Mangazeya Mining Limited announces significantly decreased Mineral Resources and Reserves of the Savkino Gold Mine
TORTOLA, BVI, Jan. 31, 2014 /CNW/ – Mangazeya Mining Ltd. (NEX:MGZ.H) (“Mangazeya” or the “Company”) announces the completion of an updated NI
43-101 technical report titled “Mineral Resource and Reserve of the
Savkino Gold Project, Chita Region, Russian Federation” (the
“2014-Technical Report”) dated January 31, 2014 for the Savkino Gold
Mine in Siberia, Russia. The 2014-Technical Report was prepared by
Micon International Co Limited (“Micon”).
The 2014-Technical Report updates the technical report titled “Mineral
Reserve and Resource Estimates of the Savkino Deposit, Zabaikalsky
Territory, Russian Federation” (the “2011-Technical Report”) dated
December 13, 2011 prepared by JSC TOMS Engineering (“TOMS”) on the
Savkino Gold Mine.
The 2014-Technical Report estimates that Savkino gold deposit contains
approximately 2.8 million tonnes of Proven and Probable reserves
grading at 1.31 g/t, containing 119,350 ounces of gold, which is a
72.8% reduction in reserve ounces from the estimate contained in the
The updated mineral resource and reserve estimates are set out in the
The 2014-Technical Report will be filed on SEDAR within 45 days.
-- The gold ounces contained in each resource and reserve category have been revised as follows: o Measured and Indicated Resources reduced by approximately 32% (156 koz); o Inferred Resources reduced by approximately 38% (13 koz); and o Proven and Probable reserves reduced by approximately 73% (320 koz). -- The reduction of tonnage in each resource and reserve category has been revised as follows: o Measured and Indicated Resources reduced by approximately 48% (6,565 kt); o Inferred Resources reduced approximately 65% (847 kt); and o Proven and Probable reserves reduced by approximately 78% (10,218 kt). -- The reduction in resources occurred, in part, because the Micon estimate is constrained within a pit shell and the TOMS estimate accounts for the entire block model. -- The reduction in reserves occurred, in part, as a result of differences in the gold price, mining and process costs, process recovery, and that Micon has only included oxide material (transition and primary material is treated as waste).
At the request of Mangazeya, Micon prepared the 2013-Technical Report
describing the mineral resources and reserves of Mangazeya’s Savkino
gold mine and heap leach operation located in the Zabaikalsky Territory
of the Russian Federation. The report was prepared in accordance with
the Canadian National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101″).
Micon has prepared an updated Mineral Resource estimate for the Savkino
project mineralised zones that have sufficient data to allow for
continuity of geology and grades.
A summary of the Mineral Resources is provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Mineral Resource Estimate for the Savkino Deposit (Micon 1(st) September 2013)
________________________________________________________________ | Zone | Class | Tonnage | Grade | Gold | Gold | | | | (kt) | (g/t Au) | (kg) | (koz) | |____________|___________|_________|__________|_________|________| | |Measured | 302 | 1.76 | 530 | 17.04 | | |___________|_________|__________|_________|________| | |Indicated | 2,808 | 1.54 | 4,315 | 137.74 | | Central |___________|_________|__________|_________|________| | |Measured + | 3,109 | 1.56 | 4,845 | 155.78 | | |Indicated | | | | | | |___________|_________|__________|_________|________| | |Inferred | 143 | 1.31 | 188 | 6.04 | |____________|___________|_________|__________|_________|________| | | |________________________________________________________________| | |Measured | - | - | - | - | | |___________|_________|__________|_________|________| | |Indicated | 3,950 | 1.36 | 5,388 | 173.22 | | South West |___________|_________|__________|_________|________| | |Measured + | 3,950 | 1.36 | 5,388 | 173.22 | | |Indicated | | | | | | |___________|_________|__________|_________|________| | |Inferred | 322 | 1.51 | 487 | 15.66 | |____________|___________|_________|__________|_________|________|
1. Mineral Resources are reported inclusive of Mineral Reserves. 2. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves are not required to demonstrate economic viability. 3. Mineral Resources are reported below the 31st August 2013 mined surface and constrained using a pit shell provided by the Company. 4. Mineral Resources are reported to a cut-off grade of 0.50 g/t Au. 5. The above mineral resource estimate is classified in accordance with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum's "CIM Definition Standards - For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves" in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101.
