Announcement PDF ASX Announcement 7 November 2023 ASX: OD6 Metallurgical Test Results Confirm Low Acid Consumption at Splinter Rock Project OD6 Metals Limited (OD6 or the Company) is delighted to report metallurgical tests conducted by Australian Nuclear Science Organisation (ANSTO) paving the way for attractive processing economics Highlights: • Metallurgical test results confirm low hydrochloric acid (HCl) consumption • Average 16 kg HCl/t ore with multiple zones at 6-10 kg HCl/t ore • Impressive leach and recovery responses observed at reduced acid strengths • Average 61% MagREO recovery (range 43-87%) at 20g/l HCl • The positive acid consumptions and recoveries when combined with high grades, low stripping ratios, and substantial tonnages provide considerable confidence in the key economic drivers • Vendor discussions confirm viability of potential site-based chlor-alkali (acid) facility • Indicative pricing for a chlor-alkali electrolyser is approximately £3M each (A$5.7M) • Chlor-alkali plant also provides a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) product which is utilised in impurity removal and precipitation of a final Mixed Rare Earth Product (MREC/H) • A single chlor-alkali electrolyser has the potential to produce 62ktpa HCl and 69ktpa of NaOH which, at an average consumption of 16 kg HCl / tonne of ore, is sufficient to treat ~4Mtpa of REE bearing clay • Further metallurgical processing optimisation work underway • All head-assays contained in this ASX announcement are based on the 4-Acid soluble digestion method, which aligns with the reporting of geological drill assays and the Mineral Resource Estimate. Brett Hazelden, Managing Director, commented: “These low acid consumption numbers are very positive, validating our proposed processing route and providing confidence in future potential process economics. This represents a key value lever as we continue to tick all the major boxes that pave the way for project development success. As part of future development planning, we have engaged vendors and experts on potentially owning and operating a site-based chlor-alkali facility. Initial discussions suggest this route can provide the lowest ongoing operating cost over time, which is important, as we envisage Splinter Rock growing to a multigenerational project, powered by low operating cost renewable energy sources. We continue to focus on identifying the best-of-the-best Prospect areas, with our methodical and disciplined approach, in conjunction with research and development relationship with ANSTO, already yielding notable technical benefits” 1 Metallurgical A total of 10 samples were selected from a wide variety of distinct clay and non-clay types at sample selection the Splinter Rock Project to test the various potential mineral recovery variations across the and ANSTO four main Prospects (Prop, Centre, Scrum and Flanker). Samples were selected based on testing differing geographic location, REE grade, colour, chemical composition, AEM conductivity, proximity to granite, basinal position (including paleo valley/channel positions) and inferred different geological genesis. Results of the test work are presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3. The Splinter Rock clay hosted prospect areas are characterised by a combination of ionically adsorbed, acid soluble and refractory rare earth elements (REEs). Our assay methods (4-acid digestion) do not digest refractory components and are therefore not included in previously reported high-grade drill and resource estimate results. Future potential commercial production of REE is significantly improved through successful leaching of both ionic and acid soluble REEs. ANSTO was selected to complete the second phase of Splinter Rock metallurgical testing given their extensive experience in rare earth process development. The objectives of the work program were to: • Develop further understanding of the leachability of rare earths under different acid conditions over a variable time period • Test the leach performance of upgraded concentrate fractions following screening at 75 µm (results still being finalised and will be reported separately) • Check whether sulphuric acid is capable of meeting or exceeding the recoveries obtained with hydrochloric acid at similar acid consumptions • Develop a standard test procedure for the screening of a large number of test samples for potential RE recovery • Continue