Range Well Ni Co Resources Snowden 2014 Report PDF

Weld Range Metals Limited
Range Well Nickel Project

Project No. AU2813
Nickel Laterite Mineral Resource Update
October 2014
Final
Office Locations This report has been prepared by Snowden Mining
Industry Consultants (“Snowden”) on behalf of Weld
Perth
Level 3, 181 Adelaide Terrace, Range Metals Limited.
East Perth WA 6004 AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 8 9213 9213 2014
Fax: +61 8 9322 2576
ABN: 99 085 319 562 All rights are reserved. No part of this document may be
perth@snowdengroup.com reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
Brisbane in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
2 Burke Street, Woolloongabba QLD photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior
4102 AUSTRALIA written permission of Snowden.
PO Box 2207, Brisbane QLD 4001
AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 7 3249 0800
Fax: +61 7 3868 6515 Prepared By John Graindorge
ABN: 99 085 319 562 BSc(Hons), MAusIMM(CP)
brisbane@snowdengroup.com Principal Consultant
Johannesburg
Technology House ,Greenacres
Office Park, Cnr. Victory and
Rustenburg Roads, Victory Park
JOHANNESBURG 2195
SOUTH AFRICA Reviewed By Richard Sulway
PO Box 2613, Parklands 2121 MAppSc, MAusIMM(CP)
SOUTH AFRICA Divisional Manager – Applied
Tel: +27 11 782 2379
Geosciences
Fax: +27 11 782 2396
Reg No. 1998/023556/07
johannesburg@snowdengroup.com
Vancouver
Suite 550, 1090 West Pender St,
VANCOUVER BC V6E 2N7
CANADA
Tel: +1 604 683 7645
Fax: +1 604 683 7929
Reg No. 557150
vancouver@snowdengroup.com
Calgary
Suite 850, 550 11th Avenue SW
CALGARY, ALBERTA T2R 1M7
Tel +1 403 452 5559
Fax +1 403 452 5988
calgary@snowdengroup.com
Belo Horizonte
Afonso Pena 2770, CJ 201 A 205
Funcionários, 30.130-007,
BELO HORIZONTE MG BRASIL
Tel: +55 (31) 3222-6286
Fax: +55 (31) 3222-6286
belohorizonte@snowdengroup.com
Issued by: Perth Office
London
1 Kingdom Street, Doc Ref: 141113_Final_AU2813_Weld Range Metals
Paddington Central, Limited_Ni Lat Resource_Report.docx
LONDON W2 6BD UK
Tel: +44 (20) 3402 3022 Last Edited: 13/11/2014 10:46:00 AM
oxford@snowdengroup.com
Number of copies
Snowden: 2
Website Weld Range Metals Limited: 2
www.snowdengroup.com
Weld Range Metals Limited: Range Well Nickel Project
1 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 6
2 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Location ................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Historical estimates .................................................................................................. 9
3 Geology ............................................................................................................................. 10
4 Source data ....................................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Assays ................................................................................................................... 12
5 QA/QC............................................................................................................................... 13
5.1 Re-assaying ........................................................................................................... 13
5.2 Re-sampling ........................................................................................................... 13
5.3 Standards............................................................................................................... 14
5.4 Duplicates .............................................................................................................. 14
5.5 Blanks .................................................................................................................... 15
5.6 Further comments .................................................................................................. 15
6 Interpretation ..................................................................................................................... 16
6.1 Topography ............................................................................................................ 16
6.2 Nickel mineralisation envelope ............................................................................... 16
6.3 Domain coding ....................................................................................................... 18
7 Statistical analysis ............................................................................................................. 20

7.1 Compositing ........................................................................................................... 20
7.2 Summary statistics ................................................................................................. 21
7.3 Declustered and top-cut summary statistics ........................................................... 22
8 Variography ....................................................................................................................... 23
9 Block model ....................................................................................................................... 24

9.1 Model parameters .................................................................................................. 24
9.2 Density ................................................................................................................... 24
9.3 Estimation parameters ........................................................................................... 24
10 Model validation................................................................................................................. 26
10.1 Visual comparison .................................................................................................. 26
10.2 Average input and output grades ........................................................................... 27
10.3 Grade trend plots ................................................................................................... 27
11 Resource classification and reporting ................................................................................ 28

11.1 Resource classification........................................................................................... 28
11.2 Cut-off grade .......................................................................................................... 28
11.3 Metallurgical test work ............................................................................................ 28
11.4 Resource reporting ................................................................................................. 29
11.4.1 Competent Person’s Statement .............................................................. 29
11.5 Grade tonnage relationship .................................................................................... 29
.Final October 2014 3 of 34

11.6 High grade zones ................................................................................................... 30
12 Comparison with previous resource estimates................................................................... 32
13 Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................... 33
14 References ........................................................................................................................ 34
Tables
Table 1.1 Weld Range Inferred Mineral Resource at a 0.5% Ni cut-off grade
(JORC, 2012) ........................................................................................... 6
Table 7.1 Summary statistics for composited data from within the
interpreted nickel mineralisation ............................................................. 22
Table 7.2 Naïve and declustered mean grades ...................................................... 22
Table 8.1 Variogram spherical model parameters .................................................. 23
Table 9.1 Block model parameters ......................................................................... 24
Table 9.2 Boundary conditions applied for block grade estimation ......................... 25
Table 9.3 Estimation parameters ........................................................................... 25
Table 10.1 Mean comparison of sample data and block grades estimated in
first pass................................................................................................. 27
Table 11.1 Inferred Mineral Resource at a 0.5% Ni cut-off grade (JORC,
2012) ...................................................................................................... 29
Table 11.2 Inferred Mineral Resource (JORC, 2012) reported by various Ni
cut-off grades (code 200 blocks only) ..................................................... 30
Table 11.3 Inferred nickel Mineral Resource estimate (JORC, 2012) within
target areas with higher grade nickel mineralisation (code 200
only) ....................................................................................................... 31
Table 12.1 Inferred Mineral Resource reported by Minara 2001............................... 32
Table 13.1 Inferred Mineral Resource at 0.5% Ni cut-off grade (JORC, 2012) ......... 33
Figures
Figure 2.1 Location of the Weld Range Metals tenements ........................................ 8
Figure 3.1 Geological plan of the Weld Range Complex ......................................... 11
Figure 5.1 Scatter-plot of original and re-assay nickel data ..................................... 13
Figure 5.2 Scatter-plot of original and field duplicate nickel data ............................. 14
Figure 5.3 Scatter-plot of laboratory repeat nickel data ........................................... 15
Figure 6.1 All nickel data – histogram and log probability plot ................................. 16
Figure 6.2 Lateral extents of interpreted nickel mineralisation ................................. 17
Figure 6.3 Cross section illustrating nickel mineralisation (top – blue, base –
cyan) and base of resource model (magenta) – 578140 mE (x2
vertical exaggeration) ............................................................................. 18
Figure 6.4 Interpreted nickel mineralisation horizon and chromium resource .......... 19
Figure 6.5 Cross-section illustrating block coding of the interpreted nickel
mineralisation and chromium mineralisation – 575460 mE (x10
vertical exaggeration) ............................................................................. 19
Figure 7.1 Histogram of sample length for entire dataset ........................................ 20
Figure 7.2 Histogram of sample length for data from within the nickel
mineralisation ......................................................................................... 21

Figure 10.1 Cross-section showing Ni grades – 576940 mE (x10 vertical

exaggeration) ......................................................................................... 26
exaggeration) ......................................................................................... 26
Figure 11.1 Global grade tonnage curve (code 200 blocks only) ............................... 29
Figure 11.2 Nickel resource grade contours .............................................................. 30
Figure 11.3 Location of nickel resource and higher grade nickel zones ..................... 31
Figure 12.1 Grade tonnage curves of Snowden 2010 resource (codes 200
and 300) and Minara 2001 polygonal resource....................................... 32
Appendices
Appendix A Histograms and probability plots
Appendix B Variograms for Ni, Cr, Fe and Co
Appendix C Grade trend plots for Ni, Cr, Fe and Co
Appendix D JORC 2012 Table 1 reporting criteria