To the best knowledge of the author the stated mineral resources are not
materially affected by any known environmental, permitting, legal,
title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political or other relevant
issues, unless stated elsewhere in this report.
Micon has completed a basic comparison with the 2011-Technical Reports
mineral resource estimate prepared by TOMS in order to evaluate the
differences observed between the two results, summarised in Table 2.
Both estimates are presented at a cut-off grade of 0.5 g/t Au. The
approximate production from the Savkino Central Zone (open pit) between
the two estimates is approximately 1.029 Mt, comprising 692 kt in 2012
plus 337 kt from the first 8 months of 2013.
It is clear that the tonnage figures for both estimates are vastly
different. The main, and simple reason for this is that Micon has
constrained the block model within a pit shell. The TOMS mineral
resource estimate appears to comprise the entire block model, not
constrained within any pit shell. The entire Micon block model, with
no cut-off applied and not constrained, equates to a comparable 12.2 Mt
versus the total of 13.6 Mt in the TOMS resource estimate; noting an
extraction of circa 1 Mt from the 2012/13 production.
It should be noted that mineral resources must have reasonable prospects
for eventual economic extraction; this implies a judgement in respect
of the technical and economic factors likely to influence (economic)
extraction. In order to meet this requirement Micon used the pit shell
provided by the Company that has technical and economic factors applied
in its generation to constrain the resource block model and produce a
mineral resource that may be considered economically extractable. In
accordance with the CIM guidelines, material outside of this pit shell
(and considered uneconomic) is excluded from the mineral resource
Table 2. Mineral Resource estimates comparison table on the Savkino Gold
Deposit by Micon September 1, 2013 versus TOMS December 1, 2011, NI
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ | | Micon (2013) | TOMS (2011) | Difference | | |________________________________|_______________________________|_______________________________________________________________| | | | | | | | | | | Tonnage | Grade | Gold | | Class | Tonnage |Grade| Gold | Gold | Tonnage |Grade| Gold | Gold |________________|___________|__________________________________| | | (kt) | (g/t| (kg) | (koz) | (kt) | (g/t| (kg) | (koz) | (kt) | (%) | | (%) | (kg) | (%) | | (%) | | | |Au) | | | |Au) | | | | |(g/t| | | | (koz) | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Au) | | | | | | |__________|_________|_____|_______|________|_________|_____|_______|_______|________|_______|____|______|________|_______|_________|_______| | Central | |___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________| |Measured | 302 |1.76 | 530 | 17.04 | 1,227 |1.06 | 1,305 | 42 | -925 | -75.4 |0.70| 66.0 | -775 | -59.4 | -24.96 | -59.4 | |__________|_________|_____|_______|________|_________|_____|_______|_______|________|_______|____|______|________|_______|_________|_______| |Indicated | 2,808 |1.54 | 4,315 | 137.74 | 6,468 |1.21 | 7,813 | 251.2 | -3,660 | -56.6 |0.33| 27.3 | -3,498 | -44.8 | -113.46 | -44.8 | |__________|_________|_____|_______|________|_________|_____|_______|_______|________|_______|____|______|________|_______|_________|_______| |Measured +| 3,109 |1.56 | 4,845 | 155.78 | 7,695 |1.19 | 9,118 | 293.2 | -4,586 | -59.6 |0.37| 31.1 | -4,273 | -46.9 | -137.42 | -46.9 | |Indicated | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |__________|_________|_____|_______|________|_________|_____|_______|_______|________|_______|____|______|________|_______|_________|_______| |Inferred | 143 |1.31 | 188 | 6.04 | 683 |0.74 | 504 | 16.2 | -540 | -79.1 |0.57| 77.0 | -316 | -62.7 | -10.16 | -62.7 | |__________|_________|_____|_______|________|_________|_____|_______|_______|________|_______|____|______|________|_______|_________|_______| | South West | |___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________| |Measured | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |__________|_________|_____|_______|________|_________|_____|_______|_______|________|_______|____|______|________|_______|_________|_______| |Indicated | 3,950 |1.36 | 5,388 | 173.22 | 5,929 |1.00 | 5,957 | 191.5 | -1,979 | -33.4 |0.36| 36.0 | -569 | -9.6 | -18.28 | -9.6 | |__________|_________|_____|_______|________|_________|_____|_______|_______|________|_______|____|______|________|_______|_________|_______| |Measured +| 3,950 |1.36 | 5,388 | 173.22 | 5,929 |1.00 | 5,957 | 191.5 | -1,979 | -33.4 |0.36| 36.0 | -569 | -9.6 | -18.28 | -9.6 | |Indicated | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |__________|_________|_____|_______|________|_________|_____|_______|_______|________|_______|____|______|________|_______|_________|_______| |Inferred | 322 |1.51 | 487 | 15.66 | 629 |0.92 | 581 | 18.7 | -307 | -48.8 |0.59| 64.1 | -94 | -16.2 | -3.04 | -16.2 | |__________|_________|_____|_______|________|_________|_____|_______|_______|________|_______|____|______|________|_______|_________|_______|
What is shown is that the Micon mineral resource estimate (constrained
within a pit shell) for the Central Zone contains 40% of the (Measured
+ Indicated) tonnes and approximately 53% of the contained gold metal
compared to the TOMS estimate (not constrained).
It should be noted that only the Micon estimate is constrained within a
pit shell and that the TOMS estimate accounts for the entire block
Mineral reserve estimation has been generated by estimating the tonnage
and gold grade of all the ore types contained within the pit design and
applying the mining dilution and loss factors (Note however that
transition and primary material is treated as waste).
The final Proven and Probable mineral reserves at a cut-off grade of
0.40 g/t Au for the oxide only material is presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Savkino Mineral Reserves (Micon 31(st) October 2013)
_________________________________________________________________ | Pit |Category | Tonnage | Grade | Gold | Gold | | | | (kt) | (g/t Au) | (g) | (oz) | |____________|_________|_________|__________|___________|_________| | |Proven | 14.2 | 1.36 | 19,326 | 621 | |Central |_________|_________|__________|___________|_________| | |Probable | 1,627.5 | 1.42 | 2,303,116 | 74,055 | |____________|_________|_________|__________|___________|_________| | |Proven | - | - | - | - | |South West |_________|_________|__________|___________|_________| | |Probable | 1,192.2 | 1.17 | 1,389,366 | 44,674 | |____________|_________|_________|__________|___________|_________| |Total | Proven +| 2,833.9 | 1.31 | 3,711,807 | 119,351 | | |Probable | | | | | |____________|_________|_________|__________|___________|_________|
1. Mineral Resources are reported based on a cut-off grade of 0.40 g/t Au, gold price of US$1,300/oz and recoveries of 70% (Central) and 70% (South West).
To the best of Micon’s knowledge the mineral reserves are not materially
affected by any known mining, metallurgical, infrastructure,
permitting, or other relevant issues, unless stated elsewhere in this
In order to mine the above Mineral Reserves, transition and primary
material (summarised in Table 4) will need to be extracted to stockpile
(or waste), however this has not been included in the Mineral Reserve.
