razorback iron project - jorc 2012 resource update€¦ · inferred 1,532 14.6 16.1 50.2 8.5 0.17...

Magnetite Mines Limited | ABN: 34 108 102 432 | Suite 17, 1st Floor, 22 Greenhill Road, Wayville, SA 5034 | email: [email protected] | www.magnetitemines.com | Tel: +61 8 8427 0516

Razorback Iron Project - JORC 2012 Resource Update Magnetite Mines Limited (ASX: MGT)(the Company) is pleased to announce the updated Mineral Resource Estimate of the Razorback Iron Project in accordance with the JORC 2012 Code and Guidelines. This JORC 2012 upgrade replaces the previous JORC 2004 estimates and represents an important progression towards the compliance with the mandatory system for the calculation of Mineral Resources. The Razorback Iron Project resource tonnage and resource categorisation remains unchanged and no material changes to the resource have been made as part of the JORC 2012 upgrade. The Razorback Iron Project which includes the Razorback Ridge and Iron Peak resources is the Company’s flagship project and primary focus as the Company determines the next steps required towards developing this world class asset. A summary of the new Mineral Resource as completed by independent consultant resource geologist Mr Lynn Widenbar of Widenbar and Associates Pty Ltd is shown below in Table 1, and a full report is appended to this release.

Table 1: Total JORC 2012 Mineral Resource from the Razorback Premium Iron Project (11% eDTR cut-off).

Prospect JORC Resource Classification

Million Tonnes

eDTR% Fe% SiO2% Al2O3% P%

Razorback Indicated 833 16.0 27.7 45.2 7.3 0.20 Inferred 1,532 14.6 16.1 50.2 8.5 0.17

Iron Peak Indicated 203 16.8 20.0 45.0 7.67 0.18 Inferred 164 15.6 17.1 46.7 8.0 0.16

Total Mineral Resources 2,732 15.3 18.2 48.1 8.0 0.18

ASX Announcement 12 November 2018

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.magnetitemines.com/

Magnetite Mines Limited

Figure 1: Razorback Iron Project location map

About the Razorback Iron Project The Razorback Ridge and Iron Peak Prospects occur within the Razorback Iron Project (Figure 1), located 244km NNE of Adelaide, South Australia. Drilling of the prospects began in 2010 and was completed in 2012 resulting in several iterations of Mineral Resource estimates over time. Optimisation of the resource occurring through 2013 via geochemical and metallurgical studies including Davis Tube Recovery (DTR) resulted in a JORC 2004 Mineral Resource estimate on which this JORC 2012 Mineral Resource estimate update is based. The drilled resource covers approximately 12km of strike length of the magnetite-rich (iron ore), Neoproterozoic-aged Braemar Iron Formation. The drilling completed represents approximately 36,000m of Reverse Circulation and Diamond Drilling during the 2010 to 2012 period. Based on the deposit economics, an 11% eDTR cut-off grade has been applied. The Razorback Iron Project Resource at various grade cut-offs is shown in Table 2.

Magnetite Mines Limited

Table 2: Total JORC 2012 compliant Mineral Resource with a range of eDTR cut-offs.

eDTR Cutoff %

Million Tonnes

eDTR% Fe% SiO2% Al2O3% P%

15 1,272 17.84 20.71 45.83 7.53 0.20 14 1,615 17.13 19.88 46.60 7.70 0.19 13 2,011 16.42 19.15 47.28 7.85 0.19 12 2,419 15.76 18.56 47.77 7.96 0.18 11 2,732 15.27 18.19 48.07 8.03 0.18 10 2,984 14.87 17.84 48.37 8.10 0.18 9 3,174 14.55 17.57 48.54 8.13 0.18 8 3,293 14.33 17.40 48.55 8.16 0.18 0 3,520 13.83 16.90 48.11 8.11 0.17

Magnetite Mines Limited - Global Iron Resources

Combining the Razorback Iron Project (JORC 2012) and Ironback Hill (JORC 2004) Resource estimates the Company’s total Mineral Resources inventory in the Braemar Region stands at 3.9 billion tonnes at 19.7% Fe head grade. Our considerable global magnetite iron ore resources as presented above reinforces the Company’s dominant position in the Braemar Region and as holding one of the largest total magnetite resource in Australia. Competent Persons Statement

The details regarding the Razorback Iron Project deposit contained in this report that pertain to ore and mineralisation are based upon information compiled by Mr Trevor Thomas, a full-time employee of Magnetite Mines Limited. Mr Thomas is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Geosciences (AIG) 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 in the 2012 edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code). Mr Thomas consents to the inclusion in this report of the matters based upon his information in the form and context in which it appears. The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources has been compiled by Mr Lynn Widenbar. Mr Widenbar, who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, is a full time employee of Widenbar and Associates and produced the Mineral Resource Estimate based on data and geological information supplied by Magnetite Mines Limited. Mr Widenbar has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity that he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Minerals Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Widenbar consents to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on his information in the form and context that the information appears.

For further information contact: Peter Schubert Frank DeMarte Executive Chairman Executive Director & Company Secretary +61 416 375 346 +61 419 908 795

WIDENBAR AND ASSOCIATES ABN 15 009 450 097

59 Dunkley Ave

Applecross WA 6153

Telephone 0418 950 237

www.widenbar.com.au

[email protected]

Razorback and Iron Peak Resource Estimates – October 2018

Lynn Widenbar

BSc (Hons), MSc, DIC, MAusIMM, MAIG

Principal Consultant

Widenbar and Associates Pty Ltd

http://www.widenbar.com.au/

mailto:[email protected]

https://magnetitemines.com/

Razorback and Iron Peak Resource Estimates October 2018

Widenbar and Associates Page 2

Contents

1

Executive Summary

9

2 Location 13

2.1 Tenement and Ownership 16

3 Summary of Geology 17

3.1 Regional geology 17

3.2 Local Geology and Mineralisation 18

4 Previous Work 21

4.1 Mines Department of SA 21

4.2 Other Explorers 23

5 Drilling and Sampling 24

5.1 Drilling Phase I 24

5.2 Drilling Phase II 24

5.3 Drilling Phase III 25

5.4 Surveying 27

5.5 Sampling 29

5.6 Geological Logging and Mapping 31

5.7 Geology 32

5.7.1 Stratigraphic Sequence 32

5.8 Assaying 35

5.9 Sample QA/QC 35

5.10 Standards Analysis 36

5.10.1 Drill Phase I – Standards Analysis 36

5.10.2 Drill Phase II – Standards Analysis 40

5.10.3 Drill Phase III – Standards Analysis 44

5.11 Duplicate, Resample and Umpire Samples 49

5.11.1 Drill Phase I – Repeats and Umpire Samples 49

5.11.2 Drill Phase II – Repeats and Umpire Samples 54

5.11.3 Drill Phase III – Repeats and Umpire Samples 59

5.12 Twinning 69



5.13 Density 71

5.14 Approximate Mass Recovery (eDTR) 71

6 Resource Estimation 73

6.1 Database 73

6.2 Geological Interpretation 77

6.3 Statistical and Geostatistical Analysis 82

6.4 Resource Estimation 93

7 Resource Classification 100

8 Mineral Resource Estimate 109

JORC 2012 Table 1 127

9 Appendix I

10 Appendix II



List of Tables

Table 1-1 Razorback Resource Estimate ...................................................................................................................... 9 Table 1-2 Iron Peak Resource Estimate ..................................................................................................................... 10 Table 1-3 Combined Razorback and Iron Peak Resource Estimate ........................................................................... 11 Table 4-1 Assays from the adit, by Whitten, 1970 ............................................................................................... 21 Table 5-1 Drill Phase III - Collar Summary .................................................................................................................. 26 Table 5-2 Standards statistical data for Fe % ............................................................................................................. 37 Table 5-3 Standards statistical data for SiO2 % .......................................................................................................... 38 Table 5-4 Standards statistical data for Al2O3 % ........................................................................................................ 39 Table 5-5 Standards statistical data for Fe% .............................................................................................................. 41 Table 5-6 Standards statistical data for SiO2 % ......................................................................................................... 42 Table 5-7 Standards statistical data for Al2O3 % ....................................................................................................... 43 Table 5-8 Standards statistical data for Fe% .............................................................................................................. 46 Table 5-9 Standards statistical data for SiO2% .......................................................................................................... 47 Table 5-10 Standards statistical data for Al2O3 % ..................................................................................................... 48 Table 5-11 Statistical Summary of Fe% duplicate data (CV = coefficient of variance; sRPHD mean = the mean of

the relative percent half difference) ........................................................................................................... 50 Table 5-12 Statistical Summary of SiO2% duplicate data (CV = coefficient of variance; sRPHD mean = the mean of

the relative percent half difference) ........................................................................................................... 51 Table 5-13 Statistical Summary of Al2O3% duplicate data (CV = coefficient of variance; sRPHD mean = the mean

of the relative percent half difference) ....................................................................................................... 52 Table 5-14 Statistical Summary of Fe% duplicate data (CV = coefficient of variance; sRPHD mean = the mean of

the relative percent half difference ............................................................................................................ 55 Table 5-15 Statistical Summary of SiO2% duplicate data (CV = coefficient of varience; sRPHD mean = the mean of

the relative percent half difference ............................................................................................................ 56 Table 5-16 Statistical Summary of Al2O3% duplicate data (CV = coefficient of varience; sRPHD mean = the mean

of the relative percent half difference ........................................................................................................ 57 Table 5-17 Statistical Summary of Fe% duplicate data (CV = coefficient of variance; sRPHD mean = the mean of

the relative percent half difference ............................................................................................................ 60 Table 5-18 Statistical Summary of SiO2% duplicate data (CV = coefficient of varience; sRPHD mean = the mean of

the relative percent half difference ............................................................................................................ 63 Table 5-19 Statistical Summary of Al2O3% duplicate data (CV = coefficient of varience; sRPHD mean = the mean

of the relative percent half difference ........................................................................................................ 66 Table 5-20 Summary of Fe % intersections for diamond and RC twin drill holes. .................................................... 69 Table 6-1 Variogram Parameters ............................................................................................................................... 97 Table 8-1 Razorback Resource Estimate by Resource Category ............................................................................. 109 Table 8-2 Iron Peak Resource Estimate by Resource Category ............................................................................... 110 Table 8-3 Combined Razorback and Iron Peak Resource Estimate by Resource Category .................................... 111 Table 8-4 Razorback West Resource Estimate by Resource Category .................................................................... 112 Table 8-5 Razorback Ridge Resource Estimate by Resource Category ................................................................... 113 Table 8-6 Razorback Indicated Resource Estimate by Domain ............................................................................... 115 Table 8-7 Razorback Inferred Resource Estimate by Domain ................................................................................. 117 Table 8-8 Razorback Total Resource Estimate by Domain ...................................................................................... 119 Table 8-9 Iron Peak Indicated Resource Estimate by Domain ................................................................................. 121



Table 8-10 Iron Peak Inferred Resource Estimate by Domain ...................................................................... 123 Table 8-11 Iron Peak Total Resource Estimate by Domain ........................................................................... 125



List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Razorback Drill Hole Location and Ore Footprint Plan ............................................................................. 13 Figure 2-2 Iron Peak Drill Hole Location and Ore Footprint Plan .............................................................................. 14 Figure 2-3 Locality of the Razorback Fe Project. ........................................................................................................ 15 Figure 2-4 Razorback Iron, Tenement Plan ............................................................................................................... 16 Figure 3-1 Geological Terranes of South Australia. ................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3-2 Stratigraphic Sequence of Razorback Ridge (modified after Whitten, 1969). ......................................... 19 Figure 3-3 Outline of outcropping unit B and D, Braemar Iron Formation and the Royal Resources drilling areas

from Western Razorback in the west to Iron Peak in the east..................................................................... 20 Figure 4-1 Drill and Adit Section through Razorback Ridge, by SA Dept. of Mines, 1970 ........................................ 22 Figure 5-1 RC drilling rig drilling at Western Razorback. ........................................................................................... 26 Figure 5-2 Jack-up HQ diamond rig ............................................................................................................................ 28 Figure 5-3 Drill plan and Braemar Iron Formation outline at Razorback Ridge ....................................................... 29 Figure 5-4 Sampling Trailer with cone splitter, Razorback Ridge .............................................................................. 30 Figure 5-5 Core cutting of Razorback samples at ALS Adelaide, SA .......................................................................... 31 Figure 5-6 Unit B3 – Interlaminated/ Interbedded magnetite-rich silts displaying soft sediment deformation and

possible dewatering structures – Halved HQ Core ........................................................................................... 34 Figure 5-7 Unit B2 – Magnetite-rich Tillite with matrix supported lithic fragments – Halved HQ Core ................... 34 Figure 5-8 Unit B1 – Bedded magnetite rich silt/shale – Halved HQ Core ................................................................ 35 Figure 5-9 GIOP-31 and RB01 Standard data vs. date sampled for Fe %. The upper and lower limits are

represented as 3 times standard deviation ...................................................................................................... 37 Figure 5-10 GIOP-31 and RB01 standard data vs. date sampled for SiO2 %. The upper and lower limits are

represented as 3 times standard deviation ...................................................................................................... 38 Figure 5-11 GIOP-31 and RB01 standard data vs. date sampled for Al2O3 %. The upper and lower limits are

represented as 3 times standard deviation ...................................................................................................... 39 Figure 5-12 GIOP-31 and RB01 Standard data vs. date sampled for Fe%. The upper and lower limits are

represented as 3 times standard deviation ...................................................................................................... 41 Figure 5-13 GIOP-31 and RB01 Standard data vs. date sampled for Fe%. The upper and lower limits are

represented as 3 times standard deviation ...................................................................................................... 42 Figure 5-14 GIOP-31 and RB01 Standard data vs. date sampled for Al2O3 %. The upper and lower limits are

represented as 3 times standard deviation ...................................................................................................... 43 Figure 5-15 GIOP-31 and GIOP-94 Standard data vs. date sampled for Fe%. The upper and lower limits are

represented as 3 times standard deviation ...................................................................................................... 46 Figure 5-16 GIOP-31 and GIOP-94 Standard data vs. date sampled for SiO2%. The upper and lower limits are

represented as 3 times standard deviation ...................................................................................................... 47 Figure 5-17 GIOP-31 and GIOP-94 Standard data vs. date sampled for Al2O3%. The upper and lower limits are

represented as 3 times standard deviation ...................................................................................................... 48 Figure 5-18 Scatter plots of original vs. field duplicates, field resample and umpire samples for Fe, SiO2 and

Al2O3%. ....................................................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 5-19 Scatter plots of original vs. field duplicates, field resample and umpire samples for Fe, SiO2 and

Al2O3% ...................................................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 5-20 Scatter plots of Field Duplicates, Field Resamples and Umpire results for Fe% ................................... 62 Figure 5-21 Scatter plots of Field Duplicates, Field Resamples and Umpire results for SiO2% ................................ 65



Figure 5-22 Scatter plots of Field Duplicates, Field Resamples and Umpire results for Al2O3%................... 68 Figure 5-23 Drill section with sample intervals showing Fe%, of twin holes RRDD0101 and RRRC0034. ....... 70 Figure 6-1 Razorback Drill hole collar locations ............................................................................................. 74 Figure 6-2 Razorback Drill hole collar locations with topography ......................................................... 74 Figure 6-3 Iron Peak Drill hole collar locations ........................................................................................ 75 Figure 6-4 Iron Peak Drill hole collar locations with topography ........................................................... 75 Figure 6-5 Google Earth Image draped on topography ........................................................................... 76 Figure 6-6 Razorback Sectional Geological Interpretation Strings ............................................................... 77 Figure 6-7 Razorback Strings in Plan ............................................................................................................... 78 Figure 6-8 Razorback Strings in Three-D, Main Area .............................................................................. 78 Figure 6-9 Razorback Final Wireframes – Plan View ............................................................................... 79 Figure 6-10 Razorback Final Wireframes ................................................................................................. 79 Figure 6-11 Iron Peak Sectional Interpretation Strings ........................................................................... 80 Figure 6-12 Iron Peak Strings in Plan View ...................................................................................................... 80 Figure 6-13 Iron Peak Final Wireframes ................................................................................................... 81 Figure 6-14 Iron Peak Final Wireframes ................................................................................................... 81 Figure 6-15 eDTR Razorback by Unit ............................................................................................................... 82 Figure 6-16 Fe Razorback by Unit .................................................................................................................... 83 Figure 6-17 SiO2 Razorback by Unit ................................................................................................................ 83 Figure 6-18 Al2O3 Razorback by Unit .............................................................................................................. 84 Figure 6-19 eDTR Iron Peak by Unit ................................................................................................................. 84 Figure 6-20 Fe - Iron Peak by Unit..................................................................................................................... 85 Figure 6-21 SiO2 - Iron Peak by Unit................................................................................................................. 85 Figure 6-22 - Iron Peak by Unit.......................................................................................................................... 86 Figure 6-23 Razorback eDTR by Weathering Domain ..................................................................................... 87 Figure 6-24 Razorback eDTR by Weathering Domain ..................................................................................... 87 Figure 6-25 Razorback Magnetite by Weathering Domain ..................................................................... 88 Figure 6-26 Razorback Magnetite by Weathering Domain ..................................................................... 88 Figure 6-27 Density Distribution Histogram ............................................................................................ 89 Figure 6-28 Fe Variography .............................................................................................................................. 90 Figure 6-29 SiO2 Variography .......................................................................................................................... 91 Figure 6-30 Al2O3 Variography ................................................................................................................ 92 Figure 6-31 Razorback Block Model Setup Parameters ................................................................................. 93 Figure 6-32 Iron Peak Block Model Setup Parameters ............................................................................ 93 Figure 6-33 Razorback Plan through rock model ............................................................................................ 94 Figure 6-34 Razorback Section through rock model ...................................................................................... 94 Figure 6-35 Iron Peak Plan through rock model ...................................................................................... 95 Figure 6-36 Iron Peak Section through rock model ................................................................................. 95 Figure 6-37 Unfolding of rock model ........................................................................................................ 96 Figure 6-38 Razorback Block model validation section ................................................................................. 98 Figure 6-39 Razorback Block model validation plan ............................................................................... 98 Figure 6-40 Iron Peak Block Model Validation Plan View........................................................................ 99 Figure 6-41 Iron Peak Block Model Validation – Section View. .............................................................. 99 Figure 7-1 Razorback Resource Classification Plan 300m RL ..................................................................... 102 Figure 7-2 Razorback Resource Classification Plan 200m RL ..................................................................... 103 Figure 7-3 Razorback Resource Classification Plan 100m RL ..................................................................... 103



Figure 7-4 Razorback Resource Classification Plan 0m RL ......................................................................... 104 Figure 7-5 Iron Peak Resource Classification Long Section ........................................................................ 105 Figure 7-6 Iron Peak Resource Classification Plan at 150m RL ................................................................... 106



1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Widenbar and Associates (“WAA”) was commissioned by Royal Resources Limited (now Magnetite Mines)

to produce a resource estimate for the Razorback Ridge and Iron Peak iron ore deposits, located in the

Olary Province of central-eastern South Australia.

Locally, the Braemar Formation at Razorback has been separated into two major tillitic iron formations

with a number of bedded iron units interlayered with shales, siltstones and dolomitic beds. Bedded and

laminated magnetite ores occur in a gently dipping sequence over approximately 4 km of strike length,

outcropping along Razorback Ridge.

Eight major mineralised units have been defined and interpreted at Razorback (A, B1, B2, B3, C, D, E and

G) and Iron Peak (A1, A2, B1, B2, B3, C, D and E). A summary of the Razorback and Iron Peak resource

estimates is presented below. Resources are reported at a range of eDTR cut-offs

RESCAT eDTR Cutoff Tonnes eDTR Fe SiO2 Al2O3 P LOI MAGNETITE

TOTAL 15 1,064,000,000 17.7 20.5 46.2 7.6 0.2 5.1 17.5

TOTAL 14 1,374,000,000 16.9 19.7 47.0 7.7 0.2 5.2 16.7

TOTAL 13 1,730,000,000 16.2 19.0 47.6 7.9 0.2 5.3 15.9

TOTAL 12 2,097,000,000 15.6 18.4 48.1 8.0 0.2 5.3 15.2

TOTAL 11 2,366,000,000 15.1 18.1 48.4 8.1 0.2 5.4 14.6

TOTAL 10 2,559,000,000 14.8 17.8 48.7 8.1 0.2 5.4 14.2

TOTAL 9 2,690,000,000 14.5 17.7 48.9 8.2 0.2 5.4 13.9

TOTAL 8 2,748,000,000 14.4 17.6 48.9 8.2 0.2 5.5 13.7

TOTAL 0 2,794,000,000 14.3 17.6 49.0 8.2 0.2 5.5 13.6


INDICATED 15 486,000,000 18.0 23.1 43.8 7.0 0.2 4.8 18.1

INDICATED 14 581,000,000 17.5 22.6 44.2 7.1 0.2 4.9 17.5

INDICATED 13 677,000,000 16.9 22.2 44.6 7.2 0.2 4.9 16.9

INDICATED 12 771,000,000 16.4 21.9 45.0 7.3 0.2 5.0 16.3

INDICATED 11 833,000,000 16.0 21.7 45.2 7.3 0.2 5.0 15.9

INDICATED 10 869,000,000 15.8 21.6 45.3 7.4 0.2 5.0 15.6

INDICATED 9 895,000,000 15.6 21.4 45.4 7.4 0.2 5.1 15.4

INDICATED 8 907,000,000 15.5 21.4 45.5 7.4 0.2 5.1 15.3

INDICATED 0 919,000,000 15.4 21.4 45.5 7.4 0.2 5.1 15.2


INFERRED 15 578,000,000 17.3 18.4 48.2 8.0 0.2 5.2 17.0

INFERRED 14 793,000,000 16.6 17.5 49.0 8.2 0.2 5.4 16.1

INFERRED 13 1,052,000,000 15.8 16.9 49.6 8.3 0.2 5.5 15.3

INFERRED 12 1,326,000,000 15.1 16.4 50.0 8.4 0.2 5.5 14.5

INFERRED 11 1,532,000,000 14.6 16.1 50.2 8.5 0.2 5.6 13.9

INFERRED 10 1,690,000,000 14.3 15.9 50.5 8.5 0.2 5.6 13.4

INFERRED 9 1,795,000,000 14.0 15.8 50.6 8.6 0.2 5.6 13.1

INFERRED 8 1,841,000,000 13.8 15.7 50.7 8.6 0.2 5.6 12.9

INFERRED 0 1,875,000,000 13.7 15.7 50.7 8.6 0.2 5.6 12.8

Table 1-1 Razorback Resource Estimate




TOTAL 15 208,000,000 18.8 21.7 44.0 7.3 0.2 5.3 21.0

TOTAL 14 241,000,000 18.2 21.0 44.5 7.5 0.2 5.4 20.2

TOTAL 13 281,000,000 17.6 20.2 45.2 7.6 0.2 5.5 19.4

TOTAL 12 322,000,000 16.9 19.4 45.4 7.7 0.2 5.5 18.5

TOTAL 11 366,000,000 16.3 18.7 45.8 7.8 0.2 5.6 17.7

TOTAL 10 425,000,000 15.5 17.9 46.4 7.9 0.2 5.7 16.7

TOTAL 9 484,000,000 14.7 17.1 46.6 8.0 0.2 5.8 15.8

TOTAL 8 545,000,000 14.0 16.4 46.6 8.0 0.2 5.9 14.9

TOTAL 0 726,000,000 12.2 14.3 44.8 7.8 0.1 6.1 12.4


INDICATED 15 127,000,000 19.0 21.9 43.7 7.3 0.2 5.3 21.2

INDICATED 14 147,000,000 18.4 21.3 44.2 7.4 0.2 5.3 20.5

INDICATED 13 170,000,000 17.7 20.7 44.8 7.5 0.2 5.4 19.6

INDICATED 12 189,000,000 17.2 20.2 44.9 7.6 0.2 5.4 19.0

INDICATED 11 203,000,000 16.8 19.9 45.0 7.6 0.2 5.5 18.5

INDICATED 10 221,000,000 16.3 19.6 45.3 7.6 0.2 5.5 17.8

INDICATED 9 238,000,000 15.8 19.2 45.6 7.7 0.2 5.6 17.2

INDICATED 8 253,000,000 15.4 19.0 45.6 7.7 0.2 5.6 16.7

INDICATED 0 278,000,000 14.6 18.7 45.8 7.7 0.2 5.6 15.7


INFERRED 15 81,000,000 18.6 21.4 44.5 7.4 0.2 5.4 20.6

INFERRED 14 95,000,000 18.0 20.6 45.0 7.5 0.2 5.5 19.8

INFERRED 13 112,000,000 17.3 19.5 45.7 7.7 0.2 5.6 19.0

INFERRED 12 133,000,000 16.5 18.3 46.1 7.8 0.2 5.7 18.0

INFERRED 11 163,000,000 15.6 17.1 46.7 8.0 0.2 5.9 16.8

INFERRED 10 204,000,000 14.6 16.0 47.5 8.2 0.2 6.0 15.5

INFERRED 9 245,000,000 13.7 15.1 47.7 8.3 0.1 6.1 14.4

INFERRED 8 292,000,000 12.9 14.2 47.5 8.3 0.1 6.2 13.3

INFERRED 0 448,000,000 10.6 11.6 44.2 7.8 0.1 6.4 10.4

Table 1-2 Iron Peak Resource Estimate




TOTAL 15 1,272,000,000 17.8 20.7 45.8 7.5 0.2 5.1 18.1

TOTAL 14 1,615,000,000 17.1 19.9 46.6 7.7 0.2 5.2 17.2

TOTAL 13 2,011,000,000 16.4 19.2 47.3 7.8 0.2 5.3 16.4

TOTAL 12 2,419,000,000 15.8 18.6 47.8 8.0 0.2 5.4 15.6

TOTAL 11 2,732,000,000 15.3 18.2 48.1 8.0 0.2 5.4 15.0

TOTAL 10 2,984,000,000 14.9 17.8 48.4 8.1 0.2 5.5 14.5

TOTAL 9 3,174,000,000 14.6 17.6 48.5 8.1 0.2 5.5 14.2

TOTAL 8 3,293,000,000 14.3 17.4 48.6 8.2 0.2 5.5 13.9

TOTAL 0 3,520,000,000 13.8 16.9 48.1 8.1 0.2 5.6 13.3


INDICATED 15 613,000,000 18.2 22.8 43.8 7.1 0.2 4.9 18.7

INDICATED 14 728,000,000 17.6 22.3 44.2 7.2 0.2 5.0 18.1

INDICATED 13 847,000,000 17.1 21.9 44.7 7.3 0.2 5.0 17.4

INDICATED 12 959,000,000 16.5 21.6 44.9 7.3 0.2 5.1 16.8

INDICATED 11 1,036,000,000 16.2 21.4 45.1 7.4 0.2 5.1 16.4

INDICATED 10 1,090,000,000 15.9 21.2 45.3 7.4 0.2 5.1 16.1

INDICATED 9 1,134,000,000 15.6 21.0 45.5 7.4 0.2 5.2 15.8

INDICATED 8 1,160,000,000 15.5 20.9 45.5 7.5 0.2 5.2 15.6

INDICATED 0 1,197,000,000 15.2 20.7 45.6 7.5 0.2 5.2 15.3


INFERRED 15 659,000,000 17.5 18.8 47.7 7.9 0.2 5.3 17.4

INFERRED 14 888,000,000 16.7 17.9 48.6 8.1 0.2 5.4 16.5

INFERRED 13 1,164,000,000 15.9 17.1 49.2 8.3 0.2 5.5 15.6

INFERRED 12 1,459,000,000 15.2 16.6 49.6 8.4 0.2 5.5 14.8

INFERRED 11 1,695,000,000 14.7 16.2 49.9 8.4 0.2 5.6 14.2

INFERRED 10 1,894,000,000 14.3 15.9 50.1 8.5 0.2 5.7 13.7

INFERRED 9 2,040,000,000 13.9 15.7 50.2 8.5 0.2 5.7 13.2

INFERRED 8 2,133,000,000 13.7 15.5 50.2 8.5 0.2 5.7 13.0

INFERRED 0 2,323,000,000 13.1 14.9 49.4 8.4 0.2 5.8 12.3

Table 1-3 Combined Razorback and Iron Peak Resource Estimate

The Razorback and Iron Peak resource estimates have been classified in the Indicated and Inferred

categories as defined by the 2012 edition of the JORC code. WAA has reviewed the drilling, sampling and

assaying data used in the estimate and considers it to be of sufficient quality to support the resource

classifications applied.

A total of 166 holes have been used in the resource estimate at Razorback. Geological logging

information for all holes was used in the interpretation of the deposit. Drill hole spacing is generally

200m to 400m along strike by 50m to 100m across strike, with a two metre sampling interval, for a total

of 14,772 samples. In the area of the Indicated resource, drill hole spacing is generally 100m to 200m

along strike by 50m to 100m across strike.

A total of 25 holes have been used in the resource estimate at Iron Peak. Geological logging information

for all holes was used in the interpretation of the deposit. Drill hole spacing is generally 200m along

strike by 50m to 100m across strike, with a two metre sampling interval, for a total of 3,210 samples. In



the area of the Indicated resource, drill hole spacing is generally 100m to 200m along strike by 50m to

100m across strike.

An Ordinary Kriging interpolation method was used to estimate eDTR%, Fe%, SiO2%, Al2O%3, P% and

LOI%, MnO% and Magnetite%. No grade capping was applied. Search ellipses applied in the estimate

were based on drill hole spacing, variography, the interpreted geological continuity and the orientation

of the deposits. An in-situ density of 3.20 was used for all mineralisation.



2 LOCATION

A plan view of the drill hole locations and ore zone footprint is illustrated below, with mineralisation

highlighted.

Figure 2-1 Razorback Drill Hole Location and Ore Footprint Plan



Figure 2-2 Iron Peak Drill Hole Location and Ore Footprint Plan

The Razorback Ridge Iron Ore Project is located in the Olary Province of central-eastern South

Australia (Figure 2-3). It is approximately 40 km from the nearest town, Yunta, and

approximately 210 km from the nearest port, Port Pirie.

The Project can be reached along 340 kilometres of major state highway from the city of

Adelaide, the state’s capital, and then approximately 40 kilometres south along an all-weather

dirt track from Yunta into the prospect area.

The land on which the project sits is held under pastoral and perpetual leases, used presently

for grazing sheep. It occurs on Ti Tree and Tiverton Stations, near the common corner with

Manunda and Braemar Stations. It is a semi-arid area with an inconsistent rainfall of 200 – 400

mm per year.

Topography is gently to strongly undulating except at the Project location where the iron

formation forms distinct sharp topographic ridges, or “razorbacks”.



There is no infrastructure (permanent power, water, communications, etc.) currently in the

project area. A homestead, belonging to the pastoral lease owner, is the closest inhabited

settlement, located approximately 25 kilometres north of the project area.

Figure 2-3 Locality of the Razorback Fe Project.



2.1 Tenement and Ownership Magnetite Mines Limited, through its 100% owned subsidiary Razorback Iron Pty Ltd, has secured the EL5432 and EL6126 leases over the Razorback Ridge iron deposit. The Razorback Tenement EL5432 and EL6126 covers approximately 60 km2 and 840km2 respectively and contains the Razorback, Interzone and Iron Peak Prospects. Resource payments calculated at $0.01 per DTR tonne of measured resources (resource payment = tonne of measured resource x $0.01 x DTR%). A 1% royalty on the value of the product produced from the tenement measured at the ‘mine gate’. All tenements are in good standing and no known impediments exist.

Figure 2-4 Razorback Iron, Tenement Plan



3 SUMMARY OF GEOLOGY

3.1 Regional geology

The Razorback Premium Iron Project (RPIP) is located within Neo-Proterozoic basal sediments

of the Umberatana Group, within the Nackara Arc region of the Adelaide Geosyncline (Figure 3-

1). Deposited during the Sturtian Period (850 – 630 Ma), sediments comprise glacial tillites and

siltstones of the Benda Siltstone and the Pualco Tillite (formally known as the Yudnamutana

Sub-Group). The Pualco Tillite comprises glaciogenic feldspathic siltstones, sandstones, and

greywackes. The Pualco Tillite is transitionally overlain by the Benda Siltstone. Ferruginous

facies of both the Pualco Tillite and Benda Sandstone are informally referred to as the Braemar

Iron Formation (Preiss et al, 1993). The Braemar Iron Formation is described as a “Rapitan-type”

BIF and comprises both bedded iron formations and tillitic iron formations. This is then overlain

by a sequence of thin dolomites and siltstones (middle to upper sequence of Benda Siltstone)

unconformable overlain by the Wilyerpa Formation, which consists of a thick dolomite

sequence at the base, then a sequence of glacial siltstones, dolomites and shales. Regional

deformation, folding and faulting occurred during the Delamerian Orogeny (~514- 500Ma),

resulting in the Braemar Iron Formation folding in open to tight folded patterns aligning in a

north-easterly orientation and forming topographic ridges, such as Razorback Ridge.

Accompanying this deformation was the intrusion of the Anabama Granite to the north-east of

Razorback Ridge.



Figure 3-1 Geological Terranes of South Australia.

3.2 Local Geology and Mineralisation

Locally, the Braemar Formation at Razorback has been separated into two major tillitic iron

formations with a number of bedded iron units interlayered with shales, siltstones and

dolomitic beds. The iron content is markedly variable between layers. In 1969, Whitten divided

these layers into seven members, Members A to G. From this, the economic horizon is

Members B, D and G, with a thickness of approximately 100 -150 m, and these form the

prominent ridge that is Razorback Ridge. Razorback Ridge forms a gently north-dipping limb of

the Pualco Anticline, running east-west. Faulting is not significant at the prospect scale and local

geology is of Greenschist metamorphic grade.

The magnetite host rock at Razorback occurs as either tillitic or bedded siltstone. The bedded or

laminated ore is dense dark blue and can show sedimentary features such as cross bedding and

slumping. The magnetite occurs as 10 to 150 micron euhedra in layers up to 500 micron thick,

and can form up to 80% of the rock. Hematite can occur as fine matrix, and associated with

crosscutting right angle cleavage, related to later deformation. The tillitic ore is medium to dark

grey, massive and contains erratics from 10mm to 1m in diameter. The fragments are typically

metasediments, metavolcanics and granites. The magnetite is similar to that seen in the

bedded ore type. Hematite also occurs, but is irregularly distributed through the rock.



Figure 3-2 Stratigraphic Sequence of Razorback Ridge (modified after Whitten, 1969).



Figure 3-3 Outline of outcropping unit B and D, Braemar Iron Formation and the Magnetite Mines

drilling areas from Western Razorback in the west to Iron Peak in the east.



4 PREVIOUS WORK

4.1 Mines Department of SA

Whitten, on behalf of the Geological Survey of South Australia, carried out a detailed study at

the Razorback Ridge area during the 1950’s and 60’s. This work was structured to assess the

iron content, possible metallurgical processing and costs of mining the iron at the prospect.

Detailed geological mapping, 3 diamond drill holes and an adit reaching 134.1 meters were

carried out on the ridge itself. The data from these drill holes is available in Whitten’s report

and the core preserved at the Adelaide Core Library. Magnetite Mines Limited staff have

viewed the core in Adelaide; located and surveyed on the ground the historic drill sites; and

entered the geological and assay data into the Magnetite Mines Limited Database. It is of

note, that the Iron intersections reported from the 3 Whitten drillholes are similar to those

seen in Magnetite Mines Limited’s drilling.

While Whitten estimated about 280 Mt of magnetite at 27% Fe, he concluded at the time that

the deposit was not profitable utilizing the metallurgical processes of the time.

An Adit (Figures 4-1) was dug to obtain bulk samples and was started in the top Bedded Ore of

Member B, passed through the tillitic ore and ended in the basal Bedded Ore. Samples were

assayed every 10’ (3.05 m) and only analyzed for Fe. The summary of this assaying is shown in

Table 4-1.

From (m) To (m) Interval Fe % Ore Type 0 43 43 27.4 Bedded

43 111 67 24.2 Tillitic

111 134 22 36.2 Bedded

Table 4-1 Assays from the adit, by Whitten, 1970



Figure 4-1 Drill and Adit Section through Razorback Ridge, by SA Dept. of Mines, 1970



4.2 Other Explorers

There has been no drilling at Razorback Ridge between the programs undertaken by the South

Australian Mines Department and Magnetite Mines Limited. Mintech Resources Pty Ltd, the

previous holders of the tenement, only completed rock chip sampling along the top of the

ridge.



5 DRILLING AND SAMPLING

5.1 Drilling Phase I

To date, three phases of drilling have been undertaken at the Razorback Ridge Resource.

The First Phase of drilling commenced in March, 2010. The objective of which was to determine

the grade and thickness of magnetite mineralization at Razorback Ridge.

Reverse circulation (RC) drilling, with 5 ½ face sampling, was undertaken by Budd Contract

Exploration, using an Explorer 300 rig, with ancillary Booster. Sixty six holes were completed

over a ~ 3.5 km strike length, with an average depth of ~ 110 meters and a total of 7152m

(Figure 9). Due to the steep hilly terrain at Razorback Ridge, drill hole spacing was strongly

dictated by rig access. Drilling fence lines are between 200 to 450m spacing and generally

occur along spurs running up the ridge. Along each fence line, holes are spaced either 50 or

100m apart. Holes were drilled perpendicular to strike (mostly indicated from outcrop) and

majority at 60o inclination to the south, providing drill intersections with near true thickness.

Nine diamond drill holes were completed as twin holes for RC drilling or areas where RC rig

access was found to be too difficult. The drilling was undertaken by Budd Contract Exploration,

using a UDR jack-up rig, with HQ standard tube. A total of 990 meters were completed at

Razorback.

This Phase One drilling yielded a JORC inferred resource of 277Mt Iron ore at 26% Fe.

5.2 Drilling Phase II

A second Phase of drilling commenced in January 2011. The objective of this drill program was

to further delineate the lateral and vertical (down - dip) extents of the Razorback Ridge

Resource. Drilling in this program was concentrated on the Western Razorback Ridge prospect

which lies immediately to the west of the Drilling Phase 1 defined resource. Drilling was also

concentrated on the northern edge of the resource with the aim of extending the resource

down dip, effectively deepening the resource from ~200m to ~300m. In addition to the

resource extension, an additional 6 RC holes were drilled within the known resource in aid of

developing the known resource from a JORC Inferred to JORC Indicated Resource.

Reverse circulation (RC) drilling, with 5" to 5 ½" bit face sampling, was undertaken by Budd

Contract Exploration, using an Explorer 300 rig, with auxiliary booster and by Coughlan Drilling

using a UDR 650 rig, also with an auxiliary booster. A combination of hole extensions

(deepening) and new holes were drilled throughout the project with the 5" face sampling

typically occurring within the extensional section of pre-drilled holes.



In total, sixty one RC holes were completed over a ~ 4.5 km strike length, with an average depth

of ~ 170 meters for a total of 8022m. Eight of these holes were extensions to previous Phase 1

drill holes. As per Drilling Phase 1, drilling fence lines are between 200 to 450m spacing and

generally occur along spurs running perpendicular to the ridge. Along each fence line, holes are

spaced approximately 100m apart. Holes were drilled perpendicular to strike (mostly indicated

from outcrop) and the majority at 60o inclination to the south, providing drill intersections with

near true thickness.

Eleven diamond drill holes were completed as twin holes for RC drilling or areas where RC rig

access was found to be too difficult. The drilling was undertaken by Budd Contract Exploration,

using a UDR jack-up rig, with HQ standard tube as well as by Range/Hodges Drilling using a

VK600 truck mounted rig for a combination of PQ, HQ (standard tube) and NQ (triple tube). A

total of 6 HQ, 5 NQ (extensions to previous RC holes) and 1 PQ (for metallurgical testing) holes

were completed for 2005.5 meters at Razorback and the Western Razorback Projects.

5.3 Drilling Phase III

A third phase of drilling commenced in late September 2011. The objective of this drill program

was to further delineate the lateral (to the west - Razorback West and east – Iron Peak) and

vertical (down - dip) extents of the Razorback Ridge Resource. Drilling in this program was

concentrated on the Western Razorback Ridge prospect which lies immediately to the west of

the Drilling Phase 1 and 2 defined resources as well as to the east at the Iron Peak prospect, a

continuation of the Braemar Iron formation to the east of the Razorback and Interzone

resources.

A combination of diamond drill hole (DDH) and reverse circulation (RC) extensions (deepening)

and new holes (drilled from surface) were drilled throughout the project. RC drilling, with 5" to

5 ½" bit face sampling, was undertaken by Coughlan Drilling, using a UDR 650 rig, with an

auxiliary booster. Typically these holes focused on shallow hole depths (0 – 250m) and for

Diamond Drill Hole (DDH) pre-collars. Occasionally the use of DDH extensions were utilized in

conditions whereby the RC was not suited i.e. in the event of circulation loss or excess hole

inclination variations.

Diamond Drilling was undertaken by Range/Hodges Drilling – VK600 truck mounted rig,

Coughlans Drilling – UDR 650 and Budd Contract Exploration – Hydrill 100 jack-up rig for a

combination of HQ and NQ (standard and triple tube).



Drill Phase III - Collar Summary Hole Type Count Metres

Drilled Average Depth (m)

RC 52 11,829 227.5

RCDD 10 2,854 324.2

DDH 4 1,205 301.3

DD Extensions 1 56 234.8

Total 67 15,944 235.6

Table 5-1 Drill Phase III - Collar Summary.

As per Drilling Phase I and II, drilling fence line spacing varied due to topography and heritage

exclusion zones. Drill lines as a result vary between 200 to 450m spacing and generally occur

along topographical spurs running perpendicular to the ridge. Along each fence line, holes are

spaced approximately 100m apart. Drilling azimuths were orientated so as to intersect the

orebody perpendicular to strike (mostly indicated from outcrop) and the majority at 55-60o

inclination to the south, providing drill intersections with near true thickness.

Figure 5-1 Coughlans RC drilling rig drilling at Western Razorback.



5.4 Surveying

The co-ordinates for each drill hole collar were initially surveyed by GPS, where the accuracy

was within 3-5 meters. Subsequent DGPS hole collar surveying has been undertaken with an

accuracy in the order of ±1m. The current database contains the coordinates for all drill holes in

the MGA 94/54 grid system and this grid was used for the estimation.

The RL’s are based on a Digital Terrain Model, derived from processed WV2 satellite imagery

purchased from GeoImage Pty Ltd in January 2011 and are within 1m accuracy. Drill hole

azimuth and dip at surface were determined by compass and clinometer respectively. Due to

the magnetic nature of rocks at Razorback Ridge, only the dips were recorded from the

Eastman single and multi-shot surveys taken at approximately every 30m and azimuth data

discarded. Given the shallow nature of the holes, the azimuths are assumed to be similar to

that on surface. Subsequent gyroscopic work was conducted for all phases of drilling on a

combination of 26 DDH and RC holes. This work displayed negligible deviation between

Eastman and gyroscopic dip measurements.

The diamond drilling had orientation marks taken at the end of each 3m core run via and an

electronic core orientation tool and core blocks used to state measure depth of drilling and

recovery placed in the core trays at the end of each run. The core has been orientated by

experienced field technicians for structural and geotechnical logging.



Figure 5-2 Jack-up HQ diamond rig.



Figure 5-3 Drill plan and Braemar Iron Formation outline at Razorback Ridge.

5.5 Sampling

In the case of RC drilling with Budd Drilling, the RC samples are collected through a sampling

trailer, which has a dust collector, cyclone and non-adjustable cone splitter. In the case of

Coughlan Drilling, the RC sampler is attached to the rig and material travels through a cyclone

and riffle splitter. Each one metre drilled is captured in a plastic bag and kept at the drill site. A

two meter composite for assay was collected as a ~ 3 kg sample in a calico bag, which is

captured from the sampling chute at the side of the splitter. The slots in the splitter are set to

provide a representative split of each meter. Duplicates were processed via a secondary riffle

splitter whereby a two meter composite was split 50/50 and rebagged for assay by the

geologist. The sampling was done on the rig by the drilling contractors and the process was

supervised by Magnetite Mines Limited geological staff.

Nearly all of the RC samples showed good recovery and there were very few issues with wet

samples (< 1% would be considered poor or wet). Any wet or poorly recovered samples were

Unit D

Unit B



recorded by the geologist for entry into the database. Samples were delivered to ALS Adelaide

by either Magnetite Mines Limited staff or by local couriers.

Figure 5-4 Sampling Trailer with cone splitter, Razorback Ridge.

The HQ diamond core was shown to be quite cohesive and have good recovery of >98%, with

issues only occurring in the first few meters near surface, where drilling occurred within broken

ground, or in minor fault zones. All cores were marked up on site by field technicians and core

loss recorded. Magnetic Susceptibility measurements were made on site with handheld

magnetic susceptibility meter, taken every 25cm within mineralized zones (as defined by the

geologist) and every 1 meter in interstitial material.

Core was cut on site and was also delivered to ALS Laboratories Adelaide based on site

workload, where it was cut and sampled. Typically core was sampled as 1m intervals, with one

quarter of core sampled for XRF and Magnetic susceptibility assay with DTR compositing to

follow at a later date, one quarter for metallurgical analysis and half core kept for reference.



Twenty-five to thirty centimeter whole-core segments were retained for all mineralized

lithological units for future metallurgical testing.

Figure 5-5 Core cutting of Razorback samples at ALS Adelaide, SA.

5.6 Geological Logging and Mapping

RC and diamond drilling were supervised and drill chips geologically logged (using

Magnetite Mines Limited’s geological rock codes) by contractor and Magnetite Mines

Limited geological staff. For each RC drill hole, meter samples were collected for reference in

chip trays. All data was entered into either a customized Excel spreadsheet or via the use of

LogChief – a point of capture –in field data entry/validation tool which was subsequently

entered into the Datashed database.

Geological surface mapping of the Razorback Deposit was completed at a 1:25,000 scale by

consultant Barry Cotton in December 2009 and further refined by Magnetite Mines Limited

geologist Gavin England in July 2010. The geology mapping was used as the initial

framework for drill hole positioning during the program.



Additional high resolution mapping has been conducted for use in Magnetite Mines Limited

Prefeasibility study.

5.7 Geology

Geological observations made by geologists of Magnetite Mines Limited, seem consistent with

those of Whitten (1969), from the SA Department of Mines. At Razorback Ridge the two

targeted magnetite units (Units B and D, see Figure 4) are of relatively consistent thickness

across the targeted strike length at Razorback. Here In most cases, the dip remained relatively

constant, between 40 to 50 degrees. Towards Western Razorback the dip of the ore units

increased substantially to 50-60 degrees with further increases in dip angle at the far west

extent of Western razorback, in the order of 60-80 degrees. This increase in dip geometry is

believed to be due to a combination of the existing fold geometry and the presence of

intermittent strike- perpendicular faulting.