1 Summary
In November 2010, Snowden Mining Industry Consultants (“Snowden”) generated a
Mineral Resource estimate at the request of Weld Range Metals Limited (“Weld Range
Metals”) for the nickel mineralisation at the Weld Range Project (Snowden, 2010c),
located in the Murchison district in the mid-west region of Western Australia. The 2010
nickel laterite Mineral Resource was reported based on the guidelines of the 2004 JORC
Code.
In September 2014, Weld Range Metals requested that Snowden update the Mineral
Resource reporting of the nickel laterite resource in accordance with the guidelines of the
2012 edition of the JORC Code. No additional drilling or exploration activities have taken
place since the 2010 resource estimate and as such the November 2010 resource
estimate remains current.
Snowden generated mineralisation interpretations for the nickel enriched horizons within
the laterite. Geological logging data is incomplete and the interpreted nickel
mineralisation is constrained to within 40 m depth from the surface. Verification of the
base of weathering is required to confirm that the nickel resource estimate is restricted to
within the laterite horizon.
Snowden completed summary statistics and variography on the composite drillhole data
from within the interpreted nickel mineralisation and estimated grades into the block
model for Ni, Cr, Fe, and Co using ordinary kriging. Grade estimation was constrained to
within the interpreted nickel mineralisation horizons.
Weld Range Metals supplied the density value (1.5 t/m3) to be applied to the model and
has advised that an economic cut-off grade of 0.5% Ni should be used as the basis for
resource reporting, based on preliminary metallurgical testwork.
In November 2009, Snowden prepared a resource estimate for the chromium

mineralisation at Weld Range (Snowden, 2009a). As part of the 2010 estimate the
chromium resource was updated for Ni, Co and Fe within the interpreted chromium
mineralisation and re-reported in 2010 (Snowden, 2010a). The block model was coded to
permit reporting of the resource within the nickel mineralisation horizons and within and
outside the chromium mineralisation horizons generated in 2009.
The nickel Mineral Resource has been classified as Inferred in its entirety, in accordance
with the 2012 edition of the JORC Code based upon the geology, mineralisation
interpretations and drillhole data. Table 1.1 lists the Mineral Resource for the Weld
Range nickel laterite deposit above a 0.5% Ni cut-off grade. This nickel Mineral Resource
has been reported to exclude the resource contained within the chromium Mineral
Resource. The cut-off grade of 0.5% Ni is based on the assumption that the resource
would be extracted by conventional open-pit mining methods with the ore beneficiated to
upgrade the nickel content during processing.
Table 1.1 Weld Range Inferred Mineral Resource at a 0.5% Ni cut-off grade
(JORC, 2012)
Tonnes (Mt) Ni % Cr % Fe % Co %
Total 385.3 0.64 0.78 19.7 0.04
Note: Excludes resource contained within the 2009 chromium Mineral Resource
Snowden has identified two zones that contain higher grade nickel comprising 24.9 million
tonnes with an average grade of 0.99% Ni, 0.62% Cr, 19.7% Fe and 0.05% Co above a
0.8% Ni cut-off grade nickel, within the total Inferred Mineral Resource.

Snowden considers that further work is required in terms of definition of the topographic
surface, drillhole survey data, quality assurance/quality control (“QA/QC”) data, infill
drilling and a program of density determinations to improve the classification of this
resource estimate.

2 Introduction
2.1 Location
The Weld Range Project is located approximately 65 km north-northwest of Cue, some
85 km west-southwest of Meekatharra and some 600 km north-northeast of Perth in
Western Australia (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1 Location of the Weld Range Metals tenements

2.2 Historical estimates

Within the project area, there is potential for Ni, Cr and PGE mineralisation in a variety of
styles. This 2010 nickel resource estimate is based on the potential for nickel
mineralisation within the laterite horizon and is based on drilling undertaken from 1988 to
2000.
Snowden has previously undertaken three resource estimates for the chromium
mineralisation (Snowden, 1989; Snowden, 1994; and Snowden 2009a). The 1989 and
1994 resource estimates were restricted to within MLA51/546.
In July 2010 Snowden developed a resource estimate for nickel within the laterite horizon
in the vicinity of the high grade chromium mineralisation identified at Chrome Hill
(Snowden, 2010a). In September 2010, this model was extended to cover the entire
nickel mineralisation within the laterite horizon at the Weld Range Project. All resource
reporting for this model excludes the nickel mineralisation identified and reported as part
of the chromium Mineral Resource (Snowden, 2009 and 2010b), except where
comparisons are made with previous nickel resource estimates in Section 12.
Historical resource estimates of the nickel laterite mineralisation were previously compiled
by Sons of Gwalia Ltd in 1997 (Goertz, 1997) and by Minara in 2001. The 1997 estimate
reported 94.3 million tonnes with an average grade of 1.03% Ni based on a cut-off grade
of 0.8% Ni. This model was based on planar polygons, was constrained to within 40 m of
the surface and used a density 1.6 t/m3. Additional drilling was undertaken and in 2001 a
polygonal resource estimate prepared by Minara reported 65.7 million tonnes with an
average grade of 1.01% Ni based on a cut-off grade of 0.8% Ni and a density of 1.5 t/m3.
This estimate is discussed further in Section 12.

3 Geology
The Weld Range Complex is a laterally extensive ultramafic/mafic complex hosted within
the Gabanintha Formation of the Luke Creek Group and is the lower of two greenstone
units contained within the Murchison Supergroup. The Weld Range Complex is bound to
the south by concordant dolerites and banded iron formations of the Weld Range, and to
the north and west by granite. The complex is generally divisible into an ultramafic (north)
and mafic (south) series of layered rock units. The ultramafic units are estimated to be
approximately 5 km thick, with the more southern mafic series being approximately
3.5 km thick. The geology of the Weld Range project area is illustrated in Figure 3.1.
The detailed geology and zonation of the Weld Range Complex is not clearly understood
due to the deep lateritic weathering and limited outcrop within the area. Overall, the
general shape of the complex is that of a recumbent lopolith (reclining triangular funnel
shape). The sequence strikes northeast and dips steeply to the southeast.
Primary nickel mineralisation at Weld Range is associated with adcumulate and

mesocumulate phases of the ultramafic body. Only rare primary nickel sulphide (millerite)
grains have been identified and the only currently known nickel mineralisation is located
within the lateritic profile above the main layered ultramafic sequence. Residual laterite
outcrops in several areas, most notably toward the southwest of the ultramafic series and
at Chrome Hill.
The typical residual laterite profile comprises an upper pisolitic ferricrete horizon up to
15 m thick, that may be locally enriched in chromium, overlying siliceous limonite (>25 m)
with elevated nickel and cobalt grades. The profile then passes through a highly siliceous
and weakly ferruginous saprolite that is often replaced by massive silicrete, into a
serpentinised olivine – chromite adcumulate that may contain stockwork magnesite near
the lower saprolite. There is abundant free silica within the laterite profile, especially
towards the base of the laterite which is attributed to the presence of olivine adcumulate
ultramafic rocks in the substrate.
Data from geological logging of the drillholes is incomplete in the existing databases and
only 44% of the intervals that have been assayed for nickel have a weathering code. The
current resource model is restricted to within 40 m of the surface (excepted where it is
present within the chromium Mineral Resource). Future resource estimation should
include modelling of the ferricrete and saprolite horizons.

Figure 3.1 Geological plan of the Weld Range Complex

4 Source data
The Weld Range project area has been drilled by a number of separate programs using a
combination of reverse circulation (“RC”), aircore (“AC”) and rotary air blast (“RAB”)
methods. The majority of drilling occurred in the period from June 1998 to December
2000, but records of historic drilling exist back to around 1971.
Snowden developed a Gemcom database for resource estimation of the chromium

mineralisation in 2009 (Snowden, 2009a). This database was used for the 2010 nickel
resource estimate and includes data from 773 drillholes. It excludes all RAB drillholes
and holes drilled in the 1970s for nickel, as they were designed to target nickel sulphide
and are located to the south of the lateritic nickel mineralisation. This database was
updated in September 2010 to incorporate the cobalt data.
The spacing between the drill lines varies throughout the project, as shown in Figure 6.2.
Holes have been drilled on sections of 200 m to 800 m spacing east-west, and
approximately 40 m to 200 m spacing north-south. Within the Chrome Hill area, infill
drilling is spaced at 40 m east-west and 20 m north-south, however not all of these
drillholes have been assayed for nickel.
A number of adjustments and assumptions were made with regard to collar elevation data
and for drillholes with missing survey data. These are discussed in detail in Snowden,
2009a. There are three pairs of coincident drillhole locations (WRA070 and WRA073;
WRA026 and WRA027; WRA029 and WPRC001) that are not within the chromium
mineralisation interpreted in 2009, but are within the interpreted nickel mineralisation. In
each case, data from the first drillhole (i.e. WRA070, WRA026 and WRA029) was
excluded from the data coding.
4.1 Assays
The 2009 database contained assay data for Cr, Fe and Ni and was updated for Co data.
This data was recorded as ppm and Snowden created an additional field to record the Co
data expressed in percent. Snowden was also asked to import any available SiO2, Al2O3
and MgO data and determine the coverage of this data within the nickel laterite
mineralisation. Snowden reviewed the historical data provided by Weld Range Metals
and was unable to locate any assay data for these elements. Snowden located Mg data
and determined that 58% of the intervals that have been assayed for nickel have assay
results for Mg.
Below detection limit data for cobalt was replaced with values of 0.001% Co. There are
53 Co values of zero which are associated with the RRC series of drillholes. These
samples have been assayed for other elements and so do not represent missing samples.
It was assumed they represent below detection assay results and were replaced with
0.001% Cr.
As discussed in Snowden 2009a, an unusually high value of 11.6% Ni is present in