to compare assay methods such as acid digestion versus the lithium borate fusion method The acid optimisation leach tests were conducted under three new acidic conditions on each sample (10, 15 and 20 g/L hydrochloric acid), at notionally ambient temperature and pressures, over a 24 hour period with interim 6, 9 and 12 hour liquor samples to determine leaching kinetics. Recoveries are calculated as noted at the bottom of each table. This data, combined with the phase 1 metallurgical leaching results of 25 and 100 g/L hydrochloric acid provide a picture of recoveries and acid consumptions for the OD6 clay hosted rare earths. Test work results should be viewed in the context of geological setting and the vast areas of clay basins currently identified by OD6. Recoverability and acid consumptions, along with width and grade are key components of OD6’s geometallurgical R&D program. The recoverability of rare earths are indicative only and do not currently account for additional losses that may occur during downstream processing. Refer to Phase 1 test work program for previous results (refer ASX release, 3 April 2023) 2 Recovery at varying HCL Ten samples were leached at 10, 15 and 20 g/L HCl for 24 h at 30C (4 wt% solids), and results were then compared to Phase 1 tests at 25 and 100 g/L HCl for 6 h at 30C (2 wt% solids). strengths The results shown in Table 1 indicate that: • REE extraction increases with acidity • Extractions at 15 to 20 g/L HCl appear to be a balance point on recovery, acid strength and acid consumption. • Each prospect and mineralisation type has slightly different optimal acid conditions • There is a notable outlier in Sample SR149A which has both high recovery and high acid consumption. • Neodymium (Nd), Praseodymium (Pr), Terbium (Tb) and Dysprosium (Dy) have very similar recoveries for each test which is reflected in overall Magnetic Rare Earth (MagRE) Percent Recovery Summary of results by Prospect at 20g/L HCl: • Flanker – Acid consumption is 6 kg/t with a 65% MagRE Recovery. • Centre – Acid consumption ranging from 6 - 41 kg/t with a 43 - 56% MagRE Recovery. • Scrum – Acid consumption is 19 kg/t with a 55% MagRE Recovery. • Prop – Acid consumption ranging from 6 - 63 kg/t with a 49 - 87% MagRE Recovery. Average overall acid consumption was 16 kg/t (excl.SR149A which had high acid use most likely due to high surficial carbonates) with a 61% MagRE Recovery at 20g/l HCl Table 1: MagRE recovery and acid consumption at different HCl acid concentrations and over time Prospect Flanker Centre Centre Intercept ID Free Acid Rate Leach Duration hrs SR021A SR021A 10 g/L 24 15 g/L 24 SR021A 20 g/L 24 SR021A 25 g/L 6 SR021A 100 g/L 6 SR033B 10 g/L 24 SR033B 15 g/L 24 SR033B 20 g/L 24 SR033B 25 g/L 6 SR033B 100 g/L 6 SR042A 10 g/L 24 SR042A 15 g/L 24 SR042A 20 g/L 24 SR042A 25 g/L 6 SR042A 100 g/L 6 Recovery (Extraction) - wt% Acid Cons. Mag RE kg/t Nd Pr Tb Dy 55 66 62 76 Results not available 56 63 54 55 64 67 61 65 62 63 59 62 77 71 68 76 6 6 8 14 19 29 45 46 79 20 28 45 45 78 15 35 40 40 69 13 26 39 37 64 19 29 45 46 78 3 5 6 8 9 24 34 45 48 56 20 29 38 40 48 30 43 52 57 64 25 38 47 53 58 23 33 43 47 55 23 22 24 24 29 3 Centre Scrum Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop SR043A 10 g/L 24 SR043A 15 g/L 24 SR043A 20 g/L 24 SR043A 25 g/L 6 SR043A 100 g/L 6 SR056B 10 g/L 24 SR056B 15 g/L 24 SR056B 20 g/L 24 SR056B 25 g/L 6 SR056B 100 g/L 6 SR149A 10 g/L 24 SR149A 15 g/L 24 SR149A 20 g/L 24 SR149A 25 g/L 6 SR149A 100 g/L 6 SR150A 10 g/L 24 SR150A 15 g/L 24 SR150A 20 g/L 24 SR150A 25 g/L 6 SR150A 100 g/L 6 SR150B 10 g/L 24 SR150B 15 g/L 24 SR150B 20 g/L 24 SR150B 25 g/L 6 SR150B 100 g/L 6 SR150C 10 g/L 24 SR150C 15 g/L 24 SR150C 20 g/L 24 SR150C 25 g/L 6 SR150C 100 g/L 6 SR150D 10 g/L 24 SR150D 15 g/L 24 SR150D 20 g/L 24 SR150D 25 g/L SR150D 100 g/L 41 48 56 53 54 37 43 53 51 51 52 55 62 59 57 50 53 63 60 58 41 47 56 54 54 38 37 41 41 60 33 51 55 57 64 27 48 53 54 62 39 53 61 59 67 34 51 54 57 64 32 50 55 56 64 14 17 19 20 43 75 85 88 92 97 75 84 87 91 96 67 80 82 86 91 61 72 74 79 86 74 84 87 91 96 59 61 63 105 113 40 46 50 46 45 38 46 48 45 43 44 43 50 41 42 38 43 45 42 39 40 46 49 46 44 16 18 21 31 37 48 50 58 53 53 45 46 53 50 49 47 46 53 52 37 39 44 49 47 34 47 48 56 52 51 5 8 9 14 16 73 76 79 80 80 74 75 79 81 80 52 48 50 47 51 36 32 39 37 40 71 73 77 77 78 2 5 6 12 14 6 51 63 77 77 51 64 78 77 47 50 62 64 37 46 60 55 51 62 76 76 5 8 10 18 6 87 87 67 56 85 28 Note: Recoveries are calculated based on the delta of the assayed solid head and solid residue after completion of a 6 or 24 hour leach period. 