5.7.1 Stratigraphic Sequence

Unit A, the basal mineralised unit is locally divided into two units, Unit A and A2. Lithologically

the unit consists of interbedded to interlaminated siltstones with minor amounts of sandstone

and dolostones. Mineralised packages within Unit A consist of interbedded iron units which are

banded in nature.

Unit B generally has intersection thicknesses of between 68 - 72m at the razorback Ridge

deposit generally thinning towards the west. Three sub-units were identified in Unit B and are

described:

o Unit B1 is the basal unit (lithology code SBA) between 10-15m thick and consists

of bedded magnetite-rich siltstone, with minor thin bands of

siltstone/sandstone. These siltstone/sandstone beds appear contorted and

effected by soft sediment deformation. Evidence of minor hematite alteration on

fracture or bedding contacts is observed in the Razorback Adit.

o Unit B2 (lithology code Stf) consists of massive magnetite-rich siltstone

dominated tillite, with minor dropstones. The unit is generally 35-40m thick.

Dropstone vary from 1mm to 100mm in length and consist of metamorphosed

sandstone, siltstone, shale, dolomite, granite and metavolcanics? In some areas,

the carbonated dropstones have been dissolved to leave voids. Some minor

zones of disseminated pyrite, most likely of diagenetic origin are observed in

these areas.



o Unit B3 (lithology code Sii) is the top unit of 10-15m thickness, and consists of

interlaminated / cross-laminated magnetite-rich siltstone, sandstone and

dolomitic shale. Also shows evidence of soft sediment deformation.

Unit C consists predominantly of siltstones with dolomite and locally bedded ironstones

interbedded throughout the sequence. In addition quartzites and sandstones are also observed.

In general iron bearing horizons form thin high grade lenses up to 5m in thickness and are

observed at Razorback as discontinuous interbeds outcropping as interbedded ironstone

occurrences.

Unit D also contained similar internal stratigraphy to unit B, but occurring as thinner sub units.

Typically Unit D had thicknesses of between 28 - 34m at the Razorback Ridge prospect,

generally thinning towards the west due to the pinching geometry of the geology.

Unit E/F is currently grouped together for ease of use in resource calculations. As described by

Whitten Unit E/F consists of predominantly siltstone with local narrow bedded ironstones.

Much like Unit C evidence of quartzites and interbedded sandstones are observed. A minor

tillitic unit has been noted to occur at the top of Unit E acting as the contact between E and F.

Unit G, a target of the third phase of drilling forms the stratigraphically highest unit whose

lithological description is much alike Unit A. This unit has been locally divided into two main

mineralized units G1 and G2 with a small interstitial interbed dividing the two. Generally of low

Fe grade unit G is host to average to good magnetite grade and as a result has been

incorporated into the resource model.

Only minor structure was observed from drill core. A consistent minor breccia zone of

approximately 2m was evident at the base of the Unit B2 tillite bed. Adjacent to the eastern

extent of Razorback Ridge (near drill line of RRDD0104 to RRRC0207) intense weathering to

goethite in Unit B and D in the first ~ 80 metre is present. This weathering appears to be related

to a fault and associated major drainage. Some minor to moderate goethitic and hematite

weathering appears to occur only within the top 10 meters from drilling when the iron

formations are drilled from surface.

Representative examples of each unit within Unit B are shown below.



Figure 5-6 Unit B3 – Interlaminated/ Interbedded magnetite-rich silts displaying soft sediment

deformation and possible dewatering structures – Halved HQ Core

Figure 5-7 Unit B2 – Magnetite-rich Tillite with matrix supported lithic fragments – Halved HQ Core



Figure 5-8 Unit B1 – Bedded magnetite rich silt/shale – Halved HQ Core.

5.8 Assaying

Both the RC and diamond samples were assayed at ALS Chemex Laboratories, with sample

preparation done in Adelaide and analysis carried out in Perth. In Adelaide, the samples were

sorted, dried, and sample numbers reconciled. The dry sample weights were recorded, then

crushed to a nominal 3mm and pulverized to -75μm size. Samples were analyzed using XRF

fusion (ALS code ME-XRF11b), with Fe, Al2O3, Si2O2, TiO2, MnO, CaO, P, S, MgO, K2O, Na2O, Cu,

Ni, Pb, V, and LOI measured. Accuracies for each element are stated in the database.

5.9 Sample QA/QC

The QAQC procedures are designed to monitor all aspects of sampling techniques and analytical

reliability. Included in the appendices are two QAQC reports for the entire collection of data

and a report detailing the nature of QAQC analysis for the most recent drilling program –

Drilling Phase 3. Within Drilling Phase 1 for the purpose of QA/QC, every 50th sample was a

standard. The standards consisted of a certified standard (magnetite standard GIOP-31 with a

value of 37.37% +/- 0.28% Fe ) from Geostats Pty Ltd of Perth and an “in-house” standard from

tillitic material sampled from the Adit stockpile and assayed by ALS Perth 15 times to produce a

standard of 25.4%, +/- 0.1% Fe. Six field duplicate samples were submitted for every 100

samples sent to the lab. Field duplicates are principally a measure of the Field RC sampling

collection procedure but also test analytical precision.



Within drilling Phase 2 the frequency of standard insertion increased to every 20th sample.

Similarly for duplicates, every 20th sample was a duplicate this sequence was continued into

the third phase of drilling. In addition a new CRM GIOP-94 from Geostats was introduced in the

phase 3 with the exclusion of standard RB01 due to possible contamination issues discussed

shortly.

The QA/QC analysis was performed in the QAQCR module of Datashed.

5.10 Standards Analysis

5.10.1 Drill Phase I – Standards Analysis

The results for the two standards used by Magnetite Mines Limited are presented in the

tables and graphs below. The mean and standard deviation for both standards are shown

to be very similar to the expected values for Fe, SiO2 and Al3O2. For Fe and SiO2, there is

evidence of a significant portion of data outside 3 times standard deviation of the expected

mean (set by the QAQCR module in Datashed as the control limit), however nearly all the data

falls within a 10% tolerance either side of the expected mean, which is an acceptable control

limit in this case. The Fe and SiO2 results indicate a high level of analytical accuracy with biases

of between -0.18 and 0.89%. The Al2O3 in the GIOP-31 standard demonstrated lesser analytical

accuracy (Bias of mean = -9.5%) due to the sample containing low levels of aluminium (0.5%

Al2O3) which is at the lower limits of the analytical method, which also influenced the high

number of analyses outside the 10 % tolerance levels. The RB01 standard with Al2O3 levels at

6.73%, demonstrates better Bias of Mean at 1.1% and its entire data sits within a 10% upper

and lower tolerance level to the expected mean.



Table 5-2 Standards statistical data for Fe %

Fe Standard(s)

No. of Samples

Calculated Values

Standard Code Value SD Mean Fe Std Deviation

CV % in 3 x SD tolerance

% in 10% tolerance

Mean Bias %

GIOP-31 37.37 0.280 58 37.30 0.350 0.009 96.5 100 -0.184

RB01 25.41 0.103 25 25.59 0.297 0.012 44 96 0.704

Figure 5-9 GIOP-31 and RB01 Standard data vs. date sampled for Fe %. The upper and lower

limits are represented as 3 times standard deviation.



Table 5-3 Standards statistical data for SiO2 %

SiO2 Standard(s)

No. of Samples

Calculated Values

Standard Code Value SD Mean SiO2

Std Deviation


% in 10% tolerance

Mean Bias%

GIOP-31 27.33 0.084 58 27.56 0.353 0.013 68 84 0.83

RB01 42.07 0.111 25 41.69 0.329 0.008 28 100 0.891

Figure 5-10 GIOP-31 and RB01 standard data vs. date sampled for SiO2 %. The upper and lower




Table 5-4 Standards statistical data for Al2O3 %

Al2O3 Standard(s)

No. of Samples

Calculated Values

Standard Code Value SD Mean Al2O3

Std Deviation


% in 10% tolerance

Mean Bias%

GIOP-31 0.50 0.021 58 0.45 0.023 0.050 81 29 -9.552

RB01 6.73 0.026 25 6.88 0.129 0.019 20 100 1.164

Figure 5-11 GIOP-31 and RB01 standard data vs. date sampled for Al2O3 %. The upper and lower




5.10.2 Drill Phase II – Standards Analysis

As for Drill Phase I, the results for the two standards used by Magnetite Mines Limited are

presented in the tables and graphs below. The mean and standard deviation for both standards

are shown to be very similar to the expected values for Fe, SiO2 and Al3O2. There is evidence of

a significant portion of data outside 3 times standard deviation of the expected mean (set by

the QAQCR module in Datashed as the control limit), however in general nearly all the data

falls within a 10% tolerance either side of the expected mean, which is an acceptable

control limit in this case.

The certified standard GIOP-31 displays low analytical bias for Fe and SiO2 (-1.37% and 2.89%)

however Al2O3 as per the drilling phase I suffers (Bias of mean = -19.95%) due to the sample

containing low levels of aluminium (0.5% Al2O3) which is at the lower limits of the analytical

method, which also influenced the number of analyses outside the 10 % tolerance levels.

The in-house standard RB01 fared less well in the analyses. While low biases and a high

proportion in 10% tolerances were observed for Fe and SiO2, the Al2O3 values were poor. This is

in part due to the lower expected grades of Al2O3 having lower tolerance ranges and marries

together the lower limits of the analytical methods encountered in the GIOP-31 sample. The

RB01 standard is made of a bulk material collected from the stockpile at the adit at Razorback.

This sample was crushed and homogenized at ALS Adelaide and Perth and was found to show

quite consistent assay results when first tested as a standard in early 2010. It is now apparent

that the RB01 has lost some of it homogeneity with time, due possibility to oxidation in the

paper sample envelopes and will not be used in further work.



Table 5-5 Standards statistical data for Fe%

Fe Standard(s) No. of Samples

Calculated Values



% in 10% tolerance

Mean Bias %

GIOP-31 37.37 0.280 120 36.86 3.240 0.087 95 98 -1.37

RB01 25.41 0.103 116 25.16 1.155 0.046 33 99 -0.98

Figure 5-12 GIOP-31 and RB01 Standard data vs. date sampled for Fe%. The upper and lower limits are

represented as 3 times standard deviation.



Table 5-6 Standards statistical data for SiO2 %

SiO2 Standard(s) No. of Samples

Calculated Values


Std Deviation


% in 10% tolerance

Mean Bias %

GIOP-31 27.33 0.084 120 28.12 3.61 0.128 25 50 2.89

RB01 42.07 0.111 116 42.08 1.36 0.032 60 75 0.02

Figure 5-13 GIOP-31 and RB01 Standard data vs. date sampled for Fe%. The upper and lower limits are

represented as 3 times standard deviation.




Al2O3 Standard(s) No. of Samples

Calculated Values


Std Deviation


% in 10% tolerance

Mean Bias %

GIOP-31 27.33 0.084 120 28.12 3.61 0.128 25 50 2.89

RB01 42.07 0.111 116 42.08 1.36 0.032 60 75 0.02

Figure 5-14 GIOP-31 and RB01 Standard data vs. date sampled for Al2O3 %. The upper and lower limits

are represented as 3 times standard deviation.



5.10.3 Drill Phase III – Standards Analysis

As for Drill Phase I and II, the results for two standards used by Magnetite Mines Limited are

presented in the tables and graphs below. (See Appendix I for full report)

These figures summarises Fe, Al2O3 and SiO2 XRF assay results reported by ALS and Amdel

between 1 Sep 2011 and 30 Sep 2012. A total of 101 analytical batches were returned from ALS

and three batches from Amdel during the report period. The samples were analysed by ALS

methods MEXRF21n while umpire samples were analysed by Amdel XRF4B.

The key issue identified is poor precision of certified Geostats standard GIOP-94 when

compared with the certified expected value and expected standard deviation; the issue is also

present in the ALS Geostats laboratory standard results and is discussed in detail on Page 3. The

number of duplicates and standards included with the drill samples is summarised in the table

below. Approximately 8% of Razorback samples are duplicates and 4% of samples are

standards.

Magnetite Mines Limited utilised two certified standards during the Razorback drilling

campaign. Certified reference materials were sourced from Geostats

(www.geostats.com.au). Both Magnetite Mines Limited and ALS utilised two Geostats

standards during the report period; when the results are compared, the Magnetite Mines

Limited Geostats standards performed similarly, or better than, the ALS standards of a

similar grade.

Magnetite Mines Limited standard GIOP-94 (expected 23.97% Fe) shows a low bias for Fe

of -1.34% while ALS laboratory standard GIOP-91 (expected 26.395% Fe) shows a low bias for

Fe of -2.84%. Of the 182 Fe assays for GIOP-94, 58% fall below 3x standard deviation from

expected (see figure on page 6). The Al2O3 results for GIOP-94 perform well with the majority

of results falling within 3x standard deviations.

While the SiO2 show almost no bias the results show poor precision. The LOI for GIOP-94

indicate a significant bias of 95% which might explain the poor precision of the assay results.

The LOI bias potentially indicates a problem with the laboratory preparation of this standard, or

incorrect storage or handling of the standard prior to delivery to the laboratory. Alternatively,

the certified expected values for GIOP-94 are not optimised for the analysis method used to

analyse the Razorback drill samples.

Certified Geostats standard GIOP-31 (expected 37.37% Fe), performs well with no bias Fe and

by way of comparison, ALS laboratory standard GIOP-92 (expected 33.47% Fe) shows a low bias

for Fe of - 0.47%. The LOI for GIOP-31 mostly performs within expected limits, although there

http://www.geostats.com.au/



are a small number of significant LOI outliers. GIOP-31 shows a low bias of -5.82% for Al2O3 and

slight high bias of 0.66% for SiO2.



Table 5-8 Standards statistical data for Fe%

Fe Standard(s) No. of Samples

Calculated Values



% in 10% tolerance

Mean Bias %

GIOP-31 37.37 0.280 169 37.40 0.31 0.01 97.04 100 0.07

GIOP-94 23.97 0.075 182 23.65 0.37 0.02 37.36 100 -1.34

Figure 5-15 GIOP-31 and GIOP-94 Standard data vs. date sampled for Fe%. The upper and lower limits

are represented as 3 times standard deviation..



Table 5-9 Standards statistical data for SiO2%

SiO2 Standard(s)

No. of Samples

Calculated Values


Std Deviation


% in 10% tolerance

Mean Bias%

GIOP-31 27.33 0.084 169 27.51 0.34 0.01 55.62 100 0.66

GIOP-94 54.19 0.25 182 53.95 0.80 0.02 73.63 100 -0.44

Figure 5-16 GIOP-31 and GIOP-94 Standard data vs. date sampled for SiO2%. The upper and lower limits

are represented as 3 times standard deviation.




Al2O3 Standard(s)

No. of Samples

Calculated Values


Std Deviation


% in 10% tolerance

Mean Bias %

GIOP-31 0.5 0.021 169 0.47 0.05 0.10 90.53 84.02 -5.82

GIOP-94 2.151 0.057 182 2.17 0.06 0.03 98.35 98.35 0.97

Figure 5-17 GIOP-31 and GIOP-94 Standard data vs. date sampled for Al2O3%. The upper and lower




5.11 Duplicate, Resample and Umpire Samples

5.11.1 Drill Phase I – Repeats and Umpire Samples

Duplicate, Resample and Umpire sample statistics are summarized for Fe, Si02 and Al2O3 below.

The field duplicates, field resample and umpire samples show reasonable correlation with the

original sample for Fe, SiO2 and Al2O3 with no bias. The field duplicate and field resample data

having a coefficient of determination better than 0.9 and positioned near the one-to-one (x=y)

line. The umpire data has a coefficient of determination better than 0.75 and also positioned

near the one-to-one (x=y) line.

Some of the scatter of data outside the 10% upper and lower tolerance for the field duplicates

was found to be related to problems with the duplicate sampling chute on the rig’s cone splitter

early in the program. This splitter system was later changed. An improvement in the scatter is

evident with the conventional splitter when looking at the data of Resample vs. Original

sample, which has less scatter outside the 10% tolerance and slightly better correlation than

the field duplicates.



Table 5-11 Statistical Summary of Fe% duplicate data (CV = coefficient of variance; sRPHD mean = the

mean of the relative percent half difference)

Field Duplicates (F1 = Original Sample, F2 = Field Duplicate)

Range

Fe

No. of

Samples

Mean

Fe1

Mean

Fe2

SD

Fe1

SD

Fe2

CV

Fe1

CV

Fe2

% within 10%

tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

0 - 10 23 7.13 8.12 1.92 3.09 0.27 0.38 - -4.94

10 - 50 123 23.02 22.71 7.75 8.03 0.34 0.35 - 1.19

TOTAL 146 20.52 20.42 9.21 9.17 0.45 0.45 69 0.23

Resample (F1 = Original Sample, F2 = Field Resample)

Range

Fe

No. of

Samples

Mean

Fe1

Mean

Fe2

SD

Fe1

SD

Fe2

CV

Fe1

CV

Fe2

% within 10%

tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

0 - 10 1 8.01 8.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -1.05

10 - 50 46 23.68 24.33 5.06 5.04 0.21 0.21 - -1.43

TOTAL 47 23.35 23.98 5.49 5.50 0.24 0.23 78 -1.42

Umpire Samples ((F1 = Original Sample, F2 = Umpire sample)

Range

Fe

No. of

Samples

Mean

Fe1

Mean

Fe2

SD

Fe1

SD

Fe2

CV

Fe1

CV

Fe2

% in 10% tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

0 - 10 4 7.31 8.75 1.14 2.24 0.16 0.26 - -7.85

10 - 50 110 24.44 24.53 6.86 6.83 0.28 0.28 - -0.26

TOTAL 114 23.84 23.98 7.44 7.32 0.31 0.31 80% -0.53



Table 5-12 Statistical Summary of SiO2% duplicate data (CV = coefficient of variance; sRPHD mean = the

mean of the relative percent half difference)


Range

SiO2

No. of

Samples

Mean

SiO21

Mean

SiO22

SD

SiO21

SD

SiO22

CV

SiO21

CV

SiO22

% within 10%

tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

10 - 50 95 41.37 41.69 6.30 6.84 0.15 0.16 - -0.28

50 - 100 51 56.15 55.51 4.73 5.26 0.08 0.09 - 0.62

TOTAL 146 46.53 46.52 9.13 9.14 0.20 0.20 87% 0.03


Range

SiO2

No. of

Samples

Mean

SiO21

Mean

SiO22

SD

SiO21

SD

SiO22

CV

SiO21

CV

SiO22

% within 10%

tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

10 - 50 37 42.86 42.39 4.20 4.42 0.10 0.10 - 0.59

50 - 100 10 51.90 50.95 2.25 3.29 0.04 0.06 - 0.98

TOTAL 47 44.78 44.21 5.35 5.47 0.12 0.12 97.8 0.67

Umpire Samples (F1 = Original Sample, F2 = Umpire sample)

Range

SiO2

No. of

Samples

Mean

SiO21

Mean

SiO22

SD

SiO21

SD

SiO22

CV

SiO21

CV

SiO22

% in 10% tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

10 - 50 96 40.92 41.02 6.01 6.25 0.15 0.15 - -0.06

50 - 100 18 54.89 53.26 4.15 4.61 0.08 0.09 - 1.55

TOTAL 114 43.13 42.95 7.68 7.49 0.18 0.17 86.8 0.19



Table 5-13 Statistical Summary of Al2O3% duplicate data (CV = coefficient of variance; sRPHD mean =

the mean of the relative percent half difference)


Range

Al2O3

No. of

Samples

Mean

Al2O31

Mean

Al2O32

SD

Al2O31

SD

Al2O32

CV

Al2O31

CV

Al2O32

% within 10%

tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

0 - 10 126 7.41 7.41 1.57 1.59 0.21 0.21 - 0.09

10 - 50 20 10.71 10.60 0.71 0.78 0.07 0.07 - 0.51

TOTAL 146 7.86 7.85 1.87 1.86 0.24 0.24 86.9 0.14


Range

Al2O3

No. of

Samples

Mean

Al2O31

Mean

Al2O32

SD

Al2O31

SD

Al2O32

CV

Al2O31

CV

Al2O32

% within 10%

tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

0 - 10 45 7.12 7.01 0.95 0.95 0.13 0.13 - 0.76

10 - 50 2 10.40 9.84 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.00 - 2.74

TOTAL 47 7.26 7.13 1.14 1.09 0.16 0.15 93 0.84

Umpire Samples ((F1 = Original Sample, F2 = Umpire sample)

Range

Al2O3

No. of

Samples

Mean

Al2O31

Mean

Al2O32

SD

Al2O31

SD

Al2O32

CV

Al2O31

CV

Al2O32

% within 10%

tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

0 - 10 111 6.97 6.94 1.55 1.57 0.22 0.23 - 0.28

10 - 50 3 11.12 10.77 0.91 0.90 0.08 0.08 - 1.61

TOTAL 114 7.08 7.04 1.68 1.67 0.24 0.24 86 0.32



Figure 5-18 Scatter plots of original vs. field duplicates, field resample and umpire samples for

Fe, SiO2 and Al2O3%.

The dashed black lines are the upper and lower 10% tolerance mark from the one to one (x = y)

black line.



5.11.2 Drill Phase II – Repeats and Umpire Samples

As for Drill Phase I, duplicate, resample and umpire sample statistics are summarized for Fe,

SiO2 and Al2O3 below. The field duplicates, field resample and umpire samples show good

correlation with the original sample for Fe, SiO2 and Al2O3 with little to no bias. All field

duplicate, field resample and umpire data have a correlation coefficient of determination better

than 0.95 and positioned near the one-to-one (x=y) line.

Whilst minor scatter of data outside the 10% upper and lower tolerance for the field duplicates

is observed, the improvement in accuracy of the data over the Drill Phase I data is noticeable

and is credited to the use of conventional riffle splitters and closely monitored sampling

procedures.




mean of the relative percent half difference.


Range

Fe

No. of

Samples

Mean

Fe1

Mean

Fe2

SD

Fe1

SD

Fe2

CV

Fe1

CV

Fe2

% within 10%

tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

0 - 10 19 7.16 7.96 1.73 2.83 0.24 0.35 - -3.79

10 - 50 256 22.25 22.22 7.36 7.37 0.33 0.33 - 0.10

TOTAL 275 21.21 21.23 8.08 8.01 0.38 0.38 90 -0.16


Range

Fe

No. of

Samples

Mean

Fe1

Mean

Fe2

SD

Fe1

SD

Fe2

CV

Fe1

CV

Fe2

% within 10%

tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

0 - 10 18 8.52 8.68 1.20 1.26 0.14 0.15 - -0.89

10 - 50 245 20.74 20.64 6.51 6.37 0.31 0.31 - 0.17

TOTAL 263 19.91 19.82 7.00 6.86 0.35 0.35 91 0.09

Umpire Samples (F1 = Original Sample, F2 = Umpire Sample)

Range

Fe

No. of

Samples

Mean

Fe1

Mean

Fe2

SD

Fe1

SD

Fe2

CV

Fe1

CV

Fe2

% within 10%

tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

0 - 10 35 8.38 8.49 1.24 1.29 0.15 0.15 - -0.66

10 - 50 217 17.69 17.80 6.30 6.31 0.36 0.35 - -0.34

TOTAL 252 16.40 16.51 6.69 6.70 0.41 0.41 98.5 -0.39



Table 5-15 Statistical Summary of SiO2% duplicate data (CV = coefficient of varience; sRPHD mean = the



Range

SiO2

No. of

Samples

Mean

SiO21

Mean

SiO22

SD

SiO21

SD

SiO22

CV

SiO21

CV

SiO22

% within 10%

tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

0 - 10 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00

10 - 50 186 42.22 42.32 6.16 6.28 0.15 0.15 - -0.09

TOTAL 275 46.12 46.05 7.85 7.75 0.17 0.17 96.5 0.06


Range

SiO2

No. of

Samples

Mean

SiO21

Mean

SiO22

SD

SiO21

SD

SiO22

CV

SiO21

CV

SiO22

% within 10%

tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

0 - 10 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00

10 - 50 162 43.07 43.30 5.05 5.23 0.12 0.12 - -0.24

TOTAL 263 47.33 47.36 6.96 6.86 0.15 0.14 98 -0.04


Range

SiO2

No. of

Samples

Mean

SiO21

Mean

SiO22

SD

SiO21

SD

SiO22

CV

SiO21

CV

SiO22

% within 10%

tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

0 - 10 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00

10 - 50 91 43.33 43.23 5.10 5.06 0.12 0.12 - 0.11

TOTAL 252 50.37 50.11 6.64 6.52 0.13 0.13 98.5 0.25



Table 5-16 Statistical Summary of Al2O3% duplicate data (CV = coefficient of varience; sRPHD mean =

the mean of the relative percent half difference.


Range

Al2O3

No. of

Samples

Mean

Al2O31

Mean

Al2O32

SD

Al2O31

SD

Al2O32

CV

Al2O31

CV

Al2O32

% within 10%

tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

0 - 10 261 7.11 7.11 1.64 1.65 0.23 0.23 - 0.01

10 - 50 14 10.67 10.46 0.63 0.88 0.06 0.08 - 1.07

TOTAL 275 7.29 7.29 1.78 1.78 0.24 0.24 97 0.06

Field Resample (F1 = Original Sample, F2 = Field Resample)

Range

Al2O3

No. of

Samples

Mean

Al2O31

Mean

Al2O32

SD

Al2O31

SD

Al2O32

CV

Al2O31

CV

Al2O32

% within 10%

tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

0 - 10 252 7.51 7.48 1.32 1.32 0.18 0.18 - 0.18

10 - 50 11 10.33 10.32 0.35 0.33 0.03 0.03 - 0.02

TOTAL 263 7.62 7.60 1.41 1.41 0.18 0.19 97.5 0.18

Umpire Samples (F1 = Original Sample, F2 = Umpire Samples)

Range

Al2O3

No. of

Samples

Mean

Al2O31

Mean

Al2O32

SD

Al2O31

SD

Al2O32

CV

Al2O31

CV

Al2O32

% within 10%

tolerance

sRPHD

(mean)

0 - 10 230 8.19 8.42 1.31 1.36 0.16 0.16 - -1.32

10 - 50 22 10.28 10.61 0.24 0.27 0.02 0.03 - -1.56

TOTAL 252 8.38 8.61 1.38 1.44 0.17 0.17 98.5 -1.34



Figure 5-19 Scatter plots of original vs. field duplicates, field resample and umpire samples for Fe, SiO2

and Al2O3%.



5.11.3 Drill Phase III – Repeats and Umpire Samples

As for the previous drill programs, duplicate, resample and umpire sample statistics are

summarized for Fe, SiO2 and Al2O3 below.

The field duplicates, resamples and laboratory duplicates perform well and show strong

correlation although a few outliers are present indicating either sampling error or laboratory

error. The Amdel umpire duplicates show a good correlation when compared with the original

ALS results for Fe, Al2O3 and SiO2.

For a more comprehensive description please see Appendix I for the Drilling Phase III – QC

Report.






Range

Fe

No. of

Samples

Mean

Fe1

Mean

Fe2

SD

Fe1

SD

Fe2

CV

Fe1

CV

Fe2

sRPHD

(mean)

0-10 103 7.06 7.12 2.02 2.15 0.29 0.30 -0.28

10-40 377 18.17 18.16 6.38 6.48 0.35 0.36 0.09

40-70 3 42.91 43.72 1.62 1.47 0.04 0.03 -0.95

TOTAL 483 12.96 15.97 7.61 7.68 0.48 0.48 0.01


Range

Fe

No. of

Samples

Mean

Fe1

Mean

Fe2

SD

Fe1

SD

Fe2

CV

Fe1

CV

Fe2

sRPHD

(mean)

0-10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

10-40 64 21.28 21.38 6.68 6.43 0.31 0.30 -0.42

40-70 1 42.26 35.65 0 0 0 0 8.48

TOTAL 65 21.61 21.6 7.11 6.62 0.33 0.31 -0.28


Range

Fe

No. of

Samples

Mean

Fe1

Mean

Fe2

SD

Fe1

SD

Fe2

CV

Fe1

CV

Fe2

sRPHD

(mean)

0-10 38 7.70 7.70 1.52 1.64 0.20 0.21 0.12

10-40 208 18.94 19.19 6.54 6.56 0.35 0.34 -0.70

40-70 1 40.90 41.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.23

TOTAL 247 17.3 17.51 7.42 7.48 0.43 0.43 -0.57



Figure 5-20 Scatter plots of Field Duplicates, Field Resamples and Umpire results for Fe%.



Table 5-18 Statistical Summary of SiO2% duplicate data (CV = coefficient of varience; sRPHD mean = the



Range

SiO2

No. of

Samples

Mean

SiO21

Mean

SiO22

SD

SiO21

SD

SiO22

CV

SiO21

CV

SiO22

sRPHD

(mean)

0-20 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

20-50 200 43.53 43.69 5.79 6.18 0.13 0.14 -0.12

50-70 281 55.00 54.92 3.64 3.76 0.07 0.07 0.08

TOTAL 483 50.33 50.34 7.48 7.53 0.15 0.15 0


Range

SiO2

No. of

Samples

Mean

SiO21

Mean

SiO22

SD

SiO21

SD

SiO22

CV

SiO21

CV

SiO22

sRPHD

(mean)

0-20 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

20-50 46 42.32 42.28 6.37 5.95 0.15 0.14 -0.03

50-70 19 52.60 52.35 2.21 1.80 0.04 0.03 0.22

TOTAL 65 45.33 45.23 7.21 6.85 0.16 0.15 0.05


Range

SiO2

No. of

Samples

Mean

SiO21

Mean

SiO22

SD

SiO21

SD

SiO22

CV

SiO21

CV

SiO22

sRPHD

(mean)

0-20 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

20-50 115 43.25 43.19 5.14 5.12 0.12 0.12 0.07

50-70 132 54.57 54.25 2.96 3.10 0.05 0.06 0.30

TOTAL 247 49.3 49.1 6.99 6.91 0.14 0.14 0.19



Figure 5-21 Scatter plots of Field Duplicates, Field Resamples and Umpire results for SiO2%.



Table 5-19 Statistical Summary of Al2O3% duplicate data (CV = coefficient of varience; sRPHD mean =

the mean of the relative percent half difference.


Range

Al2O3

No. of

Samples

Mean

Al2O31

Mean

Al2O32

SD

Al2O31

SD

Al2O32

CV

Al2O31

CV

Al2O32

sRPHD

(mean)

0-3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3-8 163 6.69 6.71 1.04 1.09 0.16 0.16 -0.15

8-20 320 9.44 9.45 0.90 0.91 0.10 0.10 -0.07

TOTAL 483 8.51 8.53 1.61 1.62 0.19 0.19 -0.09

Field Resample (F1 = Original Sample, F2 = Field Resample)

Range

Al2O3

No. of

Samples

Mean

Al2O31

Mean

Al2O32

SD

Al2O31

SD

Al2O32

CV

Al2O31

CV

Al2O32

sRPHD

(mean)

0-3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3-8 52 6.62 6.77 1.17 1.16 0.18 0.17 -1.13

8-20 13 8.75 8.84 0.58 0.53 0.07 0.06 -0.55

TOTAL 65 7.05 7.18 1.38 1.35 0.2 0.19 -1.01

Umpire Samples (F1 = Original Sample, F2 = Umpire Samples)

Range

Al2O3

No. of

Samples

Mean

Al2O31

Mean

Al2O32

SD

Al2O31

SD

Al2O32

CV

Al2O31

CV

Al2O32

sRPHD

(mean)

0-3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3-8 97 6.65 6.75 0.93 0.97 0.14 0.14 -0.71

8-20 150 9.26 9.34 0.77 0.80 0.08 0.09 -0.43

TOTAL 247 8.23 8.32 1.52 1.53 0.19 0.18 -0.54



Figure 5-22 Scatter plots of Field Duplicates, Field Resamples and Umpire results for Al2O3%.



5.12 Twinning

To date, of the 26 diamond drill holes drilled at Razorback Ridge, 12 were twins of earlier RC

drilling by Magnetite Mines Limited. The twinned diamond drillhole was drilled no less than 5-

10m from the original RC hole. The table below is a comparison of some RC and diamond

intersections, which show a good match, given the RC holes were sampled as a 2m

composite, while the diamond drill holes were sampled as 1m intervals. The internal variation

in Fe grade is also well matched, as seen in the example of twin holes RRRC0034 and

RRDD0101, shown in section in below.

Table 5-20 Summary of Fe % intersections for diamond and RC twin drill holes.

Diamond Hole ID

Unit

Element

From (m)

To(m)

Intercept

Twin RC Hole ID

From (m)

To(m)

Intercept

RRDD0100 D Fe % 11 45 34m @ 24.17 % RRRC0030 12 46 34m @ 24.20 %

RRDD0101 B Fe % 20 94 74m @ 25.33 % RRRC0034 22 96 74m @ 24.89 %

RRDD0102 D Fe % 12 44 32m @ 24.82 % RRRC0054 12 46 34m @ 23.89 %

RRDD0102 B Fe % 101 166 65m @ 26.00 % RRRC0055 102 166 64m @ 27.93 %



Figure 5-23 Drill section with sample intervals showing Fe%, of twin holes RRDD0101 and RRRC0034.



5.13 Density

During Phase 1, density was measured on ¼ cut diamond core material using gravimetric methods

(weight in air / weight in water) at ALS Adelaide. Given the homogeneous nature of the sampled

material, ¼ core is seen as representative of the entire core. Four holes were measured at 1 m intervals,

to use as a calibration for down hole density logging. The other diamond holes were measured every 4th

metre.

Density was also measured on selected intervals on site, measuring coherent core length greater than

0.5 metre. The density was determined by weighing the sample and measuring the length to determine

the volume.

During the second phase of drilling density measurements were made on-site on whole core samples via

gravimetric methods as above this was done on every 4 meters.

In the third phase of drilling sampling intervals for on-site gravimetric measurements increased to one

sample every 4m of whole-core in non-mineralized zones with measurements made on core samples at

1 m intervals within mineralized units.

The global average from both the lab and field measurements for mineralized units was an SG of 3.2.

No density was measured on the RC chips.

5.14 Approximate Mass Recovery (eDTR)

As part of ongoing optimisation studies following the release of Magnetite Mines Limited’s PFS a

study to better understand magnetite recovery across the Razorback Project was initiated.

Previous resources produced for the Razorback Project are given in terms of Fe % head grade which may

not represent mass recovery of magnetite in the deposit. The study examined DTR mass recovery, XRF,

SATMAGAN and geological data from 530 RC and diamond core composited samples from 96 drill holes

drilling between early 2010 and mid 2012.

Key results of the study are summarised as follows:

• Fe% head grade cannot be used as a direct guide to magnetite mass recovery within the

Razorback Premium Iron Project (RPIP)

• A strong correlation between Satmagan Magnetite % and DTR Recovery % is displayed

throughout the data as a linear relationship. Given the strength of the correlation a calibration

factor for specified geological domains is suitable for the production of an approximate mass

recovery (eDTR) resource.

• The calibration equations are derived from linear correlations between DTR and Satmagan

results following the domaining of the local geology by prospect, oxidation state and drilling

methodology (RC or DDH) as such:



1. Razorback Ridge RC: y = 0.8814x + 1.9755

2. Razorback Ridge DDH: y = 0.7439x + 3.0352

3. Razorback West RC: y = 1.01x + 0.8596

4. Razorback West DDH: y = 0.7302x + 2.048

5. Iron Peak (RC/DDH): y = 0.7949x + 2.1348

6. Oxidised Material: y = 1.1478x + 5.9869

(Where y=eDTR and x=Satmagan Grade)

For a full description of the Magnetite Mass Recovery calibrations please refer to Appendix XX.



6 RESOURCE ESTIMATION

6.1 Database

The Razorback drill hole data is managed by Magnetite Mines Limited in the form of a Microsoft

Access database. An image illustrating the database structure is shown below.

Magnetite Mines Limited has exported the primary drilling data (collars, down hole surveys,

assays and geology was and imported to Micromine mining software for initial processing. Copies of the

latest data were provided to Widenbar and Associates with additional assay data compared to the

previous November 2012 models, and with the addition of eDTR data to the assay files.

Drill hole collar locations are illustrated below.



Figure 6-1 Razorback Drill hole collar locations

Figure 6-2 Razorback Drill hole collar locations with topography.



Figure 6-3 Iron Peak Drill hole collar locations

Figure 6-4 Iron Peak Drill hole collar locations with topography



Topographic data was provided in 3D DXF format and imported to Micromine in string format, then

converted to a Digital Terrain Model (DTM).

A Google Earth image of the Razorback deposit area was provided and this was also imported to aid in

visualisation of the deposit, as shown below.

Figure 6-5 Google Earth Image draped on topography.



6.2 Geological Interpretation

Locally, the Braemar Formation at Razorback has been separated into two major tillitic iron formations

with a number of bedded iron units interlayered with shales, siltstones and dolomitic beds. Bedded and

laminated magnetite ores occur in a gently dipping sequence over approximately 4 km of strike length,

outcropping along Razorback Ridge.

In the main and western part of the Razorback deposit, eight units (A, B1, B2, B3, C, D, E and G) have

been defined and interpreted by Magnetite Mines Limited. These were provided as 3D strings in

Micromine format. There is also a fault block in the western part of Razorback.

At Iron Peak the A1, A2, B1, B2, B3, C, D and E units are represented.

Figure 6-6 Razorback Sectional Geological Interpretation Strings

These strings were refined and snapped to drill holes in three-D; a series of ‘tie-lines’ was developed to

link the strings in a geologically sensible way and three dimensional surface and solid wireframe models

were generated. The final strings are illustrated in plan and 3D on the following pages, as are the final

wireframes.



Figure 6-7 Razorback Strings in Plan

Figure 6-8 Razorback Strings in Three-D, Main Area



Figure 6-9 Razorback Final Wireframes – Plan View

Figure 6-10 Razorback Final Wireframes



Figure 6-11 Iron Peak Sectional Interpretation Strings

Figure 6-12 Iron Peak Strings in Plan View



Figure 6-13 Iron Peak Final Wireframes

Figure 6-14 Iron Peak Final Wireframes



6.3 Statistical and Geostatistical Analysis

The major aims of the statistical and geostatistical analysis are to

• Confirm the validity of geological domains for modelling

• Define limits of interpolation and extrapolation

• Define detailed parameters for resource estimation

Prior to analysis, the drill hole data was composited to 2m intervals, and was flagged and coded with the

relevant wireframe data. The domains were analysed in two groups, corresponding to the main

Razorback area and the Iron Peak area.

A distribution analysis of the main elements (eDTR, Fe, SiO2, Al2O3) was carried out to review

consistency within the geological domains. These are presented as overlaid log probability plots, which

allow us to tell if distributions are similar or different.

In the Main/West area, there are subtle differences between B2, B3 and D, whilst domain B1 is

significantly different. The other units are poorly mineralised. There is sufficient difference between

domains to warrant retaining them as separate domains.

Similar relationships are shown in the Iron Peak data.

Figure 6-15 eDTR Razorback by Unit



Figure 6-16 Fe Razorback by Unit

Figure 6-17 SiO2 Razorback by Unit



Figure 6-18 Al2O3 Razorback by Unit

Figure 6-19 eDTR Iron Peak by Unit



Figure 6-20 Fe - Iron Peak by Unit

Figure 6-21 SiO2 - Iron Peak by Unit



Figure 6-22 - Iron Peak by Unit

At Razorback, an additional domain has been introduced over-riding all units: an oxide/fresh interface

has been added. Analysis of Magnetite% and eDTR above and below this surface indicates a significant

difference in the distribution of grades, and this has been used to sub-divide all units into upper oxide

and lower fresh domains.



Figure 6-23 Razorback eDTR by Weathering Domain

Figure 6-24 Razorback eDTR by Weathering Domain



Figure 6-25 Razorback Magnetite by Weathering Domain

Figure 6-26 Razorback Magnetite by Weathering Domain



Core density measurements have been reviewed, and at this stage an average density of 3.2 t/m3 has

been used; it is considered that this is somewhat conservative (the average of the data is 3.244).

Figure 6-27 Density Distribution Histogram

Variography was carried out on the combined B2-B3 domains in Razorback (the other units and Iron

Peak areas had insufficient data to provide robust variograms). Reasonable variograms were obtained

for Fe, SiO2 and Al2O3; the Fe variogram parameters were used for other elements. Directional

variograms are illustrated below, with summaries of spherical model variogram parameters.

The variograms illustrate generally low to moderate nugget effects, with ranges along strike of 475m to

600m. This is distance is greater than the drill hole spacing, which allows interpolation between holes

along strike.

Down dip ranges are 100m to 125m; on the basis of this, the maximum extension down dip from the last

intersection has been set at 100m, though there are additional constraints set on interpolation, which

are summarised in the section on resource estimation. Ranges across the mineralisation are short, as

expected, and are of the order of 10m.



Figure 6-28 Fe Variography



Figure 6-29 SiO2 Variography



Figure 6-30 Al2O3 Variography



6.4 Resource Estimation

Model frameworks have been defined with the following parameters, for block size, number of cells etc.

Figure 6-31 Razorback Block Model Setup Parameters

Figure 6-32 Iron Peak Block Model Setup Parameters

To eliminate block model issues (such as gaps and overlaps in blocks) caused by slight inconsistencies in

solid wireframe triangulations, the solids were at this stage converted to surfaces. At this stage also, the

base of all units was clipped to -100m RL.

The next stage of resource estimation is the construction of ‘empty’ rock models with blocks generated

within the mineralised wireframe domains, and constrained by the topography. In order to follow the

detailed geometry of the mineralisation, subcells to 2.5m (E-W and N-S) and 1m in RL may be generated.

At Razorback, an additional domain has been introduced over-riding all units: an oxide/fresh interface

has been added. Analysis of Fe and eDTR above and below this surface indicates a difference in the

distribution of grades, and this has been used to sub-divide all units into upper oxide and lower fresh

domains.

Examples of a plan and section through the rock models are illustrated below.



Figure 6-33 Razorback Plan through rock model

Figure 6-34 Razorback Section through rock model



Figure 6-35 Iron Peak Plan through rock model

Figure 6-36 Iron Peak Section through rock model



Prior to setting up search ellipse orientations and sizes for the actual interpolation of grades into the

block model, it was noted that there is a variable strike to the mineralisation, and also moderate

variation in dip locally. This is the case for both Razorback and Iron Peak.

To simplify the setup of the search neighbourhood, an ‘unfolding’ process was carried out, which

effectively flattens and straightens out the mineralised zones. This is illustrated for Razorback in the

sequence of images below.

Figure 6-37 Unfolding of rock model

The resource estimation procedure was carried out using the Micromine software package, which allows

detailed control of the parameters used in resource estimation. An Ordinary Kriging technique was used

for interpolation, with the following parameters and controls (for Razorback and Iron Peak).

Primary search 400m x 150m x 30m

Minimum 12 samples Maximum 20 samples

Maximum samples 4 per hole

Second search 800m x 300m x 30m for any unestimated blocks from first pass

Third search 1200m x 600m x 50m for any unestimated blocks from second pass



The requirement of a minimum of 12 samples, with a maximum of 4 per hole, from the first search

ensures that the process will find a minimum of three holes, and thus be a true interpolation, and not

simply an extrapolation of data into unknown regions.

The fields interpolated into the model are listed below:

• eDTR

• Fe_pct

• SiO2_pct

• Al2O3_pct

• P_pct

• LOI_pct

• TiO2_pct

• MnO_pct

• CaO_pct

• S_pct

• MgO_pct

• K2O_pct

• Na2O_pct

• Cr_pct

• Cu_pct

• Mn_pct

• Ni_pct

• Pb_pct

• V_pct

• Zn_pct

• Magnetite _pct

Variogram parameters used in the interpolation at both Razorback and Iron Peak are summarised

below.

Nugget

Sill 1

Sill 2

Along Strike Down Dip Across Dip

Range 1 Range 2 Range 1 Range 2 Range 1 Range 2

Fe 0.25 0.24 0.51 400.48 476.39 61.18 97.95 4.08 9.73

SiO2 0.13 0.44 0.43 321.26 601.82 79.63 125.43 5.46 8.89

Al2O3 0.25 0.17 0.58 258.54 499.5 63.67 122.68 5.42 10.97

Table 6-1 Variogram Parameters

Following interpolation, visual and statistical validation was carried out to ensure that the block model

the input data, both spatially and globally. Some example sections and a plan view are illustrated,

showing that localised block estimation follows data trends in both plan and section view.



Figure 6-38 Razorback Block model validation section

Figure 6-39 Razorback Block model validation plan



Figure 6-40 Iron Peak Block Model Validation Plan View

Figure 6-41 Iron Peak Block Model Validation – Section View.



7 RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION The Razorback and Iron Peak resource estimates have been classified in the Indicated and Inferred

Categories, as defined in the 2012 edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results,

Minerals Resources and Ore Reserves (the JORC Code).

A series of factors has been considered in arriving at this classification, including

• Geological continuity;

• Data quality;

• Drill hole spacing;

• Modelling technique;

• Estimation properties including search strategy, number of informing composites, average

distance of composites from blocks and relative kriging variance.

These are reviewed in more detail below.

Geological Continuity

Magnetite Mines Limited geologists are sufficiently confident in the continuity and volume of the

mineralised solids as represented by the domain wireframes, and this is demonstrated and supported

by statistical and spatial analysis.

The interpretation used for the previous Razorback Inferred resource estimate was compared with the

latest drill hole data, and there was found to be a close correspondence of interpreted contacts when

compared with new infill data which was not used in the previous interpretation. Contacts were

generally within a few metres of where expected.

Individual block grade estimates from the previous model were also found to correlate well with grades

in new infill drill holes.

On this basis, there was confidence to upgrade the classification from Inferred to Indicated in the Main

Razorback area where there was sufficient infill drilling data to support this change. Similarly the iron

Peak area has sufficient drilling and continuity to justify part of this resource being classified as

Indicated.

Data Quality

Resource classification is based on information and data provided from the Magnetite Mines Limited

database. Descriptions of drilling techniques, survey, sampling/sample preparation, analytical

techniques and database management/validation provided by Magnetite Mines Limited indicate

that data collection and management is well within industry standards. Widenbar considers that the

database represents an accurate record of the drilling undertaken at the project.