RRC068. Examination of surrounding data indicates that this is likely to be a date entry
error and Snowden replaced this with a Ni value of 1.16%.
Two unusually high values of 7.4% Co and 2.6% Co were noted at the top of RRC057.
Adjacent drillholes did not support these high grades and Snowden elected to exclude
these from the current database. Assay data from these intervals should be checked.

5 QA/QC
Snowden is only aware of limited QA/QC data being collected as part of the various
drilling campaigns. As discussed in Snowden 2009a, the QA/QC data is considered to be
insufficient to adequately define the quality of the drillhole sampling and assaying.
5.1 Re-assaying
As part of Snowden’s review in 2009 (Snowden, 2009a) seven WRRC series drillholes
(WRRC0137, 0138, 0143, 0175, 0176, 0200 and 0248) were selected to be re-assayed
from the sample pulps available at Weld Range Metals storage facility. The sample pulps
were analysed by fusion XRF methods at ALS Chemex’s Brisbane laboratory for Cr, Ni
and Fe as well as a suite of additional elements. The results for Cr and Fe are discussed
in Snowden, 2009a. The scatter-plot for nickel is included as Figure 5.1 and the results
indicate a good correlation between the original nickel assay and the re-assay with a
correlation coefficient of 0.995.
Figure 5.1 Scatter-plot of original and re-assay nickel data
Normal Scatterplot
Weld Range
Ni vs re-assay Ni
2
+/- 10%
1.5
Ni re-assay (%)
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Ni vs re-assay Ni (%)
Correlation Coefficient = 0.995
5.2 Re-sampling
A selection of 31 RWAC series drillholes were re-sampled in the field from the bulk reject
by Minara in 1999 to 2000. The re-sampling was primarily for nickel laterite
mineralisation. Details of the results could not be located.
Snowden is aware that all 4 m composite samples from drillholes WEC093 to WEC158
with grades greater that 0.4% Ni were re-assayed in 1 m splits. Some 1,312 samples
were re-assayed by Ultra Trace laboratories for 11 elements by ICP-OES and merged
into the Anaconda (now Minara) database (McConville, 2000). McConville’s analysis of
the Ni, Co and Mg data indicates that there is a good correlation between 4 m composites
and the 1 m splits.

5.3 Standards
Snowden has only identified ‘certified’ standard material samples being submitted with
drillholes WRRC0001 to WRRC0249 where at least one standard was submitted for each
batch of 30 samples. Seven different standards of various materials and grades ranging
from 120 ppm to 1.68% Ni were used. Snowden is not aware of how or where the
standards were manufactured, or the certified standard deviation for the material. Only
the nominal standard grade was reported. As such, Snowden has only reviewed the
general assay results for the standards rather than a detailed accuracy and precision
assessment.
The four higher grade standards [IGS-23 (1.68%), Laterite-83 (0.56%), Laterite-84
(1.61%), and Laterite 88 (1.52%)] show reasonable results with acceptable analytical
accuracy (with differences of 1% or less between the mean and the certified value),
whereas Laterite-85 (2.15%) and the two lower grade standards [SARM-4 (120 ppm) and
SARM-43 (252 ppm)] show relatively poor analytical accuracy.
5.4 Duplicates
Snowden has only identified field duplicate samples being collected from drillholes
WRRC0001 to WRRC0249, where field duplicates were collected at a ratio of
approximately 1:20. The scatter-plot for nickel is included as Figure 5.2 and the results
indicate a good correlation between the original nickel assay and the field duplicate assay
with a correlation coefficient of 0.986.
Figure 5.2 Scatter-plot of original and field duplicate nickel data
Snowden has only identified laboratory duplicate samples being assayed from drillholes
WRRC0001 to WRRC0249. The scatter-plot for nickel is included as Figure 5.3 and the
results indicate a good correlation between the original nickel assay and the laboratory
duplicate assay with a correlation coefficient of 1.00.

Figure 5.3 Scatter-plot of laboratory repeat nickel data
5.5 Blanks
Snowden has only identified blank samples submitted on drillholes WRRC0001 to
WRRC0249 where blank samples were submitted at the start of each job and after every
90 samples thereafter. Snowden has not identified nor reviewed any analysis of the blank
samples other than a brief statement in the Anaconda, October 2000 Annual Technical
Report that states they occur within acceptable tolerance levels.
5.6 Further comments

In order to generate a resource model within which a significant proportion of the
mineralisation could be reported as Measured and/or Indicated in accordance with the
JORC 2012 guidelines requires a comprehensive QA/QC system to be implemented. The
QC data needs to be routinely analysed and documented in order to verify the quality of
the sample data.
Results from the available data for nickel are good however Snowden considers that
appropriate QA/QC procedures may not have been applied during all of the sampling.

6 Interpretation
6.1 Topography
As discussed in Snowden 2009a, 370 of the drillholes appeared to have default or
estimated collar elevation values. Snowden used the collar elevation data from the 403
drillholes that were regarded as having measured collar elevations to interpret a
topographic surface. This surface was used to estimate collar elevations for the
remaining drillholes, code the block model and to constrain the interpreted nickel
mineralisation envelope (discussed below) to below the topographic surface.
A more reliable topographic surface will have to be developed for future resource
estimation. Snowden recommends that the collar elevation of all the existing drillholes
should be measured and incorporated into the drilling database. Additional survey data
should be obtained throughout the project area to permit the generation of a reliable
topographic surface.
6.2 Nickel mineralisation envelope

Snowden examined a histogram and log probability plot of the nickel data composited to
1 m intervals (Figure 6.1) and interpreted a slight inflection in the data at a grade of about
0.4% Ni. Snowden used this mineralisation threshold grade to interpret a nickel
mineralisation envelope.
Figure 6.1 All nickel data – histogram and log probability plot

A nominal Ni grade of 0.4% was used to interpret the horizon of nickel mineralisation.
Surfaces were developed for the top and base of the nickel mineralisation based on the
top of the first and the bottom of the last interval with an assay of 0.4% Ni. These
surfaces were amended to maintain a minimum mineralisation thickness of 2 m (to reflect
the likely mining selectivity) and to adjust the base of the nickel mineralisation;
intersections in the shallow drillholes within the Chrome Hill area were used to determine
the top of mineralisation, but where the drillhole had not intersected the full thickness of
nickel mineralisation, the base of mineralisation was interpreted from the adjacent deeper
drillholes.
The lateral extents of the nickel mineralisation were interpreted to restrict the
interpretation within the laterite and to exclude isolated nickel mineralisation intersections.
A clipping polygon was used to constrain the interpretation (Figure 6.2). The interpreted
mineralisation was extended to about 50 m on section and 100 m along strike beyond the
drilling.
Figure 6.2 Lateral extents of interpreted nickel mineralisation
Over 50% of the intervals with nickel assay data do not have lithology or weathering
codes in the database. Snowden examined the data that had lithology and weathering
data and determined that the deepest logged laterite interval is at 64 m, the average
depth to the logged base of laterite is 19.5 m and that the 99th percentile of the base of
the logged laterite intersections is at 36 m. Snowden has restricted the interpreted nickel
mineralisation and resource estimate to within 40 m of the topographical surface and data
was screened to within 45 m of the surface. Weathering and lithological data should be
logged for all future drilling and the base of the resource model should be reinterpreted to
ensure that it is restricted to within the laterite horizon. Snowden notes there are a
number of deeper intersections of nickel mineralisation on Section 578140 mE (Figure
6.3) that lie below 40 m depth and have not been included in the resource model.
Additional drilling is recommended to determine the weathering and lithology and define
the along strike extent of this mineralisation.