For the purposes of the Mineral Reserve, this material has been
reported as part of the 27.7 Mt of waste material contained in the
able 4: Transition and Primary Material Contained within Open Pits
_________________________________________________________ | Pit | Category | Type | Tonnage | Grade | | | | | (t) | (g/t Au) | |____________|__________|____________|_________|__________| | | | Transition | 160,094 | 1.87 | | | Measured |____________|_________|__________| | | | Primary | 5,109 | 3.94 | | |__________|____________|_________|__________| | Central | | Transition | 75,823 | 1.79 | | | |____________|_________|__________| | |Indicated | Primary | 245,046 | 1.30 | | | |____________|_________|__________| | | | N/A | 153,145 | 1.62 | |____________|__________|____________|_________|__________| | | | Transition | 298,249 | 1.50 | | South West |Indicated |____________|_________|__________| | | | Primary | 380,739 | 1.21 | |____________|__________|____________|_________|__________|
It should be noted that the Central Zone (open pit) contains 153 kt (at
1.62 g/t Au) of material (Type N/A) that has insufficient data to be
categorised as either oxide, transition or primary, and as such has not
been estimated as a Mineral Resource or Reserve. However, Micon
believes that it is likely that this material is oxide, but until this
is confirmed this material can only be treated as waste.
The mineral reserve below (Table 5) were estimated by Micon October 31,
2013 using a cut-off grade of 0.40 g/t Au for the oxide only material
and by TOMS December 1, 2011 for all material.
Table 5. Mineral Reserve estimates comparison table on the Savkino Gold
Deposit showing Micon October 31, 2013 (gold price $US 1300 /oz),
versus TOMS December 1, 2011, (gold price $US 1500 /oz)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ | | Micon (2013) | TOMS (2011) | Difference | | |________________________________|________________________________|_________________________________________________________________| | | | | | | | | | | Ore | Grade | Gold | |Category | Ore |Grade| Gold | Gold | Ore |Grade| Gold | Gold |_________________|____________|__________________________________| | | (kt) | (g/t| (kg) | (koz) | (kt) | (g/t| (kg) | (koz) | (kt) | (%) | | (%) | (kg) | (%) | (koz) | (%) | | | |Au) | | | |Au) | | | | |(g/t| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Au) | | | | | | |_________|_________|_____|_______|________|________|_____|________|________|_________|_______|____|_______|_________|_______|________|_______| | Central Zone | |_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________| |Proven | 14.2 |1.36 | 19.3 | 0.621 |1,291.7 |0.98 |1,262.3 | 40.6 |-1,277.5 | -98.9 |0.38| 38.8 |-1,242.97| -98.5 |-39.979 | -98.5 | |_________|_________|_____|_______|________|________|_____|________|________|_________|_______|____|_______|_________|_______|________|_______| |Probable | 1,627.5 |1.42 |2,303.1| 74.055 |5,800.5 |1.16 |6,722.2 | 216.1 |-4,173.0 | -71.9 |0.26| 22.4 |-4,419.08| -65.7 |-142.045| -65.7 | |_________|_________|_____|_______|________|________|_____|________|________|_________|_______|____|_______|_________|_______|________|_______| |Proven + | 1,641.7 |1.41 |2,322.4| 74.676 |7,092.3 |1.08 |7,984.6 | 256.7 |-5,450.6 | -76.9 |0.33| 31.0 |-5,662.16| -70.9 |-182.024| -70.9 | |Probable | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |_________|_________|_____|_______|________|________|_____|________|________|_________|_______|____|_______|_________|_______|________|_______| | South West Zone | |_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________| |Proven | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |_________|_________|_____|_______|________|________|_____|________|________|_________|_______|____|_______|_________|_______|________|_______| |Probable | 1,192.2 |1.17 |1,389.4| 44.674 |5,959.2 |0.95 |5,666.3 | 182.2 |-4,767.0 | -80.0 |0.22| 23.2 |-4,276.93| -75.5 |-137.526| -75.5 | |_________|_________|_____|_______|________|________|_____|________|________|_________|_______|____|_______|_________|_______|________|_______| |Proven + | 1,192.2 |1.17 |1,389.4| 44.67 |5,959.2 |0.95 |5,666.3 | 182.20 |-4,767.0 | -80.0 |0.22| 23.2 |-4,276.93| -75.5 |-137.526| -75.5 | |Probable | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |_________|_________|_____|_______|________|________|_____|________|________|_________|_______|____|_______|_________|_______|________|_______| | Savkino Deposit Total | |_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________| |Proven | 14.2 |1.36 | 19.3 | 0.62 |1,291.7 |0.98 |1,262.3 | 40.6 |-1,277.5 | -98.9 |0.38| 38.8 |-1,242.97| -98.5 |-39.979 | -98.5 | |_________|_________|_____|_______|________|________|_____|________|________|_________|_______|____|_______|_________|_______|________|_______| |Probable | 2,819.7 |2.59 |3,692.5| 118.73 |11,759.7|1.05 |12,388.6| 398.3 |-8,940.0 | -76.0 |1.54| 146.7 |-8,696.12| -70.2 |-279.571| -70.8 | |_________|_________|_____|_______|________|________|_____|________|________|_________|_______|____|_______|_________|_______|________|_______| |Proven + | 2,833.9 |1.31 |3,711.8| 119.35 |13,051.4|1.05 |13,650.9| 438.9 |-10,217.5| -78.3 |0.26| 24.7 |-9,939.09| -72.8 |-319.55 | -72.8 | |Probable | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |_________|_________|_____|_______|________|________|_____|________|________|_________|_______|____|_______|_________|_______|________|_______|
As with the mineral resource estimates the biggest difference in the
mineral reserve estimates are observed in the ore tonnage. Of the
total Proven and Probable reserves the Micon estimate is some 78% less
than the TOMS estimate, due largely to Micon restricting the estimate
to oxide material only. In the Micon estimate transition and primary
material is thus treated as waste. Aside from the fact that Micon has
only included oxide material, as opposed to TOMS who have included
oxide, transition, and primary material (the latter which cannot be
economically processed), some of the main parameters applied in the
estimates differ as summarised below:
TOMS (2011) Micon (2013) Gold Price (US$/oz) Mining loss (%) 1,500 1,300 Mining dilution (%) 2.8 3.51 Ore mining cost (US$/t) 13.6 8.12 Waste mining cost (US$/t) 2.7 1.8 Processing cost (US$/t) 3.4 1.4 G&A (US$/t) 3.9 10.6 Process recovery (%) 5.6 3.1 (Central) 78.56 70 Process recovery (%) (South 72 70 West)
Significant differences are observed in the gold price, mining and
process costs, and process recovery. Throughout 2011 the gold price
rose steadily from around US$1,350/oz in January to US$1,650/oz by
December and so the use of US$1,500/oz by TOMS was justified at the
time of their report. Micon cannot account for the costs used by TOMS,
or the process recovery which perhaps relates to test work results
rather than actual recovery results. Actual recovery in 2011 and 2012
was 59% and 66% respectively.
What is shown is that the Micon mineral reserve estimate for the Central
Zone contains approximately 23% of the (Proven + Probable) tonnes and
approximately 29% of the contained gold metal to that estimated by
TOMS. The figures for the South West Zone (Probable only) are 20% and
It should be noted that key estimation parameters, including gold price,
operating costs, and process recovery factors, differ significantly
between the Micon and TOMS mineral reserve estimate.
Furthermore (and perhaps of more significance), Micon has only included
the oxide ore within its estimate whereas TOMS has included transition
and primary material.
Due to substantial decrease of the reserves and resources of the Savkino
Gold Deposit, Mangazeya Mining management has started to re-assess the
previous production mining schedule which should reflect the existing
reserves of the mineable oxide ore amenable for heap leaching
The 2014-Technical Report was prepared by Micon International Co.
Limited (“Micon”). The Savkino mineral resource estimate data in this
news release was read and approved by Jason Ché Osmond, M.Sc., EurGeol., C.Geol., FGS, Senior Geologist, Micon, and a Qualified Person (“QP”)
as defined by NI 43-101. The Savkino mineral reserve estimate data in
this news release was read and approved by Bruce Pilcher, B.E. C.Eng. EurIng. FIMMM. FAusIMM. CP(Min), Senior Mining Engineer, Micon, and a QP as
defined by NI 43-101. By virtue of their education, membership to a
recognized professional association and relevant work experience Mr
Osmond and Mr Pilcher are considered to be independent Qualified
Persons as defined in NI 43-101.