Drill Hole Spacing



Drill hole location plots have been used to ensure that local drill spacing conforms to the minimum

expected for the resource classification. Spacing at Razorback varies because of the nature of the

topography, but is typically 100m to 200m along strike and 50m to 100m across strike in areas assigned

to the Indicated category, and 200m to 400m along strike and 50m to 100m across strike in areas

assigned to the Inferred category. These dimensions are within the range of continuity as defined from

variography. There is sufficient confidence in the location and continuity of the mineralization to

support the classification proposed.

Modelling Technique

A conventional 3D Ordinary Kriging modelling technique has been used, with an unfolding methodology

applied to provide a dynamic element to the allocation of search ellipses. The modelling technique is

suitable to the domains being estimated allowing reasonable expectation of mining selectivity across the

mineralised domain.

Estimation Properties

Information from the estimation process, including search pass, number of composites used in the

search and kriging variance are all used in conjunction with drill spacing to finalise classification

domains.

Final Classification - Razorback

Indicated material was defined as being above 0m RL and being estimated in the first search pass.

Inferred material was defined as being above 0m RL and being estimated in the second search pass.

At this stage not all samples have eDTR values, and “substitute” values have been entered (mostly in low

grade or waste intervals) to prevent the interpolation from assigning high eDTR values from more

distant samples. Where this occurs, the blocks (mainly in Units C and E ) have been revised from

Indicated to Inferred.

In addition, the following materials were assigned to the Inferred category regardless of search pass:

• Razorback West – all oxide

• Razorback West – Unit C

• Razorback West – Unit E

• Razorback Ridge – all oxide

• Razorback Ridge – Unit A

• Razorback Ridge – Unit C

• Razorback Ridge – Unit E

All other material remained unclassified and is not considered part of the resource.

All of the factors outlined in the JORC Code table defining criteria to be considered in the reporting of

mineral resources have also been addressed, and are summarised in JORC Table 1.



A series of location plans showing the distribution of Indicated and Inferred resource at various levels is

shown below.

Figure 7-1 Razorback Resource Classification Plan 300m RL



Final Classification – Iron Peak

At Iron Peak, blocks estimated in the first search pass were classified as Indicated; all other blocks were

classified as Inferred. A long section is illustrated below, showing the distribution of Indicated and

Inferred at Iron Peak.

At this stage not all samples have eDTR values, and “substitute” values have been entered (mostly in low

grade or waste intervals) to prevent the interpolation from assigning high eDTR values from more

distant samples. Where this occurs, the blocks (mainly in Units C and E) have been revised from Inferred

to Indicated.

Figure 7-5 Iron Peak Resource Classification Long Section



Figure 7-6 Iron Peak Resource Classification Plan at 150m RL



8 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE The Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource Estimates for Razorback, Iron Peak and the combined total

resource are summarised below at various cut-offs and by domain. Razorback has also been subdivided

into Razorback West and Razorback Ridge. A density of 3.2 has been used for all mineralised domains.


TOTAL 15 1,064,000,000 17.7 20.5 46.2 7.6 0.2 5.1 17.5

TOTAL 14 1,374,000,000 16.9 19.7 47.0 7.7 0.2 5.2 16.7

TOTAL 13 1,730,000,000 16.2 19.0 47.6 7.9 0.2 5.3 15.9

TOTAL 12 2,097,000,000 15.6 18.4 48.1 8.0 0.2 5.3 15.2

TOTAL 11 2,366,000,000 15.1 18.1 48.4 8.1 0.2 5.4 14.6

TOTAL 10 2,559,000,000 14.8 17.8 48.7 8.1 0.2 5.4 14.2

TOTAL 9 2,690,000,000 14.5 17.7 48.9 8.2 0.2 5.4 13.9

TOTAL 8 2,748,000,000 14.4 17.6 48.9 8.2 0.2 5.5 13.7

TOTAL 0 2,794,000,000 14.3 17.6 49.0 8.2 0.2 5.5 13.6


INDICATED 15 486,000,000 18.0 23.1 43.8 7.0 0.2 4.8 18.1

INDICATED 14 581,000,000 17.5 22.6 44.2 7.1 0.2 4.9 17.5

INDICATED 13 677,000,000 16.9 22.2 44.6 7.2 0.2 4.9 16.9

INDICATED 12 771,000,000 16.4 21.9 45.0 7.3 0.2 5.0 16.3

INDICATED 11 833,000,000 16.0 21.7 45.2 7.3 0.2 5.0 15.9

INDICATED 10 869,000,000 15.8 21.6 45.3 7.4 0.2 5.0 15.6

INDICATED 9 895,000,000 15.6 21.4 45.4 7.4 0.2 5.1 15.4

INDICATED 8 907,000,000 15.5 21.4 45.5 7.4 0.2 5.1 15.3

INDICATED 0 919,000,000 15.4 21.4 45.5 7.4 0.2 5.1 15.2


INFERRED 15 578,000,000 17.3 18.4 48.2 8.0 0.2 5.2 17.0

INFERRED 14 793,000,000 16.6 17.5 49.0 8.2 0.2 5.4 16.1

INFERRED 13 1,052,000,000 15.8 16.9 49.6 8.3 0.2 5.5 15.3

INFERRED 12 1,326,000,000 15.1 16.4 50.0 8.4 0.2 5.5 14.5

INFERRED 11 1,532,000,000 14.6 16.1 50.2 8.5 0.2 5.6 13.9

INFERRED 10 1,690,000,000 14.3 15.9 50.5 8.5 0.2 5.6 13.4

INFERRED 9 1,795,000,000 14.0 15.8 50.6 8.6 0.2 5.6 13.1

INFERRED 8 1,841,000,000 13.8 15.7 50.7 8.6 0.2 5.6 12.9

INFERRED 0 1,875,000,000 13.7 15.7 50.7 8.6 0.2 5.6 12.8

Table 8-1 Razorback Resource Estimate by Resource Category




TOTAL 15 208,000,000 18.8 21.7 44.0 7.3 0.2 5.3 21.0

TOTAL 14 241,000,000 18.2 21.0 44.5 7.5 0.2 5.4 20.2

TOTAL 13 281,000,000 17.6 20.2 45.2 7.6 0.2 5.5 19.4

TOTAL 12 322,000,000 16.9 19.4 45.4 7.7 0.2 5.5 18.5

TOTAL 11 366,000,000 16.3 18.7 45.8 7.8 0.2 5.6 17.7

TOTAL 10 425,000,000 15.5 17.9 46.4 7.9 0.2 5.7 16.7

TOTAL 9 484,000,000 14.7 17.1 46.6 8.0 0.2 5.8 15.8

TOTAL 8 545,000,000 14.0 16.4 46.6 8.0 0.2 5.9 14.9

TOTAL 0 726,000,000 12.2 14.3 44.8 7.8 0.1 6.1 12.4


INDICATED 15 127,000,000 19.0 21.9 43.7 7.3 0.2 5.3 21.2

INDICATED 14 147,000,000 18.4 21.3 44.2 7.4 0.2 5.3 20.5

INDICATED 13 170,000,000 17.7 20.7 44.8 7.5 0.2 5.4 19.6

INDICATED 12 189,000,000 17.2 20.2 44.9 7.6 0.2 5.4 19.0

INDICATED 11 203,000,000 16.8 19.9 45.0 7.6 0.2 5.5 18.5

INDICATED 10 221,000,000 16.3 19.6 45.3 7.6 0.2 5.5 17.8

INDICATED 9 238,000,000 15.8 19.2 45.6 7.7 0.2 5.6 17.2

INDICATED 8 253,000,000 15.4 19.0 45.6 7.7 0.2 5.6 16.7

INDICATED 0 278,000,000 14.6 18.7 45.8 7.7 0.2 5.6 15.7


INFERRED 15 81,000,000 18.6 21.4 44.5 7.4 0.2 5.4 20.6

INFERRED 14 95,000,000 18.0 20.6 45.0 7.5 0.2 5.5 19.8

INFERRED 13 112,000,000 17.3 19.5 45.7 7.7 0.2 5.6 19.0

INFERRED 12 133,000,000 16.5 18.3 46.1 7.8 0.2 5.7 18.0

INFERRED 11 163,000,000 15.6 17.1 46.7 8.0 0.2 5.9 16.8

INFERRED 10 204,000,000 14.6 16.0 47.5 8.2 0.2 6.0 15.5

INFERRED 9 245,000,000 13.7 15.1 47.7 8.3 0.1 6.1 14.4

INFERRED 8 292,000,000 12.9 14.2 47.5 8.3 0.1 6.2 13.3

INFERRED 0 448,000,000 10.6 11.6 44.2 7.8 0.1 6.4 10.4

Table 8-2 Iron Peak Resource Estimate by Resource Category




TOTAL 15 1,272,000,000 17.8 20.7 45.8 7.5 0.2 5.1 18.1

TOTAL 14 1,615,000,000 17.1 19.9 46.6 7.7 0.2 5.2 17.2

TOTAL 13 2,011,000,000 16.4 19.2 47.3 7.8 0.2 5.3 16.4

TOTAL 12 2,419,000,000 15.8 18.6 47.8 8.0 0.2 5.4 15.6

TOTAL 11 2,732,000,000 15.3 18.2 48.1 8.0 0.2 5.4 15.0

TOTAL 10 2,984,000,000 14.9 17.8 48.4 8.1 0.2 5.5 14.5

TOTAL 9 3,174,000,000 14.6 17.6 48.5 8.1 0.2 5.5 14.2

TOTAL 8 3,293,000,000 14.3 17.4 48.6 8.2 0.2 5.5 13.9

TOTAL 0 3,520,000,000 13.8 16.9 48.1 8.1 0.2 5.6 13.3


INDICATED 15 613,000,000 18.2 22.8 43.8 7.1 0.2 4.9 18.7

INDICATED 14 728,000,000 17.6 22.3 44.2 7.2 0.2 5.0 18.1

INDICATED 13 847,000,000 17.1 21.9 44.7 7.3 0.2 5.0 17.4

INDICATED 12 959,000,000 16.5 21.6 44.9 7.3 0.2 5.1 16.8

INDICATED 11 1,036,000,000 16.2 21.4 45.1 7.4 0.2 5.1 16.4

INDICATED 10 1,090,000,000 15.9 21.2 45.3 7.4 0.2 5.1 16.1

INDICATED 9 1,134,000,000 15.6 21.0 45.5 7.4 0.2 5.2 15.8

INDICATED 8 1,160,000,000 15.5 20.9 45.5 7.5 0.2 5.2 15.6

INDICATED 0 1,197,000,000 15.2 20.7 45.6 7.5 0.2 5.2 15.3


INFERRED 15 659,000,000 17.5 18.8 47.7 7.9 0.2 5.3 17.4

INFERRED 14 888,000,000 16.7 17.9 48.6 8.1 0.2 5.4 16.5

INFERRED 13 1,164,000,000 15.9 17.1 49.2 8.3 0.2 5.5 15.6

INFERRED 12 1,459,000,000 15.2 16.6 49.6 8.4 0.2 5.5 14.8

INFERRED 11 1,695,000,000 14.7 16.2 49.9 8.4 0.2 5.6 14.2

INFERRED 10 1,894,000,000 14.3 15.9 50.1 8.5 0.2 5.7 13.7

INFERRED 9 2,040,000,000 13.9 15.7 50.2 8.5 0.2 5.7 13.2

INFERRED 8 2,133,000,000 13.7 15.5 50.2 8.5 0.2 5.7 13.0

INFERRED 0 2,323,000,000 13.1 14.9 49.4 8.4 0.2 5.8 12.3

Table 8-3 Combined Razorback and Iron Peak Resource Estimate by Resource Category