Figure 6.3 Cross section illustrating nickel mineralisation (top – blue, base –
cyan) and base of resource model (magenta) – 578140 mE (x2 vertical
exaggeration)
The interpreted mineralised surfaces were used to code and extract the Ni, Cr, Fe and Co
data and to code the block model for the resource estimate.
6.3 Domain coding

The following codes were applied to the data and block model:
• 100 = within chromium mineralisation envelope and reported for chromium Mineral
Resource
• 200 = within nickel mineralisation envelope and reported for nickel Mineral Resource
• 300 = within both chromium and nickel mineralisation envelopes and reported for
chromium Mineral Resource.
For the nickel resource estimate, data analysis and resource estimation was restricted to
codes 200 and 300. Code 100 is used to identify data and blocks that are outside the
interpreted nickel mineralisation and are within the chromium mineralised envelope used
for analysis and block grade estimation of the chromium resource as reported in Snowden
2009a and 2010b.
The extents of the interpreted nickel mineralisation surfaces and the extent of the
chromium Mineral Resource are illustrated in Figure 6.4 and the domain coding is
illustrated in Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.4 Interpreted nickel mineralisation horizon and chromium resource
Figure 6.5 Cross-section illustrating block coding of the interpreted nickel

mineralisation and chromium mineralisation – 575460 mE (x10
vertical exaggeration)

7 Statistical analysis
7.1 Compositing
The majority of the nickel assay data has been based on samples taken over intervals of
1 m. For the entire data set (Figure 7.1), the minimum sample interval is 0.09 m and the
maximum assayed interval is 8 m. Less than 3% of the data is from sample lengths of
less than 1 m, 46% from samples of 1 m, 22% from samples of 2 m and 25% is from
samples of 4 m, with the remaining assay data based on sample lengths of 5 m or more.
Within the interpreted nickel mineralisation envelope 52% of the nickel assay data is from
1 m sample lengths and 32% and 16% from sample lengths of 2 m and 4 m respectively
(Figure 7.2).
Snowden used a down-hole composite length of 1 m for the resource estimate. The
implications of using this composite length for the samples greater than 1 m is that they
will be split (i.e. a 2 m sample will be split into two one metre composites), giving greater
weight to the sample for statistical analysis. This will affect 48% of the nickel assay data.
Figure 7.1 Histogram of sample length for entire dataset

Figure 7.2 Histogram of sample length for data from within the nickel
mineralisation
7.2 Summary statistics

Snowden completed summary statistics on the one metre composites for Ni, Cr, Fe and
Co from within the interpreted nickel mineralisation. Summary statistics are included in
Table 7.1 and histograms and log probability plots are included in Appendix A.
The Ni and Fe data from within the nickel mineralisation have low (<1) coefficients of
variation (CV, ratio of the standard deviation to the mean) of 0.48 and 0.64 respectively.
The CV for chromium data from within the nickel mineralisation and outside the chromium
mineralisation is higher (1.22). The histogram of the chromium data from within the nickel
mineralisation only (200) in Appendix A indicates that the chromium data is bimodal and
that a few low and high grade outliers are present. It was decided not to apply a top-cut
to the chromium data. Similarly, no top-cuts were applied to the nickel or iron assay data.
The CV for the cobalt data is 1.36 and examination of the histogram and log probability
plot indicates that there is a higher grade population above 0.3% Co. Snowden reviewed
the disintegration of the histogram tail and elected to top-cut the cobalt data to a grade of
0.3%. This affects less than 1% (54 data points) of the cobalt data.

Table 7.1 Summary statistics for composited data from within the interpreted
nickel mineralisation
Statistics Ni % Cr % Fe % Co %
Samples 7276 6799 6151 6809
Minimum 0.039 0.007 0.56 0.003
Maximum 3.56 11.90 59.20 1.62
Mean 0.59 0.77 20.56 0.04
Standard deviation 0.28 0.95 13.08 0.06
Coefficient of variation 0.48 1.22 0.64 1.36
Variance 0.08 0.90 170.96 0.003
Skewness 2.46 3.76 1.03 10.22
th
10 0.35 0.08 7.52 0.01
th
20 0.41 0.12 10.20 0.02
Percentile and grade at percentile
th
30 0.45 0.17 12.00 0.02
th
40 0.48 0.26 14.00 0.03
th
50 0.52 0.43 16.40 0.03
th
60 0.58 0.68 19.45 0.03
th
70 0.64 0.96 23.88 0.04
th
80 0.74 1.34 31.00 0.05
th
90 0.92 1.90 42.20 0.08
th
95 1.12 2.37 49.30 0.12
th
97.5 1.36 2.85 52.50 0.18
th
99 1.69 4.05 54.90 0.28
Note: Cr is for code 200 data only and excludes data from within interpreted chromium mineralisation
(codes 300 and 100).
7.3 Declustered and top-cut summary statistics

Snowden examined the declustered means of the composite data to determine an
appropriate sample mean against which to validate the model grades. There are only
negligible differences between the naive and declustered mean grade within domain
codes 200 and 300. The irregular spaced and clustered drilling pattern at Chrome Hill
has targeted the chromium mineralisation that is mainly contained within domain code
100.
Table 7.2 summarises declustered statistics for Ni, Cr and Fe and the top-cut and
declustered statistics for Co within the interpreted nickel mineralisation.
Table 7.2 Naïve and declustered mean grades
Variable Codes Naïve mean Declustered mean

Ni (%) 200 and 300 0.594 0.589
Cr (%) 200 0.774 0.773
Fe (%) 100, 200 and 300 23.992 24.150
Co (%) 100, 200 and 300 0.041 0.038

8 Variography
Snowden investigated variography for the composited nickel data within the interpreted
nickel mineralisation. Variography for chromium was based on data from within the
chromium mineralised domains and variography for Fe and Co was based on data from
within the nickel mineralisation and/or the chromium mineralisation.
The longest range of mineralisation continuity for nickel and chromium was interpreted to
be oriented along 060° and is consistent with the orientation of the interpreted
mineralisation envelope. The longest range for Fe and Co was interpreted to be oriented
along 150°.
Traditional directional variograms were modelled using a spherical model. Three

structures were interpreted for Ni, Cr, Fe and Co and the sills were normalised to a value
of one. Interpreted variogram parameters are listed in Table 8.1 and plots for the
horizontal variogram fan and directional variograms are included in Appendix B for Ni, Cr,
Fe and Co.
The along-strike and across-strike variograms for nickel are poorly defined, indicating that
additional infill drilling is required for definition of the mineralisation.
Table 8.1 Variogram spherical model parameters
Range 1 Range 2
Grade Direction Nugget Sill 1 Sill 2
(m) (m)
0° 060° 35 230
Ni 0° 150° 0.10 0.45 100 0.45 160
-90° 360° 7 9
0° 060° 120 335
Cr 0° 150° 0.08 0.36 45 0.56 300
-90° 360° 3 10
0° 060° 170 320
Fe 0° 150° 0.03 0.31 60 0.66 480
-90° 360° 25 25
0° 060° 50 180
Co 0° 150° 0.10 0.37 400 0.53 600
-90° 360° 9 12

9 Block model
9.1 Model parameters
Block modelling was completed using Gemcom software, with the surfaces described in
Section 6, and according to the parameters listed in Table 9.1.
A parent cell block model (no sub-celling) was developed. Blocks that have a minimum of
50% of the block volume within the nickel mineralisation were coded for grade estimation.
A block model code of 200 was used for blocks that are contained within the nickel
mineralisation and a block model code of 300 was used for blocks that are within both the
nickel and chromium mineralisation.
In addition to this the percentage of each block that lies below the topographical surface
was applied for volume and tonnage estimation.
Table 9.1 Block model parameters
Parameter X Y Z
Origin 568400 mE 7027100 mN 570 mRL
Extent 13,500 m 8,625 m 130 m
Block size 100 m 25 m 2m
Number blocks 135 345 65
9.2 Density
Weld Range Metals supplied the average density value of 1.5 t/m3 for conversion of
volume to tonnage estimates. This density value was applied by Minara for a polygonal
resource estimate of nickel within the Weld Range project area in 2001. Density
measurements have not yet been obtained for this area and Weld Range Metals has
elected to use the lower density estimate of 1.5 t/m3 for the current resource estimate.
The bulk density value is considered by Snowden to be conservative and may be locally
higher, however bulk density measurements are required to assess this.
Snowden recommends that a program of density testing should be carried out. This
information is required, in conjunction with other detailed data, before any of the
resources at Weld Range can achieve a resource classification higher than Inferred.
9.3 Estimation parameters

