Goldshore Announces an Indicated Mineral Resource Estimate of 1,535Koz Contained Gold at 1.23 g/t Au and an Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate of 5,198Koz Contained Gold at 1.11 g/t Au at the Moss Gold Project
EE
Goldshore Announces an Indicated Mineral Resource Estimate of 1,535Koz Contained
Gold at 1.23 g/t Au and an Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate of 5,198Koz Contained
Gold at 1.11 g/t Au at the Moss Gold Project
VANCOUVER, B.C., February 6, 2024: Goldshore Resources Inc. (TSXV: GSHR / OTCQB:
GSHRF / FWB: 8X00) (“Goldshore” or the “ Company”) is pleased to announce a n updated
mineral resource estimate (the “MRE”) for the Moss deposit (“Moss” or the “Moss Deposit”) and
East Coldstream deposit (“East Coldstream” or the “East Coldstream Deposit ”), both located
at its 100%-owned Moss Gold Project in Northwest Ontario, Canada (the “Moss Gold Project”
or the “Project”).
Highlights of the 2024 Mineral Resource Estimate Update:
• Upgrading of the MRE to include 23% Indicated Mineral Resources and an increase
in the average grade over the 2023 MRE.
o Indicated Mineral Resource of 1 ,535 thousand ounces grading 1.23 grams per
tonne gold (g/t Au), contained within 38.96 million tonnes.
o Inferred Mineral Resource of 5,198 thousand ounces grading 1.11 grams per tonne
gold (g/t Au), contained within 146.24 million tonnes.
o The total resource tonnage increase is just under 1% overall over the 2023 MRE,
however the overall grade increase versus the 2023 MRE is approximately 11%.
• The shears that host gold mineralization have been extensively remodelled as
constraining domains, greatly enhancing the reliability of the current MRE.
o With gold prices consistent with the 2023 MRE , 94% of the 2024 MRE ’s tonnes
and gold ounces are contained within these shear models.
o This is a significant increase compared to the 2023 MRE, where only 35% of the
tonnes and 65% of the gold ounces were contained in its shear model.
• Implied stripping ratios based on diluted block models and the Reasonable Potential for
Eventual Economic Extraction (“ RPEEE”) constraining pit optimization are 3:1 for Moss
and 6:1 for East Coldstream.
• The pit depth is constrained by the model (in multiple locations), indicating the potential
for a larger pit should the model be extended at depth.
• The 2024 Moss Project MRE u pdate is set to be the foundation for resource growth and
development towards Tier One status, and leading to a future Preliminary Economic
Assessment (PEA).
• All identified zones within the Project are still open to potential expansion.
• The Moss Project encompasses 36 satellite targets, including several mapped and
sampled gold trends near the Moss Gold Depos it, offering prospects for discoveries and
additional gold mineralization.
2
Table 1: Moss Project Updated Mineral Resource Estimate
Indicated Inferred
Cutoff Tonnes Grade Metal Tonnes Grade Metal
(g/t Au) (Mt) (g/t Au) (Koz Au) (Mt) (g/t Au) (Koz Au)
Moss
Open Pit Core Shears 0.35 19.95 1.39 893 56.32 1.39 2,525
Marginal Shears 0.35 11.35 0.92 335 70.31 0.81 1,836
Low Grade Halo 0.35 - - - 10.21 0.62 202
Open Pit Subtotal 31.30 1.22 1,228 136.84 1.04 4,563
Underground 2.0 - - - 3.22 3.43 355
Moss Total 0.35/2.0 31.30 1.22 1,228 140.07 1.09 4,919
East Coldstream
Open Pit 0.35 7.67 1.25 307 5.36 1.15 198
Underground 2.0 - - - 0.82 3.10 82
E Coldstream Total 0.35/2.0 7.67 1.25 307 6.18 1.41 280
Grand Total 0.35/2.0 38.96 1.23 1,535 146.24 1.11 5,198
Notes:
1. The 2024 Moss Mineral Resources were estimated and classified in accordance with the Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”) “Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines” dated
November 29, 2019, and the CIM “Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves” dated May 10, 2014.
2. Mr. Michael Dufresne, M.Sc., P.Geol., P.Geo. and Mr. Warren Black, M.Sc., P.Geo. both of APEX Geoscience Ltd. (“APEX”)
qualified persons as defined by NI 43-101, are responsible for completing the updated mineral resource estimation, effective
January 31, 2024.
3. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves have no demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have been
calculated for Moss. There is no guarantee that any part of the mineral resources discussed herein will be converted to a
mineral reserve in the future.
4. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, market, or other
relevant factors.
5. The quantity and grade of reported Inferred Resources is uncertain, and there has not been sufficient work to define the
Inferred Mineral Resource as an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource. It is reasonably expected that most of the Inferred
Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued exploration.
6. The historical underground voids from mining in any of the deposit areas have been removed.
7. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Resources are
presented as undiluted and in situ.
8. Tonnage estimates are based on individually measured and calculated bulk densities for geological units ranging from 2.68
to 2.89 g/cm³. Overburden density is set at 1.8 g/cm³.
9. Metal prices are US$1,850/oz Au with a revenue factor of 1 and recovery of 90% for Moss and 95% for East Coldstream.
10. Open- pit resource economic assumptions are mining costs of US$2.25/waste tonne, $3.00/ore tonne, flotation-leaching
processing costs of US$9.50 per tonne, and mine-site administration costs of US$2.10 per tonne processed.
11. Open- pit resources comprise blocks constrained by the pit shell resulting from the pseudoflow optimization using the open-
pit economic assumptions and 50° pit slopes.