TOTAL 15 523,000,000 18.1 17.7 18.4 48.1 8.0 0.2 5.1

TOTAL 14 665,000,000 17.3 16.8 17.6 48.8 8.2 0.2 5.2

TOTAL 13 832,000,000 16.6 16.0 16.9 49.5 8.3 0.2 5.3

TOTAL 12 1,001,000,000 15.9 15.3 16.4 50.0 8.4 0.2 5.3

TOTAL 11 1,106,000,000 15.5 14.8 16.1 50.2 8.5 0.2 5.4

TOTAL 10 1,177,000,000 15.2 14.4 15.9 50.4 8.5 0.2 5.4

TOTAL 9 1,220,000,000 15.0 14.2 15.8 50.5 8.5 0.2 5.4

TOTAL 8 1,238,000,000 14.9 14.1 15.7 50.6 8.5 0.2 5.4

TOTAL 0 1,249,000,000 14.8 14.1 15.7 50.6 8.5 0.2 5.4


INDICATED 15 259,000,000 18.5 18.1 19.6 47.1 7.7 0.2 5.0

INDICATED 14 303,000,000 17.9 17.5 19.1 47.6 7.8 0.2 5.0

INDICATED 13 341,000,000 17.4 17.0 18.6 48.0 7.9 0.2 5.1

INDICATED 12 372,000,000 17.0 16.6 18.3 48.4 8.0 0.2 5.1

INDICATED 11 395,000,000 16.7 16.3 18.1 48.6 8.0 0.2 5.1

INDICATED 10 410,000,000 16.5 16.0 18.0 48.7 8.0 0.2 5.2

INDICATED 9 422,000,000 16.3 15.8 17.8 48.9 8.1 0.2 5.2

INDICATED 8 427,000,000 16.2 15.7 17.7 48.9 8.1 0.2 5.2

INDICATED 0 430,000,000 16.1 15.7 17.7 49.0 8.1 0.2 5.2


INFERRED 15 264,000,000 17.7 17.2 17.2 49.1 8.2 0.2 5.2

INFERRED 14 362,000,000 16.9 16.3 16.4 49.9 8.4 0.2 5.3

INFERRED 13 492,000,000 16.0 15.3 15.8 50.5 8.6 0.2 5.4

INFERRED 12 629,000,000 15.2 14.5 15.2 50.9 8.7 0.2 5.5

INFERRED 11 712,000,000 14.8 14.0 15.0 51.1 8.7 0.2 5.5

INFERRED 10 768,000,000 14.5 13.6 14.8 51.3 8.7 0.2 5.5

INFERRED 9 798,000,000 14.3 13.4 14.7 51.4 8.8 0.2 5.6

INFERRED 8 811,000,000 14.2 13.3 14.7 51.4 8.8 0.2 5.6

INFERRED 0 818,000,000 14.1 13.2 14.6 51.5 8.8 0.2 5.6

Table 8-4 Razorback West Resource Estimate by Resource Category




TOTAL 15 541,000,000 17.2 17.4 22.6 44.3 7.2 0.2 5.0

TOTAL 14 709,000,000 16.6 16.6 21.6 45.2 7.4 0.2 5.2

TOTAL 13 897,000,000 15.9 15.8 20.9 45.9 7.5 0.2 5.2

TOTAL 12 1,096,000,000 15.3 15.0 20.3 46.4 7.6 0.2 5.3

TOTAL 11 1,259,000,000 14.8 14.4 19.9 46.9 7.7 0.2 5.4

TOTAL 10 1,382,000,000 14.4 14.0 19.5 47.3 7.8 0.2 5.4

TOTAL 9 1,470,000,000 14.1 13.6 19.2 47.5 7.9 0.2 5.5

TOTAL 8 1,510,000,000 14.0 13.4 19.1 47.6 7.9 0.2 5.5

TOTAL 0 1,545,000,000 13.8 13.2 19.1 47.6 7.9 0.2 5.5


INDICATED 15 227,000,000 17.5 18.1 27.0 40.0 6.2 0.2 4.7

INDICATED 14 278,000,000 17.0 17.4 26.5 40.6 6.4 0.2 4.7

INDICATED 13 337,000,000 16.4 16.7 25.8 41.2 6.5 0.2 4.8

INDICATED 12 398,000,000 15.8 16.0 25.3 41.7 6.6 0.2 4.8

INDICATED 11 439,000,000 15.4 15.5 25.0 42.1 6.7 0.2 4.9

INDICATED 10 459,000,000 15.2 15.3 24.8 42.2 6.7 0.2 4.9

INDICATED 9 473,000,000 15.0 15.1 24.7 42.3 6.8 0.2 4.9

INDICATED 8 480,000,000 14.9 15.0 24.7 42.4 6.8 0.2 4.9

INDICATED 0 489,000,000 14.8 14.8 24.6 42.4 6.8 0.2 5.0


INFERRED 15 314,000,000 17.0 16.8 19.4 47.4 7.8 0.2 5.3

INFERRED 14 431,000,000 16.3 16.0 18.5 48.2 8.0 0.2 5.4

INFERRED 13 561,000,000 15.6 15.3 17.9 48.8 8.1 0.2 5.5

INFERRED 12 698,000,000 15.0 14.5 17.5 49.1 8.2 0.2 5.6

INFERRED 11 821,000,000 14.5 13.9 17.2 49.4 8.3 0.2 5.6

INFERRED 10 923,000,000 14.1 13.3 16.8 49.8 8.3 0.2 5.7

INFERRED 9 997,000,000 13.7 12.9 16.6 50.0 8.4 0.2 5.7

INFERRED 8 1,030,000,000 13.6 12.6 16.6 50.0 8.4 0.2 5.7

INFERRED 0 1,057,000,000 13.4 12.4 16.6 50.1 8.4 0.2 5.7

Table 8-5 Razorback Ridge Resource Estimate by Resource Category



RESCAT DOMAIN eDTR Cutoff VOLUME TONNES eDTR FE SIO2 AL2O3 P LOI MAGNETITE

INDICATED A 15 7,221,100 23,107,520 17.03 14.76 51.31 8.58 0.14 5.60 16.85

INDICATED A 14 10,627,413 34,007,720 16.21 14.25 52.01 8.64 0.14 5.69 15.94

INDICATED A 13 14,647,944 46,873,420 15.47 13.80 52.58 8.69 0.13 5.79 15.14

INDICATED A 12 18,643,144 59,658,060 14.83 13.44 52.98 8.74 0.13 5.89 14.46

INDICATED A 11 21,877,188 70,007,000 14.35 13.17 53.22 8.78 0.13 5.98 13.97

INDICATED A 10 24,306,244 77,779,980 13.96 12.94 53.39 8.81 0.13 6.06 13.57

INDICATED A 9 26,986,225 86,355,920 13.52 12.67 53.58 8.84 0.12 6.15 13.11

INDICATED A 8 27,775,106 88,880,340 13.38 12.61 53.63 8.85 0.12 6.18 12.97

INDICATED A 0 28,092,631 89,896,420 13.31 12.59 53.65 8.86 0.12 6.19 12.89

RESCAT DOMAIN eDTR Cutoff VOLUME TONNES eDTR FE SIO2 AL2O3 P MAGNETITE

INDICATED B1 15 33,033,444 105,707,020 19.58 30.54 35.91 5.51 0.21 4.61 19.91

INDICATED B1 14 35,825,863 114,642,760 19.19 30.47 35.97 5.53 0.21 4.64 19.49

INDICATED B1 13 36,882,350 118,023,520 19.03 30.38 36.06 5.56 0.21 4.65 19.31

INDICATED B1 12 37,459,700 119,871,040 18.93 30.30 36.14 5.58 0.21 4.66 19.20

INDICATED B1 11 37,856,863 121,141,960 18.85 30.23 36.21 5.60 0.21 4.66 19.11

INDICATED B1 10 38,085,131 121,872,420 18.80 30.19 36.25 5.61 0.21 4.67 19.06

INDICATED B1 9 38,199,131 122,237,220 18.78 30.17 36.27 5.62 0.21 4.67 19.03

INDICATED B1 8 38,291,488 122,532,760 18.75 30.15 36.29 5.62 0.21 4.67 19.00

INDICATED B1 0 38,355,075 122,736,240 18.73 30.14 36.30 5.63 0.21 4.67 18.98


INDICATED B2 15 12,946,844 41,429,900 17.48 22.13 45.09 7.25 0.17 4.84 17.30

INDICATED B2 14 19,057,144 60,982,860 16.51 22.29 44.86 7.26 0.18 4.88 16.32

INDICATED B2 13 30,456,700 97,461,440 15.37 22.55 44.54 7.24 0.18 4.97 15.14

INDICATED B2 12 44,395,181 142,064,580 14.46 22.55 44.52 7.25 0.18 5.05 14.20

INDICATED B2 11 53,857,794 172,344,940 13.95 22.48 44.59 7.25 0.18 5.10 13.64

INDICATED B2 10 58,613,538 187,563,320 13.68 22.43 44.63 7.25 0.18 5.14 13.33

INDICATED B2 9 61,370,800 196,386,560 13.49 22.38 44.65 7.26 0.18 5.17 13.12

INDICATED B2 8 62,965,313 201,489,000 13.37 22.36 44.66 7.28 0.18 5.19 12.97

INDICATED B2 0 65,803,794 210,572,140 13.09 22.29 44.67 7.32 0.18 5.22 12.65


INDICATED B3 15 34,796,619 111,349,180 17.81 24.40 42.62 6.66 0.22 4.86 18.13

INDICATED B3 14 40,046,269 128,148,060 17.38 24.27 42.79 6.69 0.22 4.88 17.64

INDICATED B3 13 42,844,475 137,102,320 17.13 24.11 42.94 6.73 0.21 4.90 17.35

INDICATED B3 12 44,273,806 141,676,180 16.98 23.97 43.08 6.76 0.21 4.91 17.18

INDICATED B3 11 45,216,875 144,694,000 16.87 23.86 43.18 6.78 0.21 4.92 17.05

INDICATED B3 10 45,729,119 146,333,180 16.80 23.79 43.25 6.80 0.21 4.93 16.97

INDICATED B3 9 45,905,400 146,897,280 16.77 23.77 43.26 6.80 0.21 4.93 16.94

INDICATED B3 8 45,987,606 147,160,340 16.76 23.77 43.27 6.80 0.21 4.93 16.93

INDICATED B3 0 46,029,550 147,294,560 16.75 23.76 43.27 6.80 0.21 4.93 16.92




INDICATED D 15 28,243,575 90,379,440 17.51 23.28 44.04 7.15 0.20 4.59 17.52

INDICATED D 14 34,952,831 111,849,060 16.94 22.53 44.72 7.29 0.19 4.68 16.88

INDICATED D 13 41,189,638 131,806,840 16.42 22.13 45.12 7.37 0.19 4.73 16.30

INDICATED D 12 46,705,425 149,457,360 15.96 21.85 45.42 7.41 0.19 4.77 15.79

INDICATED D 11 50,227,056 160,726,580 15.65 21.65 45.62 7.45 0.19 4.79 15.45

INDICATED D 10 52,312,738 167,400,760 15.44 21.53 45.74 7.47 0.19 4.81 15.22

INDICATED D 9 54,494,363 174,381,960 15.20 21.42 45.84 7.49 0.19 4.83 14.96

INDICATED D 8 55,292,350 176,935,520 15.11 21.37 45.89 7.50 0.18 4.84 14.85

INDICATED D 0 55,650,088 178,080,280 15.06 21.34 45.92 7.51 0.18 4.84 14.80


INDICATED G 15 35,658,581 114,107,460 17.66 16.63 50.09 8.35 0.25 5.03 17.40

INDICATED G 14 41,009,775 131,231,280 17.25 16.48 50.17 8.42 0.25 5.04 16.99

INDICATED G 13 45,602,969 145,929,500 16.88 16.43 50.22 8.44 0.26 5.03 16.61

INDICATED G 12 49,305,875 157,778,800 16.55 16.46 50.22 8.43 0.26 5.01 16.27

INDICATED G 11 51,387,869 164,441,180 16.35 16.48 50.22 8.42 0.27 4.99 16.06

INDICATED G 10 52,465,531 167,889,700 16.23 16.50 50.22 8.41 0.27 4.98 15.94

INDICATED G 9 52,862,800 169,160,960 16.18 16.50 50.22 8.41 0.27 4.98 15.88

INDICATED G 8 53,140,006 170,048,020 16.14 16.51 50.22 8.41 0.27 4.98 15.84

INDICATED G 0 53,330,519 170,657,660 16.11 16.51 50.22 8.41 0.27 4.97 15.81


INDICATED TOTAL 15 151,900,163 486,080,520 18.04 23.05 43.80 7.04 0.21 4.83 18.10

INDICATED TOTAL 14 181,519,294 580,861,740 17.46 22.60 44.24 7.14 0.21 4.88 17.47

INDICATED TOTAL 13 211,624,075 677,197,040 16.90 22.23 44.63 7.23 0.21 4.92 16.86

INDICATED TOTAL 12 240,783,131 770,506,020 16.37 21.93 44.95 7.29 0.21 4.97 16.28

INDICATED TOTAL 11 260,423,644 833,355,660 16.00 21.72 45.16 7.33 0.20 5.00 15.88

INDICATED TOTAL 10 271,512,300 868,839,360 15.78 21.58 45.30 7.35 0.20 5.03 15.64

INDICATED TOTAL 9 279,818,719 895,419,900 15.60 21.44 45.43 7.38 0.20 5.05 15.43

INDICATED TOTAL 8 283,451,869 907,045,980 15.51 21.39 45.46 7.39 0.20 5.07 15.33

INDICATED TOTAL 0 287,261,656 919,237,300 15.39 21.37 45.48 7.40 0.20 5.08 15.20

Table 8-6 Razorback Indicated Resource Estimate by Domain




INFERRED A 15 44,587,350 142,679,520 16.42 16.11 50.47 8.35 0.15 5.72 16.44

INFERRED A 14 66,273,913 212,076,520 15.79 15.71 50.88 8.39 0.15 5.81 15.73

INFERRED A 13 86,521,056 276,867,380 15.26 15.43 51.16 8.44 0.14 5.88 15.12

INFERRED A 12 102,822,375 329,031,600 14.83 15.21 51.40 8.48 0.14 5.93 14.63

INFERRED A 11 112,164,144 358,925,260 14.55 15.09 51.55 8.50 0.14 5.96 14.30

INFERRED A 10 118,127,281 378,007,300 14.35 14.98 51.66 8.52 0.14 5.98 14.01

INFERRED A 9 120,796,338 386,548,280 14.25 14.92 51.71 8.53 0.14 6.00 13.90

INFERRED A 8 122,733,431 392,746,980 14.16 14.91 51.74 8.54 0.14 6.00 13.77

INFERRED A 0 123,140,525 394,049,680 14.13 14.90 51.75 8.54 0.14 6.00 13.74


INFERRED B1 15 12,188,694 39,003,820 21.17 27.79 38.76 6.12 0.20 4.74 20.99

INFERRED B1 14 12,590,825 40,290,640 20.96 27.84 38.70 6.11 0.20 4.75 20.78

INFERRED B1 13 13,010,744 41,634,380 20.72 27.73 38.83 6.14 0.20 4.76 20.43

INFERRED B1 12 13,493,825 43,180,240 20.41 27.76 38.86 6.15 0.20 4.73 19.91

INFERRED B1 11 14,278,231 45,690,340 19.93 27.97 38.81 6.13 0.20 4.65 19.09

INFERRED B1 10 14,485,619 46,353,980 19.80 28.07 38.77 6.12 0.20 4.61 18.87

INFERRED B1 9 14,564,031 46,604,900 19.74 28.09 38.77 6.12 0.20 4.60 18.79

INFERRED B1 8 14,573,275 46,634,480 19.73 28.09 38.77 6.12 0.20 4.60 18.78

INFERRED B1 0 14,579,006 46,652,820 19.73 28.09 38.78 6.12 0.20 4.60 18.77


INFERRED B2 15 3,550,863 11,362,760 16.93 19.06 48.16 7.66 0.15 5.17 16.04

INFERRED B2 14 5,785,750 18,514,400 15.97 19.63 47.48 7.62 0.16 5.20 15.03

INFERRED B2 13 11,281,538 36,100,920 14.74 20.27 46.70 7.56 0.16 5.31 13.65

INFERRED B2 12 16,960,744 54,274,380 14.00 20.48 46.46 7.55 0.16 5.38 12.91

INFERRED B2 11 20,795,613 66,545,960 13.55 20.70 46.24 7.51 0.17 5.40 12.38

INFERRED B2 10 23,021,388 73,668,440 13.25 20.79 46.09 7.50 0.17 5.44 11.93

INFERRED B2 9 24,876,856 79,605,940 12.97 20.89 45.99 7.49 0.17 5.46 11.44

INFERRED B2 8 26,771,031 85,667,300 12.65 21.02 45.87 7.48 0.17 5.45 10.90

INFERRED B2 0 28,421,463 90,948,680 12.31 21.33 45.63 7.45 0.17 5.39 10.50


INFERRED B3 15 20,814,606 66,606,740 17.88 23.91 43.04 6.75 0.21 5.02 18.01

INFERRED B3 14 23,313,919 74,604,540 17.52 23.78 43.17 6.76 0.21 5.04 17.45

INFERRED B3 13 24,658,288 78,906,520 17.30 23.73 43.22 6.76 0.21 5.05 17.09

INFERRED B3 12 25,383,319 81,226,620 17.17 23.72 43.25 6.76 0.21 5.05 16.83

INFERRED B3 11 25,791,244 82,531,980 17.08 23.72 43.26 6.76 0.21 5.05 16.66

INFERRED B3 10 26,032,544 83,304,140 17.02 23.72 43.27 6.76 0.21 5.05 16.55

INFERRED B3 9 26,445,469 84,625,500 16.90 23.75 43.27 6.76 0.21 5.03 16.34

INFERRED B3 8 26,802,669 85,768,540 16.79 23.80 43.27 6.76 0.21 5.01 16.16

INFERRED B3 0 26,823,056 85,833,780 16.78 23.80 43.28 6.76 0.21 5.01 16.15




INFERRED C 15 4,780,675 15,298,160 16.03 14.39 50.70 8.85 0.14 6.42 15.69

INFERRED C 14 10,627,144 34,006,860 15.17 13.97 51.39 8.92 0.14 6.36 14.79

INFERRED C 13 21,673,156 69,354,100 14.30 13.56 51.98 8.99 0.14 6.27 13.86

INFERRED C 12 39,075,306 125,040,980 13.48 13.10 52.37 9.09 0.13 6.28 13.08

INFERRED C 11 59,192,256 189,415,220 12.81 12.76 52.71 9.17 0.13 6.31 12.35

INFERRED C 10 82,108,738 262,747,960 12.17 12.42 53.15 9.25 0.13 6.30 11.56

INFERRED C 9 96,547,588 308,952,280 11.78 12.18 53.45 9.30 0.13 6.29 11.06

INFERRED C 8 101,942,550 326,216,160 11.61 12.10 53.57 9.32 0.13 6.28 10.84

INFERRED C 0 107,465,350 343,889,120 11.32 12.06 53.68 9.35 0.13 6.26 10.49


INFERRED D 15 23,140,569 74,049,820 17.30 22.56 44.57 7.29 0.19 4.79 17.37

INFERRED D 14 27,434,963 87,791,880 16.87 22.24 44.90 7.36 0.19 4.81 16.82

INFERRED D 13 31,677,725 101,368,720 16.42 22.12 45.10 7.37 0.19 4.81 16.22

INFERRED D 12 36,473,531 116,715,300 15.90 22.09 45.22 7.37 0.19 4.81 15.42

INFERRED D 11 40,895,000 130,864,000 15.43 22.03 45.35 7.38 0.19 4.82 14.66

INFERRED D 10 44,206,288 141,460,120 15.06 21.91 45.53 7.41 0.19 4.84 14.10

INFERRED D 9 47,913,138 153,322,040 14.63 21.79 45.71 7.45 0.19 4.86 13.52

INFERRED D 8 48,844,663 156,302,920 14.52 21.78 45.76 7.46 0.18 4.86 13.34

INFERRED D 0 50,119,669 160,382,940 14.31 21.85 45.78 7.49 0.18 4.81 13.06


INFERRED E 15 28,256,050 90,419,360 16.36 13.96 52.04 9.16 0.16 5.49 14.76

INFERRED E 14 51,771,494 165,668,780 15.51 13.64 52.29 9.20 0.15 5.57 14.15

INFERRED E 13 81,855,231 261,936,740 14.76 13.35 52.46 9.26 0.15 5.66 13.52

INFERRED E 12 113,488,975 363,164,720 14.14 13.10 52.61 9.31 0.15 5.71 12.98

INFERRED E 11 132,849,344 425,117,900 13.76 13.04 52.67 9.31 0.15 5.74 12.55

INFERRED E 10 144,517,600 462,456,320 13.50 13.01 52.72 9.30 0.15 5.77 12.22

INFERRED E 9 152,620,250 488,384,800 13.29 12.96 52.79 9.30 0.15 5.79 11.94

INFERRED E 8 155,686,781 498,197,700 13.20 12.94 52.82 9.30 0.15 5.79 11.82

INFERRED E 0 156,967,375 502,295,600 13.15 12.93 52.84 9.30 0.15 5.80 11.77


INFERRED G 15 43,417,906 138,937,300 17.70 16.48 50.17 8.37 0.25 4.97 17.50

INFERRED G 14 50,029,756 160,095,220 17.27 16.41 50.20 8.39 0.25 4.98 17.02

INFERRED G 13 58,176,319 186,164,220 16.74 16.42 50.22 8.38 0.26 4.98 16.37

INFERRED G 12 66,796,488 213,748,760 16.19 16.52 50.22 8.35 0.27 4.93 15.63

INFERRED G 11 72,859,244 233,149,580 15.81 16.58 50.22 8.33 0.28 4.91 15.14

INFERRED G 10 75,675,556 242,161,780 15.61 16.62 50.21 8.31 0.28 4.90 14.88

INFERRED G 9 77,030,344 246,497,100 15.51 16.63 50.22 8.30 0.28 4.90 14.73

INFERRED G 8 78,030,225 249,696,720 15.42 16.64 50.22 8.29 0.28 4.89 14.60

INFERRED G 0 78,410,888 250,914,840 15.37 16.64 50.23 8.29 0.28 4.89 14.58


INFERRED TOTAL 15 180,736,713 578,357,480 17.32 18.39 48.20 8.01 0.19 5.24 17.01

INFERRED TOTAL 14 247,827,763 793,048,840 16.55 17.54 48.97 8.18 0.18 5.37 16.14

INFERRED TOTAL 13 328,854,056 1,052,332,980 15.80 16.88 49.55 8.32 0.18 5.46 15.27

INFERRED TOTAL 12 414,494,563 1,326,382,600 15.12 16.40 49.98 8.43 0.18 5.53 14.50

INFERRED TOTAL 11 478,825,075 1,532,240,240 14.64 16.14 50.21 8.48 0.17 5.57 13.92

INFERRED TOTAL 10 528,175,013 1,690,160,040 14.25 15.90 50.45 8.53 0.17 5.62 13.44

INFERRED TOTAL 9 560,794,013 1,794,540,840 13.98 15.76 50.60 8.56 0.17 5.64 13.09

INFERRED TOTAL 8 575,384,625 1,841,230,800 13.84 15.73 50.65 8.57 0.17 5.64 12.91

INFERRED TOTAL 0 585,927,331 1,874,967,460 13.71 15.73 50.67 8.58 0.17 5.64 12.75

Table 8-7 Razorback Inferred Resource Estimate by Domain




TOTAL A 15 51,808,450 165,787,040 16.51 15.92 50.58 8.38 0.15 5.70 16.50

TOTAL A 14 76,901,325 246,084,240 15.85 15.51 51.03 8.42 0.14 5.79 15.76

TOTAL A 13 101,169,000 323,740,800 15.29 15.19 51.36 8.48 0.14 5.87 15.12

TOTAL A 12 121,465,519 388,689,660 14.83 14.94 51.65 8.52 0.14 5.92 14.60

TOTAL A 11 134,041,331 428,932,260 14.52 14.77 51.82 8.54 0.14 5.96 14.25

TOTAL A 10 142,433,525 455,787,280 14.29 14.63 51.95 8.57 0.14 5.99 13.94

TOTAL A 9 147,782,563 472,904,200 14.12 14.51 52.05 8.59 0.14 6.03 13.76

TOTAL A 8 150,508,538 481,627,320 14.01 14.48 52.09 8.60 0.14 6.04 13.62

TOTAL A 0 151,233,156 483,946,100 13.98 14.47 52.10 8.60 0.14 6.04 13.59


TOTAL B1 15 45,222,138 144,710,840 20.01 29.80 36.68 5.67 0.21 4.64 20.20

TOTAL B1 14 48,416,688 154,933,400 19.65 29.79 36.68 5.68 0.21 4.67 19.83

TOTAL B1 13 49,893,094 159,657,900 19.47 29.69 36.78 5.71 0.21 4.68 19.60

TOTAL B1 12 50,953,525 163,051,280 19.32 29.63 36.86 5.73 0.21 4.68 19.39

TOTAL B1 11 52,135,094 166,832,300 19.15 29.61 36.92 5.74 0.21 4.66 19.11

TOTAL B1 10 52,570,750 168,226,400 19.08 29.60 36.94 5.75 0.21 4.65 19.01

TOTAL B1 9 52,763,163 168,842,120 19.04 29.59 36.96 5.75 0.21 4.65 18.96

TOTAL B1 8 52,864,763 169,167,240 19.02 29.58 36.97 5.76 0.21 4.65 18.94

TOTAL B1 0 52,934,081 169,389,060 19.01 29.57 36.98 5.76 0.21 4.65 18.92


TOTAL B2 15 16,497,706 52,792,660 17.36 21.47 45.75 7.34 0.17 4.91 17.03

TOTAL B2 14 24,842,894 79,497,260 16.39 21.67 45.47 7.34 0.17 4.95 16.02

TOTAL B2 13 41,738,238 133,562,360 15.20 21.94 45.12 7.33 0.17 5.06 14.74

TOTAL B2 12 61,355,925 196,338,960 14.34 21.98 45.05 7.33 0.17 5.14 13.85

TOTAL B2 11 74,653,406 238,890,900 13.84 21.99 45.05 7.32 0.17 5.18 13.29

TOTAL B2 10 81,634,925 261,231,760 13.56 21.97 45.04 7.32 0.17 5.22 12.93

TOTAL B2 9 86,247,656 275,992,500 13.34 21.95 45.04 7.33 0.17 5.25 12.63

TOTAL B2 8 89,736,344 287,156,300 13.15 21.96 45.02 7.34 0.17 5.27 12.36

TOTAL B2 0 94,225,256 301,520,820 12.85 22.00 44.96 7.36 0.17 5.27 12.00


TOTAL B3 15 55,611,225 177,955,920 17.84 24.22 42.78 6.69 0.21 4.92 18.09

TOTAL B3 14 63,360,188 202,752,600 17.43 24.09 42.93 6.72 0.21 4.94 17.57

TOTAL B3 13 67,502,763 216,008,840 17.20 23.98 43.04 6.74 0.21 4.96 17.26

TOTAL B3 12 69,657,125 222,902,800 17.05 23.88 43.14 6.76 0.21 4.96 17.05

TOTAL B3 11 71,008,119 227,225,980 16.95 23.81 43.21 6.77 0.21 4.97 16.91

TOTAL B3 10 71,761,663 229,637,320 16.88 23.77 43.25 6.78 0.21 4.97 16.82

TOTAL B3 9 72,350,869 231,522,780 16.82 23.76 43.27 6.79 0.21 4.97 16.72

TOTAL B3 8 72,790,275 232,928,880 16.77 23.78 43.27 6.79 0.21 4.96 16.64

TOTAL B3 0 72,852,606 233,128,340 16.76 23.78 43.27 6.79 0.21 4.96 16.63




TOTAL C 15 4,780,675 15,298,160 16.03 14.39 50.70 8.85 0.14 6.42 15.69

TOTAL C 14 10,627,144 34,006,860 15.17 13.97 51.39 8.92 0.14 6.36 14.79

TOTAL C 13 21,673,156 69,354,100 14.30 13.56 51.98 8.99 0.14 6.27 13.86

TOTAL C 12 39,075,306 125,040,980 13.48 13.10 52.37 9.09 0.13 6.28 13.08

TOTAL C 11 59,192,256 189,415,220 12.81 12.76 52.71 9.17 0.13 6.31 12.35

TOTAL C 10 82,108,738 262,747,960 12.17 12.42 53.15 9.25 0.13 6.30 11.56

TOTAL C 9 96,547,588 308,952,280 11.78 12.18 53.45 9.30 0.13 6.29 11.06

TOTAL C 8 101,942,550 326,216,160 11.61 12.10 53.57 9.32 0.13 6.28 10.84

TOTAL C 0 107,465,350 343,889,120 11.32 12.06 53.68 9.35 0.13 6.26 10.49


TOTAL D 15 51,384,144 164,429,260 17.42 22.95 44.28 7.21 0.19 4.68 17.45

TOTAL D 14 62,387,794 199,640,940 16.91 22.40 44.80 7.32 0.19 4.74 16.85

TOTAL D 13 72,867,363 233,175,560 16.42 22.12 45.11 7.37 0.19 4.77 16.27

TOTAL D 12 83,178,956 266,172,660 15.93 21.96 45.33 7.39 0.19 4.78 15.63

TOTAL D 11 91,122,056 291,590,580 15.55 21.82 45.50 7.42 0.19 4.80 15.10

TOTAL D 10 96,519,025 308,860,880 15.27 21.70 45.64 7.44 0.19 4.82 14.71

TOTAL D 9 102,407,500 327,704,000 14.94 21.59 45.78 7.47 0.19 4.85 14.28

TOTAL D 8 104,137,013 333,238,440 14.83 21.56 45.83 7.48 0.18 4.84 14.14

TOTAL D 0 105,769,756 338,463,220 14.70 21.58 45.86 7.50 0.18 4.83 13.97


TOTAL E 15 28,256,050 90,419,360 16.36 13.96 52.04 9.16 0.16 5.49 14.76

TOTAL E 14 51,771,494 165,668,780 15.51 13.64 52.29 9.20 0.15 5.57 14.15

TOTAL E 13 81,855,231 261,936,740 14.76 13.35 52.46 9.26 0.15 5.66 13.52

TOTAL E 12 113,488,975 363,164,720 14.14 13.10 52.61 9.31 0.15 5.71 12.98

TOTAL E 11 132,849,344 425,117,900 13.76 13.04 52.67 9.31 0.15 5.74 12.55

TOTAL E 10 144,517,600 462,456,320 13.50 13.01 52.72 9.30 0.15 5.77 12.22

TOTAL E 9 152,620,250 488,384,800 13.29 12.96 52.79 9.30 0.15 5.79 11.94

TOTAL E 8 155,686,781 498,197,700 13.20 12.94 52.82 9.30 0.15 5.79 11.82

TOTAL E 0 156,967,375 502,295,600 13.15 12.93 52.84 9.30 0.15 5.80 11.77


TOTAL G 15 79,076,488 253,044,760 17.68 16.55 50.13 8.36 0.25 5.00 17.46

TOTAL G 14 91,039,531 291,326,500 17.26 16.44 50.19 8.40 0.25 5.01 17.01

TOTAL G 13 103,779,288 332,093,720 16.80 16.42 50.22 8.41 0.26 5.00 16.47

TOTAL G 12 116,102,363 371,527,560 16.35 16.49 50.22 8.39 0.27 4.97 15.90

TOTAL G 11 124,247,113 397,590,760 16.03 16.54 50.22 8.36 0.27 4.95 15.52

TOTAL G 10 128,141,088 410,051,480 15.86 16.57 50.21 8.35 0.27 4.94 15.31

TOTAL G 9 129,893,144 415,658,060 15.78 16.58 50.22 8.34 0.28 4.93 15.20

TOTAL G 8 131,170,231 419,744,740 15.71 16.59 50.22 8.34 0.28 4.93 15.10

TOTAL G 0 131,741,406 421,572,500 15.67 16.59 50.23 8.34 0.28 4.93 15.08


TOTAL TOTAL 15 332,636,875 1,064,438,000 17.65 20.52 46.19 7.57 0.20 5.05 17.51

TOTAL TOTAL 14 429,347,056 1,373,910,580 16.94 19.68 46.97 7.74 0.19 5.16 16.70

TOTAL TOTAL 13 540,478,131 1,729,530,020 16.23 18.98 47.62 7.89 0.19 5.25 15.89

TOTAL TOTAL 12 655,277,694 2,096,888,620 15.58 18.43 48.13 8.01 0.19 5.32 15.15

TOTAL TOTAL 11 739,248,719 2,365,595,900 15.12 18.11 48.43 8.07 0.18 5.37 14.61

TOTAL TOTAL 10 799,687,313 2,558,999,400 14.77 17.83 48.70 8.13 0.18 5.42 14.19

TOTAL TOTAL 9 840,612,731 2,689,960,740 14.52 17.65 48.88 8.16 0.18 5.44 13.87

TOTAL TOTAL 8 858,836,494 2,748,276,780 14.39 17.60 48.94 8.18 0.18 5.45 13.71

TOTAL TOTAL 0 873,188,988 2,794,204,760 14.26 17.58 48.96 8.19 0.18 5.45 13.56

Table 8-8 Razorback Total Resource Estimate by Domain



RESCAT DOMAIN eDTR Cutoff TONNES eDTR FE SIO2 AL2O3 P LOI MAGNETITE

INDICATED A1 15 35,585,500 20.42 18.00 46.19 8.09 0.18 5.53 23.00

INDICATED A1 14 38,111,680 20.02 17.76 46.55 8.16 0.18 5.54 22.50

INDICATED A1 13 43,985,820 19.14 17.12 47.58 8.34 0.17 5.55 21.39

INDICATED A1 12 46,553,520 18.78 16.85 48.02 8.41 0.17 5.56 20.94

INDICATED A1 11 47,216,120 18.68 16.78 48.12 8.44 0.17 5.56 20.81

INDICATED A1 10 47,392,540 18.65 16.76 48.15 8.44 0.17 5.56 20.77

INDICATED A1 9 47,413,880 18.64 16.76 48.15 8.44 0.17 5.56 20.77

INDICATED A1 8 47,419,000 18.64 16.76 48.15 8.44 0.17 5.56 20.77

INDICATED A1 0 47,423,700 18.64 16.76 48.15 8.44 0.17 5.56 20.76

RESCAT DOMAIN eDTR Cutoff TONNES eDTR FE SIO2 AL2O3 P MAGNETITE

INDICATED A2 15 21,499,360 17.76 17.89 47.17 8.02 0.16 6.15 19.66

INDICATED A2 14 29,359,020 16.88 17.33 47.52 8.14 0.15 6.21 18.55

INDICATED A2 13 35,227,160 16.33 17.04 47.82 8.22 0.15 6.24 17.86

INDICATED A2 12 38,256,080 16.03 16.96 47.90 8.25 0.15 6.25 17.48

INDICATED A2 11 39,244,700 15.92 16.92 47.95 8.27 0.15 6.26 17.34

INDICATED A2 10 39,748,920 15.85 16.90 47.96 8.27 0.15 6.27 17.26

INDICATED A2 9 40,020,220 15.81 16.89 47.97 8.27 0.15 6.27 17.20

INDICATED A2 8 40,156,900 15.78 16.88 47.97 8.27 0.15 6.28 17.17

INDICATED A2 0 40,244,720 15.77 16.88 47.97 8.28 0.15 6.28 17.15


INDICATED B1 15 16,950,320 20.23 24.78 41.57 6.92 0.18 4.65 22.73

INDICATED B1 14 18,381,680 19.78 24.51 41.87 7.00 0.18 4.71 22.17

INDICATED B1 13 19,518,380 19.42 24.30 42.10 7.06 0.18 4.75 21.71

INDICATED B1 12 20,292,520 19.16 24.17 42.22 7.10 0.18 4.78 21.37

INDICATED B1 11 20,911,820 18.93 24.04 42.31 7.14 0.18 4.82 21.09

INDICATED B1 10 21,108,800 18.85 24.01 42.34 7.15 0.18 4.83 20.99

INDICATED B1 9 21,232,780 18.80 24.00 42.35 7.16 0.18 4.83 20.92

INDICATED B1 8 21,304,660 18.77 23.99 42.36 7.16 0.18 4.84 20.88

INDICATED B1 0 21,402,020 18.71 23.97 42.38 7.17 0.18 4.84 20.81


INDICATED B2 15 33,500 17.28 25.22 41.51 7.13 0.20 4.64 19.05

INDICATED B2 14 84,200 15.53 24.10 42.79 7.24 0.19 4.94 16.85

INDICATED B2 13 877,440 13.49 22.72 44.26 7.42 0.18 5.14 14.28

INDICATED B2 12 3,456,400 12.72 22.08 44.82 7.52 0.18 5.28 13.31

INDICATED B2 11 8,085,840 11.96 20.92 45.92 7.71 0.17 5.44 12.36

INDICATED B2 10 16,714,520 11.20 19.92 46.99 7.85 0.16 5.55 11.40

INDICATED B2 9 24,559,860 10.66 19.56 47.37 7.89 0.16 5.63 10.73

INDICATED B2 8 33,593,620 10.08 19.18 47.75 7.91 0.16 5.72 10.00

INDICATED B2 0 54,633,360 8.78 18.50 48.52 7.90 0.15 5.89 8.36


INDICATED B3 15 26,698,380 18.57 26.74 40.49 6.30 0.23 4.72 20.63

INDICATED B3 14 28,797,320 18.27 26.71 40.53 6.29 0.23 4.73 20.23

INDICATED B3 13 30,884,680 17.95 26.68 40.57 6.29 0.23 4.74 19.78

INDICATED B3 12 32,600,700 17.66 26.66 40.59 6.29 0.23 4.76 19.37

INDICATED B3 11 34,061,880 17.40 26.62 40.61 6.29 0.23 4.77 19.02

INDICATED B3 10 34,974,700 17.22 26.59 40.63 6.29 0.23 4.79 18.79

INDICATED B3 9 35,346,940 17.14 26.58 40.65 6.29 0.23 4.79 18.68

INDICATED B3 8 35,498,200 17.10 26.57 40.66 6.29 0.23 4.79 18.63

INDICATED B3 0 35,530,140 17.09 26.57 40.66 6.29 0.23 4.79 18.61




INDICATED C 15 2,540,660 16.18 14.48 50.12 8.90 0.14 6.32 17.94

INDICATED C 14 4,801,200 15.38 13.88 50.95 8.97 0.13 6.26 16.96

INDICATED C 13 8,679,340 14.51 12.92 50.31 8.77 0.13 6.20 15.85

INDICATED C 12 14,622,860 13.70 11.31 46.74 8.14 0.13 6.17 14.88

INDICATED C 11 19,016,020 13.19 10.88 46.56 8.11 0.13 6.17 14.33

INDICATED C 10 25,861,800 12.46 10.54 47.37 8.31 0.12 6.26 13.37

INDICATED C 9 34,046,380 11.75 10.25 48.07 8.53 0.12 6.33 12.47

INDICATED C 8 38,892,200 11.35 9.94 47.51 8.47 0.12 6.37 11.99

INDICATED C 0 42,606,520 10.98 9.64 46.62 8.35 0.12 6.40 11.54


INDICATED D 15 23,987,200 17.94 24.51 41.13 6.65 0.19 5.05 19.96

INDICATED D 14 27,171,100 17.54 24.14 41.54 6.70 0.19 5.07 19.42

INDICATED D 13 30,388,840 17.11 23.82 41.92 6.75 0.19 5.09 18.76

INDICATED D 12 32,830,440 16.78 23.55 42.20 6.77 0.19 5.10 18.32

INDICATED D 11 34,169,020 16.57 23.40 42.33 6.78 0.19 5.10 18.05

INDICATED D 10 35,359,980 16.36 23.27 42.46 6.79 0.19 5.11 17.76

INDICATED D 9 35,674,040 16.30 23.22 42.47 6.79 0.19 5.11 17.69

INDICATED D 8 35,784,140 16.28 23.20 42.46 6.79 0.19 5.12 17.67

INDICATED D 0 35,826,780 16.27 23.18 42.45 6.79 0.19 5.12 17.66


INDICATED TOTAL 15 127,294,920 19.00 21.88 43.67 7.29 0.19 5.27 21.23

INDICATED TOTAL 14 146,706,200 18.40 21.33 44.19 7.40 0.19 5.35 20.47

INDICATED TOTAL 13 169,561,660 17.74 20.69 44.83 7.53 0.18 5.40 19.61

INDICATED TOTAL 12 188,612,520 17.21 20.19 44.92 7.55 0.18 5.44 18.95

INDICATED TOTAL 11 202,705,400 16.82 19.94 45.02 7.57 0.18 5.46 18.46

INDICATED TOTAL 10 221,161,260 16.29 19.58 45.28 7.62 0.17 5.51 17.79

INDICATED TOTAL 9 238,294,100 15.80 19.21 45.55 7.69 0.17 5.55 17.19

INDICATED TOTAL 8 252,648,720 15.39 18.95 45.62 7.71 0.17 5.59 16.68

INDICATED TOTAL 0 277,667,240 14.61 18.66 45.82 7.71 0.17 5.65 15.71

Table 8-9 Iron Peak Indicated Resource Estimate by Domain




INFERRED A1 15 19,587,240 19.87 17.76 46.84 8.17 0.18 5.62 22.31

INFERRED A1 14 22,286,380 19.21 17.35 47.43 8.28 0.17 5.64 21.49

INFERRED A1 13 25,833,420 18.43 16.77 48.29 8.44 0.17 5.69 20.50

INFERRED A1 12 28,192,200 17.94 16.37 48.80 8.55 0.16 5.74 19.88

INFERRED A1 11 29,644,020 17.62 16.13 49.11 8.61 0.16 5.76 19.48

INFERRED A1 10 30,748,960 17.37 15.94 49.35 8.67 0.16 5.77 19.16

INFERRED A1 9 31,787,260 17.11 15.76 49.57 8.71 0.16 5.79 18.84

INFERRED A1 8 32,144,480 17.02 15.69 49.65 8.73 0.16 5.79 18.72

INFERRED A1 0 32,478,220 16.92 15.63 49.72 8.74 0.16 5.80 18.60


INFERRED A2 15 9,501,980 17.53 17.40 47.78 8.16 0.15 6.24 19.37

INFERRED A2 14 11,611,320 16.98 17.23 47.88 8.21 0.15 6.26 18.68

INFERRED A2 13 13,004,340 16.62 17.06 47.99 8.25 0.15 6.27 18.23

INFERRED A2 12 13,714,340 16.41 17.05 48.03 8.25 0.15 6.28 17.96

INFERRED A2 11 14,249,020 16.23 17.03 48.04 8.26 0.15 6.29 17.73

INFERRED A2 10 14,452,080 16.15 17.02 48.04 8.26 0.15 6.30 17.63

INFERRED A2 9 14,523,700 16.12 17.02 48.04 8.26 0.15 6.30 17.59

INFERRED A2 8 14,549,340 16.11 17.02 48.04 8.26 0.15 6.31 17.58

INFERRED A2 0 14,562,520 16.10 17.02 48.04 8.26 0.15 6.31 17.57


INFERRED B1 15 7,872,680 20.50 24.17 41.66 6.94 0.18 4.69 23.10

INFERRED B1 14 8,155,220 20.29 24.11 41.75 6.97 0.18 4.72 22.84

INFERRED B1 13 8,441,100 20.07 24.02 41.85 7.00 0.18 4.75 22.56

INFERRED B1 12 8,722,660 19.82 23.92 41.96 7.03 0.18 4.79 22.25

INFERRED B1 11 8,852,300 19.70 23.89 42.00 7.04 0.18 4.79 22.10

INFERRED B1 10 9,003,220 19.55 23.85 42.05 7.06 0.18 4.81 21.90

INFERRED B1 9 9,198,320 19.33 23.79 42.12 7.08 0.18 4.83 21.64

INFERRED B1 8 9,365,740 19.14 23.74 42.18 7.11 0.18 4.85 21.39

INFERRED B1 0 9,563,180 18.89 23.65 42.25 7.14 0.18 4.87 21.08


INFERRED B2 15 2,200 15.72 26.40 38.25 6.97 0.22 4.99 17.09

INFERRED B2 14 2,200 15.72 26.40 38.25 6.97 0.22 4.99 17.09

INFERRED B2 13 35,920 13.41 22.62 44.15 7.37 0.18 5.15 14.19

INFERRED B2 12 641,260 12.38 21.59 45.03 7.76 0.17 5.28 12.89

INFERRED B2 11 2,385,000 11.71 20.63 46.06 7.81 0.17 5.45 12.04

INFERRED B2 10 7,378,480 10.83 19.31 47.62 7.94 0.16 5.59 10.94

INFERRED B2 9 11,422,440 10.39 19.03 47.86 7.97 0.16 5.69 10.38

INFERRED B2 8 13,339,700 10.13 18.93 47.90 7.97 0.15 5.76 10.05

INFERRED B2 0 19,113,140 9.06 18.43 48.43 7.94 0.15 5.93 8.71


INFERRED B3 15 13,005,300 19.55 26.63 40.49 6.30 0.23 4.79 21.90

INFERRED B3 14 13,192,120 19.48 26.64 40.49 6.30 0.23 4.79 21.79

INFERRED B3 13 13,306,700 19.42 26.65 40.48 6.29 0.23 4.79 21.71

INFERRED B3 12 13,525,500 19.31 26.65 40.48 6.29 0.23 4.79 21.53

INFERRED B3 11 13,774,820 19.17 26.65 40.49 6.29 0.23 4.79 21.33

INFERRED B3 10 13,918,100 19.08 26.63 40.51 6.30 0.23 4.80 21.20

INFERRED B3 9 13,981,860 19.04 26.62 40.52 6.30 0.23 4.80 21.14

INFERRED B3 8 13,987,520 19.03 26.62 40.52 6.30 0.23 4.80 21.14

INFERRED B3 0 13,988,700 19.03 26.62 40.52 6.30 0.23 4.80 21.14




INFERRED C 15 6,432,160 16.51 13.63 49.96 8.83 0.13 6.40 18.20

INFERRED C 14 11,389,620 15.61 12.91 49.49 8.67 0.13 6.32 17.11

INFERRED C 13 20,016,740 14.69 12.15 48.93 8.52 0.13 6.27 15.96

INFERRED C 12 32,661,440 13.84 11.41 48.47 8.43 0.13 6.31 14.92

INFERRED C 11 47,607,560 13.10 10.89 48.46 8.45 0.12 6.36 14.03

INFERRED C 10 68,809,780 12.29 10.48 49.09 8.64 0.12 6.46 13.03

INFERRED C 9 87,576,020 11.69 10.00 48.20 8.54 0.12 6.52 12.32

INFERRED C 8 103,434,020 11.21 9.55 46.98 8.36 0.12 6.57 11.76

INFERRED C 0 108,445,540 11.03 9.37 46.32 8.25 0.12 6.58 11.55


INFERRED D 15 24,124,700 17.30 24.13 42.79 6.88 0.19 5.16 18.80

INFERRED D 14 27,062,300 17.00 23.93 43.04 6.91 0.19 5.17 18.38

INFERRED D 13 28,145,180 16.87 23.84 43.17 6.92 0.19 5.17 18.21

INFERRED D 12 28,236,240 16.86 23.82 43.19 6.92 0.19 5.17 18.20

INFERRED D 11 28,236,240 16.86 23.82 43.19 6.92 0.19 5.17 18.20

INFERRED D 10 28,236,240 16.86 23.82 43.19 6.92 0.19 5.17 18.20

INFERRED D 9 28,236,240 16.86 23.82 43.19 6.92 0.19 5.17 18.20

INFERRED D 8 28,236,240 16.86 23.82 43.19 6.92 0.19 5.17 18.20

INFERRED D 0 28,236,240 16.86 23.82 43.19 6.92 0.19 5.17 18.20


INFERRED D-E 15 128,680 15.74 18.18 46.25 7.72 0.16 5.91 16.12

INFERRED D-E 14 918,860 14.66 16.89 48.56 8.26 0.16 5.91 15.25

INFERRED D-E 13 2,773,840 13.86 15.96 48.02 8.24 0.15 6.08 13.80

INFERRED D-E 12 7,387,420 12.95 14.97 48.25 8.44 0.15 6.47 12.31

INFERRED D-E 11 18,444,060 12.07 13.97 49.48 8.86 0.14 6.79 11.32

INFERRED D-E 10 31,213,600 11.44 13.20 50.48 9.06 0.13 6.86 10.48

INFERRED D-E 9 47,671,580 10.75 12.41 50.99 9.19 0.13 6.85 9.54

INFERRED D-E 8 72,718,980 9.96 11.45 50.43 9.11 0.13 6.78 8.61

INFERRED D-E 0 165,319,700 8.08 8.65 42.82 7.76 0.12 6.71 6.96


INFERRED E 15 800 15.75 13.77 49.23 9.83 0.18 6.03 16.67

INFERRED E 14 3,380 14.69 11.70 51.02 9.07 0.15 6.93 9.64

INFERRED E 13 9,580 13.94 11.42 51.27 9.12 0.14 6.97 8.87

INFERRED E 12 15,900 13.35 11.15 51.45 9.11 0.14 6.99 8.13

INFERRED E 11 33,980 12.31 11.05 51.56 9.18 0.14 6.85 8.35

INFERRED E 10 108,300 10.96 10.84 52.30 9.54 0.14 6.63 8.46

INFERRED E 9 990,420 9.46 10.56 53.64 9.90 0.13 6.51 7.95

INFERRED E 8 4,080,080 8.71 9.43 52.21 9.66 0.13 6.54 7.13

INFERRED E 0 56,233,100 6.30 6.26 40.45 7.43 0.11 6.57 3.89


INFERRED TOTAL 15 80,655,740 18.56 21.35 44.46 7.42 0.18 5.39 20.59

INFERRED TOTAL 14 94,621,400 17.96 20.56 45.03 7.54 0.18 5.47 19.83

INFERRED TOTAL 13 111,566,820 17.28 19.47 45.65 7.68 0.17 5.56 18.97

INFERRED TOTAL 12 133,096,960 16.50 18.29 46.11 7.80 0.17 5.69 17.98

INFERRED TOTAL 11 163,227,000 15.58 17.14 46.69 7.98 0.16 5.86 16.78

INFERRED TOTAL 10 203,868,760 14.56 16.04 47.50 8.19 0.15 6.01 15.48

INFERRED TOTAL 9 245,387,840 13.70 15.11 47.67 8.28 0.15 6.12 14.36

INFERRED TOTAL 8 291,856,100 12.87 14.15 47.47 8.30 0.14 6.21 13.27

INFERRED TOTAL 0 447,940,340 10.64 11.56 44.22 7.82 0.13 6.35 10.40

Table 8-10 Iron Peak Inferred Resource Estimate by Domain




TOTAL A1 15 55,172,740 20.22 17.91 46.42 8.12 0.18 5.56 22.75

TOTAL A1 14 60,398,060 19.73 17.61 46.88 8.20 0.18 5.58 22.13

TOTAL A1 13 69,819,240 18.88 16.99 47.84 8.38 0.17 5.60 21.06

TOTAL A1 12 74,745,720 18.46 16.67 48.31 8.46 0.17 5.62 20.54

TOTAL A1 11 76,860,140 18.27 16.53 48.50 8.50 0.17 5.64 20.30

TOTAL A1 10 78,141,500 18.14 16.43 48.62 8.53 0.17 5.64 20.14

TOTAL A1 9 79,201,140 18.03 16.36 48.72 8.55 0.17 5.65 19.99

TOTAL A1 8 79,563,480 17.98 16.33 48.76 8.56 0.17 5.66 19.94

TOTAL A1 0 79,901,920 17.94 16.30 48.79 8.57 0.16 5.66 19.88


TOTAL A2 15 31,001,340 17.69 17.74 47.35 8.07 0.16 6.18 19.57

TOTAL A2 14 40,970,340 16.91 17.30 47.62 8.16 0.15 6.22 18.58

TOTAL A2 13 48,231,500 16.41 17.05 47.86 8.23 0.15 6.25 17.96

TOTAL A2 12 51,970,420 16.13 16.98 47.94 8.25 0.15 6.26 17.61

TOTAL A2 11 53,493,720 16.00 16.95 47.97 8.26 0.15 6.27 17.45

TOTAL A2 10 54,201,000 15.93 16.93 47.98 8.27 0.15 6.28 17.36

TOTAL A2 9 54,543,920 15.89 16.92 47.99 8.27 0.15 6.28 17.31

TOTAL A2 8 54,706,240 15.87 16.92 47.99 8.27 0.15 6.28 17.28

TOTAL A2 0 54,807,240 15.85 16.91 47.99 8.27 0.15 6.29 17.26


TOTAL B1 15 24,823,000 20.32 24.59 41.59 6.92 0.18 4.66 22.85

TOTAL B1 14 26,536,900 19.94 24.39 41.83 6.99 0.18 4.71 22.37

TOTAL B1 13 27,959,480 19.62 24.21 42.02 7.04 0.18 4.75 21.96

TOTAL B1 12 29,015,180 19.36 24.09 42.14 7.08 0.18 4.78 21.64

TOTAL B1 11 29,764,120 19.16 24.00 42.21 7.11 0.18 4.81 21.39

TOTAL B1 10 30,112,020 19.06 23.97 42.25 7.12 0.18 4.82 21.26

TOTAL B1 9 30,431,100 18.96 23.94 42.28 7.13 0.18 4.83 21.14

TOTAL B1 8 30,670,400 18.88 23.91 42.30 7.14 0.18 4.84 21.04

TOTAL B1 0 30,965,200 18.77 23.87 42.34 7.16 0.18 4.85 20.89


TOTAL B2 15 35,700 17.18 25.29 41.31 7.12 0.20 4.67 18.93

TOTAL B2 14 86,400 15.53 24.16 42.67 7.23 0.19 4.94 16.85

TOTAL B2 13 913,360 13.48 22.71 44.26 7.41 0.18 5.14 14.28

TOTAL B2 12 4,097,660 12.66 22.01 44.85 7.55 0.18 5.28 13.25

TOTAL B2 11 10,470,840 11.90 20.85 45.95 7.73 0.17 5.44 12.28

TOTAL B2 10 24,093,000 11.09 19.73 47.18 7.88 0.16 5.56 11.26

TOTAL B2 9 35,982,300 10.57 19.39 47.52 7.92 0.16 5.65 10.62

TOTAL B2 8 46,933,320 10.10 19.11 47.79 7.93 0.16 5.73 10.01

TOTAL B2 0 73,746,500 8.86 18.48 48.49 7.91 0.15 5.90 8.45


TOTAL B3 15 39,703,680 18.89 26.71 40.49 6.30 0.23 4.74 21.04

TOTAL B3 14 41,989,440 18.65 26.69 40.52 6.30 0.23 4.75 20.72

TOTAL B3 13 44,191,380 18.39 26.67 40.54 6.29 0.23 4.76 20.36

TOTAL B3 12 46,126,200 18.14 26.66 40.56 6.29 0.23 4.77 20.00

TOTAL B3 11 47,836,700 17.91 26.63 40.58 6.29 0.23 4.78 19.68

TOTAL B3 10 48,892,800 17.75 26.60 40.60 6.29 0.23 4.79 19.48

TOTAL B3 9 49,328,800 17.68 26.59 40.61 6.29 0.23 4.79 19.38

TOTAL B3 8 49,485,720 17.65 26.59 40.62 6.29 0.23 4.79 19.34

TOTAL B3 0 49,518,840 17.64 26.58 40.62 6.29 0.23 4.80 19.33




TOTAL C 15 8,972,820 16.42 13.87 50.00 8.85 0.14 6.38 18.12

TOTAL C 14 16,190,820 15.54 13.20 49.92 8.76 0.13 6.30 17.07

TOTAL C 13 28,696,080 14.64 12.38 49.35 8.60 0.13 6.25 15.93

TOTAL C 12 47,284,300 13.79 11.38 47.94 8.34 0.13 6.27 14.91

TOTAL C 11 66,623,580 13.13 10.89 47.91 8.35 0.12 6.30 14.12

TOTAL C 10 94,671,580 12.34 10.50 48.62 8.55 0.12 6.40 13.12

TOTAL C 9 121,622,400 11.71 10.07 48.16 8.53 0.12 6.47 12.36

TOTAL C 8 142,326,220 11.25 9.65 47.12 8.39 0.12 6.51 11.83

TOTAL C 0 151,052,060 11.01 9.44 46.41 8.28 0.12 6.53 11.55


TOTAL D 15 48,111,900 17.62 24.32 41.96 6.77 0.19 5.11 19.38

TOTAL D 14 54,233,400 17.27 24.04 42.29 6.80 0.19 5.12 18.90

TOTAL D 13 58,534,020 17.00 23.83 42.52 6.83 0.19 5.13 18.50

TOTAL D 12 61,066,680 16.81 23.68 42.66 6.84 0.19 5.13 18.26

TOTAL D 11 62,405,260 16.70 23.59 42.72 6.84 0.19 5.13 18.11

TOTAL D 10 63,596,220 16.58 23.52 42.78 6.85 0.19 5.14 17.96

TOTAL D 9 63,910,280 16.55 23.49 42.79 6.85 0.19 5.14 17.92

TOTAL D 8 64,020,380 16.53 23.47 42.78 6.85 0.19 5.14 17.90

TOTAL D 0 64,063,020 16.53 23.47 42.78 6.85 0.19 5.14 17.90


TOTAL D-E 15 128,680 15.74 18.18 46.25 7.72 0.16 5.91 16.12

TOTAL D-E 14 918,860 14.66 16.89 48.56 8.26 0.16 5.91 15.25

TOTAL D-E 13 2,773,840 13.86 15.96 48.02 8.24 0.15 6.08 13.80

TOTAL D-E 12 7,387,420 12.95 14.97 48.25 8.44 0.15 6.47 12.31

TOTAL D-E 11 18,444,060 12.07 13.97 49.48 8.86 0.14 6.79 11.32

TOTAL D-E 10 31,213,600 11.44 13.20 50.48 9.06 0.13 6.86 10.48

TOTAL D-E 9 47,671,580 10.75 12.41 50.99 9.19 0.13 6.85 9.54

TOTAL D-E 8 72,718,980 9.96 11.45 50.43 9.11 0.13 6.78 8.61

TOTAL D-E 0 165,319,700 8.08 8.65 42.82 7.76 0.12 6.71 6.96


TOTAL E 15 800 15.75 13.77 49.23 9.83 0.18 6.03 16.67

TOTAL E 14 3,380 14.69 11.70 51.02 9.07 0.15 6.93 9.64

TOTAL E 13 9,580 13.94 11.42 51.27 9.12 0.14 6.97 8.87

TOTAL E 12 15,900 13.35 11.15 51.45 9.11 0.14 6.99 8.13

TOTAL E 11 33,980 12.31 11.05 51.56 9.18 0.14 6.85 8.35

TOTAL E 10 108,300 10.96 10.84 52.30 9.54 0.14 6.63 8.46

TOTAL E 9 990,420 9.46 10.56 53.64 9.90 0.13 6.51 7.95

TOTAL E 8 4,080,080 8.71 9.43 52.21 9.66 0.13 6.54 7.13

TOTAL E 0 56,233,100 6.30 6.26 40.45 7.43 0.11 6.57 3.89


TOTAL TOTAL 15 207,950,660 18.83 21.67 43.97 7.34 0.19 5.32 20.98

TOTAL TOTAL 14 241,327,600 18.23 21.03 44.52 7.45 0.18 5.39 20.22

TOTAL TOTAL 13 281,128,480 17.56 20.20 45.16 7.59 0.18 5.47 19.36

TOTAL TOTAL 12 321,709,480 16.92 19.40 45.41 7.65 0.17 5.54 18.54

TOTAL TOTAL 11 365,932,400 16.26 18.69 45.76 7.75 0.17 5.64 17.71

TOTAL TOTAL 10 425,030,020 15.46 17.89 46.35 7.89 0.16 5.75 16.68

TOTAL TOTAL 9 483,681,940 14.74 17.13 46.63 7.99 0.16 5.84 15.75

TOTAL TOTAL 8 544,504,820 14.04 16.38 46.61 8.03 0.16 5.92 14.85

TOTAL TOTAL 0 725,607,580 12.16 14.28 44.83 7.78 0.15 6.08 12.43

Table 8-11 Iron Peak Total Resource Estimate by Domain



Competent Person’s Statement

The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources has been compiled by Mr Lynn

Widenbar.

Mr Widenbar, who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, is a full time

employee of Widenbar and Associates and produced the Mineral Resource Estimate based on data and

geological information supplied by Magnetite Mines Limited. Mr Widenbar has sufficient experience

that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity

that he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the

Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Minerals Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr

Widenbar consents to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on his information in the form

and context that the information appears.

Lynn Widenbar

BSc (Hons), MSc, DIC, MAusIMM, MAIG

Principal Consultant

Widenbar and Associates Pty Ltd



Magnetite Mines Ltd – Razorback and Iron Peak Deposits – October 2018

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Sampling techniques

• 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.

• RC samples are collected through a sampling trailer, which has a dust collector, cyclone and non-adjustable riffle splitter.

• Each 1 meter drilled is captured in a plastic bag and kept at the drill site. A 2 meter composite for assay was collected as a ~ 3 kg sample in a calico bag, which is captured from the sampling chute at the side of the splitter.

• The sampling was done on the rig by the drilling contractors and the process was supervised by Magnetite Mines geological staff.

• Duplicates were processed via a secondary riffle splitter whereby a 2m composite was split 50/50 and rebagged for assay.

• All diamond drill cores were marked up on site by field technicians and core loss recorded. S.G. measurements were made on site with handheld magnetic susceptibility measurements taken every 25cm within mineralized zones (as defined by the geologist) and every 1 meter in interstitial material.

• Core was cut on site and sampled at 1m intervals.

Drilling techniques

• Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).

• Phase 1 drilling was carried out in 2010, with 66 RC holes completed for 7,162m and was completed on the Razorback Ridge prospect

• Drilling was undertaken by Budd Contract Exploration, using an Explorer 300 rig, with ancillary Booster.

• During Phase 1, nine diamond drill holes were completed as twin holes for RC drilling or areas where RC rig access was found to be too difficult. The drilling was undertaken by Budd Contract Exploration, using a UDR jack-up rig, with HQ standard tube. A total of 990 metres were completed at Razorback



Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary • Phase 2 drilling was carried out in

2011, with an additional 61 RC holes for 8,022m. This drill program was completed on both the Razorback and Iron Peak prospects where the drilling and sampling procedures between the two projects were equivalent.

• Eleven additional diamond drill holes were completed as twin holes for RC drilling, using a combination of HQ, PQ and NQ.

• All RC drilling used 5 ½’’ face sampling hammers.

• Phase 3 was carried out in 2011/2012, with 52 RC holes, 10 RC/DDH combination holes, 4 DDH holes and 1 DDH extension completed for a total of 15,944m (average depth 235.6m)

• Phase 3 drilling was undertaken by Coughlans Drilling for RC (UDR 650 rig) and by Coughlans Drilling and Range/Hodges Drilling for DDH utilising a UDR 650 and VK600 truck mounted rigs respectively. Phase 3 was completed on both the Razorback and Iron Peak prospects where the drilling and sampling procedures between the two projects were equivalent.

Drill sample recovery

• 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.

• Nearly all of the RC samples showed good recovery and there were very few issues with wet samples (< 1% would be considered poor or wet). Any wet or poorly recovered sample was recorded by the geologist and entered into the database.

• The HQ diamond core was shown to be quite cohesive and have good recovery of >98%, with issues only occurring in the first few meters near surface, where drilling occurred within broken ground, or in minor fault zones.

• All cores were marked up on site by field technicians and core loss recorded.

Logging • 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 metallurgical studies.

• RC and diamond drilling were supervised and drill chips geologically logged (using Magnetite Mines’ geological rock codes) by contractor and Magnetite Mines geological staff.



Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary • Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative

in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography.

• The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.

• For each RC drill hole, meter samples were collected for reference in chip trays.

Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation

• 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 sub-sampling 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.

• DDH core was sampled as 1m intervals, with one quarter of core sampled for XRF and magnetic susceptibility assay with DTR compositing to follow at a later date, one quarter for metallurgical analysis at AMTEC and half core kept for reference.

• Twenty five centimetre whole-core segments were retained for all mineralized lithological units for future metallurgical testing

• In RC holes, a 2 meter composite for assay was collected as a ~ 3 kg sample.

• Duplicates were processed via a secondary riffle splitter whereby a 2m composite was split 50/50 and rebagged for assay by the geologist.

Quality of assay data and laboratory tests

• 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 and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc.

• Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.

• Both the RC and diamond samples were assayed at ALS Chemex Laboratories, with sample preparation done in Adelaide and analysis carried out in Perth.

• In Adelaide, the samples were sorted, dried, and sample numbers reconciled. The dry sample weights were recorded, then crushed to a nominal 3mm and pulverised to -75μm size.

• Samples were analysed using XRF fusion (ALS code ME-XRF11b), with Fe, Al2O3, Si2O2, TiO2, MnO, CaO, P, S, MgO, K2O, Na2O, Cu, Ni, Pb, V, and LOI measured. Accuracies for each element are stated in the database.

• Within Drilling Phase 1 for the purpose of QA/QC, every 50th sample was a standard. The standards consisted of a certified standard (magnetite standard GIOP-31 with a value of 37.37% +/- 0.28% Fe ) from Geostats Pty Ltd of Perth and an “in-house” standard from tillitic material sampled from the Adit stockpile and assayed by ALS Perth 15 times to produce a standard of 25.4%, +/- 0.1% Fe.

• Six field duplicate samples were submitted for every 100 samples sent



Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary to the lab. Field duplicates are principally a measure of the Field RC sampling collection procedure but also test analytical precision.

• Within drilling Phase 2 the frequency of standard insertion increased to every 20th sample. Similarly for duplicates, every 20th sample was a duplicate.

• For additional QA/QC, one hundred and fifty seven samples were split from the original field sample at ALS Laboratory Adelaide, and sent to AMDEL Adelaide as an umpire sample for laboratory analytical validation. In addition, one hundred field duplicates were re-sampled from the 1m bulk sample on site and composited by a ripple splitter to make a 2kg x 2m sample. This was sent to ALS laboratories, Perth for analysis to test the competence of the RC cone splitter at the rig site.

• Duplicate, Resample and Umpire sampling was also carried out.

Verification of sampling and assaying

• The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.

• The use of twinned holes. • Documentation of primary data, data entry

procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.

• Discuss any adjustment to assay data.

• Six twinned DD and RC holes have been drilled and compared, producing acceptable results.

• All data was entered into either a customized Excel spreadsheet or Access database and then entered into the Datashed database.

• QAQC data was managed within Datashed software.

• No adjustments of assay data are considered necessary.

Location of data points

• Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.

• Specification of the grid system used. • Quality and adequacy of topographic control.

• The co-ordinates for each drill hole collar were initially surveyed by GPS, where the accuracy was within 3-5 metres. Subsequent DGPS hole collar surveying has been undertaken. The current database contains the coordinates for all drill holes in the MGA 94/54 grid system and this grid was used for the estimation.

• Topography RL’s are based on a Digital Terrain Model, derived from a 50m line-spaced aeromagnetic survey captured by UTS for Magnetite Mines Ltd, during December 2009 and January 2010.

• Drill hole azimuth and dip at surface



Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary were determined by compass and clinometer respectively. Due to the magnetic nature of rocks at Razorback Ridge and Iron Peak, only the dips were recorded from the Eastman single and multi-shot surveys taken at approximately every 40m and azimuth data discarded.

• Given the shallow nature of the holes, the azimuths are assumed to be similar to that on surface. Subsequent gyroscopic work was conducted between Phase 1 and 2 drilling on a combination of 10 DDH and RC holes

Data spacing and distribution

• Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.

• Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied.

• Whether sample compositing has been applied.

• Drill hole spacing is considered appropriate for the level of confidence quoted.

Orientation of data in relation to geological structure

• Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.

• If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.

• RC and diamond drill holes were oriented, wherever possible, perpendicular to the mineralisation dip.

Sample security

• The measures taken to ensure sample security.

• The chain of custody was controlled by Magnetite Mines. Samples were delivered to ALS Adelaide by either Magnetite Mines staff or by Burra Couriers.

Audits or reviews

• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.

• No independent reviews of audits of sampling have been carried out.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

(Criteria listed in section 1 also apply to this section.) Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Mineral tenement and land tenure status

• Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding

• Magnetite Mines Limited, through its 100% owned subsidiary Razorback Iron Pty Ltd, has secured the EL5432 and EL6126 leases over the Razorback Ridge



Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings.

• The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.

and Iron Peak iron deposits. The Razorback/Iron Peak tenement EL5432 and EL6126 covers approximately 60 km2 and 840km2 respectively and contains the Razorback, Interzone and Iron Peak Prospects.

• Resource payments calculated at $0.01 per DTR tonne of measured resources (resource payment = tonne of measured resource x $0.01 x DTR%).

• A 1% royalty on the value of the product produced from the tenement measured at the ‘mine gate’.

• All tenements are in good standing and no known impediments exist.

Exploration done by other parties

• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.

• Whitten, on behalf of the Geological Survey of South Australia, carried out a detailed study at the Razorback Ridge area during the 1950’s and 60’s

• This work was structured to assess the iron content, possible metallurgical processing and costs of mining the iron at the prospect. Detailed geological mapping, 3 diamond drill holes and an adit reaching 134.1 metres were carried out on the ridge itself.

Geology • Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.

• The magnetite host rock at Razorback and Iron Peak occurs as either tillitic or bedded siltstone. The bedded or laminated ore is dense dark blue and can show sedimentary features such as cross bedding and slumping. The Geology of the Iron Peak Prospect is an extension of the geology at Razorback as following the consistent lateral continuity of the Braemar Iron Formation. For this reason there are no deviations to the methodologies/procedures utilised towards drilling and sampling between the two prospects.

• The magnetite occurs as 10 to 150 micron euhedra in layers up to 500 micron thick, and can form up to 80% of the rock. Haematite can occur associated with crosscutting right angle cleavage, related to later deformation.

• The tillitic ore is medium to dark grey, massive and contains erratics from 10mm to 1m in diameter. The fragments are typically metasediments,



Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary metavolcanics and granites.

• The magnetite is similar to that seen in the bedded ore type. Haematite occurs, but is irregularly distributed through the rock.

Drill hole Information

• A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes: o easting and northing of the drill hole

collar o elevation or RL (Reduced Level –

elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar

o dip and azimuth of the hole o down hole length and interception

depth o hole length.

• If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly explain why this is the case.

• Refer to details of drilling in tables in the body of this report and the appendices.

Data aggregation methods

• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.

• Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail.

• The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.

• Exploration results are not being reported.

Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths

• These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results.

• If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported.

• If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (eg ‘down hole length, true width not known’).

• Exploration intercepts are not being reported.

• However, where possible drill holes are oriented to cut at right angles across the mineralised zones.

Diagrams • Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts

• Appropriate maps and sections are available in the body of the Mineral



Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary should be included for any significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.

Resource Estimate.

Balanced reporting

• Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.

• Reporting of results in this report is considered balanced.

Other substantive exploration data

• Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.

• Exploration results are not being reported.

Further work • The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions, depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).

• Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.

• At present, no further drilling work is planned for the Razorback/Iron Peak resource. Future upgrades towards improved JORC categorisation will require additional infill drilling and associated modelling.

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section.) Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

Database integrity

• Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.

• Data validation procedures used.

• The Razorback drill hole data is managed by Magnetite Mines Ltd via industry standard SQL Server based software known as ‘DataShed’ and externally audited by ‘Rock Solid Data’ database consultants.

• Data validation occurred via several stages, onsite via initially excel spreadsheets with macro enabled validation tools and via common industry point of site capture software known as ‘LogChief’. These software tools prevent the duplication of data, typographical errors and maintain coding consistency between geologists. The data then



Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

underwent database validation and QAQC procedures via ‘DataShed’ software prior to database generation. Datashed also tests the data for coding inconsistencies.

• All data was entered into either a customized Excel spreadsheet or Access database and then entered into the Datashed database.

• Drill hole data was imported into Micromine mining software for further validation, including:

• Checks for duplicate collars.

• Checks for missing samples.

• Checks for down hole from-to interval consistency.

• Checks for overlapping samples.

• Checks for samples beyond hole depth.

• Checks for missing assays.

• Checks for down-hole information beyond hole depth.

• Checks for missing down-hole information.

• Checks for missing or erroneous collar survey.

• Widenbar considers that the database represents an accurate record of the drilling undertaken at the project.

Site visits • Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits.

• If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.

• The Competent person has not made a Site Visit, as drilling was completed during 2010 and 2011 and there has been no activity since.

• Geological input to the modelling was provided by experienced site-based geologists and the Competent Person has confidence in geological aspects of the modelling.

• Diamond drill core and photos have been reviewed as part of the validation process.

• If there is future drilling or further site work, a Site Visit will be arranged.

Geological interpretation

• Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of ) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit.

• Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.

• The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation.

• The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.

• The factors affecting continuity both of

• Confidence in the geological interpretation is high.

• Detailed geological logging and surface mapping allows extrapolation of drill intersections between adjacent sections.

• Alternative interpretations would result in similar tonnage and grade estimation techniques.




grade and geology. • Geological boundaries are used as hard boundaries to control selection of data for each domain that is being estimated.

• Geological boundaries are determined by the spatial locations of the various mineralised structures.

Dimensions • The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.

• Razorback and Iron Peak extend approximately 7 km and 3km along strike respectively, with a maximum depth extent from outcrop at surface to approximately 320m below surface and typical thicknesses of 10m (Zone B1), 25m (Zone B23), 25m (Zone B3) and 30m (Zone D).

Estimation and modelling techniques

• The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used.

• The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data.

• The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.

• Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation).

• In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed.

• Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.

• Any assumptions about correlation between variables.

• Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates.

• Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.

• The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.

• Due to the variable dip and strike of the Razorback deposit, an “unfolding” technique has been used to simplify setup of search ellipse and modelling parameters

• Statistical analysis and variography has been carried out in unfolded coordinates to define parameters for an Ordinary Kriging estimation.

• All analysis and estimation has been constrained by the geological interpretation of the mineralised domains.

• All estimation was carried out using Micromine software.

• Kriging parameters were defined using Fe as the primary variable.

• Estimation has been carried out for the following variables :

• eDTR

• Fe

• SiO2

• Al2O3

• LOI

• Magnetite

• TiO2

• MnO

• CaO

• P

• S

• MgO

• K2O

• Na2O

• Cu

• Zn




• Drill hole spacing is variable, and the block sizes were chosen to reflect the best compromise between spacing and the necessity to define the geological detail of each deposit. Parent block sizes are 12.5 m along strike, 10m down dip and 2.5 across strike.

• As there are no extreme values no capping has been applied.

• Block model validation has been carried out by several methods, including:

• Drill Hole Plan and Section Review

• Model versus Data Statistics by Domain

• Easting, Northing and RL swathe plots

• All validation methods have produced acceptable results.

Moisture • Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.

• Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis.

Cut-off parameters

• The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.

• The resource has been reported at a range of eDTR cut-offs from 8% to 15%, and also at no cut-off. At this stage no final economic cut-off has been defined.

Mining factors or assumptions

• Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made.

• Mining is assumed to be by conventional opt pit mining methods.

• No dilution or ore loss factors have been applied.

Metallurgical factors or assumptions

• The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the

• Metallurgical testwork as undertaken during PFS and PFS optimisation studies confirms DTR analyses via lab-scale testwork. The use of conventional magnetite processing flow sheets is able to produce a 67-68% Fe concentrate with low deleterious elements (SiO2, P, Al2O3, V). Bulk testwork utilising conventional magnetite processing flow sheets undertaken at Nagrom, Bureau Veritas and ALS laboratories has been completed and is ongoing. A combination of grinding,




metallurgical assumptions made. rougher magnetic separation and further grinding to liberation at 38-45microns, 3 stage low intensity magnetic separation, flowed by hydroseparation confirms that the Razorback deposit ores are amenable to magnetite concentrate production.

Environmental factors or assumptions

• Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made.

• Tailings – Based on a 15.5% Mass recovery, ~85% mass will be deported to the tailings fraction. Given the lack of toxicity, negligible prospectivity for acid mine drainage (Parsons Brinckerhoff), availability of low-density land area and bulk handling methods, it is envisaged that waste will be adequately handled should mining occur. It is expected that tailings ponds as commonly utilised in mining operations will be used, however initial testwork into dry-stacked tailings amenability is proposed and is a potential option for waste management. Native vegetation and vegetation clearance will be required as a consequence of mining and associated tailings disposal.

• Flora and Fauna – Based on a series of Flora and Fauna Surveys as completed by Rural Solutions SA, no species or vegetation communities have been identified to contain regional, state or national conservation rating. Assessment by Rural Solutions SA states that fauna within the project area is unlikely to be significantly impacted by the Project with appropriate management actions in place

• Noise – Given lack of local noise receptors (towns, settlements) there are no significant issues associated with noise generation.

Bulk density • Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples.

• The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit.

• Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.

• During Phase 1, density was measured on ¼ cut diamond core material using gravimetric methods (weight in air / weight in water) at ALS Adelaide. Given the homogeneous nature of the sampled material, ¼ core is seen as representative of the entire core. Four holes were measured at 1 m intervals, to use as a calibration for down hole density logging. The other diamond holes were measured every 4th metre.

• Density was also measured on selected intervals on site, measuring coherent core length greater than 0.5 metre. The




density was determined by weighing the sample and measuring the length to determine the volume.

• During the second phase of drilling density measurements were made on-site via gravimetric methods as above this was done on every 4 metres.

• The global average from both the lab and field measurements was an SG of 3.2.

• No density was measured on the RC chips.

• A density of 3.2 has been used for all mineralised domains.

Classification

• The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories.

• Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data).

• Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.

• The Mineral Resource has been classified in the Indicated and Inferred categories, in accordance with the 2012 Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code). A range of criteria has been considered in determining this classification including:

• Geological and grade continuity o Magnetite Mines geologists are

sufficiently confident in the continuity and volume of the mineralised solids as represented by the domain wireframes, and this is demonstrated and supported by statistical and spatial analysis.

• Data quality. o Resource classification is based on

information and data provided from the Magnetite Mines database. Descriptions of drilling techniques, survey, sampling/sample preparation, analytical techniques and database management/validation provided by Magnetite Mines indicate that data collection and management is well within industry standards. Widenbar considers that the database represents an accurate record of the drilling undertaken at the project.

• Drill hole spacing. o Drill hole location plots have been

used to ensure that local drill spacing conforms to the minimum expected for the resource classification. Spacing varies because of the nature of the topography, but is typically 100m to 200m along strike and 50m to 100m




across strike in areas assigned to the Indicated category, and 200m to 400m along strike and 50m to 100m across strike in areas assigned to the Inferred category. These dimensions are within the range of continuity as defined from variography. There is sufficient confidence in the location and continuity of the mineralization to support the classification proposed.

• Modelling technique and kriging output parameters, including Kriging Efficiency, search pass and number of composites used.

o A conventional 3D Ordinary Kriging modelling technique has been used, with an unfolding methodology applied to provide a dynamic element to the allocation of search ellipses. The modelling technique is suitable to the domains being estimated allowing reasonable expectation of mining selectivity across the mineralised domain.

• Estimation Properties o Information from the estimation

process, including search pass, number of composites used in the search and kriging variance are all used in conjunction with drill spacing to finalise classification domains.

• The Competent Person is in agreement with this classification of the resource.

Audits or reviews

• The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.

• The resource estimate has not been externally been audited.

Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence

• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate.

• The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates,

• The relative accuracy of the various resource estimates is reflected in the JORC resource categories.

• At the Indicated Resource classification level, the resources represent local estimates that can be used for further mining studies.

• Inferred Resources are considered global in nature.

• No production data is available for comparison.




and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used.

• These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available.



9 APPENDIX I QAQC Reporting

Royal Razorback QC Report (1 Sep 2011 to 30 Sep 2012)

1

QC Summary Report for Razorback Drilling

Date Range: 01 Sep 2011 to 30 Sep 2012

Report Date : 22 Oct 2012

Summary

Royal Resources requested Rock Solid Data Consultancy Pty Ltd to compile a QC Report for the

reverse circulation and diamond drill hole sampling campaign completed at their Razorback project

in South Australia between Sep 2011 and Sep 2012. This report is based on the quality control data

associated with 92 RC and diamond drill holes and the 4581 RC samples 1599 core samples collected

from these holes. Available quality control data associated with drill samples include field duplicates,

field resamples, umpire duplicate samples, certified standards, in-house standard as well as

laboratory duplicates, blanks and standards. The samples were sent to ALS Adelaide (ALS) and Amdel

Adelaide (Amdel) for analysis by lithium borate fusion technique, coupled with XRF instrument

analysis.

This report summarises Fe, Al2O3 and SiO2 XRF assay results reported by ALS and Amdel between 1

Sep 2011 and 30 Sep 2012. A total of 101 analytical batches were returned from ALS and three

batches from Amdel during the report period. The samples were analysed by ALS methods ME-

XRF21n while umpire samples were analysed by Amdel XRF4B.

The field duplicates, resamples and laboratory duplicates perform well and show strong correlation

although a few outliers are present indicating either sampling error or laboratory error. The Amdel

umpire duplicates show a good correlation when compared with the original ALS results for Fe,

Al2O3 and SiO2. The key issue identified is poor precision of certified Geostats standard GIOP-94

when compared with the certified expected value and expected standard deviation; the issue is also

present in the ALS Geostats laboratory standard results and is discussed in detail on Page 3.