Snowden estimated Ni, Cr, Fe and Co using ordinary kriging with the variogram
parameters determined by the variography analysis discussed in Section 8. The kriging
estimation parameters are listed in Table 9.3. Ni, Fe and Co grades were estimated into
blocks with codes of 100, 200 and 300. For Ni, a hard boundary was applied for blocks
with a code of 100 and soft boundary conditions were applied for block with codes of 200
and 300. For Fe and Co soft boundary conditions were applied to blocks with codes of
100, 200 and 300. Blocks with codes of 100 and 300 have not been re-estimated for Cr
and these block grades are as estimated by Snowden in 2009 (Snowden, 2009a and
2010b). For Cr grade estimation into blocks with a code of 200 a hard boundary condition
was applied data with a code of 200 was used for block grade estimation). The boundary
conditions are listed in Table 9.2.

Table 9.2 Boundary conditions applied for block grade estimation
Field Block code 100 Block code 200 Block code 300
Ni Data code 100 Data code 200 and 300 Data code 200 and 300
Data code 100 and 300 (as Data code 100 and 300 (as
Cr Data code 200
estimated in Snowden, 2009a) estimated in Snowden, 2009a)
Fe Data codes 100, 200 and 300 Data codes 100, 200 and 300 Data codes 100, 200 and 300
Co Data codes 100, 200 and 300 Data codes 100, 200 and 300 Data codes 100, 200 and 300
Block grade estimation of Ni, Fe and Co and grade estimation of Cr into blocks with a
code of 200, applied search ellipse dimensions based on the Ni variogram parameters.
The vertical search was restricted to 4 m to reduce vertical smoothing in the resource
model.
For Cr, 61% of the block grades with code 200 were estimated using the first search pass.
For Ni and Fe, 62% of the block grades with codes of 100, 200 and 300 were estimated
using the first search pass and for Co, 68% of the block grades were estimated using the
first search pass. Second and third search passes were applied with dimensions listed in
Table 9.3. The third search was applied to estimate grade into the remaining 3% of the
blocks and applied soft boundary conditions to all block codes.
Table 9.3 Estimation parameters
Parameter Value
Search 1 160 m x 230 m x 4 m
Gemcom rotation 0, 0, -60 (Z,X,Z rotation)
Minimum samples 4
Maximum samples 20
Discretisation 5x5x2
Search 2 320 m x 460 m x 8 m
Minimum samples (search 2) 4
Search 3 640 m x 960 m x 16 m
Minimum samples (search 3) 2

10 Model validation
Snowden validated the estimate by:
• a visual comparison of drillhole and block grades

• comparing the mean input and output grades
• compilation of grade trend plots using northing, easting and elevation perspectives.
10.1 Visual comparison

Cross-sections of the block grades and the drillhole data were visually examined
throughout the resource model. Examples are included in Figure 10.1 and Figure 10.2.
This comparison indicated a good correlation between the input drillhole data and the
estimated block grades.

exaggeration)

exaggeration)

10.2 Average input and output grades

For the comparison of the input and output grades, the mean values of the input data and
the average grade of the blocks were examined. The results, as presented in Table 10.1,
indicate good validation of the block grades with the sample grades with the block grades
being within 5% of the sample mean.
Table 10.1 Mean comparison of sample data and block grades estimated in first
pass
Search pass 1 (only)

Sample
Grade Codes Ratio
average Block average
(Block/Sample)
Ni (%) 200 and 300 0.59 0.58 0.98
Ni (%) 100 0.19 0.20 1.05
Cr (%) 200 0.77 0.73 0.95
Fe (%) 100, 200 and 300 23.99 21.67 0.90
Co (%) 100, 200 and 300 0.041 0.039 0.95
10.3 Grade trend plots

Snowden generated grade trend plots by easting, northing and elevation slices for Ni, Cr,
Fe and Co. The plots for Ni, Cr, Fe and Co are included in Appendix C.
The grade trend plots show a good comparison between the estimated Ni, Cr, Fe and Co
block grades and the input sample grades. The validation plots for Ni, Fe and Co are
based on all coded data and blocks (codes 100, 200 and 300). The validation for Cr is
based on blocks and data from with domain code 200 only. The Cr block grades for
domain codes 100 and 300 are as were estimated and validated in 2009 (Snowden 2009a
and 2010b).

11 Resource classification and reporting

11.1 Resource classification
The resource has been classified as Inferred in accordance with the guidelines of the
2012 JORC Code based upon the geology, mineralisation interpretations and drillhole
data. Snowden’s assessment of the relevant criteria outlined in Table 1 of the 2012
JORC Code is presented in Appendix D.
Snowden considers that further work is required in terms of topographic data, drillhole
survey data, QA/QC data, infill drilling and a program of density determinations to improve
the classification of this resource estimate.
11.2 Cut-off grade

For the purposes of the Inferred Resource, it has been assumed that the Weld Range
Project would be mined by conventional open-pit methods and that the ore can be
beneficiated during processing. Weld Range Metals advised that metallurgical testwork
conducted by Anaconda Nickel in 2000 (Anaconda, 2000), on eight composite RC
samples of Weld Range mineralisation, indicates that the mineralisation can be
beneficiated to upgrade the nickel content of the ore.
The resource has consequently been reported above a cut-off grade of 0.5% Ni.
Snowden cautions that further metallurgical testing is required to confirm these
assumptions and that this testing may return a higher economic cut-off grade.
11.3 Metallurgical test work

A number of preliminary metallurgical studies have been completed on lateritic material
from the Weld Range Project. Anaconda Nickel conducted test work in 2000 (Anaconda,
2000), on eight composite samples, sourced from RC drill chips, to assess beneficiation
by dry screening at multiple screen sizes. Results of the dry screening at 0.5 mm,
showed an average upgrade for the Ni grade of 44%, recovering 62% of the metal and
with a mass recovery of 42% passing -0.5 mm.
Bottle roll beneficiation test work on 439 samples sourced from RC chips, conducted in
2001 by Anaconda (Anaconda, 2001), showed an upgrade in the Ni grade of 82% for the
“high upgrade” domain (defined as having a Mg content <6% and Si content >35%) with a
mass recovery of 36% passing -0.25 mm. For the “low upgrade” domain (defined as
having an Mg content < 6% and a Si content <35%) the Ni content was only upgraded by
16% with a mass recovery of 58% passing -0.25 mm.
Pressure acid leach testing conducted on four composite samples (from RC drill chips)
showed average Ni and Co extractions of 97.1% and 97.4% respectively, after 60 minutes
of residence time (at 255°C and 4,500 kPa) and with an average acid addition of 273 kg/t
(Anaconda, 2001).
Snowden cautions that at this stage the metallurgical testwork is considered preliminary
and further testing is required.