4 Recovery and The same ten samples above had liquid samples taken at 6, 9, 12 and 24 hours during the HCl Acid leach testing to assess rare earth extraction over time at the different acid concentrations. The Consumption Results Shown in Table 2 indicate that: over time • REE extraction increases progressively over time • Extractions are the highest after 24 hours and in most cases have not plateaued • Longer leach durations could increase rare earth recoveries • Each prospect and mineralisation type has slightly different optimal acid conditions • Extractions at 15 to 20 g/L HCl appear to be a balance point on recovery, acid strength and acid consumption. Table 2: MagRE recovery and acid consumption at different HCl acid concentrations and over time Acidity g/L Duration (hrs) SR021A MagRE SR033B MagRE SR042A MagRE SR043A MagRE SR056B MagRE SR149A MagRE SR150A MagRE SR150B MagRE SR150C MagRE SR150D MagRE MagRE % Extraction based on liquid assays 10 15 6 9 12 24 6 9 12 24 6 31 36 39 49 32 Results not available 8 9 10 13 14 15 17 22 19 9 11 13 17 19 22 24 29 23 22 26 26 31 34 35 37 40 32 15 17 19 23 27 30 32 39 28 76 78 82 84 83 66 69 71 74 25 28 29 30 35 36 38 40 34 40 41 43 46 52 55 56 58 49 50 59 65 70 72 78 81 83 70 29 32 36 46 43 49 54 64 46 20 9 37 22 29 36 31 88 35 50 72 49 12 42 24 29 35 35 88 36 51 73 56 24 49 31 34 40 39 92 38 52 73 66 25 6 49 32 37 44 46 87 38 50 70 62 100 6 69 67 49 48 51 88 41 58 75 78 Note: Recoveries are calculated based on the delta of the assayed solid head and progressively assayed liquid thief samples at the denoted leach duration. Four Acid Digest The metallurgical test program at ANSTO has utilised duplicate head and tails assays utilising vs Fusion Digest the ALS 4-acid soluble digestion method and the ALS Lithium Borate Fusion Digest method. This allows comprehensive comparison of both data sets. All geological drill assays at Splinter Rock were performed utilising the ALS 4-acid soluble digestion method as opposed to the ALS Lithium Borate Fusion Digest method. Typically, the Fusion Digest method returns results for resistate (refractory) non-acid soluble REE minerals, thus inflating the overall TREO grade. OD6 has reported its Mineral Resource Estimate (refer ASX release, 18 July 2023) based on the ALS 4-acid soluble digestion method. The results from this program and the previous work conducted by OD6 continue to show that utilising the fusion digest assay technique can increase head grade by up to 30% over a 4-acid leach assay. This extra grade however is highly unlikely to be recoverable in the proposed processing flowsheet. All solid assay recovery results contained in this ASX announcement are based on the 4-Acid soluble digestion method which aligns with how OD6 reports geological drill assays and also the Mineral Resource Estimate 5 Indicative Processing Steps OD6 metals is proposing the following simplified processing map to deliver rare earth products based on the test work completed to date. Central to the flowsheet is the use of a site based chlor-alkali facility that utilises salt and water to produce two reagents, namely hydrochloric acid (HCl) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH). HCl is used to leach the rare earth elements, then NaOH is used to remove impurities, precipitate a mixed rare earth product (MREC/H) and neutralise the clays prior to in pit disposal. Figure 1: Indicative processing steps Chlor-alkali Process and Vendor Information The chlor-alkali process involves passing an electric current through high purity sodium chloride (NaCl or salt) brine to produce hydrogen, chlorine and caustic soda. The hydrogen and chlorine can then be combined into hydrochloric acid. The equations to create caustic soda (NaOH) and hydrogen chloride (HCl) are: 2H2O (l) + 2NaCl (aq) ----> H2 (g) + Cl2 (g) + 2NaOH (aq) H2 (g) + Cl2 (g) -----> 2HCl (g) OD6 has obtained information from and held discussions with chlor-alkali electrolyser vendors and experts to determine if owning and operating a site based facility is a viable option. To date all indications are that this is likely to provide the lowest operating cost for a long term project that will form an integrated processing facility with storage tanks for HCl and NaOH to buffer any disruptions. Based on the publicly