The number of duplicates and standards included with the drill samples is summarised in the table

below. Approximately 8% of Razorback samples are duplicates and 4% of samples are standards.

Razorback Batch Summary Statistics

LabCode Batches Total

Samples

Drill

Samples

Drill

Duplicates

Royal

Standards

Lab Dups &

Standards

ALS_ADL 101 13524 8396 580 383 4165

AMDEL_ADE 3 142 0 128 0 14


2

The results of the statistical analysis are visually presented as follows:

• Standard Control Plot shows the assay results of a particular reference standard over time. The

results can be compared to the expected value and 2x and 3x the expected standard deviations,

providing a good indication of both precision and accuracy over time.

• Correlation Plot is a simple plot of the value of the original assay against the repeat assay. The

plot allows an overall visualisation of precision and bias over selected grade ranges.

• Quantile-Quantile (QQ) Plot compares distributions of two ranked de-coupled datasets to reveal

bias. The Mean Half Relative Difference (Mean HRD) is used to quantify bias.

• Statistics to support the charts include mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation.

Statistics are based on grade ranges relevant to the resource.

• Particle Size Analysis shows a month-by-month trend of the particle size analysis results of the

prepared sample. The plot is a good indicator of the performance of the laboratory’s sample

preparation techniques.


3

Royal Standards

Royal utilised two certified standards during the Razorback drilling campaign. Certified reference

materials were sourced from Geostats (www.geostats.com.au).

Both Royal and ALS utilised two Geostats standards during the report period; when the results are

compared, the Royal Geostats standards performed similarly, or better than, the ALS standards of a

similar grade.

Royal standard GIOP-94 (expected 23.97% Fe) shows a low bias for Fe of -1.34% while ALS laboratory

standard GIOP-91 (expected 26.395% Fe) shows a low bias for Fe of -2.84%. Of the 182 Fe assays for

GIOP-94, 58% fall below 3x standard deviation from expected (see figure on page 6). The Al2O3

results for GIOP-94 perform well with the majority of results falling within 3x standard deviations.

While the SiO2 show almost no bias the results show poor precision. The LOI for GIOP-94 indicate a

significant bias of 95% which might explain the poor precision of the assay results.

Certified Geostats standard GIOP-31 (expected 37.37% Fe), performs well with no Fe bias and by way

of comparison, ALS laboratory standard GIOP-92 (expected 33.47% Fe) shows a low bias of -0.47%

for Fe. The LOI for GIOP-31 mostly performs within expected limits, although there are a small

number of significant LOI outliers. GIOP-31 shows a low bias of -5.82% for Al2O3 and slight high bias

of 0.66% for SiO2.

The table below is a summary of the performance of Royal standards for Fe, Al2O3, SiO2 and LOI

including expected value, standard deviation, calculated statistics and mean bias. Four significant

outliers, listed on Page 8, have been excluded from the statistics and charts.

Royal Standards Summary Statistics

Standard Elem

ent

Exp

Value

Exp

StDev

#

Samp Mean SD CV

Mean

Bias

%Samp

<>3SD

%Samp

>10%Dif

f

GIOP-31 FE 37.37 0.28 169 37.40 0.31 0.01 0.07 2.96 0.00

GIOP-31 AL2O3 0.5 0.021 169 0.47 0.05 0.10 -5.82 9.47 15.98

GIOP-31 SiO2 27.33 0.084 169 27.51 0.34 0.01 0.66 44.38 0.00

GIOP-31 LOI 6.92 0.088 169 6.89 0.32 0.05 -0.51 5.33 2.37

GIOP-94 FE 23.97 0.075 182 23.65 0.37 0.02 -1.34 62.64 0.00

GIOP-94 AL2O3 2.151 0.057 182 2.17 0.06 0.03 0.97 1.65 1.65

GIOP-94 SiO2 54.19 0.25 182 53.95 0.80 0.02 -0.44 26.37 0.00

GIOP-94 LOI 0.097 0.057 183 0.19 0.05 0.26 94.19 5.46 97.27


4

Comparison of Royal Geostats Standard GIOP-31 and ALS Geostats Standard GIOP-92

The comparison of Royal Geostats standard GIOP-31 and similar grade ALS Geostats standard GIOP-

92 shows that both standards have a slight low bias and a few outliers.



91 shows that both standards have a low bias and the majority of results fall below 3x standard

deviations from expected.

GIOP-31

GIOP-92

32.000

33.000

34.000

35.000

36.000

37.000

38.000

39.000

1/09/2011

10/09/2011

19/09/2011

28/09/2011

7/10/2011

16/10/2011

25/10/2011

3/11/2011

12/11/2011

21/11/2011

30/11/2011

9/12/2011

18/12/2011

27/12/2011

5/01/2012

14/01/2012

23/01/2012

1/02/2012

10/02/2012

19/02/2012

28/02/2012

8/03/2012

17/03/2012

26/03/2012

4/04/2012

13/04/2012

22/04/2012

1/05/2012

10/05/2012

19/05/2012

28/05/2012

6/06/2012

15/06/2012

24/06/2012

3/07/2012

12/07/2012

21/07/2012

30/07/2012

8/08/2012

17/08/2012

26/08/2012

4/09/2012

13/09/2012

22/09/2012

1/10/2012

Fe %

'GIOP-31' (Royal Standard) and 'GIOP-92' (ALS Standard): Fe 'GIOP-31' (Royal Standard) and 'GIOP-92' (ALS Standard): Fe

Time

Exp= 37.370CalcMean= 37.398

2xExp SD=36.810

2xExp SD=37.930

3xExp SD=36.530

3xExp SD=38.210

Exp= 33.470CalcMean= 33.314 2xExp SD=33.210

2xExp SD=33.730

3xExp SD=33.080

3xExp SD=33.860

GIOP-91

GIOP-94

22.000

22.300

22.600

22.900

23.200

23.500

23.800

24.100

24.400

24.700

25.000

25.300

25.600

25.900

26.200

26.500

26.800

1/09/2011

10/09/2011

19/09/2011

28/09/2011

7/10/2011

16/10/2011

25/10/2011

3/11/2011

12/11/2011

21/11/2011

30/11/2011

9/12/2011

18/12/2011

27/12/2011

5/01/2012

14/01/2012

23/01/2012

1/02/2012

10/02/2012

19/02/2012

28/02/2012

8/03/2012

17/03/2012

26/03/2012

4/04/2012

13/04/2012

22/04/2012

1/05/2012

10/05/2012

19/05/2012

28/05/2012

6/06/2012

15/06/2012

24/06/2012

3/07/2012

12/07/2012

21/07/2012

30/07/2012

8/08/2012

17/08/2012

26/08/2012

4/09/2012

13/09/2012

22/09/2012

1/10/2012

Fe %

'GIOP-91' (ALS Standard),'GIOP-94' (Royal Standard): Fe'GIOP-91' (ALS Standard),'GIOP-94' (Royal Standard): Fe

Time

Exp= 26.395

CalcMean= 25.646

2xExp SD=26.207

2xExp SD=26.583

3xExp SD=26.113

3xExp SD=26.677

Exp= 23.970

CalcMean= 23.6492xExp SD=23.820

2xExp SD=24.120

3xExp SD=23.745

3xExp SD=24.195


5

GIOP-31 Geostats Certified Standard

GIOP-31

36.000

36.200

36.400

36.600

36.800

37.000

37.200

37.400

37.600

37.800

38.000

38.200

38.400

38.600

38.800

1/09/2011

9/09/2011

17/09/2011

25/09/2011

3/10/2011

11/10/2011

19/10/2011

27/10/2011

4/11/2011

12/11/2011

20/11/2011

28/11/2011

6/12/2011

15/12/2011

23/12/2011

31/12/2011

8/01/2012

16/01/2012

24/01/2012

1/02/2012

9/02/2012

17/02/2012

25/02/2012

4/03/2012

12/03/2012

21/03/2012

29/03/2012

6/04/2012

14/04/2012

22/04/2012

30/04/2012

8/05/2012

16/05/2012

24/05/2012

1/06/2012

9/06/2012

17/06/2012

26/06/2012

4/07/2012

12/07/2012

20/07/2012

28/07/2012

5/08/2012

13/08/2012

21/08/2012

29/08/2012

6/09/2012

14/09/2012

22/09/2012

Fe %

'GIOP-31' (Exp: 37.370 %): Fe'GIOP-31' (Exp: 37.370 %): Fe

Time


2xExp SD=36.810

2xExp SD=37.930

3xExp SD=36.530

3xExp SD=38.210

GIOP-31

0.360

0.390

0.420

0.450

0.480

0.510

0.540

0.570

0.600

0.630

0.660

0.690

0.720

0.750

0.780

0.810

0.840

1/09/2011

9/09/2011

17/09/2011

25/09/2011

3/10/2011

11/10/2011

19/10/2011

27/10/2011

4/11/2011

12/11/2011

20/11/2011

28/11/2011

6/12/2011

15/12/2011

23/12/2011

31/12/2011

8/01/2012

16/01/2012

24/01/2012

1/02/2012

9/02/2012

17/02/2012

25/02/2012

4/03/2012

12/03/2012

21/03/2012

29/03/2012

6/04/2012

14/04/2012

22/04/2012

30/04/2012

8/05/2012

16/05/2012

24/05/2012

1/06/2012

9/06/2012

17/06/2012

26/06/2012

4/07/2012

12/07/2012

20/07/2012

28/07/2012

5/08/2012

13/08/2012

21/08/2012

29/08/2012

6/09/2012

14/09/2012

22/09/2012

Al2O3 %

'GIOP-31' (Exp: 0.500 %): Al2O3'GIOP-31' (Exp: 0.500 %): Al2O3

Time

Exp= 0.500


2xExp SD=0.542

3xExp SD=0.437

3xExp SD=0.563

GIOP-31

26.600

26.800

27.000

27.200

27.400

27.600

27.800

28.000

28.200

28.400

28.600

28.800

29.000

1/09/2011

9/09/2011

17/09/2011

25/09/2011

3/10/2011

11/10/2011

19/10/2011

27/10/2011

4/11/2011

12/11/2011

20/11/2011

28/11/2011

6/12/2011

15/12/2011

23/12/2011

31/12/2011

8/01/2012

16/01/2012

24/01/2012

1/02/2012

9/02/2012

17/02/2012

25/02/2012

4/03/2012

12/03/2012

21/03/2012

29/03/2012

6/04/2012

14/04/2012

22/04/2012

30/04/2012

8/05/2012

16/05/2012

24/05/2012

1/06/2012

9/06/2012

17/06/2012

26/06/2012

4/07/2012

12/07/2012

20/07/2012

28/07/2012

5/08/2012

13/08/2012

21/08/2012

29/08/2012

6/09/2012

14/09/2012

22/09/2012

SiO2 %

'GIOP-31' (Exp: 27.330 %): SiO2'GIOP-31' (Exp: 27.330 %): SiO2

Time

Exp= 27.330

CalcMean= 27.510

2xExp SD=27.162

2xExp SD=27.498

3xExp SD=27.078

3xExp SD=27.582


6


GIOP-31

4.200

4.400

4.600

4.800

5.000

5.200

5.400

5.600

5.800

6.000

6.200

6.400

6.600

6.800

7.000

7.200

1/09/2011

9/09/2011

17/09/2011

25/09/2011

3/10/2011

11/10/2011

19/10/2011

27/10/2011

4/11/2011

12/11/2011

20/11/2011

28/11/2011

6/12/2011

15/12/2011

23/12/2011

31/12/2011

8/01/2012

16/01/2012

24/01/2012

1/02/2012

9/02/2012

17/02/2012

25/02/2012

4/03/2012

12/03/2012

21/03/2012

29/03/2012

6/04/2012

14/04/2012

22/04/2012

30/04/2012

8/05/2012

16/05/2012

24/05/2012

1/06/2012

9/06/2012

17/06/2012

26/06/2012

4/07/2012

12/07/2012

20/07/2012

28/07/2012

5/08/2012

13/08/2012

21/08/2012

29/08/2012

6/09/2012

14/09/2012

22/09/2012

LOI %

'GIOP-31' (Exp: 6.920 %): LOI'GIOP-31' (Exp: 6.920 %): LOI

Time

Exp= 6.920CalcMean= 6.8852xExp SD=6.744

2xExp SD=7.096

3xExp SD=6.656

3xExp SD=7.184

GIOP-94

22.000

22.200

22.400

22.600

22.800

23.000

23.200

23.400

23.600

23.800

24.000

24.200

24.400

24.600

24.800

25.000

1/09/2011

9/09/2011

17/09/2011

25/09/2011

3/10/2011

11/10/2011

19/10/2011

27/10/2011

4/11/2011

12/11/2011

20/11/2011

28/11/2011

6/12/2011

15/12/2011

23/12/2011

31/12/2011

8/01/2012

16/01/2012

24/01/2012

1/02/2012

9/02/2012

17/02/2012

25/02/2012

4/03/2012

12/03/2012

21/03/2012

29/03/2012

6/04/2012

14/04/2012

22/04/2012

30/04/2012

8/05/2012

16/05/2012

24/05/2012

1/06/2012

9/06/2012

17/06/2012

26/06/2012

4/07/2012

12/07/2012

20/07/2012

28/07/2012

5/08/2012

13/08/2012

21/08/2012

29/08/2012

6/09/2012

14/09/2012

22/09/2012

Fe %


Time

Exp= 23.970

CalcMean= 23.649

2xExp SD=23.820

2xExp SD=24.120

3xExp SD=23.745

3xExp SD=24.195

GIOP-94

1.900

2.000

2.100

2.200

2.300

2.400

2.500

1/09/2011

9/09/2011

17/09/2011

25/09/2011

3/10/2011

11/10/2011

19/10/2011

27/10/2011

4/11/2011

12/11/2011

20/11/2011

28/11/2011

6/12/2011

15/12/2011

23/12/2011

31/12/2011

8/01/2012

16/01/2012

24/01/2012

1/02/2012

9/02/2012

17/02/2012

25/02/2012

4/03/2012

12/03/2012

21/03/2012

29/03/2012

6/04/2012

14/04/2012

22/04/2012

30/04/2012

8/05/2012

16/05/2012

24/05/2012

1/06/2012

9/06/2012

17/06/2012

26/06/2012

4/07/2012

12/07/2012

20/07/2012

28/07/2012

5/08/2012

13/08/2012

21/08/2012

29/08/2012

6/09/2012

14/09/2012

22/09/2012

Al2O3 %


Time


2xExp SD=2.037

2xExp SD=2.265

3xExp SD=1.980

3xExp SD=2.322


7

GIOP-94

51.000

51.300

51.600

51.900

52.200

52.500

52.800

53.100

53.400

53.700

54.000

54.300

54.600

54.900

55.200

55.500

55.800

1/09/2011

9/09/2011

17/09/2011

25/09/2011

3/10/2011

11/10/2011

19/10/2011

27/10/2011

4/11/2011

12/11/2011

20/11/2011

28/11/2011

6/12/2011

15/12/2011

23/12/2011

31/12/2011

8/01/2012

16/01/2012

24/01/2012

1/02/2012

9/02/2012

17/02/2012

25/02/2012

4/03/2012

12/03/2012

21/03/2012

29/03/2012

6/04/2012

14/04/2012

22/04/2012

30/04/2012

8/05/2012

16/05/2012

24/05/2012

1/06/2012

9/06/2012

17/06/2012

26/06/2012

4/07/2012

12/07/2012

20/07/2012

28/07/2012

5/08/2012

13/08/2012

21/08/2012

29/08/2012

6/09/2012

14/09/2012

22/09/2012

SiO2 %


Time

Exp= 54.190

CalcMean= 53.949

2xExp SD=53.690

2xExp SD=54.690

3xExp SD=53.440

3xExp SD=54.940

GIOP-94

0.000

0.030

0.060

0.090

0.120

0.150

0.180

0.210

0.240

0.270

0.300

0.330

-0.030

-0.060

-0.090

1/09/2011

9/09/2011

17/09/2011

25/09/2011

3/10/2011

11/10/2011

19/10/2011

27/10/2011

4/11/2011

12/11/2011

20/11/2011

28/11/2011

6/12/2011

15/12/2011

23/12/2011

31/12/2011

8/01/2012

16/01/2012

24/01/2012

1/02/2012

9/02/2012

17/02/2012

25/02/2012

4/03/2012

12/03/2012

21/03/2012

29/03/2012

6/04/2012

14/04/2012

22/04/2012

30/04/2012

8/05/2012

16/05/2012

24/05/2012

1/06/2012

9/06/2012

17/06/2012

26/06/2012

4/07/2012

12/07/2012

20/07/2012

28/07/2012

5/08/2012

13/08/2012

21/08/2012

29/08/2012

6/09/2012

14/09/2012

22/09/2012

LOI %


Time

Exp= 0.097

CalcMean= 0.188

2xExp SD=-0.017

2xExp SD=0.211

3xExp SD=-0.074

3xExp SD=0.268


8

Royal Standard Significant Outliers

A total of four significant outliers were excluded from the charts and statistics to ensure that they

did not influence the statistical calculations.

The samples below have been investigated and potentially indicate laboratory preparation,

analytical or reporting error.

Batch_No SampleID Standard Element OrigMethod Result Expected Diff

AD12066214 501040 GIOP-31 Fe ME-XRF21n 36.97 37.37 -1.07

AD12066214 501040 GIOP-31 Al2O3 ME-XRF21n 0.89 0.5 78

AD12066214 501040 GIOP-31 SiO2 ME-XRF21n 28.2 27.33 3.18

AD12066214 501040 GIOP-31 LOI ME-GRA05 6.56 6.92 -5.2

AD11249863 507240 GIOP-94 Fe ME-XRF21n 24.92 23.97 3.96

AD11249863 507240 GIOP-94 Al2O3 ME-XRF21n 7.22 2.151 235.66

AD11249863 507240 GIOP-94 SiO2 ME-XRF21n 46.2 54.19 -14.74

AD11249863 507240 GIOP-94 LOI ME-GRA05 0.21 0.097 116.49

AD11249863 507240 GIOP-94 WtRecvd WEI-21 0.04

AD11252249 507580 GIOP-31 Fe ME-XRF21n 10.38 37.37 -72.22



AD11252249 507580 GIOP-31 LOI ME-GRA05 2.99 6.92 -56.79


AD12073101 513620 GIOP-31 Fe ME-XRF21n 13.10 37.37 -64.95



AD12073101 513620 GIOP-31 LOI ME-GRA05 6.99 6.92 1.01


An additional 5 standard samples have a StandardID of "NR" (not recorded) and have been excluded

from the charts and statistics.


9

Laboratory Standards and Blanks

Blank and standards reported by ALS are summarised in the table below. ALS utilised two Geostats

certified standards (*) during the report period and the results show a similar lack of accuracy and

precision, when compared with the expected values, as the two certified Geostats standards utilised

by Royal.

Laboratory Standards and Blanks Summary Statistics

Standard Element Expected

Value

Expected

StDev

Count

Samps Mean SD CV

Mean

Bias

BLANK_ALS FE - - 353 0.01 0.03 2.79 -

BLANK_ALS AL2O3 - - 353 0.02 0.02 1.27 -

BLANK_ALS SiO2 - - 353 92.72 24.09 0.26 -

GIOP-91* FE 26.395 0.094 8 25.65 0.51 0.02 -2.84

GIOP-91* AL2O3 1.729 0.028 8 1.73 0.05 0.03 -0.09

GIOP-91* SiO2 52.6 0.12 8 52.73 1.49 0.03 0.24

GIOP-91* LOI - - 0 - - - -

GIOP-92* FE 33.47 0.13 19 33.31 0.60 0.02 -0.47

GIOP-92* AL2O3 0.133 0.008 19 0.14 0.02 0.11 5.03

GIOP-92* SiO2 49.2 0.15 19 49.66 1.39 0.03 0.93

GIOP-92* LOI - - 0 - - - -

MW-1 FE 66.08 - 296 65.73 2.25 0.03 -0.53

MW-1 AL2O3 0.3 - 296 0.30 0.03 0.10 -1.15

MW-1 SiO2 4.6 - 296 4.84 3.00 0.62 5.12

NCS 14012a FE - - 18 37.84 0.15 0.00 -

NCS 14012a AL2O3 - - 18 3.33 0.06 0.02 -

NCS 14012a SiO2 - - 18 16.69 0.16 0.01 -

NCSDC28006 FE - - 14 40.29 0.11 0.00 -

NCSDC28006 AL2O3 - - 14 0.63 0.01 0.02 -

NCSDC28006 SiO2 - - 14 8.41 0.11 0.01 -

SARM-12 FE 66.6 - 17 66.48 0.07 0.00 -0.17

SARM-12 AL2O3 - - 17 0.80 0.03 0.03 -

SARM-12 SiO2 - - 17 0.35 0.04 0.11 -

SARM-39 FE - - 19 6.53 0.07 0.01 -

SARM-39 AL2O3 4.29 - 19 4.24 0.06 0.02 -1.10

SARM-39 SiO2 33.44 - 19 33.64 0.28 0.01 0.59

SARM-45 FE 8.79 - 259 8.79 0.10 0.01 0.03

SARM-45 AL2O3 26.22 - 259 26.21 0.27 0.01 -0.03

SARM-45 SiO2 49.62 - 259 49.72 0.34 0.01 0.19


10

GIOP-91 ALS Standard

24.000

24.200

24.400

24.600

24.800

25.000

25.200

25.400

25.600

25.800

26.000

26.200

26.400

26.600

26.800

27.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Fe %


Instance

Exp= 26.395

CalcMean= 25.646

2xExp SD=26.207

2xExp SD=26.583

3xExp SD=26.113

3xExp SD=26.677

GIOP-91

1.600

1.620

1.640

1.660

1.680

1.700

1.720

1.740

1.760

1.780

1.800

1.820

1.840

1.860

1.880

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Al2O3 %


Instance


2xExp SD=1.673

2xExp SD=1.785

3xExp SD=1.645

3xExp SD=1.813

GIOP-91

51.000

51.300

51.600

51.900

52.200

52.500

52.800

53.100

53.400

53.700

54.000

54.300

54.600

54.900

55.200

55.500

55.800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SiO2 %


Instance


2xExp SD=52.360

2xExp SD=52.840

3xExp SD=52.240

3xExp SD=52.960

GIOP-91


11


32.000

32.200

32.400

32.600

32.800

33.000

33.200

33.400

33.600

33.800

34.000

34.200

34.400

34.600

34.800

35.000

35.200

35.400

35.600

35.800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Fe %


Instance


2xExp SD=33.210

2xExp SD=33.730

3xExp SD=33.080

3xExp SD=33.860

GIOP-92

0.100

0.110

0.120

0.130

0.140

0.150

0.160

0.170

0.180

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Al2O3 %


Instance

Exp= 0.133

CalcMean= 0.140

2xExp SD=0.118

2xExp SD=0.149

3xExp SD=0.110

3xExp SD=0.157

GIOP-92

48.000

49.000

50.000

51.000

52.000

53.000

54.000

55.000

56.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

SiO2 %


Instance

Exp= 49.200

CalcMean= 49.658

2xExp SD=48.900

2xExp SD=49.500

3xExp SD=48.750

3xExp SD=49.650

GIOP-92


12

Field Duplicates

A total of 483 duplicate samples, including RC splits and core samples, were analysed during the

report period. Field duplicates are typically collected at the same time as parent samples and are

analysed by the same method in the same batch as parent samples. The XRF results reported by ALS

Adelaide show good correlation (no bias) and a degree of scatter consistent with field duplicates.

Eight (8) pairs show >20% difference and are listed in the outliers table.

Field Duplicate Summary Statistics and Charts

Element Range No. of

Samples

mean

Orig

mean

Rpt

SD

Orig

SD

Rpt

CV

Orig

CV

Rpt

sRPHD

(mean)

Fe 0-10 103 7.06 7.12 2.02 2.15 0.29 0.30 -0.28

Fe 10-40 377 18.17 18.16 6.38 6.48 0.35 0.36 0.09

Fe 40-70 3 42.91 43.72 1.62 1.47 0.04 0.03 -0.95

Fe Total 483 15.96 15.97 7.61 7.68 0.48 0.48 0.01

AL2O3 0-3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

AL2O3 3-8 163 6.69 6.71 1.04 1.09 0.16 0.16 -0.15

AL2O3 8-20 320 9.44 9.45 0.90 0.91 0.10 0.10 -0.07

AL2O3 Total 483 8.51 8.53 1.61 1.62 0.19 0.19 -0.09

SiO2 0-20 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SiO2 20-50 200 43.53 43.69 5.79 6.18 0.13 0.14 -0.12

SiO2 50-70 281 55.00 54.92 3.64 3.76 0.07 0.07 0.08

SiO2 Total 483 50.33 50.34 7.48 7.53 0.15 0.15 0

LOI Total 483 5.73 5.69 1.78 1.75 0.31 0.31 0.35

Field Duplicate

Outliers - Field Duplicate

Field Duplicate, RMA y=1.0078x + -0.1178, R² = 0.9857

0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

Field Duplicate Fe %

Original (All) Vs Field Duplicate (All) for Fe %Original (All) Vs Field Duplicate (All) for Fe %

Original Fe %0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

Repeat Values

Quantile - Quantile, Original Vs Repeat for FeQuantile - Quantile, Original Vs Repeat for Fe

Original Values


13

Field Duplicate Outliers

Batch SampleID RepeatID Method Element Orig Value Rpt Value Diff(%)

AD12001057 495716 495717 XRFFS Fe 15.72 8.89 -55.51

AD12001057 495733 495734 XRFFS Fe 17.27 12.48 -32.2

AD12001057 497116 497117 XRFFS Fe 9.01 7.3 -20.97

AD12001057 497116 497117 XRFFS SiO2 44.9 55.2 20.58

AD12001057 497116 497117 LOI LOI 13.28 8.77 -40.91

AD12162799 507982 507983 XRFFS Fe 14.32 10.48 -30.97

AD12162799 507982 507983 LOI LOI 3.51 2.39 -37.97

AD11259799 508182 508183 XRFFS Fe 20.41 12.78 -45.98

AD11259799 508182 508183 XRFFS Al2O3 6.59 8.11 20.68

AD11259799 508182 508183 LOI LOI 5.56 6.91 21.65

AD12001058 508451 508452 XRFFS Al2O3 7.49 9.37 22.3

AD12018626 509666 509667 XRFFS Fe 8.32 14.02 51.03

AD12037527 509716 509717 XRFFS Fe 7.46 10.16 30.65

Field Duplicate


Field Duplicate, RMA y=1.0008x + 0.0146, R² = 0.9740

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

Field Duplicate Al2O3 %

Original (All) Vs Field Duplicate (All) for Al2O3 %Original (All) Vs Field Duplicate (All) for Al2O3 %

Original Al2O3 %0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

15.000

16.000

17.000

18.000

19.000

20.000

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

15.000

16.000

17.000

18.000

19.000

20.000

Repeat Values

Quantile - Quantile, Original Vs Repeat for Al2O3Quantile - Quantile, Original Vs Repeat for Al2O3

Original Values

Field Duplicate



0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

Field Duplicate SiO2 %

Original (All) Vs Field Duplicate (All) for SiO2 %Original (All) Vs Field Duplicate (All) for SiO2 %

Original SiO2 %0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

Repeat Values

Quantile - Quantile, Original Vs Repeat for SiO2Quantile - Quantile, Original Vs Repeat for SiO2

Original Values


14

Field Resample

Royal collected 65 RC field resamples during the report period using the same sampling method as

original samples (riffle split). The duplicate samples were typically collected at a later date than the

original samples and were analysed in a different batch. The XRF results reported by ALS Adelaide

show a degree of scatter that is consistent with field resamples. Six (6) pairs show >20% difference

and are listed in the outliers table.

Field Resample Summary Statistics and Charts


Samples

mean

Orig

mean

Rpt

SD

Orig

SD

Rpt

CV

Orig

CV

Rpt

sRPHD

(mean)

Fe 0-10 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fe 10-40 64 21.28 21.38 6.68 6.43 0.31 0.30 -0.42

Fe 40-70 1 42.26 35.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.48

Fe Total 65 21.61 21.6 7.11 6.62 0.33 0.31 -0.28

AL2O3 0-3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

AL2O3 3-8 52 6.62 6.77 1.17 1.16 0.18 0.17 -1.13

AL2O3 8-20 13 8.75 8.84 0.58 0.53 0.07 0.06 -0.55

AL2O3 Total 65 7.05 7.18 1.38 1.35 0.2 0.19 -1.01

SiO2 0-20 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SiO2 20-50 46 42.32 42.28 6.37 5.95 0.15 0.14 -0.03

SiO2 50-70 19 52.60 52.35 2.21 1.80 0.04 0.03 0.22

SiO2 Total 65 45.33 45.23 7.21 6.85 0.16 0.15 0.05

LOI Total 65 4.97 4.99 1.25 1.24 0.25 0.25 -0.33

Field Resample

Outliers - Field Resample

Field Resample, RMA y=0.9306x + 1.4882, R² = 0.8198

0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

20.000

22.000

24.000

26.000

28.000

30.000

32.000

34.000

36.000

38.000

40.000

42.000

Field Resample Fe %

Original (All) Vs Field Resample (All) for Fe %Original (All) Vs Field Resample (All) for Fe %

Original Fe %0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

Repeat Values


Original Values


15

Field Resample Outliers


AD11263748 508354 546771 XRFFS Fe 15.64 12.48 -22.48

AD11263748 508361 546778 XRFFS Al2O3 4.3 5.38 22.31

AD12001122 508876 546806 XRFFS Al2O3 6.12 4.8 -24.18

AD12001122 508876 546806 LOI LOI 4.1 5.94 36.65

AD12001122 508877 546807 XRFFS Al2O3 4.63 3.35 -32.08

AD12001122 508877 546807 LOI LOI 1.63 3.55 74.13

AD12001122 508878 546808 XRFFS Al2O3 3.26 4.16 24.26

AD12001122 508878 546808 LOI LOI 1.94 4.56 80.62

AD12001122 508879 546809 XRFFS Fe 37.91 20.99 -57.45

AD12001122 508879 546809 XRFFS Al2O3 3.8 7.91 70.2

AD12001122 508879 546809 XRFFS SiO2 27.7 45.5 48.63

Field Resample



0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

Field Resample Al2O3 %

Original (All) Vs Field Resample (All) for Al2O3 %Original (All) Vs Field Resample (All) for Al2O3 %


1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

Repeat Values


Original Values

Field Resample



0.000

4.000

8.000

12.000

16.000

20.000

24.000

28.000

32.000

36.000

40.000

44.000

48.000

52.000

56.000

60.000

0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

51.000

54.000

57.000

60.000

Field Resample SiO2 %

Original (All) Vs Field Resample (All) for SiO2 %Original (All) Vs Field Resample (All) for SiO2 %


3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

51.000

54.000

57.000

60.000

0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

51.000

54.000

57.000

60.000

Repeat Values


Original Values


16

Umpire Lab Duplicates

During the Razorback drilling campaign duplicate samples were submitted to Amdel Adelaide for XRF

analysis (XRF4B) and are compared with the original ALS XRF results in the charts and statistics

below.

The pairs show very good correlation for Fe, Al2O3 and SiO2. A number of outliers exists indicating

sampling error, data collection error or laboratory error. One extreme outlier was removed from the

charts and statistics. Outliers are listed in the tables below.

Umpire Duplicate Summary Statistics and Charts


Samples

mean

Orig

mean

Rpt

SD

Orig

SD

Rpt

CV

Orig

CV

Rpt

sRPHD

(mean)

Fe 0-10 38 7.70 7.70 1.52 1.64 0.20 0.21 0.12

Fe 10-40 208 18.94 19.19 6.54 6.56 0.35 0.34 -0.70

Fe 40-70 1 40.90 41.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.23

Fe Total 247 17.3 17.51 7.42 7.48 0.43 0.43 -0.57

AL2O3 0-3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

AL2O3 3-8 97 6.65 6.75 0.93 0.97 0.14 0.14 -0.71

AL2O3 8-20 150 9.26 9.34 0.77 0.80 0.08 0.09 -0.43

AL2O3 Total 247 8.23 8.32 1.52 1.53 0.19 0.18 -0.54

SiO2 0-20 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SiO2 20-50 115 43.25 43.19 5.14 5.12 0.12 0.12 0.07

SiO2 50-70 132 54.57 54.25 2.96 3.10 0.05 0.06 0.30

SiO2 Total 247 49.3 49.1 6.99 6.91 0.14 0.14 0.19

LOI Total 247 5.59 5.58 1.53 1.49 0.27 0.27 0.03

Razorback - Umpire Lab Results

Outliers - Razorback - Umpire Lab Results

Razorback - Umpire Lab Results, RMA y=1.0081x + 0.0681, R² = 0.9526

0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

20.000

22.000

24.000

26.000

28.000

30.000

32.000

34.000

36.000

38.000

40.000

42.000

Razorback - Umpire Lab Results Fe %

Original Vs Umpire Lab Results for Fe %Original Vs Umpire Lab Results for Fe %

Original Fe %0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

Repeat Values


Original Values


17

Umpire Duplicate Extreme Outlier (excluded from charts and statistics)

Batch SampleID RepeatID Method Element Orig

Value

Rpt

Value Diff(%)

AD12018626 509622 509622_UMP XRFFS Fe 4.47 53.13 168.96

AD12018626 509622 509622_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 11.8 2.34 -133.8

AD12018626 509622 509622_UMP XRFFS SiO2 55.2 7.63 -151.42

AD12018626 509622 509622_UMP LOI LOI 9.17 8.98 -2.09

Umpire Duplicate Outliers


Value Rpt Value Diff(%)

AD11019003 487874 487874_UMP XRFFS Fe 23.37 30.43 26.25

AD11019003 487874 487874_UMP XRFFS SiO2 44.3 35.74 -21.39

AD11019003 487875 487875_UMP XRFFS Fe 34 19.94 -52.13

AD11019003 487875 487875_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 4.14 7.32 55.5

AD11019003 487875 487875_UMP XRFFS SiO2 30.8 47.01 41.67

AD11019003 487878 487878_UMP XRFFS Fe 19.94 34.6 53.76

AD11019003 487878 487878_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 7.22 4.27 -51.35

AD11019003 487878 487878_UMP XRFFS SiO2 47.9 31.05 -42.69

AD11019003 487879 487879_UMP XRFFS Fe 30.49 23.6 -25.48

AD11019003 487879 487879_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 5.08 6.43 23.46




0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000R

azorback - Umpire Lab Results Al2O3 %

Original (All) Vs Umpire Lab Results (All) for Al2O3 %Original (All) Vs Umpire Lab Results (All) for Al2O3 %


1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

15.000

16.000

17.000

18.000

19.000

20.000

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

15.000

16.000

17.000

18.000

19.000

20.000

Repeat Values


Original Values




0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000R

azorback - Umpire Lab Results SiO2 %

Original (All) Vs Umpire Lab Results (All) for SiO2 %Original (All) Vs Umpire Lab Results (All) for SiO2 %


10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

Repeat Values


Original Values


18


Value Rpt Value Diff(%)

AD12018626 509625 509625_UMP XRFFS Fe 9.14 4.75 -63.21

AD12018626 509625 509625_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 8.1 9.97 20.7

AD12018626 509626 509626_UMP XRFFS Fe 17.08 9.34 -58.59

AD12018626 509626 509626_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 6.63 8.24 21.65

AD12018626 509642 509642_UMP XRFFS Fe 13.92 21.58 43.15

AD12018626 509642 509642_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 9.74 6.89 -34.28


19

Laboratory Duplicates

ALS laboratory perform pulp check analyses and report the results in the same batch as the original

samples. Overall the pairs show excellent correlation. Only three pairs show poor repeatability and

are listed in the outliers table.

Laboratory Duplicate Summary Statistics and Charts


Samples

mean

Orig

mean

Rpt

SD

Orig

SD

Rpt

CV

Orig

CV

Rpt

sRPHD

(mean)

Fe 0-10 90 7.23 7.22 2.01 2.01 0.28 0.28 0.07

Fe 10-40 332 17.84 17.86 6.10 6.11 0.34 0.34 -0.06

Fe 40-70 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fe Total 422 15.58 15.59 7 7.01 0.45 0.45 -0.03

AL2O3 0-3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

AL2O3 3-8 137 6.82 6.82 0.98 1.00 0.14 0.15 0.02

AL2O3 8-20 285 9.43 9.42 0.94 0.96 0.10 0.10 0.04

AL2O3 Total 422 8.58 8.57 1.55 1.56 0.18 0.18 0.04

SiO2 0-20 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SiO2 20-50 165 44.08 44.05 5.16 5.19 0.12 0.12 0.04

SiO2 50-70 256 54.63 54.57 3.27 3.29 0.06 0.06 0.06

SiO2 Total 422 50.55 50.5 6.68 6.69 0.13 0.13 0.05

LOI Total 978 5.9 5.91 2.04 2.04 0.34 0.35 -0.04

Lab Duplicate

Outliers - Lab Duplicate

Lab Duplicate, RMA y=1.0022x + -0.0177, R² = 0.9930

0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

20.000

22.000

24.000

26.000

28.000

30.000

32.000

34.000

36.000

38.000

40.000

Lab Duplicate Fe %

Original (All) Vs Lab Duplicate (All) for Fe %Original (All) Vs Lab Duplicate (All) for Fe %

Original Fe %0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

20.000

22.000

24.000

26.000

28.000

30.000

32.000

34.000

36.000

38.000

40.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

20.000

22.000

24.000

26.000

28.000

30.000

32.000

34.000

36.000

38.000

40.000

Repeat Values


Original Values


20

Laboratory Duplicate Outliers


AD12001059 480925 Ch:480925 XRFFS Fe 22.9 16.2 -34.27

AD12066214 500986 Ch:500986 XRFFS Fe 18.72 27.4 37.64

AD12066214 500986 Ch:500986 XRFFS Al2O3 8.7 6.68 -26.27

AD11249864 507462 Ch:507462 XRFFS Fe 18.19 14.8 -20.55

Lab Duplicate



0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

Lab Duplicate Al2O3 %

Original (All) Vs Lab Duplicate (All) for Al2O3 %Original (All) Vs Lab Duplicate (All) for Al2O3 %


1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

15.000

16.000

17.000

18.000

19.000

20.000

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

15.000

16.000

17.000

18.000

19.000

20.000

Repeat Values


Original Values

Lab Duplicate



0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

Lab Duplicate SiO2 %

Original (All) Vs Lab Duplicate (All) for SiO2 %Original (All) Vs Lab Duplicate (All) for SiO2 %


10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

Repeat Values


Original Values


21

Screen Testwork (p75um) Laboratory: ALS (Adelaide)

Screen tests are an analysis of the particle size of a prepared sample, which is a good indicator of the

performance of the laboratory’s sample preparation techniques. The particle size results are

returned as a percentage of the sample which passes through a specific screen size (eg, 75 microns).

ALS Adelaide reported 173 p75um results, whilst Amdel Adelaide did not include p75um data in their

batches. The average % passing 75um during the report period was 98%; all results fall within

acceptable limits.

Sieve Data - Sep-11 to Sep-12

Percentage of samples meeting criteria

Month No. of

samples

Overall Month

Ave.

>=85% passing

75um

>=80 and <85 %

passing 75um

<80% passing

75um

Sep-11 0

Oct-11 0

Nov-11 3 98.67% 100% 0% 0%

Dec-11 0

Jan-12 32 97.41% 97% 3% 0%

Feb-12 43 97.84% 100% 0% 0%

Mar-12 17 98.18% 100% 0% 0%

Apr-12 0

May-12 39 97.69% 100% 0% 0%

Jun-12 34 98.41% 100% 0% 0%

Jul-12 0

Aug-12 5 97.40% 100% 0% 0%

Sep-12 0

YTD 173 97.87% 99% 1% 0%

p75um

80.00

82.00

84.00

86.00

88.00

90.00

92.00

94.00

96.00

98.00100.00

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170

Percentage passing p75um

ALS (Adelaide) - Screen Tests - 2012ALS (Adelaide) - Screen Tests - 2012

Instance

Avg: 97.86

B2: 85

B1: 80

滀Ϯ


22

Laboratory Turnaround

ALS Adelaide average turnaround during the report period is 27 days with a maximum of 60 days.

Lab_Job_Date

0.000

4.000

8.000

12.000

16.000

20.000

24.000

28.000

32.000

36.000

40.000

44.000

48.000

52.000

56.000

60.000

64.000

AD11230065

AD11249862

AD12001121

AD12021269

AD12043861

AD12073101

AD12084909

AD12107269

AD12140936

AD12176726

AD12183508

Days

ALS (Adelaide) - Turnaround Time 1/09/2011 to 30/09/2012ALS (Adelaide) - Turnaround Time 1/09/2011 to 30/09/2012

Batch Number

Avg: Lab_Job_Date = 27.1


23

Batch List

LabCode Batch_No Dispatch_No Lab_Received_Date Lab_Job_Date

ALS_ADL AD11230065 RR0089_CRU_QC 4/11/2011 15/11/2011

ALS_ADL AD11230066 RR0090 4/11/2011 24/11/2011

ALS_ADL AD11230067 RR0091 4/11/2011 24/11/2011

ALS_ADL AD11230068 RR0092 4/11/2011 24/11/2011

ALS_ADL AD11249112 RR0089 18/11/2011 6/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD11249862 RR0102 7/12/2011 11/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD11249863 RR0103 30/11/2011 17/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD11249864 RR0104 30/11/2011 12/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD11252249 RR0105 6/12/2011 6/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD11255050 RR0106 7/12/2011 16/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD11255051 RR0107 7/12/2011 24/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD11259798 RR0108 13/12/2011 1/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD11259799 RR0109 13/12/2011 5/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD11263748 RR0110 23/12/2011 9/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD11263749 RR0113 23/12/2011 23/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD12000915 RR0114 3/01/2012 27/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD12001057 RR0082 4/01/2012 21/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12001058 RR0111 4/01/2012 9/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12001059 RR0112 4/01/2012 17/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12001120 RR0115 4/01/2012 16/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12001121 RR0116 4/01/2012 19/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12001122 RR0118 4/01/2012 22/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12001123 RR0119 4/01/2012 17/02/2012


ALS_ADL AD12014066 RR0121 27/01/2012 29/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12014067 RR0122 27/01/2012 29/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12014068 RR0123 27/01/2012 29/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12018626 RR0127 10/02/2012 1/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12018628 RR0133 13/02/2012 14/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12021268 RR0124 6/02/2012 14/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12021269 RR0125 6/02/2012 1/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12021300 RR0126 6/02/2012 22/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12021301 RR0129 6/02/2012 28/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12021302 RR0130 6/02/2012 2/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12026021 RR0132 8/02/2012 28/02/2012


ALS_ADL AD12037480 RR0117 21/02/2012 6/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12037527 RR0146 29/02/2012 28/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12043861 RR0147 8/03/2012 12/03/2012


ALS_ADL AD12053377 RR0135 29/02/2012 28/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12053428 RR0154 3/04/2012 11/05/2012


ALS_ADL AD12066214 RR0176 1/05/2012 13/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12067193 RR0167 28/03/2012 2/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12067194 RR0168 28/03/2012 9/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12068257 RR0169 3/04/2012 17/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12068258 RR0170 3/04/2012 10/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12068259 RR0171 3/04/2012 9/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12072060 RR0172 3/04/2012 9/05/2012


ALS_ADL AD12073101 RR0174 11/04/2012 17/05/2012


24

LabCode Batch_No Dispatch_No Lab_Received_Date Lab_Job_Date

ALS_ADL AD12073102 RR0175 11/04/2012 22/05/2012


ALS_ADL AD12083072 RR0177 18/04/2012 9/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12084909 RR0183 27/04/2012 1/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12088205 RR0178 26/04/2012 29/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12088206 RR0179 26/04/2012 29/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12088207 RR0180 26/04/2012 28/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12088209 RR0182 26/04/2012 5/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12090840 RR0184 27/04/2012 5/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12090841 RR0185 27/04/2012 1/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12090842 RR0186 27/04/2012 1/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12091130 RR0173 24/04/2012 7/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12101528 RR0195 29/05/2012 15/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12103075 RR0187 11/05/2012 14/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12103076 RR0188 11/05/2012 15/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12103077 RR0189 11/05/2012 18/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12103078 RR0190 11/05/2012 14/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12103079 RR0191 11/05/2012 15/06/2012


ALS_ADL AD12105756 RR0196 29/05/2012 26/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12105757 RR0197 6/06/2012 19/06/2012




ALS_ADL AD12117493 RR0213_CRU-QC 6/06/2012 20/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12120005 RR0209 29/05/2012 27/06/2012




ALS_ADL AD12140936 RR0213 20/06/2012 6/07/2012


ALS_ADL AD12143426 RR0212 13/07/2012 18/09/2012


ALS_ADL AD12155110 RR0211 4/07/2012 13/08/2012





ALS_ADL AD12162799 RR0228 17/07/2012 10/08/2012

ALS_ADL AD12176726 RR0232 2/08/2012 13/08/2012

ALS_ADL AD12176727 RR0225 2/08/2012 16/08/2012



ALS_ADL AD12179805 RR0222 7/08/2012 21/08/2012

ALS_ADL AD12179806 RR0223 7/08/2012 16/08/2012

ALS_ADL AD12179808 RR0225 14/08/2012 28/08/2012


ALS_ADL AD12183508 RR0239 21/08/2012 30/08/2012

ALS_ADL AD12191171 RR0221 20/08/2012 6/09/2012


AMDEL_ADE 2AD1852 RR0162 19/03/2012 26/04/2012

AMDEL_ADE 2AD1853 RR0163 19/03/2012 26/04/2012

AMDEL_ADE 2AD1854 RR0164 19/03/2012 26/04/2012

Royal Razorback QC Report (1 Apr 2010 to 30 Sep 2012)

1

QC Summary Report for Razorback Drilling

Date Range: 01 Apr 2010 to 30 Sep 2012

Report Date : 22 Oct 2012

Summary

Royal Resources requested Rock Solid Data Consultancy Pty Ltd to compile a QC Report for the

reverse circulation and diamond drill hole sampling campaign completed at their Razorback project

in South Australia. This report is based on the quality control data associated with 231 RC and

diamond drill holes and the 10366 RC samples 4388 core samples collected from these holes.

Available quality control data associated with drill samples include field duplicates, field resamples,

umpire duplicate samples, certified standards, in-house standard as well as laboratory duplicates,

blanks and standards. The samples were sent to ALS Adelaide (ALS) and Amdel Adelaide (Amdel) for

analysis by lithium borate fusion technique, coupled with XRF instrument analysis.