11.4 Resource reporting

Table 11.1 lists the Inferred Mineral Resource above a 0.5% Ni cut-off grade. This
resource estimate excludes mineralisation that is contained within the chromium Mineral
Resource model.
Table 11.1 Inferred Mineral Resource at a 0.5% Ni cut-off grade (JORC, 2012)
Tonnes Ni Cr Fe Co
Mt % % % %
Total 385.3 0.64 0.78 19.7 0.04
Note: Excludes resource contained within the 2009 chromium Mineral Resource.
11.4.1 Competent Person’s Statement
John Graindorge is a Chartered Professional and Member of the Australasian Institute of

Mining and Metallurgy (“MAusIMM”) and has sufficient experience which is relevant to the
style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity to 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” (“the JORC Code”). John Graindorge is a full-time employee of Snowden
Mining Industry Consultants Pty Ltd. John Graindorge consents to the inclusion in the
report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.
11.5 Grade tonnage relationship

Figure 11.1 and Table 11.2 show the grade tonnage relationship for the global resource
for a range of Ni cut-off grades. Ni grade contours based on the extents of blocks with
grades of >0.5% Ni and >0.8% Ni are illustrated in Figure 11.2.
Figure 11.1 Global grade tonnage curve (code 200 blocks only)

Table 11.2 Inferred Mineral Resource (JORC, 2012) reported by various Ni cut-
off grades (code 200 blocks only)
Cut-off grade Tonnes Ni Cr Fe Co

% Ni Mt % % % %
0.5 385.3 0.64 0.78 19.7 0.04
0.8 44.2 0.95 0.75 19.8 0.06
1.0 11.4 1.18 0.77 19.4 0.06
1.3 1.9 1.52 0.79 20.7 0.06
Figure 11.2 Nickel resource grade contours
11.6 High grade zones

Weld Range Metals requested Snowden to identify higher grade zones of nickel
mineralisation. It is planned to consider these areas for future drilling and resource
delineation. Snowden identified two zones of mineralisation that are illustrated in Figure
11.3.
Snowden identified two zones of mineralisation that contain fairly continuous, higher
grade nickel, that are located to the north of Chrome Hill. These zones comprise a total of
24.9 million tonnes with an average grade of 0.99% Ni, 0.62% Cr, 19.7% Fe and
0.05% Co above a 0.8% Ni cut-off grade. The higher grade resources are listed in Table
11.3 and the zones are illustrated in Figure 11.3.

Zone 1 and 2 have an average thickness of 13 m and extends to a maximum depth of

40 m (as restricted by the interpreted laterite depth). The overburden thickness at Zone 2
ranges from 2 m to 26 m and has an average thickness of 10 m. Zone 1 intersects the
surface and has an average overburden thickness of 10 m and a maximum thickness of
34 m.
Table 11.3 Inferred nickel Mineral Resource estimate (JORC, 2012) within target
areas with higher grade nickel mineralisation (code 200 only)
Cut-off grade Tonnes Ni Cr Fe Co

Code
% Ni Mt % % % %
0.0 23.7 0.80 0.71 18.0 0.05
Zone 1
0.8 12.1 0.95 0.72 18.3 0.06
0.0 32.1 0.76 0.40 18.5 0.04
Zone 2
0.8 12.8 1.03 0.52 20.9 0.04
0.0 55.8 0.78 0.53 18.3 0.04
Total
0.8 24.9 0.99 0.62 19.7 0.05
Figure 11.3 Location of nickel resource and higher grade nickel zones

12 Comparison with previous resource estimates

In 2001, Minara generated a polygonal resource estimate for the nickel potential at Weld
Range. Documentation on this resource estimate is not available in the digital data
provided by Minara to Weld Range Metals. Review of the data contained in the file
“Inferred Sectional Resource102001.xls” indicates that the Mineral Resource is
constrained to within the laterite horizon and extends from 569000 mE to 581400 mE. An
average density of 1.5 t/m3 has been applied for tonnage estimation. The Mineral
Resource has been classified as Inferred and grades have been estimated for Ni %, Co %
and Mg % based on Ni cut-off grades of 0.5%, 0.8%, 1.0% and 1.3%. The resource
tabulation prepared by Minara is included in Table 12.1. A comparison of this to the
Snowden 2010 resource, for the total resource within the interpreted nickel mineralisation
(codes 200 and 300) is illustrated in Table 12.1.
Table 12.1 Inferred Mineral Resource reported by Minara 2001
Cut-off grade Tonnes Ni Co Mg

% Ni Mt % % %
0.5 329 0.75 0.060 2.91
0.8 66 1.01 0.086 2.87
1.0 14 1.39 0.096 3.32
1.3 5 1.64 0.091 3.22
Figure 12.1 Grade tonnage curves of Snowden 2010 resource (codes 200 and
300) and Minara 2001 polygonal resource
The 2010 resource model reports a higher tonnage and lower grade based on a 0.5% Ni
cut-off grade. The 2010 resource model extends for an additional 550 m west and an
additional 450 m east of the Minara 2001 model which will account for some of the lower
grade tonnage.
For higher cut-off grades the 2010 model reports less tonnes at a lower grade. This is
expected as polygonal resource estimates are highly selective and do not account for the
volume-variance relationship (overestimate the grade and underestimate the tonnes).

13 Conclusions and recommendations

Snowden has completed a resource estimate for the mineralised nickel laterite within the
Weld Range Project for Weld Range Metals. The resource was classified as Inferred in
accordance with the guidelines of the 2012 JORC Code based upon the geology,
mineralisation interpretations and drillhole data, and is reported in Table 13.1.
Table 13.1 Inferred Mineral Resource at 0.5% Ni cut-off grade (JORC, 2012)
Tonnes (Mt) Ni % Cr % Fe % Co %
Total 385.3 0.64 0.78 19.7 0.04
Note: Excludes resource contained within the 2009 chromium Mineral Resource.
Snowden considers that further work is required in terms of topographic surveys, drillhole
survey data, QA/QC data, infill drilling and a program of density determinations to improve
the classification of this resource estimate.
Data from previous drilling programs should only be maintained in the database to be
used for resource estimation if the drillholes collars have been accurately surveyed.
Snowden recommends that a systematic infill drilling program is undertaken that

implements best practice standards with regards to data collection, QA/QC and data
analysis. Based on the nickel variography Snowden recommends that infill drilling is
completed based on an 80 m spacing. Initially this should be an off-set grid, with infill to a
regular 80 m grid in areas that require greater definition, and be focused on Zones 1 and
2 (higher grade zones). Preliminary metallurgical test work should be designed to test the
different geological units and it is suggested that at least six diamond holes are drilled
with three holes in each of Zones 1 and 2. Provision should be made for testing of 12
different samples (two geological horizons from each drillhole).
The exploration program should include provision for establishing an industry standard
database, along with a survey program to accurately delineate the topography and to
resolve drillhole collar uncertainties. Drilling campaigns should include diamond drillholes
for density and metallurgical test work and RC drilling for resource delineation and the
implementation of industry standard QA/QC practices. The resource definition drilling
program should include provision for about 180 RC drillholes for a total of 5,000 m and six
diamond drillholes for a total of 200 m to provide samples for density and metallurgical
test work.
Future resource estimation needs to incorporate geological definition of the base of

laterite and also domain definition within the laterite horizon based on lithological units
and geochemical signatures. In addition to grade estimation of Ni, Cr, Fe and Co,
estimation of Al2O3, MgO and SiO2 grades should be incorporated into the resource
model.

14 References
Anaconda, 2000. Weld Range Project Annual Technical Report, Technical Report 921,
for the period 16th October 1999 to 15th October 2000. Report prepared by Anaconda
Nickel Limited and dated December 2000.
Anaconda, 2001. Weld Range Project Annual Technical Report, Technical Report 1220,
for the period 16th October 2000 to 15th October 2001. Report prepared by Anaconda
Nickel Limited and dated November 2001.
Goertz, S., 1997. Weld Range JV Project - Supplementary Report on Global Resource
Potential for Lateritic Nickel Mineralisation: (Based on the Results of Recent Reverse
Circulation Drilling Programmes and Selected Historical Drillhole Data. Prepared by
A.G.R.S.S. Pty Ltd for Sons of Gwalia Ltd and Dragon Mining NL, July 1997.
McConville, F., 2000. Comparison of 4 m composites to 1 m splits, Weld Range, WA.
Minara, 2007. Technical Report 1411 - Environmental report, Weld Range project. Field
investigation conducted September 2007. Internal report prepared by Minara Resources
Limited.
Snowden, 1989. Geostatistical resource estimation of Range Well prospect. Report

prepared for Dragon Resources Limited, January 1989.
Snowden, 1994. Resource estimate for the Range Well Cr/Fe project. Report prepared
for Dragon Mining NL, May 1994.
Snowden, 2009a. Weld Range Resource Estimate – Chromium, November 2009. Report
prepared for Weld Range Metals Project No. 0479.
Snowden, 2009b. Competent persons’ report on Weld Range mineral assets of Dragon
Mining Limited. Report prepared for Dragon Mining Limited, July 2009.
Snowden, 2010a. Ni resource update. Memorandum prepared for Weld Range Metals
dated 1 July 2010. Project No. 1040.
Snowden, 2010b. Weld Range Project - Chromium resource update. Report prepared for
Weld Range Metals Limited, July 2009. Project No. 1040.
Snowden, 2010c. Weld Range – Resource estimate – nickel. Report prepared for Weld
Range Metals, November 2010. Project No. 1040.

