Alligator Energy Ltd · ASX:AGE
Alligator Energy — AusIMM Uranium Conference 2019
27 slides from Alligator Energy's conference presentation, Jun 4, 2019
Slide 1: Alligator Rivers Uranium Province – Learnings, Theories & Discovery
Alligator Rivers Uranium Province – Learnings, Theories & Discovery Robert Lightfoot RK Lightfoot & ALL Browne Andrew Browne Alligator Energy GeoSynthesis Pty Ltd rl@alligatorenergy.com.au 04 June 2019 brownea@bigpond.com
Slide 2: Disclaimer
Disclaimer This presentation contains projections and forward looking information that involve various risks and uncertainties regarding future events. Such forward- looking information can include without limitation statements based on current expectations involving a number of risks and uncertaint
Slide 3: Alligator Energy In the Alligator Rivers 2011 - 2019
Alligator Energy In the Alligator Rivers 2011 - 2019 ➢ Work completed since 2011 include: • Over 30,000 metres of Drilling • Over 10,500 whole rock geochemical samples • Over 100 R&D test geochemical samples including vegetation and water • Over 6000 line km of Airborne Geophysics • Over 6000 Gravit
Slide 4: ARUP Location
ARUP LOCATION Many U occurrences in 3 distinct terrains: • Alligator Rivers Uranium Province (ARUP) • South Alligator Valley (SAV) • Rum Jungle Mineral Field (RJMF) Source: Lally & Bajwah, 2006
Slide 5: Historical Exploration & Discovery ARUP vs Athabasca
Historical Exploration & Discovery ARUP vs Athabasca ARUP ➢ 20-30 year hiatus in exploration (none in Kakadu area since 1977) ➢ Purely political ➢ Sporadic exploration in western Arnhem Land ➢ Knowledge base is limited ➢ Model-based exploration largely unsuccessful
Slide 6: Regional Geology & Uranium Existing Geology & Data
Regional Geology & Uranium Existing Geology & Data ➢ NTGS Alligator Rivers 250k • Extensive sandstone and Cenozoic cover ➢ Majority of drilling is RAB • Typically not extending into basement ➢ Many diamond drill holes did not extend far into basement (<10m) Geology overlay: NTGS Alligator Rivers 250
Slide 7: Existing Regional Geological Interpretation
Existing Regional Geological Interpretation Stratigraphy below Cretaceous- Tertiary-Quaternary cover: ➢ MidProterozoic • Oenpelli Dolerite • Mamadewere Sandstone ➢ Lower Proterozoic • Nourlangie Schist • Cahill Formation • Kudjumarndi Quartzite ➢ Archaean • Kukulak, Arrara and Njibinjibinj Gneisses
Slide 8: Key Geological Learnings
Key Geological Learnings 1. STRUCTURE 3. SOURCE FLUID CHEMISTRY ➢ Initial basement-soled listric ➢ Acidic mildly oxidised ➢ Steepened normal & reverse faults ➢ Fluid movement UP from basement (later reactivations essential) source ➢ Deposition by 2. STRATIGRAPHY • chemical reduction (Fe++ from ➢ Com
Slide 9: Example – Ranger No 3
Example – Ranger 1 No 3 Listric faults plunge ~60-65o to U SE in western end of pit D U D UMS chlorite schist ➢ Inter-related Structures U U U D D D U D • Sub-Parallel listric faults U D U D U D Listric faults plunge at ➢ Permissive Stratigraphy ~25-35o to SE in eastern end of pit • Carbonates attac
Slide 10: Example – Ranger No Deeps
Example – Ranger 1 No 3 Deeps ➢ Ranger 3 Deeps – Down plunge of Ranger 1 No 3. ➢ Discontinuous from original No 3 orebody ➢ Basement tapping structures ➢ No unconformity. • >250m below unconformity level Understanding the stratigraphy structural relationships is key to knowing where large deposits a
Slide 11: Example – Caramal
Example – Caramal ➢ Caramal comparable with Ranger3 and 3 deeps. ➢ Partially exposed which allowed easy discovery by QML in 1960s ➢ Sandstone 40-60m thick ➢ Mineralised zone typically 20-50m below unconformity ➢ Mineralisation occurs above carbonate sequence comparable to LMS at Ranger.
