protocol For best results we want to achieve a homogenous, compacted and dry sample (with minimal effort!) Assay directly in the sample hole ? Multiple spots and average possible. Easy logistics… G
Slide 15: Orientation studies
Orientation studies To determine the most cost effective but still fit-purpose sampling and pXRF assay protocol For best results we want to achieve a homogenous, compacted and dry sample (with minimal effort!) ✓ Works well but plastic film has impact on some elements. ✓ Sample is humid. ✓ Does not e
Slide 16: Orientation studies
Orientation studies To determine the most cost effective but still fit-purpose sampling and pXRF assay protocol Procedure ✓ Three times the work without major • 3 unique samples from the same sample hole A/B/C data uplift. • Pellets of A/B/C -> Dry in microwave • Analyze of 3 beams for 30s. Ave. thr
Slide 17: Key learnings for fit-for-purpose data: Sampling
Key learnings for fit-for-purpose data 1 Sampling ✓ Remove rock fragment and homogenize the soil in the hole prior to sampling ✓ Sample at least 9 different parts of the hole with a small teaspoon. TSXV : HAN | OTC: HANNF 17
Slide 18: Key learnings for fit-for-purpose data: Assay
Key learnings for fit-for-purpose data 2 Assay Use bottle caps to make a soil pellet Dry the sample in a microwave Use the Olympus workstation for safe sample handling TSXV : HAN | OTC: HANNF 18
Slide 19: Data interpretation and decision making
Data interpretation and decision making 1km 1km 1km Interpreted continuity of Cu-Ag pXRF Cu ppm 4A, ICP-MS Cu ppm mineralized shale TSXV : HAN | OTC: HANNF 19
Slide 20: Summary
Summary Fit-for-purpose data is achievable for key pathfinder elements and major elements. Real time decision making to determine infill or extension of sample traverses. Controlled office laboratory with QAQC program of: ✓ Duplicate 1/10 sample: 2 kg of soil sample to send to ALS for 4A + ME-MS61 ✓
Slide 21: Results from lab duplicates
Results from lab duplicates Comparison of result of pXRF vs laboratory ICP-MS, four acid digest. vs 3 beams x 30s ~2kg sample ”dry sample” N=400 samples analysed both with pXRF and ME-MS61 (4A) TSXV : HAN | OTC: HANNF 21
Slide 22: ICP vs pXRF
ICP vs pXRF Cu results (<300 ppm) Cu_pXFR_ppm All QC:vs CuCu_icp_ppm ppm 300 250 200 Cu_pXFR_ppm QC Cu ppm 150 100 1 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Cu_ICP_ppm Cu ppm QC Cu ppm Plus 10 Percent Minus 10 Percent Plus 20 Percent Minus 20 Percent Plus 30 Percent Minus 30 Percent 1 to 1 1: closer to the DL
Slide 23: ICP vs pXRF
ICP vs pXRF Cu results (<100 ppm) Cu_pXFR_ppm vs Cu_icp_ppm N=350 Moist and dry pellets Cu_pXFR_ppm >20 ppm Cu is considered anomalous Data <15 ppm is ”noisier” but difficult to improve due to Cu_ICP_ppm limitations of the pXRF. Cu_pXFR_ppm vs Cu_icp_ppm N=50 Drying of pellets seems to dry pellets i
Slide 24: ICP vs pXRF
ICP vs pXRF Pb results Pb_pXFR_ppm All QC:vs PbPb_icp_ppm ppm 50 40 Pb_pXFR_ppm QC Pb ppm 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Pb_ICP_ppm Pb ppm QC Pb ppm Plus 10 Percent Minus 10 Percent Plus 20 Percent Minus 20 Percent Plus 30 Percent Minus 30 Percent 1 to 1 TSXV : HAN | OTC: HANNF 24
Slide 25: ICP vs pXRF
ICP vs pXRF Zn results Zn_pXFR_ppm All QC:vs ZnZn_icp_ppm ppm 200 150 Zn_pXFR_ppm QC Zn ppm 100 50 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Zn_ICP_ppm Zn ppm QC Zn ppm Plus 10 Percent Minus 10 Percent Plus 20 Percent Minus 20 Percent Plus 30 Percent Minus 30 Percent 1 to 1 TSXV : HAN | OTC: HANNF 25
Slide 26: ICP vs pXRF
ICP vs pXRF Fe results Fe_pXFR_ All pct QC:vs FeFe_icp_ ICP pct pct 5 4.5 4 3.5 Fe_pXFR_pct QC Fe ICP pct 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Fe_ICP_pct Fe ICP pct QC Fe ICP pct Plus 10 Percent Minus 10 Percent Plus 20 Percent Minus 20 Percent Plus 30 Percent Minus 30 Percent 1 to 1