Appendix A Histograms and probability plots
Appendix B Variograms for Ni, Cr, Fe and Co
Appendix C Grade trend plots for Ni, Cr, Fe and Co
Appendix D JORC 2012 Table 1 reporting criteria
JORC Code (2012) Table 1 – Sampling Techniques and Data
Item Comments
Sampling techniques • The data used for resource estimation is based on the logging and
sampling of RC drilling and AC drilling.
• Majority of drilling was completed between June 1998 and December
2000.
• The drilling and sampling processes are poorly documented and
Snowden is unable to comment on the quality of the sample collection
procedures.
• Sample lengths vary – less than 3% of sample lengths are less than
1 m, 46% of samples are 1 m, 22% of samples are 2 m, 25% of
samples are 4 m and 4% of samples >5 m.
Drilling techniques • The majority of the drilling was completed by RC drilling techniques,
along with some AC drilling. RAB drilling has also been completed
across the project area but these were excluded from the resource
estimate.
• Details of the drilling techniques are poorly documented. RC drilling in
2000 utilised a 5¼” face sampling bit. A conventional cross-over bit
was used during some of the earlier drilling (e.g. 1991).
Drill sample recovery • Sample recovery data for the RC and AC drilling is not documented.
• Documentation refers to difficult drilling conditions in some holes due
to poor ground conditions and free-flowing sands at surface, with hole
collars requiring casing.
Logging • Qualitative geological logging of drillholes is incomplete and only 40%
of the intervals that have been assayed for nickel have a weathering
code logged. Approximately 15% of drillholes within the database
have no logging.
• Where geological logging has been completed, the logging was done
with sufficient detail.
Sub-sampling • The majority of RC and AC samples collected based on a nominal 1 m
techniques and sample or 2 m sample interval. Anaconda report that RC drill cuttings in 2000
preparation drilling program were mostly dry.
• RC drilling in 2000 utilised a three-tiered riffle splitter to sub-sample
the drill cuttings to produce a nominal 2 kg to 4 kg sub-sample. Where
wet samples were returned, a sub-sample was collected by grab
sampling.
• Field duplicate samples collected every 20 samples for holes
WRRC0001 to WRRC0249, to monitor the precision of the field
sampling process. Results show a good comparison to the original
samples.
• Sample preparation comprises oven drying and then pulverising using
an LM2 or LM5 pulveriser. Chromium-free pulveriser bowls were used
for sample preparation in 1999 and 2000, however Snowden is unable
to rule out contamination from the pulveriser bowl for earlier drilling.
• Assaying was by mixed acid digest followed by analysis using either
ICP-OES or AAS. Samples from drillholes WRRC0093 to WRRC0249
were analysed by XRF (fused bead). Snowden understands that a
mixed acid digest may not recover all chromium and may result in a
slight underestimation of the chromium content.
• The sample sizes are considered to be appropriate to correctly
represent the mineralisation based on the style of mineralisation
(nickel/chromium laterite), the thickness and consistency of
intersections and the drilling methodology.
Item Comments
Quality of assay data • A number of analytical laboratories in Western Australia have been
and laboratory tests used over the life of the project, including Actlabs (Kalgoorlie), Ultra
Trace Laboratories (Perth) and Genalysis Laboratory Services Pty Ltd
(Perth).
• Snowden is only aware of limited QC data being collected as part of
the various drilling campaigns.
• Field duplicates collected every 20 samples for drillholes WRRC0001
to WRRC0249. Results show reasonable precision has been
achieved for these holes.
• Reference materials inserted into the sample batches (nominal rate of
1:30) during 2000 drilling campaign to monitor analytical accuracy.
The certified standard deviation of the reference materials is unknown
and as such, only general conclusions can be drawn from the results,
which suggest that the analytical accuracy was reasonable.
• Results from the available data for nickel are good; however, Snowden
considers that appropriate QA/QC procedures may not have been
applied during all of the sampling.
Verification of sampling • In 2009, as part of the Cr laterite resource estimate, Snowden selected
and assaying seven WRRC series drillholes (0137, 0138, 0143, 0175, 0176, 0200
and 0248) to be re-assayed for Cr, Ni and Fe from the sample pulps
by fused bead XRF at the ALS Chemex laboratory in Brisbane. The
re-assaying showed a good comparison between the original assays
and the re-assays, with results typically within 10%.
• No twin holes have been completed.
• Data entry and database procedures are not documented and
Snowden is unable to comment on their appropriateness.
• The following adjustments were made to the assay data:
− Below detection limit values and assay values of “0” were
reset to half the detection limit.
− Values in ppm were converted to percentages by dividing
through by 10,000.
− An unusually high value of 11.6% Ni in drillhole RRC068
was replaced with a value of 1.16% Ni as examination of
surrounding holes does not support this high value and it is
assumed to be a data entry error.
− Two unusually high Co values of 7.4% Co and 2.6% Co
were noted at the top of RRC057. Adjacent drillholes did
not support these high grades and Snowden elected to
exclude these from the current database.
Item Comments
Location of data points • The grid is based on the AMG_Z50 grid datum. Collar locations for
the 2000 drilling campaign surveyed by a contract surveyor using a
DGPS (accuracy reported to be ±10 cm both horizontally and
vertically).
• Due to the age of the drillholes and site rehabilitation, drillhole collars
are difficult to locate. Field checks by Snowden in 2009, as part of the
chromium laterite resource estimate, found the following:
− RWAC0015 (AC hole) was located, providing confidence in
the location of RWAC series holes.
− Three drillholes (WEC021, 22 and 23) were found to be out
by approximately 138.9 mX and 152.6 mY. The original
coordinates were likely located with respect to the MGA
grid. Based on this, all WEC series drillholes were adjusted
to the AMG_Z50 grid for the resource estimate.
− Three other holes were located which are likely CRC01, 02
and 03, however the coordinates do not conform to the
MGA/AMG_Z50 grid transform and confidence in the
location of these holes is low. Documents suggest these
holes were drilled to the northeast however no down-hole
survey data is available. CRC series holes were excluded
from the database.
• 370 drillholes in the database have default or estimated collar
elevations. A topographic surface was developed by Snowden from
the 403 drillholes with measured collar elevations. This surface was
used to estimate collar elevations for the remaining 370 drillholes.
• Approximately 50% of the drillholes in the database do not have down-
hole survey information. The majority (83%) of the drillholes with
down-hole surveys are vertical. It is assumed that the drillholes
without down-hole surveys are vertical, which is considered a
reasonable assumption as these holes target the laterite
mineralisation.
Data spacing and • The spacing between drill sections varies throughout the project.
distribution Holes have been drilled based on sections of 200 m to 800 m spacing
east-west and 40 m to 200 m north-south. Within the Chrome Hill
area, infill drilling is spaced at 40 mE by 20 mN.
• The section spacing is sufficient to establish the degree of geological
and grade continuity necessary to support the resource classifications
that were applied.
• The sample data was composited downhole using a 1 m interval.
Orientation of data in • The location and orientation of the Weld Range drilling is appropriate
relation to geological given the strike and morphology of the laterite mineralisation, which is
structure sub-horizontal.
Sample security • Protocols relating to sample security are not documented. Snowden
has no reason to believe that sample security poses a material risk to
the integrity of the assay data used in the Mineral Resource estimate.
Audits and reviews • Snowden is not aware of any external audits on the sampling
techniques and assay data.
JORC Code (2012) Table 1 – Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources
Item Comments
Database integrity • No dedicated drillhole database exists and validation procedures are
not documented. The database used for the resource estimate was
compiled by Snowden based on comma delimited text files supplied by
Weld Range Metals.
• Snowden undertook a basic check of the data for potential errors as a
preliminary step to compiling the resource estimate. Numerous errors
were identified, including:
− Incorrect collar coordinates (corrected or excluded)
− Drillholes RHCH09, RWRC01 and RWRC03 have no collar
information (excluded)
− Drillholes with no down-hole survey information (assumed to
be vertical)
− Drillholes with no geological logging
− Overlapping and duplicate samples (removed)
− Data entry errors (corrected where possible).
Site visits • Snowden visited the Weld Range project area in June 2009 prior to
undertaking a lateritic chromium resource estimate.
Geological interpretation • The geological model for the Weld Range project area is based on
surface mapping, geological and geochemical logging of drillholes,
and geophysical data.
• A nominal grade of 0.4% Ni, based on assessment of the raw grade
distribution, was used to interpret the horizon of nickel mineralisation
within the laterite. Surfaces were developed for the top and base of
the nickel mineralisation based on the top of the first and the bottom of
the last interval with a nominal assay threshold of 0.4% Ni. The
surfaces were adjusted where required based on a minimum thickness
of 2 m.
• The nickel mineralisation was interpreted as a single mineralised
domain. The current data does not allow (due to incomplete chemical
results and geological logging) for sub-dividing the mineralisation into
different weathering horizons (e.g. ferricrete and saprolite horizons).
• Data from geological logging of the drillholes is incomplete in the
existing databases and only 44% of the intervals that have been
assayed for nickel have a weathering code. The current resource
model is restricted to within 40 m of the surface (excepted where it is
present within the chromium Mineral Resource). Verification of the
base of weathering is required to confirm that the nickel resource
estimate is restricted to within the laterite horizon.
• Over 50% of the intervals with nickel assay data do not have lithology
or weathering codes in the database. The average depth to the
logged based of laterite is 19.5 m and the 99th percentile of the base
of the logged laterite intersections is at 36 m (the deepest logged
laterite interval is at 64 m). Snowden has restricted the interpreted
nickel mineralisation and resource estimate to within 40 m of the
topographical surface.
• Alternative interpretations of the mineralisation are unlikely to
significantly change the overall volume of the mineralised envelopes in
terms of the reported classified resources.
Dimensions • The mineralisation is sub-parallel to the topography, trends roughly
northeast-southwest and has a total strike length of about 14 km. The
mineralisation is on average about 15 m to 20 m thick and occurs to a
depth of up to 30 m below surface.
Item Comments
Estimation and • Estimation of Ni, Cr, Fe and Co using ordinary block kriging for all
modelling techniques domains with hard domain boundaries. SiO2, Al2O3 and MgO were not
estimated due to a lack of assay data.
• No top-cuts were applied to the Ni, Cr and Fe grades. Co grades were
top-cut to 0.3% Co, which affects less than 1% of the data.
• Gemcom software was used for the grade estimation.
• Block model constructed using a parent cell size of 100 mE by 25 mN
by 2 mRL (no sub-celling).
• The search ellipse orientation and radius was based on the results of
the grade continuity analysis, with the same search parameters used
for all elements to maintain the metal balance and correlations
between elements. An initial search of 230 m along strike by 160 m
across-strike by 4 m thick was used, with a minimum of four samples
and a maximum of 20 samples.
• Hard and soft boundary conditions were applied depending on the
grade and domain being estimated. Chromium grades have not been
re-estimated for blocks within the 2009 chromium laterite resource
boundaries.
• Block grade estimates were validated against the input composite data
both globally and locally by:
− Visual comparison of block grade estimates and drillhole
composite data
− Generation of section plots of the estimates, declustered and
naïve composite grades, along with the number of composite
samples available
− Global comparison of the average composite (naïve) and
estimated grades.
• The project is in an exploration phase and no production has taken
place.
• No by-products have been considered during estimation.
• The deposit was previously estimated by Minara in 2001, who
developed a polygonal estimate of the nickel laterite resources.
Moisture • All tonnages have been estimated as dry tonnages.
Cut-off parameters • The nickel mineralisation was reported above a 0.5% Ni cut-off grade.
• The cut-off grade is based on the assumption that the Weld Range
nickel laterite deposit will be mined by conventional open pit mining
methods and that the ore can be beneficiated, through screening,
during processing. Preliminary metallurgical testwork shows that the
mineralisation can be upgraded through screening.
• Snowden believes that the cut-off grade is reasonable for the nickel
mineralisation, given the mining assumptions and proposed
processing route.
Mining factors and • It is assumed the deposit will be mined using traditional open-cut
assumptions methods.
Item Comments
Metallurgical factors and • Metallurgical testwork conducted by Anaconda Nickel Limited in 2000,
assumptions on composite RC samples of Weld Range mineralisation, indicates
that the mineralisation can be beneficiated to upgrade the nickel
content of the ore.
− Results of the screening at 0.5 mm on eight composite RC
samples, showed an average upgrade for the Ni grade of
44%, recovering 62% of the metal and with a mass recovery
of 42% passing -0.5 mm.
− Results of bottle roll beneficiation testwork on 439 samples
showed an upgrade in the Ni grade of 82% for the “high
upgrade” domain (defined as having <6% Mg and >35% Si)
with a mass recovery of 36% passing -0.25 mm. For the
“low upgrade” domain (defined as having Mg <6% and
Si <35%), the nickel content was only upgraded by 16% with
a mass recovery of 58% passing -0.25 mm.
• The metallurgical testwork is considered preliminary and further testing
is required.
• No metallurgical modifying factors have been applied to the resource
estimate.
Environmental factors • It is assumed that no environmental factors exist that could prohibit
and assumptions any potential mining development at the Weld Range Project.
Density • No bulk density measurements have been collected.
3
• A default bulk density of 1.5 t/m was applied to all domains based on
projects with similar styles of mineralisation. The bulk density value is
considered by Snowden to be conservative and may be locally higher.
Classification • The nickel laterite resources have been classified as Inferred in their
entirety, based on continuity of both the geology and grades, along
with the drillhole spacing, data quality and lack of bulk density
measurements.
Audits and reviews • Snowden is not aware of any audits or reviews of the Mineral
Resource estimate.
Discussion of relative • An assessment of the relative accuracy of the block grade estimates
accuracy/confidence was not deemed appropriate due to the Inferred classification and
general data quality issues.