available information associated with a BICHLOR™ Electrolyser, plus informal discussion, the following key details are noted for a single chlor-alkali electrolyser: • Power consumption is the major cost at 1,990 kWhr/te NaOH @ 6 kA/m2 • Normally allow for 350 days operation and 7kA/m2 • Normally operate at 385mbarg, 90°C and 32wt% NaOH 6 • Can produce up to 62ktpa HCl and 69ktpa of NaOH • Indicative pricing for a chlor-alkali electrolyser is approximately £3M each (A$5.7M) • Multiple smaller electrolysers can be utilised to provide operation flexibility A chlor-alkali facility would also consist of the key production steps outlined in Figure 2 along with the associated equipment. Figure 3 also provides an example of scale of two operational electrolysers. At an average consumption of 16 kg HCl / tonne of ore a single electrolyser based on the above information could provide sufficient reagents to treat ~4Mtpa of clay ore. The average acid consumption may potentially be lower based on the potential removal of coarse grained (>75um) material which is yet to be reported. Given power being the main cost driver OD6 envisages that low-cost power supply would be sourced from an owned and operated hybrid power system consisting of solar, wind turbines, energy storage and gas or diesel powered generators. OD6 understands that a similar facility that is currently powering the Esperance township and surrounding areas is currently achieving a 70% renewable power penetration rate which is significant achievement that OD6 should aim to replicate. On an owned and operated basis, utilising low cost power supply, OD6 has an aspiration target to achieve an operational reagent consumption cost that would be equivalent to about $56/t of processed clay ore, assuming sunk capital costs. Figure 2: Chlor-alkali key processing steps (note not all will be required eg Hypo, Cl2 and caustic evaporation 7 Figure 3: Two electrolysers in an operational environment (Source: Ineos) Bottle Roll Tests Initial bottle roll tests on four split samples from the original program were performed under varying conditions of time, temperature, pH etc. in order to determine an inexpensive and fast method for ascertaining leachability of the clay samples. The final extraction results were compared with the results obtained in the Phase 1 program and operating parameters refined until similar leaching performance was obtained. • The bottle roll methodology will be used for initial geo-metallurgical assessment of new prospective drill hole locations to provide an indication of whether samples should undergo further metallurgical testing. Sulphuric Acid Leaches For completeness OD6 undertook sulfuric acid leach tests on four samples from the Phase 1 program utilising 25 and 50 g/L H2SO4 with a residence time of 24 h at 30 C (4 wt% solids). The higher acid strength (50 g/L H2SO4) resulted in increased RE extractions in 3 of the 4 samples. The 50 g/L H2SO4 test showed MagRE recoveries comparable to that obtained in 25 g/L HCl in only 6 hours. However the H2SO4 leach results had increased gangue concentrations, and higher calculated acid consumptions.. Hydrochloric acid remains the preferred lixiviant, given that an increased sulphuric acid strength and longer leach duration is required to achieve an equivalent extraction. Use of sulphuric acid should not however be discounted at this stage of the metallurgical testing program. Table 3: MagRE recovery and acid consumption at different H2SO4 acid concentrations vs HCl 8 Conditions Reagent Test ID Acidity (g/L) 24 hour -Final Extraction (%) Temp. (C) Time (h) H2SO4 Pr Nd Tb Dy Magnet s Acid Consumption % % % % % kg/t SR150B 25 g/L H2SO4 25 30 24 44 49 56 49 48 20 SR033B 25 g/L H2SO4 25 30 24 42 46 36 45 45 10 SR056B 25 g/L H2SO4 25 30 24 26 31 24 34 30 33 SR021A 25 g/L H2SO4 25 30 24 37 40 26 46 39 12 SR150B 50 g/L H2SO4 50 30 24 47 51 53 47 50 23 SR033B 50 g/L H2SO4 50 30 24 34 40 28 36 38 11 SR056B 50 g/L H2SO4 50 30 24 47 51 48 54 50 29 SR021A 50 g/L H2SO4 50 30 24 59 60 46 61 59 14 Conditions Reagent Test ID Acidity (g/L) 6 h - Final Extraction (%) Temp. (C) Time (h) HCl Pr Nd Tb Dy Magnet s Acid Consumption % % % % % kg/t SR150B 25 g/L HCl 25 30 6 49 53 55 47 52 14 SR033B 25 g/L HCl 25 30 6 41 47 30 36 46 8 SR056B 25 g/L HCl 25 30 6 53 57 46 55 56 20 SR021A 25 g/L HCl 25 30 6 60 60 44 58 62 8 Note: Recoveries are calculated based on the delta of the assayed solid head and solid residue