Mr Osmond and Mr Pilcher have reviewed, approved and verified the
technical information disclosed in this press release, including
sampling, analytical and test data underlying the technical
information, and the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates.
Micon visited the Savkino Gold Mine from 7th to 11th September, 2013,
to ascertain the geological and geographical setting of the Savkino
property; observe the extent of the exploration work completed to date;
review sample preparation methodology; inspect core logging and sample
storage facilities; discuss geological interpretation and inspect drill
core; review data for the assay database from historical sampling;
inspect mining operations; and hold discussions with personnel involved
in exploration and mining activities.
Micon is satisfied with the quality of the laboratories used for the
metallurgical testing, and based on its quality control investigations
there is no evidence of bias within the current database that would
materially impact the mineral reserve and resource estimates.
In order to verify the information incorporated within the 2006-2011
drill programs, Micon has: completed a check of the digital drilling
database against the diamond drill core to confirm both geological and
assay values and provide a reasonable representation of the Savkino
Project; compared the lithological coding used in the database versus
the text description; and verified the quality of geological and
sampling information and developed an interpretation of gold grade
distributions appropriate to the use in the mineral resource model.
For further information with respect to the key assumptions, parameters
and risks associated with the results of the 2014-Technical Report, the
mineral resource and reserve estimates and other technical information
with respect to the Savkino Gold Mine, please refer to the
2014-Technical Report to be made available at www.sedar.com.
Mangazeya is a gold mining and exploration company with its assets based
in eastern Russia. The common shares of Mangazeya are listed and posted
for trading on the NEX Exchange under the symbol “MGZ.H”.
This news release contains forward looking statements within the meaning
of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
and forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable
Canadian securities laws including with respect to the impact of the
new resource and reserve estimate on the Savkino Gold Deposit’s
economics, expansion at the Savkino Mine, the planned production and
the timing thereof, the economic feasibility of the open-pit
operations on the Savkino deposit, and the planned level of output and
the sustainability of production. Words such as “may”, “will”,
“should”, “anticipate”, “plan”, “expect”, “believe”, “estimate” and
similar terminology are used to identify forward-looking statements and
forward-looking information. Forward looking statements in this press
release related to the 2013-Technical Report, and include, among
others, statements with respect to the estimation of mineral resources
and reserves, costs, metal prices, gold recoveries, mining methods and
mine plan and operating performance of the Company. Such statements
and information are based on assumptions, estimates, opinions and
analysis made by the management of Mangazeya in light of their
experience, current conditions and their expectations of future
developments as well as other factors which they believe to be
reasonable and relevant. Forward-looking statements and information
involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that
may cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or
implied in the forward-looking statements and information. Risks and
uncertainties that may cause actual results to vary include but are not
limited to: uncertainties relating to the interpretation of the
geology, continuity, grade and size of estimates; unanticipated
operational or technical difficulties; changes in the availability of
qualified personnel; changes in equity and debt markets; fluctuations
in gold and other commodity prices; as well as other risks and
uncertainties which are more fully described in Mangazeya’s Annual
Information Form dated March 28, 2013 and its annual and quarterly
Management’s Discussion and Analysis and in other filings made by
Mangazeya with Canadian securities regulatory authorities and available
Any forward-looking statement and information speaks only as of the date
on which it is made and, except as may be required by applicable laws,
Mangazeya disclaims any intent or obligation to update any
forward-looking statement and information, whether as a result of new
information, future events or results or otherwise. Although Mangazeya
believes that the assumptions inherent in the forward-looking
statements and information are reasonable, forward-looking statements
and information are not guarantees of future performance and
accordingly undue reliance should not be put on such statements or
information due to the inherent uncertainty therein.
Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as
that term is defined in policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts
responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
SOURCE Mangazeya Mining Ltd.