Slide 27: ICP vs pXRF
ICP vs pXRF Mn results Mn_pXFR_ppm All QC: Mnvs Mn_icp_ppm ICP ppm 1000 800 Mn_pXFR_ppm QC Mn ICP ppm 600 400 200 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Mn_ICP_ppm Mn ICP ppm QC Mn ICP ppm Plus 10 Percent Minus 10 Percent Plus 20 Percent Minus 20 Percent Plus 30 Percent Minus 30 Percent 1 to 1 TSXV : HAN | O
Slide 28: ICP vs pXRF
ICP vs pXRF K results K_pXFR_All pct vsKK_icp_ QC: ICP pctpct 4 3.5 3 2.5 K_pXFR_pct QC K ICP pct 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 K_ICP_pct K ICP pct QC K ICP pct Plus 10 Percent Minus 10 Percent Plus 20 Percent Minus 20 Percent Plus 30 Percent Minus 30 Percent 1 to 1 TSXV : HAN | OTC:
Slide 29: ICP vs pXRF
ICP vs pXRF Ca results Ca_pXFR_pct All QC:vs CaCa_icp ICP pctpct 9 8 7 6 Ca_pXFR_pct QC Ca ICP pct 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Ca_ICP_pct Ca ICP pct QC Ca ICP pct Plus 10 Percent Minus 10 Percent Plus 20 Percent Minus 20 Percent Plus 30 Percent Minus 30 Percent 1 to 1 TSXV : HAN | OT
Slide 30: ICP vs pXRF
ICP vs pXRF Mg results Mg_pXFR_ppm vsICP All QC: Mg Mg_icp_pct pct 8 7 6 Mg_pXFR_pct 5 QC Mg ICP pct 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Mg ICP pct QC Mg ICP pct Plus 10 Percent Minus 10 Percent Plus 20 Percent Minus 20 Percent Plus 30 Percent Minus 30 Percent 1 to 1
Slide 31: Field duplicates pXRF
Field duplicates pXRF 2nd sample from the same sample hole. n= 55 Frequency 1 in 20 TSXV : HAN | OTC: HANNF 31
Slide 32: Fdup pXRF vs pXRF
Cu_pXFR_ppm_FDUP vs Cu_pXRF_ppm Fdup pXRF vs pXRF n=38 Cu results beam 10s+20s+20s Cu_pXFR_ppm FDUP humid pellet Cu_pXFR_ppm Cu_pXFR_ppm_FDUP vs Cu_pXRF_ppm n=17 beam 30s+30+30 Cu_pXFR_ppm FDUP dry pellet Cu_pXFR_ppm
Slide 33: Fdup pXRF vs pXRF
Fdup pXRF vs pXRF Zn results pXRF fdup: Zn ppm 45 40 35 Zn_pXFR_DUP_ppm Zn_pXFR_ppm 30 Zn ppm 25 FDUP 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Zn_ Zn_ICP_ppm ZnpXFR_ppm pXRF ppm QC Zn conc Plus 10 Percent Minus 10 Percent Plus 20 Percent Minus 20 Percent Plus 30 Percent Minus 30 Percent 1 to 1 TSXV : HAN | OTC
Slide 34: Fdup pXRF vs pXRF
Fdup pXRF vs pXRF Si results pXRFdup: Si ppm 350000 300000 250000 Si_pXFR_ppm QC Si conc 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 Si_ICP_ppm Si conc QC Si conc Plus 10 Percent Minus 10 Percent Plus 20 Percent Minus 20 Percent Plus 30 Percent Minus 30 Percent 1 to 1 TSX
Slide 35: Fdup pXRF vs pXRF
Fdup pXRF vs pXRF K results pXRFdup: K ppm 30000 25000 K_pXFR_DUP_ppm K_pXFR_ppm 20000 QC K conc 15000 10000 5000 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 K_ pXFR_ppm K_ICP_ppm K conc QC K conc Plus 10 Percent Minus 10 Percent Plus 20 Percent Minus 20 Percent Plus 30 Percent Minus 30 Percent 1 to 1 TS
Slide 36: Fdup pXRF vs pXRF
Fdup pXRF vs pXRF Fe results pXRFdup: Fe ppm 35000 30000 Fe_pXFR_DUP_ppm 25000 QC Fe conc 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 Fe_FepXFR_ppm conc QC Fe conc Plus 10 Percent Minus 10 Percent Plus 20 Percent Minus 20 Percent Plus 30 Percent Minus 30 Percent 1 to 1 TSXV :
Slide 37: Fdup pXRF vs pXRF
Fdup pXRF vs pXRF Ca results pXRFdup: Ca ppm 30000 25000 Ca_pXFR_DUP_ppm 20000 QC Ca conc 15000 10000 5000 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Ca_CapXFR_ppm conc QC Ca conc Plus 10 Percent Minus 10 Percent Plus 20 Percent Minus 20 Percent Plus 30 Percent Minus 30 Percent 1 to 1 TSXV : HAN | OTC:
Slide 38: Fdup pXRF vs pXRF
Fdup pXRF vs pXRF Mg results pXRFdup: Mg ppm 45000 40000 35000 Mg_pXFR_DUP_ppm Mg_pXFR_ppm 30000 QC Mg conc 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 Mg_ Mg_ICP_ppm MgpXFR_ppm conc QC Mg conc Plus 10 Percent Minus 10 Percent Plus 20 Percent Minus 20 Percen