after completion of a 6 or 24 hour leach period. Program • The centre prospect drill assays are expected to be announced in November 2023 timeline • Metallurgical leach performance of upgraded concentrate fractions following screening at 75 µm are expected to be announced in November 2023 • A New CSIRO interpretation of the AEM data is being undertaken to more clearly define surficial cover thickness, clay thickness and clay basin areas, to help improve identification of preferred exploration target areas • Metallurgical recovery and acid consumption results for the Phase 2 drill program is expected during Q4 2023. Further results are expected for the Phase 3 drill program in Q1 2024 • Metallurgical testing and mineralogy assessments at ANSTO expected to be available during Q4 2023 • A review and potential upgrade of the Mineral Resource Estimate is expected during Q1 2024. 9 Competent Persons Statement Information in this report relating to Exploration Results is based on information reviewed by Jeremy Peters, who is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and a Chartered Professional Geologist and Mining Engineer of that organisation. Mr Peters is an independent consultant of Burnt Shirt Pty Ltd and has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined by the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Peters consents to the inclusion of the data in the form and context in which it appears. No new information Except where explicitly stated, this announcement contains references to prior exploration results, all of which have been cross-referenced to previous market announcements made by the Company. The Company confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the relevant market announcements. Forward Looking Statements Certain information in this document refers to the intentions of OD6 Metals, however these are not intended to be forecasts, forward looking statements, or statements about the future matters for the purposes of the Corporations Act or any other applicable law. Statements regarding plans with respect to OD6 Metals projects are forward looking statements and can generally be identified by the use of words such as ‘project’, ‘foresee’, ‘plan’, ‘expect’, ‘aim’, ‘intend’, ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘estimate’, ‘may’, ‘should’, ‘will’ or similar expressions. There can be no assurance that the OD6 Metals plans for its projects will proceed as expected and there can be no assurance of future events which are subject to risk, uncertainties and other actions that may cause OD6 Metals actual results, performance, or achievements to differ from those referred to in this document. While the information contained in this document has been prepared in good faith, there can be given no assurance or guarantee that the occurrence of these events referred to in the document will occur as contemplated. Accordingly, to the maximum extent permitted by law, OD6 Metals and any of its affiliates and their directors, officers, employees, agents and advisors disclaim any liability whether direct or indirect, express or limited, contractual, tortuous, statutory or otherwise, in respect of, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information in this document, or likelihood of fulfilment of any forward-looking statement or any event or results expressed or implied in any forward-looking statement; and do not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information in this document, or likelihood of fulfilment of any forward-looking statement or any event or results expressed or implied in any forward-looking statement; and disclaim all responsibility and liability for these forward-looking statements (including, without limitation, liability for negligence). This announcement has been authorised for release by the Board of OD6 Metals Limited 10 About OD6 Metals OD6 Metals is an Australian public company pursuing exploration and development opportunities within the critical mineral sector. The Company has successfully identified clay hosted rare earths at its 100% owned Splinter Rock and Grass Patch Projects, which are located in the Esperance-Goldfields region of Western Australia - about 30 to 150km northeast of the major port and town of Esperance. Drilling and geological analysis at its flagship Splinter Rock has shown widespread, thick, high-grade clay hosted REE deposits that extend over hundreds of square