This report summarises Fe, Al2O3 and SiO2 XRF assay results reported by ALS and Amdel between 1

Sep 2011 and 30 Sep 2012. A total of 213 analytical batches were returned from ALS and three

batches from Amdel during the report period. The samples were analysed by ALS methods ME-

XRF11b and ME-XRF21n while umpire samples were analysed by Amdel XRF4B.

The field duplicates, resamples and laboratory duplicates perform well and show strong correlation

although a few outliers are present indicating either sampling error or laboratory error. The Amdel

umpire duplicates show a good correlation when compared with the original ALS results for Fe,

Al2O3 and SiO2. The key issue identified is poor precision of certified Geostats standard GIOP-94

when compared with the certified expected value and expected standard deviation; the issue is also

present in the ALS Geostats laboratory standard results and is discussed in detail on Page 3.

The number of duplicates and standards included with the drill samples is summarised in the table

below. Approximately 10% of Razorback samples are duplicates and 5% of samples are standards.

Razorback Batch Summary Statistics

LabCode Batches Total

Sample

Drill

Samples

Drill

Duplicates

Royal

Standards

Lab Dups &

Standards

ALS_ADL 212 23994 15496 1309 697 6492

ALS_PTH 1 128 128 0 0 0

AMDEL_ADE 5 514 0 494 4 16

,


2

The results of the statistical analysis are visually presented as follows:

• Standard Control Plot shows the assay results of a particular reference standard over time. The

results can be compared to the expected value and 2x and 3x the expected standard deviations,

providing a good indication of both precision and accuracy over time.

• Correlation Plot is a simple plot of the value of the original assay against the repeat assay. The

plot allows an overall visualisation of precision and bias over selected grade ranges.

• Quantile-Quantile (QQ) Plot compares distributions of two ranked de-coupled datasets to reveal

bias. The Mean Half Relative Difference (Mean HRD) is used to quantify bias.

• Statistics to support the charts include mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation.

Statistics are based on grade ranges relevant to the resource.

• Particle Size Analysis shows a month-by-month trend of the particle size analysis results of the

prepared sample. The plot is a good indicator of the performance of the laboratory’s sample

preparation techniques.

,


3

Royal Standards

Royal utilised one in-house standard and two certified standards during the Razorback drilling

campaign. Certified reference materials were sourced from Geostats (www.geostats.com.au).

Both Royal and ALS utilised two Geostats standards during the report period; when the results are

compared, the Royal Geostats standards performed similarly, or better than, the ALS standards of a

similar grade.

Royal standard GIOP-94 (expected 23.97% Fe) shows a low bias for Fe of -1.34% while ALS laboratory

standard GIOP-91 (expected 26.395% Fe) shows a low bias for Fe of -2.84%. Of the 182 Fe assays for

GIOP-94, 58% fall below 3x standard deviation from expected (see figure on page 4). The Al2O3

results for GIOP-94 perform well with the majority of results falling within 3x standard deviations.

While the SiO2 show almost no bias the results show poor precision. The LOI for GIOP-94 indicate a

significant bias of 95% which might explain the poor precision of the assay results.

Certified Geostats standard GIOP-31 (expected 37.37% Fe), performs well with a very slight low bias

of -0.10% Fe and by way of comparison, ALS laboratory standard GIOP-92 (expected 33.47% Fe)

shows a low bias for Fe of -0.47%. The LOI for GIOP-31 mostly performs within expected limits,

although there are a small number of significant LOI outliers. GIOP-31 shows a low bias of -7.20% for

Al2O3 and slight high bias of 0.85% for SiO2.

Of the 146 Fe results for Royal standard RB01 (expected 25.407% Fe), 61% of fall outside 3x standard


The table below is a summary of the performance of Royal standards for Fe, Al2O3, SiO2 and LOI

including expected value, standard deviation, calculated statistics and mean bias. Eight significant

outliers, listed on Page 9, have been excluded from the statistics and charts.

Royal Standards Summary Statistics

Standard Elem

ent

Exp

Value

Exp

StDev

#

Samp Mean SD CV

Mean

Bias

%Samp

<>3SD

%Samp

>10%Diff

GIOP-31 Fe 37.37 0.28 338 37.33 0.34 0.01 -0.10 2.66 0.00

GIOP-31 Al2O3 0.5 0.021 338 0.46 0.04 0.08 -7.20 11.54 21.60

GIOP-31 SiO2 27.33 0.084 338 27.56 0.33 0.01 0.85 54.73 0.00

GIOP-31 LOI 6.92 0.088 335 6.87 0.35 0.05 -0.69 5.37 2.09

GIOP-94 Fe 23.97 0.075 182 23.65 0.37 0.02 -1.34 62.64 0.00

GIOP-94 Al2O3 2.151 0.057 182 2.17 0.06 0.03 0.97 1.65 1.65

GIOP-94 SiO2 54.19 0.25 182 53.95 0.80 0.02 -0.44 26.37 0.00

GIOP-94 LOI 0.097 0.057 183 0.19 0.05 0.26 94.19 5.46 97.27

RB01 Fe 25.407 0.103 146 25.31 1.10 0.04 -0.36 60.96 0.00

RB01 Al2O3 6.735 0.026 146 6.79 0.54 0.08 0.83 57.53 0.00

RB01 SiO2 42.067 0.111 146 41.94 1.33 0.03 -0.28 51.37 0.00

RB01 LOI 4.808 0.031 143 4.81 0.45 0.09 -0.04 45.45 1.40

,


4



92 shows that both standards have a slight low bias and a few outliers.



91 shows that both standards have a low bias and the majority of results fall below 3x standard


GIOP-31 GIOP-92

32.000

33.000

34.000

35.000

36.000

37.000

38.000

39.000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

Fe %

'GIOP-31' (ROYAL Standard) and 'GIOP-92' (ALS Standard): Fe'GIOP-31' (ROYAL Standard) and 'GIOP-92' (ALS Standard): Fe

Instance


2xExp SD=36.810

2xExp SD=37.930

3xExp SD=36.530

3xExp SD=38.210


2xExp SD=33.730

3xExp SD=33.080

3xExp SD=33.860

GIOP-91 GIOP-94

22.000

22.300

22.600

22.900

23.200

23.500

23.800

24.100

24.400

24.700

25.000

25.300

25.600

25.900

26.200

26.500

26.800

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

111

121

131

141

151

161

171

181

Fe %

'GIOP-91' (ALS Standard) vs 'GIOP-94' (Royal Standard): Fe'GIOP-91' (ALS Standard) vs 'GIOP-94' (Royal Standard): Fe

Instance

Exp= 26.395

CalcMean= 25.646

2xExp SD=26.207

2xExp SD=26.583

3xExp SD=26.113

3xExp SD=26.677

Exp= 23.970


2xExp SD=24.120

3xExp SD=23.745

3xExp SD=24.195

,


5


GIOP-31

36.000

36.200

36.400

36.600

36.800

37.000

37.200

37.400

37.600

37.800

38.000

38.200

38.400

38.600

38.800

1/04

/2010

20/04/2

010

9/05

/2010

28/05/2

010

16/06/2

010

5/07

/2010

24/07/2

010

12/08/2

010

31/08/2

010

19/09/2

010

8/10

/2010

27/10/2

010

15/11/2

010

4/12

/2010

23/12/2

010

11/01/2

011

30/01/2

011

18/02/2

011

9/03

/2011

28/03/2

011

16/04/2

011

5/05

/2011

24/05/2

011

12/06/2

011

2/07

/2011

21/07/2

011

9/08

/2011

28/08/2

011

16/09/2

011

5/10

/2011

24/10/2

011

12/11/2

011

1/12

/2011

20/12/2

011

8/01

/2012

27/01/2

012

15/02/2

012

5/03

/2012

24/03/2

012

12/04/2

012

1/05

/2012

20/05/2

012

8/06

/2012

27/06/2

012

16/07/2

012

4/08

/2012

23/08/2

012

11/09/2

012

Fe %


Time


2xExp SD=36.810

2xExp SD=37.930

3xExp SD=36.530

3xExp SD=38.210

GIOP-31

0.360

0.390

0.420

0.450

0.480

0.510

0.540

0.570

0.600

0.630

0.660

0.690

0.720

0.750

0.780

0.810

1/04

/2010

20/04/2

010

9/05

/2010

28/05/2

010

16/06/2

010

5/07

/2010

24/07/2

010

12/08/2

010

31/08/2

010

19/09/2

010

8/10

/2010

27/10/2

010

15/11/2

010

4/12

/2010

23/12/2

010

11/01/2

011

30/01/2

011

18/02/2

011

9/03

/2011

28/03/2

011

16/04/2

011

5/05

/2011

24/05/2

011

12/06/2

011

2/07

/2011

21/07/2

011

9/08

/2011

28/08/2

011

16/09/2

011

5/10

/2011

24/10/2

011

12/11/2

011

1/12

/2011

20/12/2

011

8/01

/2012

27/01/2

012

15/02/2

012

5/03

/2012

24/03/2

012

12/04/2

012

1/05

/2012

20/05/2

012

8/06

/2012

27/06/2

012

16/07/2

012

4/08

/2012

23/08/2

012

11/09/2

012

Al2O3 %


Time

Exp= 0.500

CalcMean= 0.464 2xExp SD=0.458

2xExp SD=0.542

3xExp SD=0.437

3xExp SD=0.563

GIOP-31

26.000

26.200

26.400

26.600

26.800

27.000

27.200

27.400

27.600

27.800

28.000

28.200

28.400

28.600

28.800

29.000

1/04

/2010

20/04/2

010

9/05

/2010

28/05/2

010

16/06/2

010

5/07

/2010

24/07/2

010

12/08/2

010

31/08/2

010

19/09/2

010

8/10

/2010

27/10/2

010

15/11/2

010

4/12

/2010

23/12/2

010

11/01/2

011

30/01/2

011

18/02/2

011

9/03

/2011

28/03/2

011

16/04/2

011

5/05

/2011

24/05/2

011

12/06/2

011

2/07

/2011

21/07/2

011

9/08

/2011

28/08/2

011

16/09/2

011

5/10

/2011

24/10/2

011

12/11/2

011

1/12

/2011

20/12/2

011

8/01

/2012

27/01/2

012

15/02/2

012

5/03

/2012

24/03/2

012

12/04/2

012

1/05

/2012

20/05/2

012

8/06

/2012

27/06/2

012

16/07/2

012

4/08

/2012

23/08/2

012

11/09/2

012

SiO2 %


Time

Exp= 27.330

CalcMean= 27.562

2xExp SD=27.162

2xExp SD=27.498

3xExp SD=27.078

3xExp SD=27.582


6


GIOP-31

2.500

2.800

3.100

3.400

3.700

4.000

4.300

4.600

4.900

5.200

5.500

5.800

6.100

6.400

6.700

7.000

7.300

1/04

/2010

20/04/2

010

9/05

/2010

28/05/2

010

16/06/2

010

5/07

/2010

24/07/2

010

12/08/2

010

31/08/2

010

19/09/2

010

8/10

/2010

27/10/2

010

15/11/2

010

4/12

/2010

23/12/2

010

11/01/2

011

30/01/2

011

18/02/2

011

9/03

/2011

28/03/2

011

16/04/2

011

5/05

/2011

24/05/2

011

12/06/2

011

2/07

/2011

21/07/2

011

9/08

/2011

28/08/2

011

16/09/2

011

5/10

/2011

24/10/2

011

12/11/2

011

1/12

/2011

20/12/2

011

8/01

/2012

27/01/2

012

15/02/2

012

5/03

/2012

24/03/2

012

12/04/2

012

1/05

/2012

20/05/2

012

8/06

/2012

27/06/2

012

16/07/2

012

4/08

/2012

23/08/2

012

11/09/2

012

LOI %


Time

Exp= 6.920CalcMean= 6.8732xExp SD=6.744

2xExp SD=7.096

3xExp SD=6.656

3xExp SD=7.184

GIOP-94

22.000

22.200

22.400

22.600

22.800

23.000

23.200

23.400

23.600

23.800

24.000

24.200

24.400

24.600

24.800

25.000

1/04

/2010

20/04/2

010

9/05

/2010

28/05/2

010

16/06/2

010

5/07

/2010

24/07/2

010

12/08/2

010

31/08/2

010

19/09/2

010

8/10

/2010

27/10/2

010

15/11/2

010

4/12

/2010

23/12/2

010

11/01/2

011

30/01/2

011

18/02/2

011

9/03

/2011

28/03/2

011

16/04/2

011

5/05

/2011

24/05/2

011

12/06/2

011

2/07

/2011

21/07/2

011

9/08

/2011

28/08/2

011

16/09/2

011

5/10

/2011

24/10/2

011

12/11/2

011

1/12

/2011

20/12/2

011

8/01

/2012

27/01/2

012

15/02/2

012

5/03

/2012

24/03/2

012

12/04/2

012

1/05

/2012

20/05/2

012

8/06

/2012

27/06/2

012

16/07/2

012

4/08

/2012

23/08/2

012

11/09/2

012

Fe %


Time

Exp= 23.970

CalcMean= 23.649

2xExp SD=23.820

2xExp SD=24.120

3xExp SD=23.745

3xExp SD=24.195

GIOP-94

1.900

2.000

2.100

2.200

2.300

2.400

2.500

1/04

/2010

20/04/2

010

9/05

/2010

28/05/2

010

16/06/2

010

5/07

/2010

24/07/2

010

12/08/2

010

31/08/2

010

19/09/2

010

8/10

/2010

27/10/2

010

15/11/2

010

4/12

/2010

23/12/2

010

11/01/2

011

30/01/2

011

18/02/2

011

9/03

/2011

28/03/2

011

16/04/2

011

5/05

/2011

24/05/2

011

12/06/2

011

2/07

/2011

21/07/2

011

9/08

/2011

28/08/2

011

16/09/2

011

5/10

/2011

24/10/2

011

12/11/2

011

1/12

/2011

20/12/2

011

8/01

/2012

27/01/2

012

15/02/2

012

5/03

/2012

24/03/2

012

12/04/2

012

1/05

/2012

20/05/2

012

8/06

/2012

27/06/2

012

16/07/2

012

4/08

/2012

23/08/2

012

11/09/2

012

Al2O3 %


Time


2xExp SD=2.037

2xExp SD=2.265

3xExp SD=1.980

3xExp SD=2.322

,


7

RB01 Royal Standard

GIOP-94

51.000

51.300

51.600

51.900

52.200

52.500

52.800

53.100

53.400

53.700

54.000

54.300

54.600

54.900

55.200

55.500

55.800

1/04

/2010

20/04/2

010

9/05

/2010

28/05/2

010

16/06/2

010

5/07

/2010

24/07/2

010

12/08/2

010

31/08/2

010

19/09/2

010

8/10

/2010

27/10/2

010

15/11/2

010

4/12

/2010

23/12/2

010

11/01/2

011

30/01/2

011

18/02/2

011

9/03

/2011

28/03/2

011

16/04/2

011

5/05

/2011

24/05/2

011

12/06/2

011

2/07

/2011

21/07/2

011

9/08

/2011

28/08/2

011

16/09/2

011

5/10

/2011

24/10/2

011

12/11/2

011

1/12

/2011

20/12/2

011

8/01

/2012

27/01/2

012

15/02/2

012

5/03

/2012

24/03/2

012

12/04/2

012

1/05

/2012

20/05/2

012

8/06

/2012

27/06/2

012

16/07/2

012

4/08

/2012

23/08/2

012

11/09/2

012

SiO2 %


Time

Exp= 54.190

CalcMean= 53.949

2xExp SD=53.690

2xExp SD=54.690

3xExp SD=53.440

3xExp SD=54.940

GIOP-94

0.000

0.030

0.060

0.090

0.120

0.150

0.180

0.210

0.240

0.270

0.300

0.330

0.360

0.390

-0.030

-0.060

-0.090

1/04

/2010

20/04/2

010

9/05

/2010

28/05/2

010

16/06/2

010

5/07

/2010

24/07/2

010

12/08/2

010

31/08/2

010

19/09/2

010

8/10

/2010

27/10/2

010

15/11/2

010

4/12

/2010

23/12/2

010

11/01/2

011

30/01/2

011

18/02/2

011

9/03

/2011

28/03/2

011

16/04/2

011

5/05

/2011

24/05/2

011

12/06/2

011

2/07

/2011

21/07/2

011

9/08

/2011

28/08/2

011

16/09/2

011

5/10

/2011

24/10/2

011

12/11/2

011

1/12

/2011

20/12/2

011

8/01

/2012

27/01/2

012

15/02/2

012

5/03

/2012

24/03/2

012

12/04/2

012

1/05

/2012

20/05/2

012

8/06

/2012

27/06/2

012

16/07/2

012

4/08

/2012

23/08/2

012

11/09/2

012

LOI %


Time

Exp= 0.097

CalcMean= 0.188

2xExp SD=-0.017

2xExp SD=0.211

3xExp SD=-0.074

3xExp SD=0.268

RB01

23.000

23.200

23.400

23.600

23.800

24.000

24.200

24.400

24.600

24.800

25.000

25.200

25.400

25.600

25.800

26.000

26.200

26.400

26.600

26.800

27.000

1/04

/2010

20/04/2

010

9/05

/2010

28/05/2

010

16/06/2

010

5/07

/2010

24/07/2

010

12/08/2

010

31/08/2

010

19/09/2

010

8/10

/2010

27/10/2

010

15/11/2

010

4/12

/2010

23/12/2

010

11/01/2

011

30/01/2

011

18/02/2

011

9/03

/2011

28/03/2

011

16/04/2

011

5/05

/2011

24/05/2

011

12/06/2

011

2/07

/2011

21/07/2

011

9/08

/2011

28/08/2

011

16/09/2

011

5/10

/2011

24/10/2

011

12/11/2

011

1/12

/2011

20/12/2

011

8/01

/2012

27/01/2

012

15/02/2

012

5/03

/2012

24/03/2

012

12/04/2

012

1/05

/2012

20/05/2

012

8/06

/2012

27/06/2

012

16/07/2

012

4/08

/2012

23/08/2

012

11/09/2

012

Fe %

'RB01' (Exp: 25.407 %): Fe'RB01' (Exp: 25.407 %): Fe

Time


2xExp SD=25.613

3xExp SD=25.097

3xExp SD=25.717

,


8

RB01

6.500

6.600

6.700

6.800

6.900

7.000

7.100

7.200

7.300

1/04

/2010

20/04/2

010

9/05

/2010

28/05/2

010

16/06/2

010

5/07

/2010

24/07/2

010

12/08/2

010

31/08/2

010

19/09/2

010

8/10

/2010

27/10/2

010

15/11/2

010

4/12

/2010

23/12/2

010

11/01/2

011

30/01/2

011

18/02/2

011

9/03

/2011

28/03/2

011

16/04/2

011

5/05

/2011

24/05/2

011

12/06/2

011

2/07

/2011

21/07/2

011

9/08

/2011

28/08/2

011

16/09/2

011

5/10

/2011

24/10/2

011

12/11/2

011

1/12

/2011

20/12/2

011

8/01

/2012

27/01/2

012

15/02/2

012

5/03

/2012

24/03/2

012

12/04/2

012

1/05

/2012

20/05/2

012

8/06

/2012

27/06/2

012

16/07/2

012

4/08

/2012

23/08/2

012

11/09/2

012

Al2O3 %

'RB01' (Exp: 6.735 %): Al2O3'RB01' (Exp: 6.735 %): Al2O3

Time

Exp= 6.735

CalcMean= 6.834

2xExp SD=6.683

2xExp SD=6.787

3xExp SD=6.657

3xExp SD=6.812

RB01

40.000

40.200

40.400

40.600

40.800

41.000

41.200

41.400

41.600

41.800

42.000

42.200

42.400

42.600

42.800

43.000

43.200

43.400

43.600

43.800

1/04

/2010

20/04/2

010

9/05

/2010

28/05/2

010

16/06/2

010

5/07

/2010

24/07/2

010

12/08/2

010

31/08/2

010

19/09/2

010

8/10

/2010

27/10/2

010

15/11/2

010

4/12

/2010

23/12/2

010

11/01/2

011

30/01/2

011

18/02/2

011

9/03

/2011

28/03/2

011

16/04/2

011

5/05

/2011

24/05/2

011

12/06/2

011

2/07

/2011

21/07/2

011

9/08

/2011

28/08/2

011

16/09/2

011

5/10

/2011

24/10/2

011

12/11/2

011

1/12

/2011

20/12/2

011

8/01

/2012

27/01/2

012

15/02/2

012

5/03

/2012

24/03/2

012

12/04/2

012

1/05

/2012

20/05/2

012

8/06

/2012

27/06/2

012

16/07/2

012

4/08

/2012

23/08/2

012

11/09/2

012

SiO2 %

'RB01' (Exp: 42.067 %): SiO2'RB01' (Exp: 42.067 %): SiO2

Time


2xExp SD=41.844

2xExp SD=42.289

3xExp SD=41.733

3xExp SD=42.401

RB01

4.000

4.100

4.200

4.300

4.400

4.500

4.600

4.700

4.800

4.900

5.000

5.100

5.200

5.300

1/04

/2010

20/04/2

010

9/05

/2010

28/05/2

010

16/06/2

010

5/07

/2010

24/07/2

010

12/08/2

010

31/08/2

010

19/09/2

010

8/10

/2010

27/10/2

010

15/11/2

010

4/12

/2010

23/12/2

010

11/01/2

011

30/01/2

011

18/02/2

011

9/03

/2011

28/03/2

011

16/04/2

011

5/05

/2011

24/05/2

011

12/06/2

011

2/07

/2011

21/07/2

011

9/08

/2011

28/08/2

011

16/09/2

011

5/10

/2011

24/10/2

011

12/11/2

011

1/12

/2011

20/12/2

011

8/01

/2012

27/01/2

012

15/02/2

012

5/03

/2012

24/03/2

012

12/04/2

012

1/05

/2012

20/05/2

012

8/06

/2012

27/06/2

012

16/07/2

012

4/08

/2012

23/08/2

012

11/09/2

012

LOI %

'RB01' (Exp: 4.808 %): LOI'RB01' (Exp: 4.808 %): LOI

Time


2xExp SD=4.745

2xExp SD=4.871

3xExp SD=4.714

3xExp SD=4.902


9

Royal Standard Significant Outliers

A total of eight significant outliers were excluded from the charts and statistics to ensure that they

did not influence the statistical calculations.

One sample shows a laboratory weight received result of 8.75 kilograms, which would suggest the

sample is not a certified standard, but potentially a drill sample.


AD11019003 487900 GIOP-31 Fe ME-XRF11b 42.23 37.37 13.01

AD11019003 487900 GIOP-31 Al2O3 ME-XRF11b 3.28 0.5 556

AD11019003 487900 GIOP-31 SiO2 ME-XRF11b 26.3 27.33 -3.77

AD11019003 487900 GIOP-31 LOI ME-GRA05 2.64 6.92 -61.85

AD11019003 487900 GIOP-31 WtRecvd. WEI-21 8.75kg

The other seven samples below have been investigated and potentially indicate laboratory

preparation, analytical or reporting error. Not all standard samples have a laboratory received

weight captured and so this data cannot be cross-checked against all outliers.


AD10057788 481751 GIOP-31 Fe ME-XRF11b 27.7 37.37 -25.88


AD10057788 481751 GIOP-31 SiO2 ME-XRF11b 40 27.33 46.36

AD10057788 481751 GIOP-31 LOI ME-GRA05 4.89 6.92 -29.33

AD11076950 499500 GIOP-31 Fe ME-XRF11b 13.34 37.37 -64.3


AD11076950 499500 GIOP-31 SiO2 ME-XRF11b 58.3 27.33 113.32

AD11076950 499500 GIOP-31 LOI ME-GRA05 6.95 6.92 0.43

AD11103214 498860 GIOP-31 Fe ME-XRF11b 11.64 37.37 -68.85


AD11103214 498860 GIOP-31 SiO2 ME-XRF11b 52.9 27.33 93.56

AD11103214 498860 GIOP-31 LOI ME-GRA05 6.74 6.92 -2.60

AD12066214 501040 GIOP-31 Fe ME-XRF21n 36.97 37.37 -1.07



AD12066214 501040 GIOP-31 LOI ME-GRA05 6.56 6.92 -5.2

AD11249863 507240 GIOP-94 Fe ME-XRF21n 24.92 23.97 3.96

AD11249863 507240 GIOP-94 Al2O3 ME-XRF21n 7.22 2.151 235.66

AD11249863 507240 GIOP-94 SiO2 ME-XRF21n 46.2 54.19 -14.74

AD11249863 507240 GIOP-94 LOI ME-GRA05 0.21 0.097 116.49


AD11252249 507580 GIOP-31 Fe ME-XRF21n 10.38 37.37 -72.22



AD11252249 507580 GIOP-31 LOI ME-GRA05 2.99 6.92 -56.79


AD12073101 513620 GIOP-31 Fe ME-XRF21n 13.10 37.37 -64.95



AD12073101 513620 GIOP-31 LOI ME-GRA05 6.99 6.92 1.01


An additional 22 standard samples have a StandardID of "NR" (not recorded) and have been

excluded from the charts and statistics.

,


10

Laboratory Standards and Blanks

Blank and standards reported by ALS are summarised in the table below. ALS reported Fe results for

two Geostats certified standards (*) during the report period and the results show a similar lack of

accuracy and precision, when compared with the expected values, as the two certified Geostats

standards utilised by Royal.

Laboratory Standards and Blanks Summary Statistics

Standard Element Expected

Value

Expected

StDev

Count

Samps Mean SD CV

Mean

Bias

BLANK_ALS Fe - - 541 0.01 0.03 2.77 -

BLANK_ALS Al2O3 - - 541 0.01 0.02 1.39 -

BLANK_ALS SiO2 - - 541 93.55 22.92 0.25 -

BLANK_ALS LOI - - 0 - - - -

GIOP-15 LOI - - 25 1.33 0.06 0.04 -

GIOP-20 LOI - - 23 9.33 0.09 0.01 -

GIOP-54 LOI - - 118 8.05 0.06 0.01 -

GIOP-91* Fe 26.395 0.094 8 25.65 0.51 0.02 -2.84

GIOP-91* Al2O3 1.729 0.028 8 1.73 0.05 0.03 -0.09

GIOP-91* SiO2 52.6 0.12 8 52.73 1.49 0.03 0.24

GIOP-91* LOI - - 0 - - - -

GIOP-92* Fe 33.47 0.13 19 33.31 0.60 0.02 -0.47

GIOP-92* Al2O3 0.133 0.008 19 0.14 0.02 0.11 5.03

GIOP-92* SiO2 49.2 0.15 19 49.66 1.39 0.03 0.93

GIOP-92* LOI - - 0 - - - -

JS1 LOI 7.73 - 481 7.81 0.06 0.01 1.04

MW-1 Fe 66.08 - 296 65.73 2.25 0.03 -0.53

MW-1 Al2O3 0.3 - 296 0.30 0.03 0.10 -1.15

MW-1 SiO2 4.6 - 296 4.84 3.00 0.62 5.12

MW-1 LOI - - 0 - - - -

NCS 14012a Fe - - 18 37.84 0.15 0.00 -

NCS 14012a Al2O3 - - 18 3.33 0.06 0.02 -

NCS 14012a SiO2 - - 18 16.69 0.16 0.01 -

NCS 14012a LOI - - 0 - - - -

NCSDC28006 Fe - - 14 40.29 0.11 0.00 -

NCSDC28006 Al2O3 - - 14 0.63 0.01 0.02 -

NCSDC28006 SiO2 - - 14 8.41 0.11 0.01 -

NCSDC28006 LOI - - 0 - - - -

SARM-11 Fe 66.16 - 178 66.06 0.05 0.00 -0.15

SARM-11 Al2O3 - - 178 1.38 0.03 0.02 -

SARM-11 SiO2 - - 178 3.12 0.05 0.02 -

SARM-12 Fe 66.6 - 23 66.49 0.07 0.00 -0.17

SARM-12 Al2O3 - - 23 0.80 0.02 0.03 -

SARM-12 SiO2 - - 23 0.35 0.04 0.10 -

SARM-39 Fe - - 19 6.53 0.07 0.01 -

SARM-39 Al2O3 4.29 - 19 4.24 0.06 0.02 -1.10

SARM-39 SiO2 33.44 - 19 33.64 0.28 0.01 0.59

SARM-45 Fe 8.79 - 438 8.75 0.16 0.02 -0.51

SARM-45 Al2O3 26.22 - 438 26.14 0.26 0.01 -0.30

SARM-45 SiO2 49.62 - 438 49.80 0.33 0.01 0.37

ST-391 LOI - - 341 6.18 0.04 0.01 -

,


11


24.000

24.200

24.400

24.600

24.800

25.000

25.200

25.400

25.600

25.800

26.000

26.200

26.400

26.600

26.800

27.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Fe %


Instance

Exp= 26.395

CalcMean= 25.646

2xExp SD=26.207

2xExp SD=26.583

3xExp SD=26.113

3xExp SD=26.677

GIOP-91

1.600

1.620

1.640

1.660

1.680

1.700

1.720

1.740

1.760

1.780

1.800

1.820

1.840

1.860

1.880

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Al2O3 %


Instance


2xExp SD=1.673

2xExp SD=1.785

3xExp SD=1.645

3xExp SD=1.813

GIOP-91

51.000

51.300

51.600

51.900

52.200

52.500

52.800

53.100

53.400

53.700

54.000

54.300

54.600

54.900

55.200

55.500

55.800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SiO2 %


Instance


2xExp SD=52.360

2xExp SD=52.840

3xExp SD=52.240

3xExp SD=52.960

GIOP-91

,


12


32.000

32.200

32.400

32.600

32.800

33.000

33.200

33.400

33.600

33.800

34.000

34.200

34.400

34.600

34.800

35.000

35.200

35.400

35.600

35.800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Fe %


Instance


2xExp SD=33.210

2xExp SD=33.730

3xExp SD=33.080

3xExp SD=33.860

GIOP-92

0.100

0.110

0.120

0.130

0.140

0.150

0.160

0.170

0.180

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Al2O3 %


Instance

Exp= 0.133

CalcMean= 0.140

2xExp SD=0.118

2xExp SD=0.149

3xExp SD=0.110

3xExp SD=0.157

GIOP-92

48.000

49.000

50.000

51.000

52.000

53.000

54.000

55.000

56.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

SiO2 %


Instance

Exp= 49.200

CalcMean= 49.658

2xExp SD=48.900

2xExp SD=49.500

3xExp SD=48.750

3xExp SD=49.650

GIOP-92

,


13

Field Duplicates

The 713 duplicate samples, including splits and core samples, were analysed during the report

period. Field duplicates are typically collected at the same time as parent samples and are analysed

by the same method in the same batch as parent samples. The XRF results reported by ALS Adelaide

show good correlation (no bias) and a degree of scatter consistent with field duplicates. Fifty (50)

pairs show >20% difference and are listed in the outliers table.

Field Duplicate Summary Statistics and Charts

Element Range

No. of

Samples

mean

Orig

mean

Rpt

SD

Orig

SD

Rpt

CV

Orig

CV

Rpt

sRPHD

(mean)

Fe 0-10 147 7.19 7.48 1.92 2.39 0.27 0.32 -1.39

Fe 10-40 716 19.94 19.88 6.84 6.94 0.34 0.35 0.28

Fe 40-70 11 42.66 42.18 1.42 2.17 0.03 0.05 0.61

Fe Total 874 18.09 18.08 8.33 8.33 0.46 0.46 0

Al2O3 0-3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Al2O3 3-8 407 6.61 6.64 1.09 1.13 0.16 0.17 -0.17

Al2O3 8-20 467 9.43 9.41 0.91 0.94 0.10 0.10 0.07

Al2O3 Total 874 8.11 8.12 1.72 1.73 0.21 0.21 -0.04

SiO2 0-20 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SiO2 20-50 462 42.76 42.95 5.99 6.30 0.14 0.15 -0.16

SiO2 50-70 410 54.99 54.79 3.76 3.99 0.07 0.07 0.20

SiO2 Total 874 48.57 48.57 8.02 8.04 0.17 0.17 0.01

LOI Total 874 5.45 5.44 1.71 1.69 0.31 0.31 0.05

Field Duplicate



0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

0.00

0

3.00

0

6.00

0

9.00

0

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

Field Duplicate Fe %

Original (All) Vs Field Duplicate (All) for Fe %Original (All) Vs Field Duplicate (All) for Fe %

Original Fe %0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

0.00

0

3.00

0

6.00

0

9.00

0

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

Repeat Values


Original Values


14

Field Duplicate Outliers

Batch SampleId RepeatID Method Element Orig Value Rpt Value Diff(%)

AD10044555 480625 480626 XRFFS Fe 25.8 34.9 29.98

AD10044555 480625 480626 XRFFS Al2O3 6.75 4.55 -38.94

AD10044555 480625 480626 LOI LOI 8.04 4.77 -51.05

AD10047072 480966 480967 XRFFS Fe 12.2 9.2 -28.04

AD10050345 481133 481134 XRFFS Fe 34.6 26 -28.38

AD10050345 481133 481134 XRFFS Al2O3 5.09 6.64 26.43

AD10050345 481133 481134 LOI LOI 3.98 6.01 40.64

AD10057788 481866 481867 XRFFS Fe 30.8 22.1 -32.89

AD10057788 481866 481867 LOI LOI 3.3 4.99 40.77

AD10063285 482133 482134 XRFFS Fe 12.05 6.4 -61.25

AD10063285 482133 482134 LOI LOI 8.19 10.6 25.65

AD10072423 482482 482483 XRFFS Fe 17.4 10.95 -45.5

AD10072423 482516 482517 XRFFS Fe 27.9 21 -28.22

AD10072423 482516 482517 LOI LOI 4.55 5.75 23.3

AD10072423 482533 482534 XRFFS Fe 9.96 16.3 48.29

AD10072423 482533 482534 LOI LOI 6.9 5.56 -21.51

AD10072423 482566 482567 XRFFS Fe 10.5 8.45 -21.64

AD10077730 482633 482634 XRFFS Fe 9.87 12.63 24.53

AD10089950 482833 482834 XRFFS Fe 18.09 14.1 -24.79

AD10089950 482898 482899 XRFFS Fe 6.25 7.86 22.82

AD10089950 482916 482917 XRFFS Fe 10.38 7.08 -37.8

AD10089950 483098 483099 XRFFS Fe 31.78 23.91 -28.26

Field Duplicate



0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

0.00

0

1.00

0

2.00

0

3.00

0

4.00

0

5.00

0

6.00

0

7.00

0

8.00

0

9.00

0

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

Field Duplicate Al2O3 %

Original (All) Vs Field Duplicate (All) for Al2O3 %Original (All) Vs Field Duplicate (All) for Al2O3 %


1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

15.000

0.00

0

1.00

0

2.00

0

3.00

0

4.00

0

5.00

0

6.00

0

7.00

0

8.00

0

9.00

0

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

15.000

Repeat Values


Original Values

Field Duplicate



0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

0.00

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

Field Duplicate SiO2 %

Original (All) Vs Field Duplicate (All) for SiO2 %Original (All) Vs Field Duplicate (All) for SiO2 %


10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

0.00

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

Repeat Values


Original Values

,


15

Batch SampleId RepeatID Method Element Orig Value Rpt Value Diff(%)

AD10089950 483098 483099 LOI LOI 3.27 5.26 46.66

AD10089950 483151 483152 XRFFS Fe 28.21 23 -20.35

AD10089950 483269 483270 XRFFS Fe 8.56 10.49 20.26

AD10089951 483298 483299 XRFFS Al2O3 4.83 3.9 -21.31

AD10089951 483298 483299 LOI LOI 2.66 1.92 -32.31

AD10089951 483482 483483 XRFFS Fe 19.79 15.6 -23.68

AD10089951 483566 483567 XRFFS Fe 10.72 6.49 -49.16

AD10089951 483616 483617 XRFFS Fe 8.1 13.68 51.24

AD10089951 483633 483634 XRFFS Fe 4.38 8.72 66.26

AD10089951 483798 483799 XRFFS Fe 18.14 24.66 30.47

AD10089951 483798 483799 XRFFS Al2O3 9.86 7.17 -31.59

AD10088369 483833 483834 XRFFS Fe 14.17 22.56 45.68

AD10088369 483951 483952 XRFFS Fe 6.17 4.29 -35.95

AD10136335 485166 485167 XRFFS Fe 14.87 18.36 21.01

AD10136335 485216 485217 XRFFS Fe 14.24 11.2 -23.9

AD10136335 485216 485217 LOI LOI 8.44 6.84 -20.94

AD10136335 485298 485299 XRFFS Fe 27.64 22.05 -22.5

AD11019002 487766 487767 XRFFS Al2O3 4.19 3.39 -21.11

AD11122420 488198 488199 XRFFS Fe 14.85 21.73 37.62

AD11122420 488198 488199 XRFFS Al2O3 9.33 7.52 -21.48

AD11122420 488216 488217 XRFFS Fe 13.22 10.69 -21.16

AD11122420 488233 488234 XRFFS Fe 7.18 9.81 30.96

AD11122420 488251 488252 XRFFS Fe 11.38 8.18 -32.72

AD11038931 488833 488834 XRFFS Fe 31.79 24.5 -25.9

AD11038931 488833 488834 XRFFS SiO2 36.1 44.4 20.62

AD11122364 489251 489252 XRFFS Fe 5.49 9.62 54.67

AD11122420 489282 489283 XRFFS Fe 8.55 10.85 23.71

AD11122420 489298 489299 XRFFS Fe 9.2 6.61 -32.76

AD11122420 489633 489634 XRFFS Fe 7.98 16.08 67.33

AD11122420 489633 489634 LOI LOI 5.53 4.36 -23.66

AD12001057 495716 495717 XRFFS Fe 15.72 8.89 -55.51

AD12001057 495733 495734 XRFFS Fe 17.27 12.48 -32.2

AD11122364 496151 496152 XRFFS Fe 13.63 10.85 -22.71

AD11062139 496932 496933 XRFFS Al2O3 5.74 4.39 -26.65

AD11062139 496932 496933 LOI LOI 2.66 1.31 -68.01

AD12001057 497116 497117 XRFFS Fe 9.01 7.3 -20.97

AD12001057 497116 497117 LOI LOI 13.28 8.77 -40.91

AD12001057 497116 497117 XRFFS SiO2 44.9 55.2 20.58

AD12162799 507982 507983 XRFFS Fe 14.32 10.48 -30.97

AD12162799 507982 507983 LOI LOI 3.51 2.39 -37.97

AD11259799 508182 508183 XRFFS Fe 20.41 12.78 -45.98

AD11259799 508182 508183 XRFFS Al2O3 6.59 8.11 20.68

AD11259799 508182 508183 LOI LOI 5.56 6.91 21.65

AD12001058 508451 508452 XRFFS Al2O3 7.49 9.37 22.3

AD12018626 509666 509667 XRFFS Fe 8.32 14.02 51.03

AD12037527 509716 509717 XRFFS Fe 7.46 10.16 30.65

AD11128119 488833a 488834a XRFFS Fe 31.78 24.5 -25.87

AD11128119 488833a 488834a LOI LOI 3.31 4.14 22.28

AD11128119 488833a 488834a XRFFS SiO2 36.2 44.4 20.35

AD10047072 480966 480967 XRFFS Fe 12.2 9.2 -28.04

AD10050345 481133 481134 XRFFS Fe 34.6 26 -28.38

AD10050345 481133 481134 XRFFS Al2O3 5.09 6.64 26.43

AD10050345 481133 481134 LOI LOI 3.98 6.01 40.64

AD10057788 481866 481867 XRFFS Fe 30.8 22.1 -32.89

AD10057788 481866 481867 LOI LOI 3.3 4.99 40.77

AD11074858 498066 498067* XRFFS Al2O3 3.07 4.21 31.32

AD11080032 498098 498099* XRFFS Fe 22.3 29.35 27.3

AD11080032 498098 498099* LOI LOI 4.07 2.79 -37.32

*diamond core duplicates

,


16

Field Resample

Royal collected 328 RC field resamples during the report period using the same sampling method as

original samples (riffle split or cone split). The duplicate samples were typically collected at a later

date than the original samples and were analysed in a different batch. The XRF results reported by

ALS Adelaide show a degree of scatter that is consistent with field resamples. Thirteen (13) pairs

show >20% difference and are listed in the outliers table.

Field Resample Summary Statistics and Charts

Element Range

No. of

Samples

mean

Orig

mean

Rpt

SD

Orig

SD

Rpt

CV

Orig

CV

Rpt

sRPHD

(mean)

Fe 0-10 11 8.02 8.23 1.31 1.44 0.16 0.17 -1.18

Fe 10-40 315 22.19 22.22 6.18 6.04 0.28 0.27 -0.18

Fe 40-70 2 41.17 38.28 1.08 2.63 0.03 0.07 3.74

Fe Total 328 21.83 21.85 6.75 6.57 0.31 0.3 -0.19

Al2O3 0-3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Al2O3 3-8 236 6.64 6.65 0.94 0.95 0.14 0.14 -0.08

Al2O3 8-20 92 8.90 8.80 0.68 0.66 0.08 0.08 0.56

Al2O3 Total 328 7.28 7.26 1.34 1.31 0.18 0.18 0.1

SiO2 0-20 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SiO2 20-50 245 42.76 42.88 5.21 5.22 0.12 0.12 -0.14

SiO2 50-70 83 53.30 53.02 2.97 3.16 0.06 0.06 0.27

SiO2 Total 328 45.42 45.45 6.6 6.51 0.15 0.14 -0.04

LOI Total 328 4.67 4.72 1.3 1.29 0.28 0.27 -0.62

Field Resample



0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

0.00

0

2.00

0

4.00

0

6.00

0

8.00

0

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

20.000

22.000

24.000

26.000

28.000

30.000

32.000

34.000

36.000

38.000

40.000

42.000

Field Resample Fe %

Original (All) Vs Field Resample (All) for Fe %Original (All) Vs Field Resample (All) for Fe %

Original Fe %0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

0.00

0

3.00

0

6.00

0

9.00

0

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

Repeat Values


Original Values


17

Field Resample Outliers

Batch SampleID RepeatID Method Elem Orig Value Rpt Value Diff(%)

AD10058959 482044 485970 XRFFS Fe 16 19.56 20.02

AD10058959 482044 485970 LOI LOI 7.75 5.97 -25.95

AD11013212 487393 480113 XRFFS Fe 15.11 20.03 28

AD11013212 487393 480113 LOI LOI 6.71 5.33 -22.92

AD11019002 487746 480129 XRFFS Fe 21.89 15.56 -33.81

AD11038930 488787 480138 XRFFS Fe 23.88 19.26 -21.42

AD11059722 495111 480172 XRFFS Fe 28.92 17.46 -49.42

AD11059722 495111 480172 LOI LOI 3.55 5.56 44.13

AD11059722 495111 480172 XRFFS SiO2 38.8 51.7 28.51

AD11263748 508354 546771 XRFFS Fe 15.64 12.48 -22.48

AD11263748 508361 546778 XRFFS Al2O3 4.3 5.38 22.31

AD11263748 508362 546779 LOI LOI 5.04 1.41 -112.56

AD12001122 508874 546804 LOI LOI 2.09 3.53 51.25

AD12001122 508876 546806 XRFFS Al2O3 6.12 4.8 -24.18

AD12001122 508876 546806 LOI LOI 4.1 5.94 36.65

AD12001122 508877 546807 XRFFS Al2O3 4.63 3.35 -32.08

AD12001122 508877 546807 LOI LOI 1.63 3.55 74.13

AD12001122 508878 546808 XRFFS Al2O3 3.26 4.16 24.26

AD12001122 508878 546808 LOI LOI 1.94 4.56 80.62

AD12001122 508879 546809 XRFFS Fe 37.91 20.99 -57.45

AD12001122 508879 546809 XRFFS Al2O3 3.8 7.91 70.2

AD12001122 508879 546809 XRFFS SiO2 27.7 45.5 48.63

AD11013212 487393 480113 LOI LOI 6.71 5.33 -22.92

Field Resample



0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

0.00

0

1.00

0

2.00

0

3.00

0

4.00

0

5.00

0

6.00

0

7.00

0

8.00

0

9.00

0

10.000

11.000

12.000

Field Resample Al2O3 %

Original (All) Vs Field Resample (All) for Al2O3 %Original (All) Vs Field Resample (All) for Al2O3 %


1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

15.000

0.00

0

1.00

0

2.00

0

3.00

0

4.00

0

5.00

0

6.00

0

7.00

0

8.00

0

9.00

0

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

15.000

Repeat Values


Original Values

Field Resample



0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

0.00

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

Field Resample SiO2 %

Original (All) Vs Field Resample (All) for SiO2 %Original (All) Vs Field Resample (All) for SiO2 %


10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

0.00

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

Repeat Values


Original Values

,


18

AD11019002 487746 480129 XRFFS Fe 21.89 15.56 -33.81

AD11038930 488787 480138 XRFFS Fe 23.88 19.26 -21.42

AD11059722 495111 480172 XRFFS Fe 28.92 17.46 -49.42

AD11059722 495111 480172 LOI LOI 3.55 5.56 44.13

,


19

Umpire Lab Duplicates

During the Razorback drilling campaign duplicate samples were submitted to Amdel Adelaide for XRF

analysis (NQ0796 and XRF4B) and are compared with the original ALS XRF results in the charts and

statistics below.

The pairs show very good correlation for Fe, Al2O3 and SiO2. A number of outliers exists indicating

sampling error, data collection error or laboratory error. One extreme outlier was removed from the

charts and statistics. Outliers are listed in the tables below.