Range Well Ni Co Resources Snowden 2014 Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Range Well Ni Co Resources Snowden 2014 Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Range Well Ni Co Resources Snowden 2014 Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the location of the project being discussed?

What is the location of the project being discussed?

What historical estimates have been made for this project?

What historical estimates have been made for this project?

Weld Range Metals Limited

Range Well Nickel Project

4 Source data ....................................................................................................................... 12

7 Statistical analysis ............................................................................................................. 20

9 Block model ....................................................................................................................... 24

11 Resource classification and reporting ................................................................................ 28

.Final October 2014 3 of 34

11.6 High grade zones ................................................................................................... 30

12 Comparison with previous resource estimates................................................................... 32

13 Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................... 33

.Final October 2014 4 of 34

Figure 10.1 Cross-section showing Ni grades – 576940 mE (x10 vertical

.Final October 2014 5 of 34

In November 2009, Snowden prepared a resource estimate for the chromium

.Final October 2014 6 of 34

.Final October 2014 7 of 34

Figure 2.1 Location of the Weld Range Metals tenements

.Final October 2014 8 of 34

2.2 Historical estimates

.Final October 2014 9 of 34

Primary nickel mineralisation at Weld Range is associated with adcumulate and

.Final October 2014 10 of 34

Figure 3.1 Geological plan of the Weld Range Complex

.Final October 2014 11 of 34

Snowden developed a Gemcom database for resource estimation of the chromium

As discussed in Snowden 2009a, an unusually high value of 11.6% Ni is present in

.Final October 2014 12 of 34

Figure 5.1 Scatter-plot of original and re-assay nickel data

.Final October 2014 13 of 34

Figure 5.2 Scatter-plot of original and field duplicate nickel data

.Final October 2014 14 of 34

Figure 5.3 Scatter-plot of laboratory repeat nickel data

5.6 Further comments

.Final October 2014 15 of 34

6.2 Nickel mineralisation envelope

.Final October 2014 16 of 34

Figure 6.2 Lateral extents of interpreted nickel mineralisation

.Final October 2014 17 of 34

6.3 Domain coding

.Final October 2014 18 of 34

Figure 6.4 Interpreted nickel mineralisation horizon and chromium resource

Figure 6.5 Cross-section illustrating block coding of the interpreted nickel

.Final October 2014 19 of 34

Figure 7.1 Histogram of sample length for entire dataset

.Final October 2014 20 of 34

7.2 Summary statistics

.Final October 2014 21 of 34

7.3 Declustered and top-cut summary statistics

Table 7.2 Naïve and declustered mean grades

Variable Codes Naïve mean Declustered mean

.Final October 2014 22 of 34

Traditional directional variograms were modelled using a spherical model. Three

Table 8.1 Variogram spherical model parameters

.Final October 2014 23 of 34

Table 9.1 Block model parameters