kilometres. Metallurgical testing using hydrochloric acid to leach the rare earths have resulted in positive REE recoveries with optimisation ongoing. The Company aims to delineate and define economic resources and reserves of Rare Earth Elements (REE), in particular Neodymium (Nd), Praseodymium (Pr), Dysprosium (Dy) and Terbium (Tb), which can be developed into a future revenue generating mine. Clay REE deposits are currently economically extracted in China, which is the dominant world producer of REEs. REE are becoming increasingly important in the global economy, with uses including advanced electronics and permanent magnets in electric motors. As an example, a neodymium magnet used in a wind turbine or electric vehicle motor is 18 times stronger than a standard ferrite magnet significantly increasing energy use efficiency. As part of the exploration process the Company has entered into heritage agreements with Esperance Tjaltrjraak Native Title Aboriginal Corporation and the Ngadju Native Title Aboriginal Corporation that serves to both enable exploration and protect important cultural sites on Country. Corporate Directory Managing Director Mr Brett Hazelden Non-Executive Chairman Dr Darren Holden Non-Executive Director Mr Piers Lewis Non-Executive Director Dr Mitch Loan Financial Controller/ Joint Company Secretary Mr Troy Cavanagh Joint Company Secretary Mr Joel Ives Exploration Manager Tim Jones Contact OD6 Metals Ltd ACN 654 839 602 www.od6metals.com.au Mail to: info@od6metals.com.au Phone: +61 8 6189 8515 Level 1, 50 Kings Park Road, West Perth, WA 6005 PO Box 277, North Beach, WA 6920 PO Box 2009, Esperance, WA 6450 11 Metallurgical Drill Hole Location Details Hole ID Type Easting Northing RL (m) Dip (degrees) End of Hole (m) SRAC0021 Aircore 508100 6329561 178.8 -90 40 SRAC0033 Aircore 502230 6335591 206.2 -90 46 SRAC0042 Aircore 500036 6337842 207.3 -90 40 SRAC0043 Aircore 499486 6338407 204.3 -90 31 SRAC0056 Aircore 496417 6341560 229.5 -90 39 SRAC0149 Aircore 517485 6325298 161.8 -90 77 SRAC0150 Aircore 517999 6325835 151.7 -90 95 JORC 2012 – Table1: Splinter Rock Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data (Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section) Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Sampling techniques • • • • • Drilling techniques Drill sample recovery • • • • Logging • 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. 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, facesampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). 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 • • • • • • • • • • Geochemical sampling was undertaken by sampling of metre interval samples returned from the cyclone of a conventional air core drilling rig. Certified reference samples, duplicates and blank samples were inserted into the sample stream such as to represent approximately 5% of the samples submitted to the laboratory for analysis Two composite samples were collected over three metre intervals – the first (the A sample) being submitted for laboratory analysis and the second (the B sample) being retained as a reference. A sample from each metre was collected and stored in a chip tray for logging and x-ray diffraction analysis Air core drilling was completed by hammer and blade industry standard drilling techniques Aircore is considered to be an appropriate drilling technique for saprolite clay Drilling used blade bits of 87mmØ with 3m length drill rods to blade refusal. Air core recoveries were not recorded but are not considered to be materially biased, given the nature of the geology and samples. The assay data will be analysed against control samples and historical assays for any indications of bias The Competent Person considers that due to the nature of the drilling and geology, sample bias is unlikely to result from poor recovery. All chips were logged qualitatively and quantitatively. A sample from each metre was collected and stored in a chip tray for logging 12 Criteria JORC Code explanation • • Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation • • • • • • Quality of assay data and laboratory tests • • • Verification of sampling and assaying • • • • 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. 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 subsampling stages to maximise 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. 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 an