Umpire Duplicate Summary Statistics and Charts

Element Range

No. of

Samples

mean

Orig

mean

Rpt

SD

Orig

SD

Rpt

CV

Orig

CV

Rpt

sRPHD

(mean)

Fe 0-10 58 7.86 8.00 1.46 1.65 0.19 0.21 -0.65

Fe 10-40 373 19.71 19.89 7.02 7.00 0.36 0.35 -0.52

Fe 40-70 3 41.03 41.16 0.19 0.33 0.00 0.01 -0.16

Fe Total 434 18.27 18.44 7.9 7.9 0.43 0.43 -0.53

Al2O3 0-3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Al2O3 3-8 182 6.51 6.59 1.09 1.15 0.17 0.17 -0.53

Al2O3 8-20 252 9.26 9.35 0.75 0.86 0.08 0.09 -0.45

Al2O3 Total 434 8.1 8.19 1.63 1.69 0.2 0.21 -0.48

SiO2 0-20 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SiO2 20-50 223 42.42 42.42 5.64 5.72 0.13 0.13 0.02

SiO2 50-70 211 54.57 54.14 3.16 3.29 0.06 0.06 0.41

SiO2 Total 434 48.33 48.11 7.62 7.51 0.16 0.16 0.21

LOI Total 320 5.57 5.56 1.42 1.39 0.26 0.25 -0.01




0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

0.00

0

2.00

0

4.00

0

6.00

0

8.00

0

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

20.000

22.000

24.000

26.000

28.000

30.000

32.000

34.000

36.000

38.000

40.000

42.000

44.000

Razorback - Umpire Lab Results Fe %

Original (All) Vs Umpire Lab Results (All) for Fe %Original (All) Vs Umpire Lab Results (All) for Fe %

Original Fe %0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

0.00

0

3.00

0

6.00

0

9.00

0

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

Repeat Values


Original Values

,


20

Umpire Duplicate Extreme Outlier (excluded from charts and statistics)

Batch SampleID RepeatID Method Elem Orig

Value

Rpt

Value Diff(%)

AD12018626 509622 509622_UMP XRFFS Fe 4.47 53.13 168.96

AD12018626 509622 509622_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 11.8 2.34 -133.8

AD12018626 509622 509622_UMP XRFFS SiO2 55.2 7.63 -151.42

AD12018626 509622 509622_UMP LOI LOI 9.17 8.98 -2.09

Umpire Duplicate Outliers


Value

Rpt

Value Diff(%)

AD10047072 480769 480769_UMP XRFFS Fe 17.4 13.8 -23.08

AD10047072 480770 480770_UMP XRFFS Fe 15.25 25.4 49.94

AD10047072 480770 480770_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 8.95 6.3 -34.75

AD10047072 480771 480771_UMP XRFFS Fe 38.1 21.8 -54.42

AD10047072 480771 480771_UMP XRFFS SiO2 30.9 44.2 35.42

AD10047072 480774 480774_UMP XRFFS Fe 20.5 26.1 24.03

AD10047072 480779 480779_UMP XRFFS Fe 34 23.7 -35.7

AD10047072 480779 480779_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 5.48 7 24.36

AD10047072 480779 480779_UMP XRFFS SiO2 34.8 43.6 22.45

AD10047072 480781 480781_UMP XRFFS Fe 19.65 31.1 45.12

AD10047072 480781 480781_UMP XRFFS SiO2 44.6 35.4 -23

AD10088369 483854 483854_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 7.15 5.8 -20.85



Razorback - Umpire Lab Results, RMA y=1.0327x + -0.1761, R² = 0.9270

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

0.00

0

1.00

0

2.00

0

3.00

0

4.00

0

5.00

0

6.00

0

7.00

0

8.00

0

9.00

0

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000R

azorback - Umpire Lab Results Al2O3 %

Original (All) Vs Umpire Lab Results (All) for Al2O3 %Original (All) Vs Umpire Lab Results (All) for Al2O3 %


1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

15.000

0.00

0

1.00

0

2.00

0

3.00

0

4.00

0

5.00

0

6.00

0

7.00

0

8.00

0

9.00

0

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

15.000

Repeat Values


Original Values




0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

0.00

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000R

azorback - Umpire Lab Results SiO2 %

Original (All) Vs Umpire Lab Results (All) for SiO2 %Original (All) Vs Umpire Lab Results (All) for SiO2 %


10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

0.00

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

Repeat Values


Original Values

,


21


Value

Rpt

Value Diff(%)

AD10088369 483858 483858_UMP XRFFS Fe 32.13 39.4 20.33

AD10088369 483858 483858_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 4.8 3.65 -27.22

AD10088369 483875 483875_UMP XRFFS Fe 38.82 18.9 -69.02

AD10088369 483875 483875_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 5.28 8.4 45.61

AD10088369 483875 483875_UMP XRFFS SiO2 29 48.7 50.71

AD10088369 483876 483876_UMP XRFFS Fe 19.67 32.3 48.6

AD10088369 483876 483876_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 8.32 6.2 -29.2

AD10088369 483876 483876_UMP XRFFS SiO2 47.2 34.4 -31.37

AD10088369 483881 483881_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 8.81 7.2 -20.11

AD10088369 483894 483894_UMP XRFFS Fe 13.81 21.1 41.76

AD10088369 483896 483896_UMP XRFFS Fe 17.58 11.6 -40.99

AD10088369 483898 483898_UMP XRFFS Fe 7.97 12.1 41.16

AD10088369 483899 483899_UMP XRFFS Fe 6.71 8.4 22.37

AD11019003 487874 487874_UMP XRFFS Fe 23.37 30.43 26.25

AD11019003 487874 487874_UMP XRFFS SiO2 44.3 35.74 -21.39

AD11019003 487875 487875_UMP XRFFS Fe 34 19.94 -52.13

AD11019003 487875 487875_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 4.14 7.32 55.5

AD11019003 487875 487875_UMP XRFFS SiO2 30.8 47.01 41.67

AD11019003 487878 487878_UMP XRFFS Fe 19.94 34.6 53.76

AD11019003 487878 487878_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 7.22 4.27 -51.35

AD11019003 487878 487878_UMP XRFFS SiO2 47.9 31.05 -42.69

AD11019003 487879 487879_UMP XRFFS Fe 30.49 23.6 -25.48

AD11019003 487879 487879_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 5.08 6.43 23.46

AD12018626 509625 509625_UMP XRFFS Fe 9.14 4.75 -63.21

AD12018626 509625 509625_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 8.1 9.97 20.7

AD12018626 509626 509626_UMP XRFFS Fe 17.08 9.34 -58.59

AD12018626 509626 509626_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 6.63 8.24 21.65

AD12018626 509642 509642_UMP XRFFS Fe 13.92 21.58 43.15

AD12018626 509642 509642_UMP XRFFS Al2O3 9.74 6.89 -34.28

寀ϱ


22

Laboratory Duplicates

ALS laboratory perform pulp check analyses and report the results in the same batch as the original

samples. Overall the pairs show excellent correlation. Only three pairs show poor repeatability and

are listed in the outliers table.

Laboratory Duplicate Summary Statistics and Charts

Element

Range No. of

Samples

mean

Orig

mean

Rpt

SD

Orig

SD

Rpt

CV

Orig

CV

Rpt

sRPHD

(mean)

Fe 0-10 108 7.40 7.40 1.97 1.97 0.27 0.27 0.04

Fe 10-40 534 19.25 19.26 6.63 6.63 0.34 0.34 -0.04

Fe 40-70 1 42.83 42.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13

Fe Total 643 17.29 17.3 7.6 7.61 0.44 0.44 -0.02

Al2O3 0-3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Al2O3 3-8 272 6.64 6.64 1.03 1.04 0.15 0.16 0.01

Al2O3 8-20 370 9.37 9.36 0.93 0.94 0.10 0.10 0.03

Al2O3 Total 642 8.21 8.21 1.66 1.67 0.2 0.2 0.02

SiO2 0-20 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SiO2 20-50 313 43.16 43.13 5.41 5.43 0.13 0.13 0.04

SiO2 50-70 329 54.59 54.53 3.22 3.24 0.06 0.06 0.05

SiO2 Total 643 49.05 49.01 7.29 7.29 0.15 0.15 0.04

LOI Total 1473 5.63 5.63 2.01 2.01 0.36 0.36 -0.03

Lab Duplicate



0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

0.00

0

2.00

0

4.00

0

6.00

0

8.00

0

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

20.000

22.000

24.000

26.000

28.000

30.000

32.000

34.000

36.000

38.000

40.000

42.000

Lab Duplicate Fe %

Original (All) Vs Lab Duplicate (All) for Fe %Original (All) Vs Lab Duplicate (All) for Fe %

Original Fe %0.000

3.000

6.000

9.000

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

0.00

0

3.00

0

6.00

0

9.00

0

12.000

15.000

18.000

21.000

24.000

27.000

30.000

33.000

36.000

39.000

42.000

45.000

48.000

Repeat Values


Original Values

픰ϰ


23

Laboratory Duplicate Outliers


Value

Rpt

Value Diff(%)

AD12001059 480925 Ch:480925 XRFFS Fe 22.9 16.2 -34.27

AD12066214 500986 Ch:500986 XRFFS Fe 18.72 27.4 37.64

AD12066214 500986 Ch:500986 XRFFS Al2O3 8.7 6.68 -26.27

AD11249864 507462 Ch:507462 XRFFS Fe 18.19 14.8 -20.55

Lab Duplicate



0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

0.00

0

1.00

0

2.00

0

3.00

0

4.00

0

5.00

0

6.00

0

7.00

0

8.00

0

9.00

0

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

Lab Duplicate Al2O3 %

Original (All) Vs Lab Duplicate (All) for Al2O3 %Original (All) Vs Lab Duplicate (All) for Al2O3 %


1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

9.000

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

15.000

0.00

0

1.00

0

2.00

0

3.00

0

4.00

0

5.00

0

6.00

0

7.00

0

8.00

0

9.00

0

10.000

11.000

12.000

13.000

14.000

15.000

Repeat Values


Original Values

Lab Duplicate



0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

0.00

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

Lab Duplicate SiO2 %

Original (All) Vs Lab Duplicate (All) for SiO2 %Original (All) Vs Lab Duplicate (All) for SiO2 %


10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

0.00

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

Repeat Values


Original Values

ϰ


24

Screen Testwork (p75um) Laboratory: ALS (Adelaide)

Screen tests are an analysis of the particle size of a prepared sample, which is a good indicator of the

performance of the laboratory’s sample preparation techniques. The particle size results are

returned as a percentage of the sample which passes through a specific screen size (eg, 75 microns).

ALS Adelaide reported 374 p75um results, whilst Amdel Adelaide did not include p75um data in their

batches. The average % passing 75um during the report period was 98%; all results fall within

acceptable limits.

Sieve Data - Apr-10 to Sep-12

Percentage of samples meeting criteria

Month No. of

samples

Overall Month

Ave.

>=85% passing

75um

>=80 and <85 %

passing 75um

<80% passing

75um

Apr-10 5 98.80% 100% 0% 0%

May-10 26 98.42% 100% 0% 0%

Jun-10 18 98.17% 100% 0% 0%

Jul-10 34 98.24% 100% 0% 0%

Aug-10 8 98.25% 100% 0% 0%

Sep-10 0

Oct-10 12 98.25% 100% 0% 0%

Nov-10 0

Dec-10 0

Jan-11 0

Feb-11 14 98.07% 100% 0% 0%

Mar-11 20 98.35% 100% 0% 0%

Apr-11 28 97.93% 100% 0% 0%

May-11 24 97.96% 100% 0% 0%

Jun-11 0

Jul-11 12 98.58% 100% 0% 0%

Aug-11 0

Sep-11 0

Oct-11 0

Nov-11 3 98.67% 100% 0% 0%

Dec-11 0

Jan-12 32 97.41% 97% 3% 0%

Feb-12 43 97.84% 100% 0% 0%

Mar-12 17 98.18% 100% 0% 0%

Apr-12 0

May-12 39 97.69% 100% 0% 0%

Jun-12 34 98.41% 100% 0% 0%

Jul-12 0

Aug-12 5 97.40% 100% 0% 0%

Sep-12 0

YTD 374 98.06% 100% 0% 0%

ϰۅ


25

p75um

80.00

82.00

84.00

86.00

88.00

90.00

92.00

94.00

96.00

98.00

100.00

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100



Instance

B2: 85

B1: 80

p75um

80.00

82.00

84.00

86.00

88.00

90.00

92.00

94.00

96.00

98.00

100.00

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100



Instance

B2: 85

B1: 80

p75um

80.00

82.00

84.00

86.00

88.00

90.00

92.00

94.00

96.00

98.00

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170



Instance

B2: 85

B1: 80

ϰۅ


26

Laboratory Turnaround

ALS Adelaide average turnaround during the report period is 23 days.

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

20.000

22.000

24.000

26.000

28.000

30.000

32.000

34.000

36.000

38.000

40.000

Apr

-10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug

-10

Sep

-10

Oct-1

0

Feb-1

1

Mar

-11

Apr

-11

May

-11

Jun-

11

Jul-1

1

Aug

-11

Nov-

11

Jan-

12

Feb-1

2

Mar

-12

Apr

-12

May

-12

Jun-

12

Jul-1

2

Aug

-12

Sep

-12

Days

ALS (Adelaide) Turnaround Time 1/04/2010 to 30/09/2012 - Lab_Received_Date vs Lab_Job_DateALS (Adelaide) Turnaround Time 1/04/2010 to 30/09/2012 - Lab_Received_Date vs Lab_Job_Date

Month

Avg: Lab_Job_Date = 22.6

,


27

Batch List

LabCode Batch_No Dispatch_No Received_Date Lab_Job_Date

ALS_ADL AD10044555 276977 16/04/2010 23/04/2010

ALS_ADL AD10047072 282701 20/04/2010 10/05/2010

ALS_ADL AD10050345 276980 28/04/2010 11/05/2010

ALS_ADL AD10054066 276981 3/05/2010 19/05/2010

ALS_ADL AD10057788 282702 11/05/2010 25/05/2010

ALS_ADL AD10058959 276982 12/05/2010 26/05/2010

ALS_ADL AD10063285 282703 18/05/2010 2/06/2010

ALS_ADL AD10072423 276983 9/06/2010 28/06/2010

ALS_ADL AD10077730 276984 16/06/2010 29/06/2010

ALS_ADL AD10088369 276987 6/07/2010 15/07/2010

ALS_ADL AD10089950 276985 6/07/2010 20/07/2010

ALS_ADL AD10089951 276986 6/07/2010 20/07/2010

ALS_ADL AD10094449 276990 20/07/2010 6/08/2010

ALS_ADL AD10098469 276992_SG 20/07/2010 26/07/2010

ALS_ADL AD10099110 276993_SG 23/07/2010 28/07/2010

ALS_ADL AD10099855 276992 28/07/2010 6/08/2010

ALS_ADL AD10099856 276993 29/07/2010 6/08/2010

ALS_ADL AD10102408 276994 29/07/2010 11/08/2010

ALS_ADL AD10102409 276995_SG 29/07/2010 4/08/2010

ALS_ADL AD10103090 276996_SG 29/07/2010 9/08/2010

ALS_ADL AD10107753 276995 6/08/2010 23/08/2010

ALS_ADL AD10107754 276996 9/08/2010 24/08/2010

ALS_ADL AD10112413 276997_SG 16/08/2010 20/08/2010

ALS_ADL AD10114152 276998_SG 18/08/2010 25/08/2010

ALS_ADL AD10114953 276997 23/08/2010 31/08/2010

ALS_ADL AD10118468 276998 30/08/2010 10/09/2010

ALS_ADL AD10119166 276999_SG 27/08/2010 31/08/2010

ALS_ADL AD10120773 276999 2/09/2010 10/09/2010

ALS_ADL AD10130788 277000 22/09/2010 4/10/2010

ALS_ADL AD10136335 282704 27/09/2010 13/10/2010

ALS_ADL AD11008495 RR0001 22/01/2011 1/02/2011

ALS_ADL AD11011040 RR0002 25/01/2011 9/02/2011

ALS_ADL AD11013212 RR0003 28/01/2011 16/02/2011

ALS_ADL AD11016115 RR0004 2/02/2011 24/02/2011

ALS_ADL AD11016819 RR0005 8/02/2011 3/03/2011

ALS_ADL AD11019000 RR0006 8/02/2011 1/03/2011

ALS_ADL AD11019001 RR0007 8/02/2011 1/03/2011

ALS_ADL AD11019002 RR0008 8/02/2011 2/03/2011

ALS_ADL AD11019003 RR0009 8/02/2011 2/03/2011

ALS_ADL AD11019004 RR0010 8/02/2011 2/03/2011

ALS_ADL AD11031135 RR0011 1/03/2011 31/03/2011



ALS_ADL AD11038930 RR0015 10/03/2011 1/04/2011

ALS_ADL AD11038931 RR0016 10/03/2011 1/04/2011

ALS_ADL AD11039641 RR0017 11/03/2011 1/04/2011

ALS_ADL AD11039642 RR0018 11/03/2011 1/04/2011

ALS_ADL AD11039643 RR0019 11/03/2011 1/04/2011

ALS_ADL AD11039644 RR0020 11/03/2011 4/04/2011



ϵ


28


ALS_ADL AD11039649 RR0023 15/03/2011 5/04/2011

ALS_ADL AD11042475 RR0024 17/03/2011 5/04/2011

ALS_ADL AD11043303 RR0026 21/03/2011 6/04/2011

ALS_ADL AD11043334 RR0012 21/03/2011 8/04/2011

ALS_ADL AD11043335 RR0013 21/03/2011 11/04/2011



ALS_ADL AD11047077 RR0029 29/03/2011 14/04/2011

ALS_ADL AD11052668 RR0030 4/04/2011 29/04/2011

ALS_ADL AD11059721 RR0032 13/04/2011 3/05/2011

ALS_ADL AD11059722 RR0033 13/04/2011 13/05/2011

ALS_ADL AD11059723 RR0034 13/04/2011 3/05/2011

ALS_ADL AD11059724 RR0035 13/04/2011 13/05/2011

ALS_ADL AD11059725 RR0036 13/04/2011 13/05/2011

ALS_ADL AD11059726 RR0037 13/04/2011 13/05/2011

ALS_ADL AD11059727 RR0038 13/04/2011 13/05/2011

ALS_ADL AD11059728 RR0039 13/04/2011 12/05/2011

ALS_ADL AD11059729 RR0040 13/04/2011 12/05/2011

ALS_ADL AD11061283 RR0044 13/04/2011 13/05/2011

ALS_ADL AD11061284 RR0045 13/04/2011 12/05/2011


ALS_ADL AD11062137 RR0049 19/04/2011 18/05/2011

ALS_ADL AD11062139 RR0051 19/04/2011 18/05/2011




ALS_ADL AD11074853 RR0021 28/04/2011 20/05/2011

ALS_ADL AD11074854 RR0022 28/04/2011 20/05/2011

ALS_ADL AD11074855 RR0025 28/04/2011 31/05/2011

ALS_ADL AD11074856 RR0028 28/04/2011 1/06/2011

ALS_ADL AD11074858 RR0046 28/04/2011 6/07/2011

ALS_ADL AD11076950 RR0050 2/05/2011 1/06/2011

ALS_ADL AD11080031 RR0052 9/05/2011 23/05/2011

ALS_ADL AD11080032 RR0053 10/05/2011 2/06/2011

ALS_ADL AD11080033 RR0054 10/05/2011 1/06/2011






ALS_ADL AD11096070 RR0058 3/06/2011 8/07/2011

ALS_ADL AD11097072 RR0056 3/06/2011 10/07/2011

ALS_ADL AD11103214 RR0057 10/06/2011 14/07/2011

ALS_ADL AD11103215 RR0059 10/06/2011 13/07/2011

ALS_ADL AD11103216 RR0061 10/06/2011 10/07/2011

ALS_ADL AD11103348 RR0062 15/06/2011 13/07/2011

ALS_ADL AD11121247 RR0064 4/07/2011 21/07/2011

ALS_ADL AD11122364 RR0063 1/07/2011 12/07/2011

ALS_ADL AD11122420 RR0065 4/07/2011 24/07/2011


ALS_ADL AD11128119 RR0067 12/07/2011 10/08/2011


ALS_ADL AD11135585 RR0066 18/07/2011 10/08/2011

ALS_ADL AD11136781 RR0068 22/07/2011 15/08/2011

寀ϱ


29





ALS_ADL AD11150124 RR0072 5/08/2011 17/08/2011

ALS_ADL AD11150125 RR0070 5/08/2011 19/08/2011

ALS_ADL AD11152972 RR0071 5/08/2011 18/08/2011


ALS_ADL AD11230066 RR0090 4/11/2011 24/11/2011

ALS_ADL AD11230067 RR0091 4/11/2011 24/11/2011

ALS_ADL AD11230068 RR0092 4/11/2011 24/11/2011

ALS_ADL AD11249112 RR0089 18/11/2011 6/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD11249862 RR0102 7/12/2011 11/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD11249863 RR0103 30/11/2011 17/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD11249864 RR0104 30/11/2011 12/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD11252249 RR0105 6/12/2011 6/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD11255050 RR0106 7/12/2011 16/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD11255051 RR0107 7/12/2011 24/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD11259798 RR0108 13/12/2011 1/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD11259799 RR0109 13/12/2011 5/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD11263748 RR0110 23/12/2011 9/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD11263749 RR0113 23/12/2011 23/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD12000915 RR0114 3/01/2012 27/01/2012

ALS_ADL AD12001057 RR0082 4/01/2012 21/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12001058 RR0111 4/01/2012 9/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12001059 RR0112 4/01/2012 17/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12001120 RR0115 4/01/2012 16/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12001121 RR0116 4/01/2012 19/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12001122 RR0118 4/01/2012 22/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12001123 RR0119 4/01/2012 17/02/2012


ALS_ADL AD12014066 RR0121 27/01/2012 29/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12014067 RR0122 27/01/2012 29/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12014068 RR0123 27/01/2012 29/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12018626 RR0127 10/02/2012 1/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12018628 RR0133 13/02/2012 14/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12021268 RR0124 6/02/2012 14/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12021269 RR0125 6/02/2012 1/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12021300 RR0126 6/02/2012 22/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12021301 RR0129 6/02/2012 28/02/2012

ALS_ADL AD12021302 RR0130 6/02/2012 2/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12026021 RR0132 8/02/2012 28/02/2012


ALS_ADL AD12037480 RR0117 21/02/2012 6/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12037527 RR0146 29/02/2012 28/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12043861 RR0147 8/03/2012 12/03/2012


ALS_ADL AD12053377 RR0135 29/02/2012 28/03/2012

ALS_ADL AD12053428 RR0154 3/04/2012 11/05/2012


ALS_ADL AD12066214 RR0176 1/05/2012 13/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12067193 RR0167 28/03/2012 2/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12067194 RR0168 28/03/2012 9/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12068257 RR0169 3/04/2012 17/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12068258 RR0170 3/04/2012 10/05/2012

ϸ


30


ALS_ADL AD12068259 RR0171 3/04/2012 9/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12072060 RR0172 3/04/2012 9/05/2012


ALS_ADL AD12073101 RR0174 11/04/2012 17/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12073102 RR0175 11/04/2012 22/05/2012


ALS_ADL AD12083072 RR0177 18/04/2012 9/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12084909 RR0183 27/04/2012 1/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12088205 RR0178 26/04/2012 29/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12088206 RR0179 26/04/2012 29/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12088207 RR0180 26/04/2012 28/05/2012

ALS_ADL AD12088209 RR0182 26/04/2012 5/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12090840 RR0184 27/04/2012 5/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12090841 RR0185 27/04/2012 1/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12090842 RR0186 27/04/2012 1/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12091130 RR0173 24/04/2012 7/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12101528 RR0195 29/05/2012 15/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12103075 RR0187 11/05/2012 14/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12103076 RR0188 11/05/2012 15/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12103077 RR0189 11/05/2012 18/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12103078 RR0190 11/05/2012 14/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12103079 RR0191 11/05/2012 15/06/2012


ALS_ADL AD12105756 RR0196 29/05/2012 26/06/2012

ALS_ADL AD12105757 RR0197 6/06/2012 19/06/2012





ALS_ADL AD12120005 RR0209 29/05/2012 27/06/2012




ALS_ADL AD12140936 RR0213 20/06/2012 6/07/2012


ALS_ADL AD12143426 RR0212 13/07/2012 18/09/2012


ALS_ADL AD12155110 RR0211 4/07/2012 13/08/2012





ALS_ADL AD12162799 RR0228 17/07/2012 10/08/2012

ALS_ADL AD12176726 RR0232 2/08/2012 13/08/2012

ALS_ADL AD12176727 RR0225 2/08/2012 16/08/2012



ALS_ADL AD12179805 RR0222 7/08/2012 21/08/2012

ALS_ADL AD12179806 RR0223 7/08/2012 16/08/2012

ALS_ADL AD12179808 RR0225 14/08/2012 28/08/2012


ALS_ADL AD12183508 RR0239 21/08/2012 30/08/2012

ALS_ADL AD12191171 RR0221 20/08/2012 6/09/2012


Ϲ


31


ALS_PTH PH10105439 276988 9/08/2010 20/08/2010

AMDEL_ADE 2AD1852 RR0162 19/03/2012 26/04/2012

AMDEL_ADE 2AD1853 RR0163 19/03/2012 26/04/2012

AMDEL_ADE 2AD1854 RR0164 19/03/2012 26/04/2012

AMDEL_ADE L086207 L086207 11/08/2010 17/08/2010

AMDEL_ADE RR0073 1AD4483 5/08/2011 26/08/2011

Magnetite Mass Recovery Determination of the Razorback Premium

Iron Project

OLARY MINERAL FIELD

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

DATE: DECEMBER 2012

AUTHOR: GAVIN ENGLAND

REPORT: DTR Recovery Report 20121206

Magnetite Mass Recovery of the RPIP

DTR report 20122106.docx Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this study is to understand magnetite recovery across the Razorback

Premium Iron Project (RPIP). The study examined DTR mass recovery, XRF, SATMAGAN and

Geological data from 530 RC and diamond core composited samples from 96 drill holes

drilling between early 2010 and mid 2012. The key finding of this first phase of a much

larger geo‐metallurgical study at Razorback are:

Fe % head grade cannot be used as a direct guide to magnetite mass recovery within

the RPIP. Primarily this is because of the hematite also hosted within the ore, which

varies in content over the three deposits, as well as within the various geological

units that make up the ore horizons within the Braemar Iron Formation in the

Razorback area.

SATMAGAN Magnetite % and DTR Mass Recovery % show strong correlation

throughout the data in this study. However with a further sub setting of data taking

oxidation levels, geology and drilling type into account, a better correlation is

achieved.

An indication of the mass recovery of magnetite across the deposit was required as a

significant parameter in the mining optimization. Given the strong correlation

between DTR Mass Recovery and SATMAGAN Magnetite %, it was seen to be

feasible to apply a calibration factor to the SATMAGAN Magnetite % to produce an

equivalent DTR (eDTR) mass recovery. The SATMAGAN Magnetite % is already a

component modelled in the resource calculations and the calibration factors could

be applied to the resource blocks. With this in mind, calibration factors have been

created for the resource blocks which make up the RPIP.

The next stage of this study is to create a JORC‐compliant Mass Recovery Resource

using the same principle. It is also planned to better define the magnetite grade

wireframes by using the downhole magnetic susceptibility.



Introduction

The purpose of this study is to understand magnetite recovery across the Razorback Premium Iron

Project (RPIP). At present, the resource at Razorback is stated as a Fe % head grade which may not

represent mass recovery of magnetite in the deposit. This work is preliminary and will initially be

used in providing input to mass recovery parameters for the mining optimization by consultants

“Orelogy” for the Prefeasibility Study (PFS). Eventually, the results from this work will go towards a

method to formulate a Mass Recovery JORC Resource.

Background

Geology

This study is on the magnetite‐rich siltstones and diamicrites (tillites) of the Neoproterozoic Braemar

Iron Formation at RPIP. The RPIP consists of a continuum of prospects (i.e. Razorback West‐

Razorback Ridge‐Interzone‐Iron Peak) along approximately 12 km of strike length (see Appendix I).

The stratigraphy in the RPIP area was well defined by previous work by the South Australian

Department of Mines (SADM) during the 1970s as a sequence of units from A to G, as illustrated in

Figure 1. The focus of work by Royal and SADM has been on Unit B, however Units A, D and G show

evidence of mineralization, and are included in the current JORC Resource at the RPIP and in this

study.

Figure 1. Stratigraphy of the RPIP area.



The three main sedimentary facies (or ore types) identified within the RPIP and are best exemplified

by Unit B, as seen in Figure 2. The base of Unit B is Unit B1, which consists of bedded magnetite‐rich

siltstone and often contains the highest iron and magnetite contents. This is overlain by Unit B2 ‐ a

diamicrite containing a varying amount of metasedimentary and granitic dropstones. At the top of

the sequence is Unit B3, which made up of an interlaminated magnetitic siltstone / dolomitic

sandstone. A repeat of this sequence is observed in Unit D.

Units A, C and G do not show the cyclic characteristics of Units B and D, but consist of a mixture of

magnetite‐rich siltstone and interlaminated magnetitic siltstone / dolomitic sandstones, often

characterised by the presence of chlorite.

Figure 2. Ore types of Unit B, Razorback Ridge.

Mineralogy

Iron mineralogy at the RPIP is summarised below and is best illustrated in Figure 3 :

Magnetite, which consists of individual subhedral to euhedral grains in the size range 30 –

120 µm diameter.

Hematite, with irregular to platy / lathlike crystals ranging from 1 ‐ 20 µm diameter.

Also evident is martite, which is partial or full replacement of the magnetite grains by

hematite.



Note also, composite grains containing both fine hematite and magnetite have also been

observed in thin sections that are either diagenetic or metamorphic in origin.

Both magnetite and hematite show similar characteristics in both the diamicritic and

bedded/interlaminated ore types, but generally diamicritic ore contains less magnetite.

Figure 3. Subhedral magnetite grains (pinkish grey), with finer laths of hematite (light grey) within a

gangue of quartz, dolomite and phyllosilocates (Pontifex and Associates).

Data used in the Study

The data included in the study has been derived from diamond core and RC (reverse circulation)

drilling samples from drilling by Royal Resources between 2010 and 2012. The data includes:

1. Geological logging by Royal Resources.

2. XRF (X‐ray fluorescence) to identify Fe content (by ALS and AMDEL Perth).

3. SATMAGAN (Saturation Magnetization Analyser) magnetic content of XRF pulps. ALS Perth

provides a “Magnetics or Magnetite %”, which is a value on each sample calibrated from in‐

house standards of known magnetite percentage. Further instrument information can be

found in Appendix II.

4. Davis Tube Recovery (DTR) percentages of 45 micron grind (by ALS and Amdel Perth).

Procedure described in Appendix III.



5. Thin Section Petrology by Pontifex and Associates Pty Ltd.

The composited samples used in this study represent units, sub‐units or geologically similar sections

of stratigraphy and vary from 4 to 30 metres in thickness. Compositing was done once XRF and

magnetic susceptibility results were received. A subset of 96 representative drill holes were selected

from 204 drill holes that make up the RRIP Resource. Over 500 composites were used in the study,

with drill holes selected for the work displayed in plan in Appendix I and a summary of results in

Appendix IV and V.

Ball Mill v Ring Mill

Davis Tube Recovery is widely used in the North American and Australian iron ore industries to

predict magnetite recovery in a laboratory, with the ring pulveriser method (i.e. Povey 1997) the

most common method for grinding material. However, John Clout and Associates, the consultants

managing the Metallurgy in the RPIP PFS, have suggested that the ring mill gives artificially high

liberation of magnetite from gangue which cannot be repeated economically in a real process plant

and that a Bond Ball Mill may provide a better representation of the processing product.

To test the effects of milling on DTR recovery of ore samples from Razorback, 36 composite samples

(Samples D0001 to D0036) from 4 drill holes were milled with the different methods at Amdel,

Perth. The results are illustrated in Figure 4. The overall average DTR by Ball Mill method was 15.5%

(std = 6.4%) and a concentrate grade of 64.4% Fe, while the Ring Mill method recovery was 15.1%

(std = 6.1%) and a concentrate grade of 66.4% Fe. Of the 36 samples, there are two examples (e.g.

D0006 and D0020) where the Ball Mill method is significantly higher than the Ring Mill Method (by

11% and 4.6% respectively). When these two samples are take out of the equation, the Ring Mill and

Ball Mill methods have identical DTR averages of 15.3%, however the Ring Mill still produces a higher

Fe concentrate grade of 66.3%, whereas the Ball Mill produces a concentrate grade of 64.9% Fe. This

difference in concentrate grade may reflect the Ring Mill grinding method producing a pulverised

product where the DTR is picking up non magnetite components such as hematite (as suggested by

John Clout and Associates). However, given the large cost differences between methods (i.e. Ball Mill

significantly more expensive the Ring Mill), turn around of samples and the similar mass recoveries

achieved, the Ring Mill method was chosen over the Ball Mill in this study, but with a word of

caution regarding concentrate products achieved.



Figure 4. Mass recovery comparison between Ring Mill and Ball Mill

Fe % and DTR / SATMAGAN

In examining both the grade tonnage curves and the DTR data at the RPIP, it is evident that Fe head

grade and magnetic content / DTR mass recovery cannot be directly correlated.

Grade Tonnage Curves

Observing the Grade Tonnage curves for Razorback / Razorback West and Iron Peak Resources, it

is evidence that the two deposits potentially have differing relationships between magnetite

content and Fe head grade. The Razorback / Razorback West Grade Tonnage curve (Figure 5)

shows that above approximately 25% Fe head grade, there is a general relationship between an

increase in Fe head grade and an increase in ALS SATMAGAN Magnetite %. However, below the

25% Fe mark, as Fe head grade decreases, the ALS SATMAGAN Magnetite content remains at

about 15%. This suggest that at Razorback there is a large portion of the deposit (i.e. 750 Million

tonnes) that has similar magnetite content but varying iron, which is most likely held in non

magnetite species such as hematite. This is in contrast to Iron Peak (Figure 6), where the

changes in the ALS Magnetite % and Fe % head grade remain parallel through the entire tonnage

curve and Fe content is generally dictated by the degree of magnetite mineralisation. Also note

Iron Peak Resource has a higher SATMAGAN head grade in the resource, in comparison to

Razorback / Razorback West Resource. Overall, SATMAGAN data (and the DTR mass Recovery)

suggest Iron Peak contains a higher magnetite grade / mass recovery than Razorback and

Razorback West. A non‐JORC estimate suggests Razorback and Razorback West ore body has



mass recoveries around 15% Magnetite, while the Iron Peak ore body has recoveries around

17% Magnetite.

Figure 5. Razorback / Razorback West Grade Tonnage Curve.

Figure 6. Iron Peak Grade Tonnage Curve.



DTR and Fe Head Grade

When DTR recovery and Fe grade is compared (Figure 7) over the entire dataset from Razorback

Ridge, Razorback West and Iron Peak, it is also evident that there is only a broad general trend

between increase of Fe % with DTR Mass Recovery. Note Razorback West and to a lesser degree Iron

Peak, have lesser iron units in compassion to Razorback, while having almost similar ranges of DTR

mass recovery. Razorback Ridge Deposit has an average Fe head grade of around 25%, higher than

Iron Peak at 21% and Razorback West at ~ 19%. The line annotated in Figure 7 is interpreted as a

natural boundary where most of the iron units are taken up into magnetite. Deviation from this line

in the direction of the arrows (SE direction of the graph) is where Fe is most likely taken up by

hematite, +/‐ minor chlorite and dolomite.

Also evident is the variation between Fe grades versus DTR Mass Recovery with the different

geological units, as demonstrated in Figure 8. In general, Units A, G and C (Dataset 1 in Figure 8)

have lower iron content and are positioned near the interpreted line as seen in Figure 7, where most

of the iron is most likely is taken up in magnetite. Whereas Unit B (Dataset 2 in Figure 8) shows

similar DTR ranges, it generally has a broader spread of data, and generally shows higher Fe grade.

These higher Fe grades are attributed to an increase in hematite. Unit D tends to depict a mixture of

both datasets. Thin section is required to look at the different datasets described above to better

understand these differences.

Figure 7. DTR mass recovery versus Fe % for the entire dataset. See text to explain line and arrows.



Figure 8. DTR mass recovery versus Fe % for the entire dataset, depicting different geological units.

SATMAGAN and DTR

As part of Royal Resources’ routine XRF analysis of resource definition drilling samples, a SATMAGAN

analysis of each sample is carried out. SATMAGAN is a laboratory device which determines magnetic

material content of a given material. ALS provides the results as Magnetite or Magnetic %.

When comparing SATMAGAN and DTR mass recovery of all the data measured in this study, the

correlation between the two methods is quite reasonable, with a correlation co‐efficient of 0.78.

However, when sub‐setting the data into variables (e.g. different drilling methods, oxidation state

and geology) there is even better correlation in most cases.



Figure 9. DTR mass recovery versus ALS SATMAGAN Magnetite %, for the entire dataset, depicting

different deposits

Oxidation

When examining the SATMAGAN and downhole magnetic susceptibility from drilling across the RPIP

deposits, it becomes evident that there is partial oxidation of magnetite near surface, as magnetic

susceptibility is supressed. This zone of partial oxidation has been mapped as a surface in

Micromine, (an example from a drilling section is shown in Figure 10). The depth varies across the

deposit from 5 metres in parts of Razorback Ridge, to 80 metres at the eastern edge of deposit near

major drainage, but in most cases it is on average ~ 30m vertical depth. While the DTR data is

restricted to 29 samples from over 500 analyses, it is evident that DTR from these partially

weathered samples near surface behave differently to the fresh material and samples have a

tendency to show lower SATMAGAN readings when compared to the fresher samples (Figure 11).

This difference is more prevalent in the bedded / interlaminated samples than in diamicrititic / tillitic

samples, where thin section analysis shows partial magnetite (martite) oxidation to hematite. The

martite grains appear to have sufficient magnetic pull in the DTR process to be recovered.

Further DTR sampling of the partially oxidised sections of the resource are underway.



Figure 10. Razorback drill section with interpreted surface of base of oxidation (red line).

Figure 11. DTR mass recovery versus ALS SATMAGAN Magnetite %, for partially weathered and fresh

material



DTR and Drilling Methods

When splitting the diamond and RC samples into subsets it is evident that the different drilling

methods show variation in the relationship between DTR mass recovery and SATMAGAN Magnetite

% (Figure 12). Firstly, the diamond samples shower a stronger correlation coefficient (i.e. R2 = 0.91)

than the RC samples (i.e. R2 = 0.72). Secondly, the line of best fit suggests RC DTR mass recovery % is

nearly equal to the DTR Mass Recovery %, in comparison to diamond sampling where SATMAGAN

magnetite % usually overestimates DTR Mass Recovery by approximately 20%. And finally, the

diamond core appears to have more data points above the 25% DTR mass recovery than RC drill

samples.

Questions remain on why the two drilling methods provide different results. Diamond core samples

provide the closest representation of the rock material tested and is the traditional and

recommended sample media by metallurgists for DTR analysis. It is possible the RC samples may be

affected by issues such as overgrinding at the bit face while drilling, which could effect the sample

preparation later in the DTR laboratory. In addition, other issues at the RC drill site may include:

contamination, loss of lighter material through the cyclone as dust, and sample settling issues in the

drillhole, sampling cyclone or during splitting.

Figure 12. DTR mass recovery versus ALS SATMAGAN Magnetite %, depicting different drilling

methods. Note the partially oxidized material is removed from the dataset.



Notes on Individual Deposits

The following are preliminary observations of the DTR recovery characteristics of each individual

deposit. Further work will be done during the optimization, once the PFS is completed.

Razorback Ridge

When comparing the DTR Recovery and ALS SATMAGAN Magnetite % with RC and diamond

data combined (n = 290), they show a reasonable correlation coefficient of 0.78. RC and

Diamond data show slightly better correlation when separated (Figure 13).

Examining DTR intersections taken from 35 drill holes at Razorback Ridge, DTR recovery over

(predominantly) Units B and D are shown to have a range of 10% and 16% Mass Recovery,

with an average of ~ 14% Mass Recovery and 68% Fe concentrate. Highest recoveries are

achieved in Unit B1 (see Figure 14).

A clear distinction can be made between Unit B, and Units C and A with regards to overall Fe

grades versus DTR recovery (Figure 14).

Mass recovery at Razorback Ridge appears to show lower recoveries to that of Razorback

West and Iron Peak, predominantly because Unit B2 is a large portion (~ 35%) of the

resource that drags the overall recovery down. The 20 to 35m interval of Unit B2 at

Razorback Ridge has a range of 8 to 14% DTR recovery (Figure 14) with an average of around

11%, with concentrates averaging around 69% Fe. Within Unit B2, there is a ~ 10m thick

“dead zone” at the base which has very little magnetite, overlain by a 5 to 7m zone of DTR

mass recoveries of 18 to 21%. Further work may be required to sub‐divide unit B2 and

allocate the poorly mineralised zone as internal waste.

Unit A (sitting in the footwall of the current resource) at Razorback Ridge is 30 to 70m thick

and contains several medium to high grade zones of 10 to 30 meters thickness that has had

limited testing. In most cases, drilling only partially intersects the unit. Best intersections

are summarized in Figure 15.



Figure 13. DTR mass recovery versus ALS SATMAGAN Magnetite %, depicting different drilling

methods at Razorback Ridge. Note the partially oxidized material is removed from the dataset.



Figure 14. DTR mass recovery versus Fe % for the Razorback Ridge dataset, depicting different

geological units.

Figure 15. Summary of Unit A intersections, Razorback Ridge.



Razorback West

At Razorback West, all the geological units begin to thin in a converging manner to the west.

However, while the mineralized units thin, so does the internal waste. In addition, Units A

and G are included in the resource and portions of Unit C also show low grade magnetite

mass recovery. The consequence of this is there are several areas where very thick

intersections of mineralization are present (see Appendix V).

When comparing the DTR Recovery versus ALS SATMAGAN Magnetite % with RC and

diamond data combined (n = 160), they show a reasonable correlation coefficient of 0.82.

While Diamond data shows a very high correlation coefficient of 0.96, the RC only shows a R2

= 0.70 when the data sets are separated.

While not as prevalent as at Razorback Ridge, there is a distinction of Unit B from Units G

and A regarding differences in Fe content (Figure 16).

While Unit B1 begins to thin to the west, the mass recoveries are higher than what is

observed at Razorback Ridge Deposit (Figure 16).

Figure 16. DTR mass recovery versus Fe % for the Razorback West dataset, depicting different

geological units.



Iron Peak

While over 150 DTR analyses were submitted to ALS from the Iron Peak drilling, only 70 samples

were completed by the time this report was prepared. Observations are:

The Diamond and RC drilling combined dataset of 70 samples gives a correlation coefficient

between DTR mass recovery and SATMAGAN Mag % of 0.92, the best of the three deposits.

Once more data has been received, a comparison between drilling types can be made.

In many cases, Unit B2 was not put through for DTR analysis because Magnetite % from the

ALS SATMAGAN suggested the grade was too low (<10% Mag), while Fe head grade was

around 18% Fe. Geological observations suggest B2 at Iron Peak (and Interzone) is coarser

grained and contains higher levels of sand‐size lithic fragments.

While Unit A has a broad range of magnetite content, there are some rich zones of the most

magnetite rich material some 10‐20m thick of > 30% DTR Mass Recovery located in the Iron

Peak fold hinge area (Figure 17 and 18).

Figure 17. DTR mass recovery versus ALS SATMAGAN Magnetite %, depicting different geological

units at Iron Peak Prospect.



Figure 18. Cross Section at Iron Peak – Western extent, hinge area. Image displays distribution of

mass recovery with local highs of 44% DTR Mass Recovery for hole RRDD0113 (right) within Unit A.



DTR and downhole magnetic susceptibility

Work is in progress to compare downhole magnetic susceptibility data collected after drilling with

the DTR mass recovery data. Given nearly all holes were wireline logged at 10 cm intervals, there is

an extensive dataset representing the entire RPIP. An example of two diamond holes from

Razorback West shows a reasonable correlation in Figure 18. The greatest challenge is getting depth

calibration between log depths and drilling depths.

Figure 18. DTR mass recovery versus downhole magnetic susceptibility, for two diamond holes

located within Razorback West.

Discussion and Conclusions

A summary of work can be made as follows:

Fe % head grade can only be used as a very rough guide to magnetite mass recovery within

the RPIP. Primarily this is because of the addition of hematite to the system, which varies in

content over the three deposits, as well as within the various geological units.

Razorback Sub‐Units A, G and C appear to have most of the iron taken up in magnetite,

however this needs to be confirmed by thin section analysis.

While quite variable, Units B and D often have higher Fe Head grade and contain a higher

proportion of hematite.

The Razorback Ridge Deposit appears to have a higher portion of iron taken up in hematite

than Razorback West and Iron Peak Deposits.



SATMAGAN Magnetite % and DTR Mass Recovery % show strong correlation throughout the

data in this study. However with a further sub setting of data taking oxidation levels, geology

and drilling type into account, a better correlation can be achieved.

SATMAGAN of RC/diamond samples and downhole magnetic susceptibility suggests there is

a partial weathering of magnetite near surface at RPIP. Petrology suggests magnetite is

partially martised. As expected, the magnetic susceptibility is lower in the partially

weathered zone.

DTR analysis of partially weathered material suggests this is still recoverable as the martised

grains still contain remnant magnetite. The DTR data of partially weathered material has a

unique correlation between STAMAGAN Magnetite % and DTR Mass Recovery.

Diamond and RC drilling methods show variation in the relationship between DTR mass

recovery and SATMAGAN Magnetite %. While the line of best fit shows RC SATMAGAN Mag

% and DTR mass recoveries as almost equal value, the diamond core SATMAGAN Mag %

overestimates the DTR mass recovery %. However, the diamond core data shows a superior

correlation coefficient over the RC data.

Razorback Ridge, Razorback West and Iron Peak Deposits show different correlations

between DTR mass recovery and SATMAGAN Magnetite %.

For the purpose of the pit optimization carried out by Orelogy Consulting for the PFS, an idea

of the mass recovery of magnetite across the deposit was required as a significant

parameter in the “Whittle” mining optimization software. Given the strong correlation

between DTR Mass Recovery and SATMAGAN Magnetite %, it would appear feasible to apply

a calibration factor to the SATMAGAN Magnetite % to produce an equivalent DTR (eDTR)

mass recovery. The SATMAGAN Magnetite % is already a component modelled in the

resource calculations by Widenbar and Associates and the calibration factors could be

applied to the resource blocks. With this in mind, calibration factors have been created for

the resource blocks which make up the RPIP.

Until more data has been collected over the three different deposits, a single calibration

factor has been applied to the resource blocks within the partially oxidised portion of the

resource:

eDTR (oxidised material) mass recovery = 1.147 x (ALS SATMAGAN magnetite %) + 5.98

For the 3 separate deposits in the Fresh Zone, the RC and diamond data has been combined

together to produce a single calibration factor, as the blocks modelled already represent a

combination of RC and diamond data.

eDTR (Razorback Ridge) mass recovery = 0.779 x (ALS magnetite %) + 3.00

eDTR (Iron Peak ) mass recovery = 0.795 x (ALS magnetite %) + 2.13

eDTR (Razorback West) mass recovery = 0.709 x (ALS magnetite %) + 3.82



Further Work

Further sub‐setting of the database and applying calibration formulas to produce eDTR

(equivalent DTR mass recovery %) to ultimately provide a Mass Recovery JORC Resource.