Slide 12: Example – Caramal
Example – Caramal ➢ Core from Caramal mineralised zone showing typical lithology and structure anticipated with large ARUP U deposits. ➢ Similar to that of Ranger mineralisation. ➢ CAD11-020: 14m at 7,072ppm U3O8 from 104m CAD11-020 104-122m Mineralised zone
Slide 13: Structures – Basement vs MidProt Sandstone
Structures – Basement vs MidProt Sandstone REGIONAL JABILUKA UNDERGROUND Kombolgie & Lower Proterozoic lineaments Mapped in Lower Proterozoic basement - from detailed air photo study & mapping Linears in Kombolgie Linears in Schist Joints & Fractures Faults & Shears All Foliations Drainage Linears V
Slide 14: Interpretation of Structural Deformations
Interpretation of Structural Deformations ➢ Early setting structures are Key ➢ Barramundi/Shoebridge/Seigal Pre Kombolgie • Initial basement deformation • Structural orientations have affinity with mineral occurences. ➢ Later Tawallah/ OP1 reactivate pre existing basement deformation ➢ Pre existing
Slide 15: Structural Interpretations
Structural Interpretations ➢ Early setting structures are Key ➢ Barramundi/Shoebridge/Seigal Pre Kombolgie • Initial basement deformation • Structural orientations have affinity with mineral occurences. ➢ Later Tawallah/ OP1 reactivate pre existing basement deformation ➢ Pre existing Seigal structur
Slide 16: Reinterpreted Regional Geology of the ARUP
Reinterpreted Regional Geology of the ARUP Stratigraphy below Cretaceous-Tertiary-Quaternary cover: ➢ MidProterozoic • Oenpelli Dolerite • Mamadewere Sandstone ➢ Lower Proterozoic • Nourlangie Schist including thick carbonate/schist sequence in Cannon Hill area • Cahill Formation • Kudjumarndi Quart
Slide 17: Reinterpreted Geology
Reinterpreted Geology ➢ Clean slate – working up stratigraphy incorporating known geology
Slide 18: Reinterpreted Geology
Reinterpreted Geology 1. Basement Archean domes
Slide 19: Reinterpreted Geology
Reinterpreted Geology 1. Basement Archean domes 2. Lower Cahill (Ranger LMS)
Slide 20: Reinterpreted Geology
Reinterpreted Geology 1. Basement Archean domes 2. Lower Cahill (Ranger LMS) 3. Upper/Undifferentiated Cahill
Slide 21: Reinterpreted Geology
Reinterpreted Geology 1. Basement Archean domes 2. Lower Cahill (Ranger LMS) 3. Upper/Undifferentiated Cahill 4. Nourlangie Schist
Slide 22: Structure & Geological Targets
Structure & Geological Targets ➢ Investigate coincident structural zones with interpreted Archean contacts.
Slide 23: Conclusions for Discovery
Conclusions for Discovery ➢ Identify location of the Archean/Lower Cahill contacts across tenure (Refer targets image) ➢ How to identify these under cover? ➢ Combination of techniques must be used as targeting vectors. Varying Geophysics, Geochemistry including isotope analysis and geological target
Slide 24: Research & New Exploration Techniques
Research & New Exploration Techniques ➢ GEOPHYSICAL • Sub-Audio Magnetics (SAM) • Modern reprocessing • Magnetics, Gravity & EM • Condor (Success in Athabasca) • Airborne gravity ➢ GEOCHEMICAL • Best vector remains U • HyLogger • Regional litho geochemistry • Boron???? ➢ ISOTOPIC • Proprietary R&D P
Slide 25: Isotope R&D
Isotope R&D ➢ Analysis, interpretations and application developed in conjunction with CSIRO ➢ Primary use as a targeting vector ➢ Caramal a good example of a decay isotope response. = Remobilised, recent or younger activity. / = Primary mineralisation event timings & Excess radiogenic Pb. = Older, p
Slide 26: Isotope R&D Continued R&D development
Isotope R&D Continued R&D development ➢ Sandstone depth effects ➢ Structural controls on diffusion pathways for radiogenic products ➢ Sandstone permeability
Slide 27: Next Steps
Next Steps ➢ Ground truth interpreted geology • Contacts & Structure • Ranger/Jabiluka stratigraphy = Where?? • Stratigraphic drilling ➢ Methods for identifying Lower Cahill ➢ Most effective geophysics for identifying structures below Kombolgie ➢ Kudjumarndi Quartzite • Age dating • Way up criteria