This may require treating the diamond and RC data differently and potentially looking at

differences in calibration factors for each geological unit.

Further analysis of the partially weathered material near surface when new DTR data is

received to increase the validity of that part of the database.

Further thin section analysis to examine the variation in the distribution of iron species in

Units A, G, and C, versus what is seen in Unit B. Also, further thin section reflected‐light

petrology is required on the partially oxidised portion of the deposit.

Make comparison of down hole magnetic susceptibility data and DTR Mass Recovery. If

adequate correlation is achieved, then it may be possible to use the downhole magnetic

susceptibility in a subsequent mass recovery Resource. With better definition of the

magnetite rich zones with more detailed wire framing, eliminate low grade zones as internal

waste which will ultimately improve the mass recovery grades of the deposit (e.g. Unit B2).

Use the eDTR modelling in 3D geological software such as “Leapfrog” to get a better

geological understanding of the magnetite distribution in RPIP and determine “hotspots” for

further drilling in “near mine exploration”.

Further drilling of Unit A at Razorback Ridge to increase the overall mass recovery (and

resource tonnes) of the deposit. Alternatively, Unit A could ultimately replace Unit B2 in the

resource, if B2 is deemed “uneconomic” at the beneficiations plant or in the mining

optimization.



Appendix I – Location of Diamond Drill holes



Appendix II – SATMAGAN Details

SATMAGAN

MODEL 135

SATuration MAGnetization ANalyser

October 2005

SATMAGAN S135 MAGNETIC ANALYZER

GENERAL

Measuring the total magnetic moment of a sample in a saturating magnetic field is a quick accurate and reliable method of measuring the magnetic material content of the sample. It is much faster than chemical methods and far more accurate than measurement based on the susceptibility of the material. The principle behind the Satmagan is to measure the force acting on the sample in a magnetic field with a spatial gradient. The magnetic field is strong enough to saturate the magnetic component in the sample. A Satmagan can be used to measure any sample with only one magnetic component. Alternatively, it can measure a component with a dominant concentration and/or dominant specific magnetic moment. With a measuring time of roughly one minute and accuracies as good as 0.2 per cent, a Satmagan is an ideal tool for analyzing mixtures of magnetic and non-magnetic components.

FEATURES

- Maximum error 0.2% of the measurement range - Analysis time roughly one minute - Two ranges:

0 to 100% of material to be measured 0 to 200% to bring the 100% point to the middle of the scale

- Powders and solid samples alike can be measured - The weight of the sample is not critical; generally 1 to 7 grams are used. - Stabilized for voltage and temperature

APPLICATIONS

Analysis of magnetite in iron ores, concentrates and tailings. The Satmagan was designed specially to measure magnetite in iron ore concentrators. Magnetite is saturated in the field of the Satmagan and the measurement is made to the specific accuracy. Control of copper and nickel smelting by analyzing magnetite and other ferromagnetic oxides in slag. The instrument is suitable for controlling sulphide concentrate smelting by measuring the magnetite content of slag. Satmagans are used at many flash smelters to measure slags in a copper flash smelter and converters and in a nickel flash smelter and electric smelter. It is not suitable for controlling slags in a nickel converter, because ferromagnetic metallic nickel disturbs the measurement. No metallic nickel is involved in the other stages of smelting. A Satmagan does not react to magnetite dissolved in the slag. The magnetite has to be separated to form an independent phase. So the sample must be tempered before the measurement. Determination of martensite or ferrite in austenitic steels. It has been found that the Satmagan is very suitable for measuring delta ferrite and martensite in austentic steel. In both cases the same calibration curve can be used. The instrument is also suitable for measuring alpha ferrite. Determination retained austenite in steels. The sample is highly ferromagnetic and the percentage of austenite is very small. So factors affecting the accuracy of the measurement become significant. Satmagan measurements have successfully been made with steels in which the ferromagnetic phase represents 0 to 80 per cent of sample. Control of magnetizing roasting. Magnetizing roasting is a process in which hematite ore, Fe2O3, is deoxidized by carbon to yield magnetite Fe3O4, for magnetic concentration. The magnetite can be measured with a Satmagan. Control of oxidizing roasting of carbonate ores. The amount of magnetite in the process can be measured with a Satmagan. Controlling the heat hardening of pellets. Pellets made of hematite or magnetite ore and carbon are heated with air to yield iron. The quantity of iron can be determined from Satmagan measurements. Control of iron ore sintering. A bed made of an iron concentrate-carbon mix is heated with air to obtain iron. The quantity of iron can be measured with a Satmagan.

PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION

The operation of the Satmagan is based on measurement of the magnetic moment m after the magnetic component in the sample has been magnetized for saturation. The total magnetic moment is: m = VMsat V = volume of the magnetic component in the sample Msat = saturation magnetization of the magnetic component In the Satmagan, the magnetic moment is determined by measuring the force acting on the sample in a non-homogeneous magnetic field – a field having a vertical gradient of (dH/dz) – and comparing it with the gravitational force acting on the sample: F/G = [m(dH/dz)]/gmtot = [VMsat(dH/dz)]/gmtot = [Msat(dH/dz)]/gp * mm/mtot F = magnetic force G = gravitational force (weight) g = gravitational constant (9.8 m/s2) mtot = total mass of the sample mm = mass of the magnetic component in the sample p = density of the magnetic component The percentage of magnetic material in the sample is thus: 100 * msat/mtot = 100 * (pg)/[msat(dH/dz)] * F/G Measuring the ratio of the magnetic to the gravitational force (F/G) and multiplying this by a coefficient gives the percentage of the magnetic component in the sample. The proportionality coefficient: 100 * (pg)/[msat(dH/dz)] Contains natural coefficients (p, g, msat) and an instrument constant (dH/dz). msat is much better material constant than susceptibility, which is often used in determining the content of magnetic materials in the samples. There is no exact linear dependence of the concentration on the quotient of forces at high concentrations of iron ore magnetite. The measurement is accurate and reliable but, owing to the non-linearity, a calibration curve is always required.

CALIBRATION

Every Satmagan is calibrated empirically. The output reading of the Satmagan is an almost linear function of the magnetic material content of the sample. The calibration curve can be drawn from measurement results obtained with a set of artificial samples made by mixing pure magnetite and silicon.

SAMPLE PREPARATION

Powders: It is important for the sample to be dry, because the Satmagan indicates the percentage of magnetic material in the total weight. In magnetite measurements, excessive grinding may oxidize the material to a non-magnetic form, especially in dry grinding. For the same reason, excessive heating during drying should be avoided. Solid samples: Samples fitting well into the containers are preferable. For the best accuracy, all the samples should have the same shape and size.

RESULTS

Accurate analysis of ferromagnetic compounds of iron, such as magnetite, is extremely difficult and time-consuming by chemical methods. These difficulties can be overcome by utilizing the magnetic properties of the material. The design and principle of operation of the Satmagan assure a high degree of precision, combined with a measurement procedure that is quick and simple.

TECHNICAL DATA

Materials for analyses: Magnetite and magnetic iron can be analyzed. The sample can contain only one magnetic component, or have one component with a dominant concentration and/or specific magnetic moment. Typical applications are listed on pages 1 and 2. Type of sample:

- solid or powder samples - maximum volume of sample 1.2cm3 (0.2 cubic inch) - recommended sample size: sample container filled up (solid or powder) - grain size: An average grain size greater than 150um (100 mesh) does not

disturb the measurements. For finer materials, the Satmagan gives slightly lower readings, so a different calibration curve is required.

The range of measurement

- 0 to 100% by weight - 0 to 200% by weight for high contents

Reproducibility

0.2% by weight Limit of detection Usually 0.1% by weight. Sample containers

- An acrylic container has a sample volume of 1.2cm3 (0.2 cubic inches). Its plug is made of polyethylene.

- Average weight: container 1010mg, plug 543mg. - The weight distribution of sample containers is approx. +/- 5mg, corresponding

to an error +/- 0.12% in a 4g sample. The weight distribution of plugs is approx. +/- 1mg, corresponding to an error of +/- 0.08% in a 4g sample.

Operating temperature range:- +10C to +40C (+50F to +100F) Ambient humidity :- Up to 95% relative Controls

- power switch - range switch - sample weight balancing knob - crank for turning magnet

Line voltage 210…240V or 110…130V (to be specified when ordering). Line frequency 50 to 60Hz Power consumption 10W Other data

- Magnetic field around the sample 4 kGauss - Sensitivity of zero indicator approx. 4mg/mm. - The instrument can be leveled by means of two threaded feet. There is a

bubble level on the instrument frame. Overall dimensions

- length 64cm (26in.) - width 34cm (13.5in.) - height 37cm (15in.) - weight 63kg(145lbs.)net.

Export package

- length 97cm (38in.) - width 56cm (22in.) - height 56cm (22in.) - weight 95kg (210lbs.)gross

Further information, quotations, and ordering procedures please contact:- INDEPENDENT INSTRUMENTS Pty Ltd 18b Unionway Commercial Centre 283 Queens Road Central Hong Kong Phone + 852 2541-0378 Fax + 852 2541-0578 email:- [email protected]

www.indehk.com



Appendix III – DTR Procedure

45 micron Davis Tube Recovery (DTR) Analysis Procedure Pulverizing Crush the sample to 100% below 3.35mm Separate a sample of 150gm for pulverizing in a C125 ring pulverizer (record weight) – DTR SAMPLE For soft ferro-silicate rocks - initially pulverize the 150gm sample for 60 seconds Wet screen the DTR sample at XX (38, 45, 75 etc) micron and dry the products. Record the oversize weights – if less than approximately 20gm is oversize, stop the procedure – failure. If failure - select another 150 gm DTR Sample and reduce the initial pulverization time by 5 secs, repeat until initial grind pass returns greater than approximately 20 gm oversize. Once achieved retain the – XX micron undersize. Regrind only the oversize for 1 second for every 5 gms of oversize sample weight Repeat the wet screening, drying and weighing stages until less than 5gm above 45 micron remains. Ensure the remaining < 5gm oversize is returned back into the previously retained -45 micron undersize. Report the times and weights for each grind pass phase. Combine and homogenize all retained -XX micron aliquots and <5gm oversize, pressure filter and dry, break up and de-lump dried material with 1mm sieve and dry rehomogenize - final pulverized product Sub-sample the final pulverized product to give a 20gm feed sample for DTR work and a ~10g sample for HEAD analysis via XRF or ICP fusion. The objective of the pulverizing procedure is to achieve a nominal P80 of approximately 70% of 45 micron screen. Davis Tube Recovery (DTR) Analysis The nominal procedure has the following condition: Pulverizer bowl 150 ml Stroke Frequency 60/minute Stroke length – 38mm Magnetic field strength – 3000 gauss Tube Angle – 45 degrees Tube Diameter – 40mm Water flow rate – 540-590 ml/min Washing time 20 minutes Collect the concentrate in small collector (magnetic fraction) and discard tails. Check that:

The wash water near the end of 20minutes is clear and not still washing out slime. That there are no retained slimes above the magnetic point - allowing the flow to stop and then resume to

wash out any material retained in the meniscus may correct this issue. If this is a consistent issue then use teepol or similar additive in the feed water to reduce surface tension effects.

Assaying (usually XRF Fusion) Head Sample Using the Head Sample, analyse by XRF or ICP fusion method for the following elements: Al2O3 %, As % , Ba % , CaO % , Cl % , Co % , Cr % , Cu % , Fe % , K2O % , MgO % , Mn % , Na2O % , Ni % , P % , Pb % , S % , SiO2 % , Sn % , Sr % , TiO2 % , V % , Zn % , Zr % & LOI. DTR Concentrate Sample Dry the DTR concentrate and report the weight of the concentrate as a percentage of measured feed and report – DTR Mass Recovery. Analyse concentare by XRF or ICP fusion method for the following elements: Al2O3 %, As % , Ba % , CaO % , Cl % , Co % , Cr % , Cu % , Fe % , K2O % , MgO % , Mn % , Na2O % , Ni % , P % , Pb % , S % , SiO2 % , Sn % , Sr % , TiO2 % , V % , Zn % , Zr % & LOI Report DTR Mass Recovery, pulverizing times, pulverizing weights and XRF/ICP Head & Concentrate Assays.



Appendix IV – DTR Intersections

Hole_ID Prospect Intersections

RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge 25m @ 17.0% DTR Recovery, 67.4% Fe Concentrate



RRDD0106 Razorback Ridge 59.9m @ 10.5% DTR Recovery, 69.7% Fe Concentrate










RRRC0001 Razorback Ridge 74m @ 12.8% DTR Recovery, 69.8% Fe Concentrate


























RRRC0097 Razorback Ridge 94m @ 10% DTR Recovery, 70.1% Fe Concentrate











RRDD0112 Razorback West 17m @ 21.6% DTR Recovery, 66.9% Fe Concentrate


RRRC0236 Razorback West 26m @ 16.2% DTR Recovery, 67.1% Fe Concentrate


































RRDD0125 Razorback West 13.7m @ 15.6% DTR Recovery, 67.0% Fe Concentrate



































RRRC0223 Razorback West 18m @ 18.5% DTR Recovery, ##% Fe Concentrate



RRRC0275 Iron Peak 18m @ 17.8% DTR Recovery, 70.0% Fe Concentrate


















RRDD0113 Iron Peak 41m @ 18.4% DTR Recovery, 66.9% Fe Concentrate



RRDD0282 Iron Peak 16.75m @ 20.6% DTR Recovery, 69.4% Fe Concentrate





Appendix V – DTR Results

DTR ID HOLE_ID Prospect Unit_ID mFrom mTo interval Total Thickness Fe Head Grind Size micron ALS mag sus Mag% Mass recovery % Fe cons% Mass Recovery average Fe Cons Averages

486129‐486135 RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge D3 11 17 6 6 24.17 45 2 4.36 NSS 4.360

486138‐486142 RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge D2 20 25 5 20.5 45 9.8 9.7 68.45

486143‐486147 RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge D2 25 29.66 4.66 21.08 45 9.8 10.37 67.25

486148‐486152 RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge D1 29.66 35 5.34 28.61 45 18.7 21.43 66.94

486153‐486157 RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge D1 35 40 5 28.74 45 18 20.75 68.51

486158‐486162 RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge D1 40 45 5 25 25.62 45 19.1 21.83 65.95 16.966 67.42

486173‐486177 RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge B3 104 109 5 28.82 45 16.6 18.56 69.76

486178‐486183 RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge B3 109 115.58 6.58 23.78 45 17 14.53 67.21

486184‐486188 RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge B2 115.58 121 5.42 19.76 45 12.8 6.91 NSS

486189‐486193 RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge B2 121 126 5 22 23.24 45 7 11.39 69.07 12.855 68.68




486214‐486218 RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge B1 146 151 5 18.7 45 3.6 3.38 NSS


486228‐486233 RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge B1 156 166 10 35 38.97 45 17.7 21.72 69.6 12.191 69.64


486594‐486599 RRDD0106 Razorback Ridge B3 27 32.94 5.94 26.18 45 1.09 2.17 NSS

486600‐486604 RRDD0106 Razorback Ridge B2 32.94 38 5.06 21.32 45 7 7.56 69.05







486640‐486645 RRDD0106 Razorback Ridge B1 68 76.9 8.9 59.9 34.61 45 19.7 20.24 70.44 10.480 69.67














486713‐486717 RRDD0107 Razorback Ridge B1 66 71 5 49 39.13 45 25.1 25.98 12.338 69.48











486565‐486569 RRDD0105 Razorback Ridge B2 62 66.48 4.48 39.48 22.51 45 11.7 11.53 68.19 10.607 67.97


486580‐486585 RRDD0105 Razorback Ridge B1 76 82 6 12 36.52 45 22.1 21.18 68.4 19.356 68

D00001 RRDD0112 Razorback West D3 31 41.7 10.7 25.6 45 17.9 16.85 66.48

D00002 RRDD0112 Razorback West D1 41.7 48 6.3 17 33.7 45 38.3 29.72 67.41 21.619 66.945

D00003 RRDD0112 Razorback West B3 78 89 11 24.5 45 31 21.34 67.13




D00007 RRDD0112 Razorback West A 125 127 2 49 12 45 14 14.28 61.14 18.346 66.018

D00008 RRDD0057 Razroback C 138 160 22 22 15.9 45 19 17 62.29 17.000 62.29

D00009 RRDD0057 Razorback Ridge B3 165 177 12 22 45 18 15.5 65.43

D00010 RRDD0057 Razorback Ridge B3 177 189 12 26.2 45 22 16.6 66.1

D00011 RRDD0057 Razorback Ridge B3 189 197 8 22 45 15.7 13.8 62.56

D00012 RRDD0057 Razorback Ridge B2 197 207 10 22.3 45 12.9 9.8 69.69

D00013 RRDD0057 Razorback Ridge B2 207 216 9 22 45 12.6 10.6 68.29


D00014 RRDD0057 Razorback Ridge B2 216 223 7 21.7 45 6 5 62.3

D00015 RRDD0057 Razorback Ridge B1 223 234 11 69 35.9 45 23 19 67.91 13.522 66.04

D00016 RRDD0049 Razroback C 124 148 24 24 14 45 11.7 12.8 65.72 12.800 65.72

D00017 RRDD0049 Razroback B3 153 175 22 16.1 45 20.6 17.4 66.22




D00021 RRDD0049 Razroback B2 207 218 11 22.4 45 10 9.1 69.62



D00024 RRDD0049 Razroback B1 226 238 12 85 33.1 45 21.9 18.4 68.67 14.909 67.535

480512‐480516 RRRC0001 Razorback Ridge B3 22 32 10 25.2 75 15.27 68.4

480517‐480521 RRRC0001 Razorback Ridge B3 32 42 10 26 75 16.43 70


480527‐480531 RRRC0001 Razorback Ridge B2 50 60 10 21.5 75 12 71




480546‐480549 RRRC0001 Razorback Ridge B1 88 96 8 74 29.2 75 13.93 69.7 12.844 69.775

D00037 RRRC0001 Razorback Ridge A 98 102 4 14.95 45 15.9 18.2 64.85




D00041 RRRC0001 Razorback Ridge A 114 118 4 20 14.2 45 9.7 10.9 63.69 15.128 64.96




480612‐480616 RRRC0002 Razorback Ridge B2 72 82 10 23 75 11.5 70.8



480627‐480631 RRRC0002 Razorback Ridge B1 100 110 10 72 30.3 75 14.47 69.6 11.966 69.89


D00043 RRRC0011 Razorback Ridge A 98 102 4 10 13 45 14.3 14.2 67.71 18.011 67.63







D00050 RRRC0043 A 144 150 6 6 16.5 16.3 17.5 68.59 17.500 68.59

D00109 RRRC0287 Dragon's Head 118 134 16 14.44 45 16.5 65.5

D00110 RRRC0287 Dragon's Head 134 150 16 32 14.67 45 17.95 64.76 17.225 65.13


D00112 RRRC0288 Dragon's Head 28 44 16 11 45 8.91 60.66



D00115 RRRC0288 Dragon's Head 72 80 8 8.45 45 5.94 NSS





D00122 RRDD0110 Manunda 38 42 4 45 12.8

D00123 RRDD0110 Manunda 42 44 2 45 20.2

D00124 RRDD0110 Manunda 44 50 6 45 38.2

D00125 RRDD0110 Manunda 50 56 6 45 42.4

D00126 RRDD0110 Manunda 56 60 4 45 33.9

D00127 RRDD0110 Manunda 60 66 6 45 15.2

D00128 RRDD0110 Manunda 66 74 8 45 14.8

D00129 RRDD0110 Manunda 74 76 2 45 16.2

D00130 RRDD0110 Manunda 76 82 6 45 16.9

D00131 RRDD0110 Manunda 82 88 6 45 17.4

D00132 RRDD0110 Manunda 88 94 6 45 19.3

D00133 RRDD0110 Manunda 94 100 6 45 23.4

D00134 RRDD0110 Manunda 100 106 6 45 25

D00135 RRDD0110 Manunda 106 108 2 45 23.5

D00136 RRDD0110 Manunda 108 114 6 45 24.6


D00137 RRDD0110 Manunda 114 119.4 5.4 81.4 45 22.2 23.087

D00143 RRRC0275 Iron Peak 36 54 18 18 26.66 45 14.99 17.75 69.98 17.750 69.98

D00144 RRRC0275 Iron Peak 72 80 8 21.1 45 13.7 12.9 70.47

D00145 RRRC0275 Iron Peak 80 86 6 19.25 45 7.3 6.75 NSS

D00146 RRRC0275 Iron Peak 86 96 10 25.07 45 19.6 20.4 68.02

D00147 RRRC0275 Iron Peak 96 108 12 15.66 45 17.5 17.3 65.08

D00148 RRRC0275 Iron Peak 108 126 18 15.59 45 14.6 13.9 68.44

D00149 RRRC0275 Iron Peak 126 152 26 80 19.14 45 20.3 22.3 65.59 17.316 67.52

D00150 RRRC0276 Iron Peak D 40 72 32 32 21.7 45 17.3 18.25 67.48 18.250 67.48

D00151 RRRC0276 Iron Peak C 86 94 8 8 13.65 45 15.2 14.7 66.38 14.700 66.38

D00152 RRRC0276 Iron Peak C 98 110 12 12 14.84 45 19.1 17.1 67.51 17.100 67.51

D00153 RRRC0276 Iron Peak B3 124 142 18 18 25.19 45 19.2 18.8 67.72 18.800 67.72

D00154 RRRC0276 Iron Peak B3 164 184 20 23.76 45 14.8 15.6 69.48

D00155 RRRC0276 Iron Peak B3 184 206 22 16.24 45 16.2 16.6 66.85

D00156 RRRC0276 Iron Peak B2 206 214 8 17.74 45 11.5 22 66.02

D00157 RRRC0276 Iron Peak B1 214 220 6 22.05 45 22 23.1 69.7

D00158 RRRC0276 Iron Peak A 220 230 10 66 18.4 45 21.1 22.7 64.32 18.467 67.27

D00159 RRRC0278 Iron Peak B3 74 92 18 18 25.6 45 17.2 20.2 69.38

D00160 RRRC0278 Iron Peak B2/B3 116 128 12 21.42 45 19.1 19.4 69.44

D00161 RRRC0278 Iron Peak B1 128 142 14 19.27 45 15.2 15.4 69.83

D00162 RRRC0278 Iron Peak A 142 152 10 36 10.54 45 17 10.2 65.45 15.289 68.24

D00163 RRRC0282 Iron Peak E 126 156 30 30 14.7 45 13.1 12.9 66.93 12.9 66.93

D00164 RRRC0282 Iron Peak E 164 170 6 6 13 45 14.9 13.3 69.52 13.3 69.52

D00165 RRRC0282 Iron Peak E 176 184 8 8 11.67 45 12.7 11.35 68.92 11.35 68.92

D00166 RRRC0282 Iron Peak D 188 214 26 23.94 45 19.9 19.3 70.84

D00167 RRRC0282 Iron Peak C 214 232 18 9.42 45 9.11 8.39 65.97

D00168 RRRC0282 Iron Peak C 232 240 8 52 14 45 17.3 16.1 68.27 15.031 68.36

D00169 RRRC0283 Iron Peak D 78 106 28 28 22.99 45 18.1 16.8 70.6 16.8 70.60

D00170 RRRC0283 Iron Peak C 118 126 8 8 13.01 45 15.1 12.5 67.91 12.5 67.91

D00171 RRRC0283 Iron Peak C 132 144 12 13.9 45 16.8 14.3 69.71

D00172 RRRC0283 Iron Peak C 144 154 10 22 10.82 45 10.7 9.67 68.47 12.195 69.09

D00173 RRRC0283 Iron Peak B3 168 190 22 22 25.68 45 17.5 15.45 71.37 15.45 71.37

D00174 RRRC0283 Iron Peak B1 212 228 16 23.68 45 18.44 16.8 70.94

D00175 RRRC0283 Iron Peak A 228 244 16 18.84 45 16.3 14.8 70.54

D00176 RRRC0283 Iron Peak A 244 258 14 46 16.42 45 17.4 15.95 68.26 15.846 69.91

D00182 RRDD0113 Iron Peak B3 55 61 6 16.21 45 12.3 10 65.36

D00183 RRDD0113 Iron Peak B3 61 67 6 32.09 45 34.1 27.7 69.74

D00184 RRDD0113 Iron Peak B3 67 70 3 22.18 45 7.1 6.15 NSS

D00185 RRDD0113 Iron Peak B3 70 79 9 29.36 45 22.4 19.5 67.54

D00186 RRDD0113 Iron Peak B3 79 86 7 28.09 45 20.2 17.05 67.87

D00187 RRDD0113 Iron Peak B3 86 96 10 41 26.9 45 24.6 21.4 64.21 18.378 66.94

D00188 RRDD0113 Iron Peak B2 126 132 6 23.42 45 13.4 10.05 69.29

D00189 RRDD0113 Iron Peak B1 132 138 6 25.71 45 21.4 16.5 69.17

D00190 RRDD0113 Iron Peak B1 138 145 7 20.28 45 12.2 10.65 62.29

D00191 RRDD0113 Iron Peak B1 145 150 5 27.7 45 27.8 23.8 61.39

D00192 RRDD0113 Iron Peak B1 150 156 6 34.28 45 38.5 32.8 65.63

D00193 RRDD0113 Iron Peak B1 156 162 6 15.86 45 8.9 7.93 59.74

D00194 RRDD0113 Iron Peak B1 162 171 9 15.49 45 21 18.35 63.18

D00195 RRDD0113 Iron Peak A 171 181 10 13.82 45 17.6 15.45 62.54

D00196 RRDD0113 Iron Peak A 181 191 10 12.77 45 13.6 11.55 61.29

D00197 RRDD0113 Iron Peak A 191 198 7 25.32 45 29.9 24.9 69.99

D00198 RRDD0113 Iron Peak A 198 211 13 12.62 45 15.8 13.15 65.58

D00199 RRDD0113 Iron Peak A 211 226 15 9.63 45 10.5 8.56 63.7

D00200 RRDD0113 Iron Peak A 226 231 5 17.86 45 25.3 20.8 66.25

D00201 RRDD0113 Iron Peak A 231 236 5 25.57 45 40.1 33.9 67.62

D00202 RRDD0113 Iron Peak A 236 242 6 17.76 45 27 23 63.7

D00203 RRDD0113 Iron Peak A 242 248 6 19.27 45 28 24.4 63.54

D00204 RRDD0113 Iron Peak A 248 254 6 17.75 45 26.1 22.7 61.4

D00205 RRDD0113 Iron Peak A 254 260 6 15.16 45 22 18.4 61.31

D00206 RRDD0113 Iron Peak A 260 263 3 7.32 45 6.2 6.87 NSS

D00207 RRDD0113 Iron Peak A 263 269 6 28.44 45 48.4 40.8 63.21

D00208 RRDD0113 Iron Peak A 269 275 6 31.85 45 54.6 44.1 67.4

D00209 RRDD0113 Iron Peak A 275 281 6 155 22.74 45 33.5 30.6 61.36 19.511 64.26571429

D00259 RRDD0282 Iron Peak C 246 258 12 15.7 45 21.8 18.95 65.85

D00260 RRDD0282 Iron Peak C 258 278 20 9.61 45 10 8.38 63.47

D00261 RRDD0282 Iron Peak B3 278 300 22 28.64 45 26.8 22.3 68.24


D00262 RRDD0282 Iron Peak B2 300 317 17 16.46 45 9 7.38 66.67

D00263 RRDD0282 Iron Peak B2 317 334 17 18.06 45 11.3 8.87 67.66

D00264 RRDD0282 Iron Peak B1 334 342 8 28.18 45 33.4 28.6 66.2

D00265 RRDD0282 Iron Peak A 342 359 17 113 19.94 45 21.5 21.5 66.71 15.541 66.4

D00266 RRDD0282 Iron Peak A 359.25 376 16.75 16.75 18.2 45 26.2 20.6 69.35 20.6 69.35

D00267 RRRC0236 Razorback West 10 26 16 24.57 45 17.35 68.34

D00268 RRRC0236 Razorback West 26 36 10 26 15.64 45 14.35 67.07 16.196 67.07






D00274 RRRC0246 Razorback West 36 42 6 18 45 18.75 68.53













D00287 RRRC0285 Iron Peak B1 0 16 16 30.03 45 15.25 67.96

D00288 RRRC0285 Iron Peak A 16 32 16 15.82 45 9 66.53

D00289 RRRC0285 Iron Peak A 32 52 20 13.08 45 12.8 64.92

D00290 RRRC0285 Iron Peak A 52 70 18 70 17.24 45 15.75 68.15 13.250 66.89

D00291 RRRC0285 Iron Peak A 92 114 22 21.61 45 28.4 67.27

D00292 RRRC0285 Iron Peak A 114 136 22 14.53 45 16.45 65.26

D00293 RRRC0285 Iron Peak A 136 154 18 62 30.25 45 41.5 67.07 27.963 66.53

D01112 RRRC0248 Razorback West E 12 44 32 17.05 45 12.3 17.7 67.87


D01114 RRRC0248 Razorback West E 74 100 26 14.24 45 14.9 15 67.87

D01115 RRRC0248 Razorback West D 100 130 30 118 14.94 45 12.6 12.85 66.04 15.529 67.27

D01116 RRRC0248 Razorback West C 138 160 22 13.46 45 11.6 13.6 66.96

D01117 RRRC0248 Razorback West B2 160 184 24 22.22 45 18.5 19.9 70.31


D01119 RRRC0248 Razorback West A 198 224 26 16.78 45 16.3 14.8 68.39




D01123 RRRC0248 Razorback West A 282 300 18 162 11.52 45 12.4 12.8 67.55 16.610 68.72

D01124 RRRC0232 Razorback West C 12 30 18 18 12.68 45 13.2 13.6 67.36 13.6 67.36



D01127 RRRC0232 Razorback West B1 94 110 16 72 26.66 45 18.1 19.55 71.41 16.729 70.18


D01129 RRRC0233 Razorback West D3‐2 32 58 26 26 22.94 45 15.6 18 67.47 18 67.47

D01130 RRRC0233 Razorback West D1 70 106 36 36 16.68 45 12.0 13.35 62.95 13.35 62.95

D01131 RRRC0233 Razorback West D2‐1 128 158 30 30 27.97 45 18.3 21.3 67.35 21.3 67.35



D01134 RRRC0233 Razorback West B3‐1 216 236 20 44 21.12 45 14.8 13.55 70.38 13.184 70.10


D01136 RRRC0238 Razorback West E‐D3 14 42 28 28 12.87 45 11.9 12 68.5 12 68.50

D01137 RRRC0238 Razorback West D2 52 66 14 17.75 45 11.2 11.85 68.36

D01138 RRRC0238 Razorback West D1‐C 66 90 24 38 22.11 45 15.8 16.6 68.76 14.850 68.56




D01142 RRRC0238 Razorback West B1 196 222 26 20.96 45 14.9 15.15 70

D01143 RRRC0238 Razorback West B2‐1 222 238 16 25.61 45 21.9 23.2 70.38




D01146 RRRC0245 Razorback West PL 70 78 8 8 16.22 45 19.6 20.6 67.62 20.6 67.62

D01147 RRRC0250 Razorback West G 216 242 26 18.06 45 15.2 18.8 66.27


D01149 RRRC0250 Razorback West G 272 300 28 84 14.92 45 14.7 15.2 66.77 17.029 66.42

D01150 RRRC0255 Razorback West G2 86 110 24 18.41 45 17.3 18.85 66.15


D01152 RRRC0255 Razorback West NR 148 178 30 92 13.75 45 13.1 15.85 64.16 16.529 65.06










D01162 RRRC0247 Razorback West D‐C 58 90 32 32 22.86 45 13.3 21 70.28 21 70.28

D01163 RRRC0247 Razorback West B3‐2 98 122 24 14.3 45 19.1 14.45 67.15



D01215 RRDD0125 Razorback West G 43 53 10 10 22.7 45 18.5 18.45 65.96 18.45 65.96

D01216 RRDD0125 Razorback West G 60 73.67 13.67 13.67 18.24 45 18.3 15.55 67 15.55 67.00

D01217 RRDD0125 Razorback West G 88 115 27 17.3 45 22.1 19.25 64.53


D01219 RRDD0125 Razorback West G 132 147.25 15.25 59.25 17.8 45 19.95 19.75 62.83 18.862 63.90

D01220 RRDD0125 Razorback West F 153 158 5 5 14.51 45 21.6 17.55 65.71 17.55 65.71

D01221 RRDD0125 Razorback West D3 209.16 223 13.84 11.82 45 15.4 13 65.96

D01222 RRDD0125 Razorback West D3 223 243 20 33.84 15.42 45 17.3 14.3 65.59 13.768 65.78

D01223 RRDD0125 Razorback West D3‐2 250 267.2 17.2 21.63 45 7.1 6.97 NSS

D01224 RRDD0125 Razorback West D1 267.2 277.7 10.5 27.7 28.96 45 24.1 19.7 67.42 11.795 67.42

D01225 RRDD0125 Razorback West C 287.2 292.65 5.45 5.45 16.42 45 23.9 18.9 64.64 18.9 64.64

D01226 RRDD0125 Razorback West B3 312.67 336 23.33 22.49 45 23.3 18.65 67.76

D01227 RRDD0125 Razorback West B2 336 348 12 35.33 20.95 45 15.3 12.05 70.06 16.408 68.91

D01228 RRDD0125 Razorback West B1 353 366.47 13.47 15.22 45 16.5 14.3 66.86

D01229 RRDD0125 Razorback West A 366.47 383.6 17.13 30.6 15.63 45 22.9 18.65 65.87 16.735 66.37

D01235 RRRC0261 Razorback West B2‐B1 16 42 26 27.01 45 17.8 28.7 66.66








D01243 RRRC0257 Razorback West D 112 132 20 17.42 45 18.1 16.15 66.06





D01248 RRRC0257 Razorback West B2‐B1 200 210 10 15.86 45 18.4 18.25 69.26


D01250 RRRC0255 Razorback West G 86 112 26 17.62 45 18.3 18.2 67


D01252 RRRC0255 Razorback West G 142 160 18 10.92 45 12 10.8 65.75




D01319 RRRC0265 Razorback West C 66 80 14 13.06 45 14 13.55 64.5






D01325 RRRC0263 Razorback West C 164 190 26 12.85 45 13.8 14 65.44







D01331 RRRC0267 Razorback West G1 178 186 8 8 15.92 45 16.4 17.55 63.85 17.55 63.85




D01335 RRRC0268 Razorback West G1 136 164 28 16.26 45 12 15.75 64.62



D01338 RRRC0268 Razorback West E 216 228 12 12 11.54 45 11.2 11.45 59.46 11.45 59.46










D01353 RRRC0286 Dragons Head 48 68 20 15.36 45 11.5 10.95 70.16


D01355 RRRC0286 Dragons Head 96 106 10 15.46 45 18.8 16 70.89



D01358 RRRC0286 Dragons Head 160 194 34 146 11.18 45 11.5 9.66 69.23 13.000 70.45

D01359 RRRC0286 Dragons Head 220 228 8 8 12.19 8.69 68.44 8.69 68.44


D01361 RRDD0222 Razorback West G 52 68 16 20.15 45 11.1 11 69.44


D01363 RRDD0222 Razorback West G 82 100 18 68 13.28 45 12.4 9.95 66.61 11.818 68.20

D01364 RRDD0222 Razorback West G 100.4 110 9.6 17.95 45 22.8 20.3 64.98






D01370 RRDD0222 Razorback West F 155 170 15 12.78 45 14.8 15.2 61.51










D01380 RRDD0222 Razorback West E 266 278.3 12.3 177.9 14.08 45 10.9 8.08 66.72 14.903 63.78

D01381 RRDD0222 Razorback West D3 278.6 282 3.4 25.89 45 32.1 24.8 66.14

D01382 RRDD0222 Razorback West D2 282 292 10 22.96 45 14.1 11.15 67.41

D01383 RRDD0222 Razorback West D1 292 304.4 12.4 25.85 45 15.8 10.85 68.45

D01384 RRDD0222 Razorback West C 304.4 311 6.6 9.31 45 11.9 9.43 63.56

D01385 RRDD0222 Razorback West C 311 321 10 13.92 45 18.5 14.95 63.87



D01388 RRDD0222 Razorback West B3 341 352 11 19.55 45 18.4 14.95 67.59

D01389 RRDD0222 Razorback West B3 352 362 10 25.7 45 28.6 20.7 69




D01393 RRDD0222 Razorback West A 386 396 10 13.42 45 11.8 9.81 65.01

D01394 RRDD0222 Razorback West A 396 411 15 12 45 14.5 12.35 66.52

D01395 RRDD0222 Razorback West A 411 421.2 10.2 142.6 19.82 45 25.1 19 66.14 14.061 66.78

D01401 RRDD0124 Razorback West 53 92 39 13.31 45 14.6 13.4 63



D01404 RRDD0124 Razorback West B2 113.9 118.5 4.6 18.98 45 19.6 17.35 64.65


D01405 RRDD0124 Razorback West B1 118.5 121 2.5 68 40.76 45 64.8 51.5 70.67 15.222 65.59


D01407 RRDD0124 Razorback West A 128.4 138 9.6 9.92 45 12.3 10.2 64.79


D01409 RRDD0124 Razorback West A 147 155.7 8.7 34.4 9.02 45 11.1 8.58 63.51 10.399 64.90

D01410 RRDD0123 Razorback West G 9 16.2 7.2 7.2 15.37 45 9.5 17.7 60.33 17.7 60.33

D01411 RRDD0123 Razorback West D3 39.2 46 6.8 16.68 45 15.7 14.7 64.91


D01413 RRDD0123 Razorback West D3 54 60.48 6.48 24 45 28.9 25.4 65.3

D01414 RRDD0123 Razorback West D2 60.48 67.5 7.02 8.04 45 8.1 7.68 61.34

D01415 RRDD0123 Razorback West D1 67.5 69.8 2.3 30.6 8.45 45 7 7.01 NSS 13.862 64.13

D01416 RRDD0123 Razorback West C 78 86.95 8.95 13.21 45 15.5 13.85 61.44






D01422 RRDD0123 Razorback West A 120.2 124.6 4.4 46.6 13.45 45 14.5 11.9 63.98 21.114 65.38


D01424 RRRC0249 Razorback West D 46 54 8 13.74 45 14 12.15 65.58


D01426 RRRC0249 Razorback West d 60 68 8 16.74 45 21 17 66.06

D01427 RRRC0249 Razorback West C 68 72 4 34 9 45 7.3 8.94 63.4 13.390 65.08









D01436 RRDD0112 Razorback West D2 40 41.7 1.7 20.59 45 5.7 5.62 NSS

D01437 RRDD0112 Razorback West D1 41.7 49 7.3 19 32.03 45 33.7 24.9 68.55 18.754 67.82







D01444 RRDD0112 Razorback West A 150 159 9 82 15.94 45 24 20.7 66.16 19.021 66.18


D01446 RRRC0223 Razorback West D 40 42 2 41.92 45 29 40.3 70.84

D01447 RRRC0223 Razorback West D 42 46 4 18 29.02 45 19.6 19.6 68.7 18.467



D01450 RRRC0223 Razorback West B1 116 128 12 36.38 45 18.9 19 69.93



D01458 RRRC0047 Razorback Ridge D2 26 42 16 26.15 45 13.0 17.65 67.86


D01460 RRRC0047 Razorback Ridge D1 60 70 10 44 14.63 45 14.2 10.55 66.75 13.152 66.86

D01461 RRRC0047 Razorback Ridge C 82 94 12 13.17 45 12.3 13 66.86

D01462 RRRC0047 Razorback Ridge B3 94 116 22 25.7 45 15.2 19.95 67.59






D01468 RRRC0054 Razorback Ridge D1 36 46 10 24 23.7 45 18.2 18.25 68.19 14.983 68.40

D01469 RRRC0054 Razorback Ridge C 74 82 8 13.67 45 12.8 11.05 64.92 11.05 64.92



D01472 RRRC0054 Razorback Ridge B1 144 168 24 70 25.64 45 18.5 18.35 68.36 15.350 68.86



D01475 RRRC0030 Razorback Ridge D1 46 52 6 32 11.2 45 10.9 11 65.29 14.019 67.95




D01478 RRRC0063 Razorback Ridge C 80 142 62 11.3 45 11.6 11.25 66.6


D01480 RRRC0063 Razorback Ridge B3 156 172 16 25.68 45 15.8 17 68.33



D01483 RRRC0069 Razorback Ridge B3 58 80 22 26.51 45 16.4 18.7 67.98 18.7 67.98



D01486 RRRC0060 Razorback Ridge D3 40 52 12 22 45 8.9 10.6 68.42



D01489 RRRC0060 Razorback Ridge C 74 80 6 40 12.31 45 11.1 12.45 65.72 14.655 68.08







D01496 RRRC0214 Razorback Ridge D1 36 48 12 17.06 45 4.1 4.23 NSS


D01498 RRRC0214 Razorback Ridge C 72 98 26 13 45 11.7 12.1 66.81






D01504 RRRC0011 Razorback Ridge B3 20 36 16 27.2 45 1.8 4.5 NSS





D01509 RRRC0011 Razorback Ridge B1‐A 78 90 12 33.15 45 9.7 15.5 69.26




D01513 RRDD0106 Razorback Ridge B3 17 32.94 15.94 28.64 45 2.3 6.25 NSS

D01514 RRDD0106 Razorback Ridge B2 32.94 46 13.06 22.85 45 9.8 10.75 69.14



D01517 RRDD0106 Razorback Ridge B1 70 76.9 6.9 59.9 32.12 45 17.1 18.95 69.02 10.323 68.78

D01518 RRRC0028 Razorback Ridge D3 16 26 10 21.35 45 2.3 4.97 NSS




D01522 RRDD0108 Razorback Ridge D3 17 24 7 24.77 45 2.9 8.04 67.97

D01523 RRDD0108 Razorback Ridge D2 24 38.12 14.12 21.02 45 8.0 8.59 68.88

D01524 RRDD0108 Razorback Ridge D1 38.12 52 13.88 35 26.63 45 18.4 22.8 66.63 14.115 67.83

D01525 RRDD0108 Razorback Ridge B3 101 120 19 24.73 45 12.0 14 68.54



D01528 RRDD0108 Razorback Ridge B1 156 172 16 71 29.01 45 12.5 14.8 68.18 13.017 68.71

D01529 RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge D3 11 19 8 22.65 45 1.9 3.73 NSS


D01531 RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge D1 29 46 17 35 26.81 45 17.3 20.6 66.89 13.730 67.16

D01532 RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge B3 96 115.58 19.58 27.05 45 13.6 13.5 66.72


D01534 RRDD0100 Razorback Ridge B1 146 167.84 21.84 71.84 23.96 45 9.5 14.75 66.69 12.296 67.52










D01543 RRRC0097 Razorback Ridge D 92 126 34 34 24.07 45 15.7 16.2 68.91 16.2 68.91





D01555 RRRC0201 Razorback Ridge D 122 146 24 15.79 45 14.9 13.7 66.57






D01561 RRRC0207 Razorback Ridge E 82 112 30 30 15.1 45 14.0 14.1 66.07 14.1 66.07





D01566 RRRC0216 Razorback Ridge E 36 58 22 10.99 45 10.1 9.64 66.1










D01576 RRDD0109 Razorback Ridge D2 17 24 7 21.58 45 1.5 2.04 NSS


D01578 RRDD0109 Razorback Ridge B3 99 117 18 18 18.4 45 22.8 14 66.3 10.957

D01579 RRDD0109 Razorback Ridge B2 117 122 5 23 45 13.2 66.30

D01580 RRDD0109 Razorback Ridge B1 146 155 9 45 34.9

D01581 RRDD0109 Razorback Ridge B1 155 166 11 20 45 17.0 0.000

D01582 RRDD0111 Razorback Ridge D3 7.37 12.65 5.28 26.83 45 3.7 12.85 66.57

D01583 RRDD0111 Razorback Ridge D2 12.65 23 10.35 21.51 45 5.1 7.28 68.76


D01585 RRDD0111 Razorback Ridge C 40.8 48 7.2 29.52 45 2.7 2.61 NSS

D01586 RRDD0111 Razorback Ridge C 48 57 9 16.2 26.96 45 25.0 23.9 65.79 14.438 65.79

D01587 RRDD0111 Razorback Ridge B3 101 105.45 4.45 4.45 22.85 45 7.6 9.15 69.49 9.15

D01588 RRDD0111 Razorback Ridge B2 112 130 18 24 45 7.8 6.97 NSS













D01608 RRDD0119 Razorback Ridge D1 26 39.56 13.56 13.56 29.21 45 10 20.4 67.82 20.4 67.82

D01609 RRDD0119 Razorback Ridge C 58.8 64.14 5.34 5.34 18.16 45 13 13.85 59.1 13.85 59.10






D01615 RRDD0119 Razorback Ridge B1 104 108 4 31 23 45 16.1 14.65 66.43 15.860 66.80

D01616 RRDD0044 Razorback Ridge C 148 152 4 17.1 45 14.6 11.4 65.82





D01621 RRDD0044 Razorback Ridge B2 172 176 4 22.61 45 11.5 9.31 68




D01624 RRDD0044 Razorback Ridge B1 188 192.69 4.69 18.78 45 2.1 1.14 NSS



D01627 RRDD0044 Razorback Ridge A 203 205 2 57 14.69 45 17.5 6.38 NSS 15.619 67.78













D01640 RRRC0027 Razorback Ridge B2 58 68 10 22.61 45 11 11.9 68.57




D01644 RRRC0043 Razorback Ridge D1 26 38 12 12 26.23 45 13 18.4 68.84 18.4 68.84










D01654 RRDD0103 Razorback Ridge B3 1 7.7 6.7 26.13 45 4.5 13.6 66.21

D01655 RRDD0103 Razorback Ridge B2 7.7 14 6.3 24.52 45 13 13.8 69.01













D01668 RRRC0070 Razorback Ridge D 16 24 8 19.36 45 3.4 3.48 NSS






D01674 RRRC0012 Razorback Ridge B2 20 32 12 20.96 45 10 11.25 69.2





D01679 RRRC0012 Razorback Ridge A 88 98 10 16.03 45 14 14.25 69.92

D01680 RRRC0012 Razorback Ridge A 98 106 8 12.2 45 8 10.7 67.25


D01682

D01683

D01684

D01685

D01686

D01687

razorback iron project - jorc 2012 resource update€¦ · inferred 1,532 14.6 16.1 50.2 8.5 0.17...

Documents