12. Underground resource economic assumptions are US$75/tonne for mining mineralized and waste material and
US$9.50/tonne for processing. The underground resource mining assumptions are open pit stope mining method with a
minimum mining width of 1.5m and a minimum stope volume equal to stope dimensions of 1.5m x 10m x 20m.
13. The Underground material below the open pit was manually constrained to continuous material above the gold cutoff (2.0
g/t) that met the minimum thickness and volume requirements. Resources not meeting these size criteria are included if
they maintain a grade above the cutoff once diluted to the required size.
3
Table 2: Moss Project Updated Open Pit Mineral Resource Estimate Sensitivity
Cutoff
(g/t Au)
Indicated Inferred
Tonnes
(Mt)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Metal
(Koz Au)
Tonnes
(Mt)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Metal
(Koz Au)
Moss
0.2 33.55 1.16 1,249 185.72 0.83 4,985
0.3 32.36 1.19 1,239 150.61 0.97 4,707
0.35 31.30 1.22 1,228 136.84 1.04 4,563
0.4 30.15 1.25 1,214 125.85 1.10 4,431
0.5 27.31 1.34 1,173 104.78 1.22 4,126
0.6 24.05 1.44 1,115 86.6 1.37 3,807
0.8 17.88 1.70 977 60.33 1.66 3,221
1.0 13.00 2.00 836 42.89 1.97 2,721
East Coldstream
0.2 8.70 1.13 316 6.54 0.99 208
0.3 8.01 1.21 311 5.73 1.09 201
0.35 7.66 1.25 307 5.35 1.15 198
0.4 7.33 1.29 303 4.99 1.20 193
0.5 6.59 1.38 292 4.36 1.31 184
0.6 5.92 1.47 280 3.77 1.43 174
0.8 4.58 1.70 250 2.94 1.64 155
1.0 3.49 1.95 219 2.31 1.84 137
See footnotes for Table 1
Table 3: Moss Project Updated Underground Mineral Resource Estimate Sensitivity
Cutoff
(g/t Au)
Inferred
Tonnes
(Mt)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Metal
(Koz Au)
Moss
1.8 3.96 3.14 400
1.9 3.56 3.29 377
2.0 3.22 3.43 355
2.1 2.89 3.59 334
2.2 2.60 3.75 314
2.4 2.11 4.09 277
East Coldstream
1.8 1.00 2.88 93
1.9 0.90 3.00 87
2.0 0.82 3.10 82
2.1 0.76 3.19 78
2.2 0.70 3.28 74
2.4 0.60 3.45 66
See footnotes for Table 1
4
President and CEO Brett Richards stated: “The MRE results above are extremely encouraging,
and validate the strategic exploration and drilling campaign we embarked on almost 3 years ago.
We have consistently delivered exciting drilling results as they relate to the Moss Gold Project,
and this MRE illustrates a meaningful and material increase in the quality, quantity, and grade of
the deposit. Conducting this update to the MRE was the logical next step in defining our strategy
going forward of understanding and defining the potential of the Moss Gold Project; in an effort to
maximize shareholder value. We continue to believe that the Moss Gold Project will be a sector
anomaly of having top quartile grade and top quartile size and scale within our comparable peers;
as it moves closer to being a Tier One asset.”
Figure 1: Location of Moss Deposit and East Coldstream Deposit in the Moss Gold Project
Figure 2: Plan of Moss showing shears, $1,850 pit shell and mapped mineralized trends
5
Figure 3: Cross section through the Moss Main Zone showing geology
Figure 4: Cross section through the Moss Main Zone showing grade model, $1850 open pit shell and modelled stopes
6
Figure 5: Plan of East Coldstream showing shears, cross-cutting diabase dike and $1,850 pit shell
Figure 6: Cross section through East Coldstream showing geology
7
Figure 7: Cross section through East Coldstream showing grade model, $1,850 open pit shell and modelled stopes
Technical Overview
Historical Assay Review
APEX Geoscience Ltd. (“APEX”) completed an in-depth review and validation of assays collected
before 2010 at the Moss Deposit and East Coldstream Deposit to establish whether the data is
suitable for mineral resource estimation. APEX reviewed previous studies ’ evaluation of twin
drilling and resampling programs and drew the following conclusions regarding this data:
• Five twin holes have been completed in the Moss Zone. APEX regards this dataset as
limited, insufficient for definitive conclusions, but adequate for a preliminary assessment.
This view is due to the deposit’s characteristics and challenges in accurately positioning
twin holes adjacent to historical holes. The data indicate that the twin holes generally
exhibit mineralization that corresponds with the mineralization trends noted in the historical
drillholes they were designed to test and confirm.
• Six historical drillholes were resampled to determine potential bias in the historical dataset.
o Prior analyses of the resampling program focused on comparing the difference
between each interval’s historical and modern assays and noting variance
discrepancies between the two datasets.
o APEX performed a quantile-to-quantile comparison between resampled and
historical assays and the results show similar distributions, indicating no significant
bias in resampling assay values vs original values.
o APEX considers the noted variance difference to be within expected ranges, as
the differences in sampling volumes could explain any discrepancies.
8
o These findings remain partially inconclusive due to the limited number of holes
resampled.
Due to the inconclusive results from the twinning and resampling programs, APEX conducted a
spatial pairing analysis. This analysis compared the distribution of historical assays with modern
drilling data. The assay data was limited to samples within the 2023 modelled shear domains,
ensuring only assays from similar geological settings were compared. In this analysis, only assays
from either dataset that are within 15 meters of an assay from the other dataset could be
considered. The dataset included thousands of paired samples to complete the analysis on.
Below are APEX’s conclusions:
• The assay distributions of historical paired data and modern paired data were found to be
similar after accounting for comparable mineralization zones.
• No evident bias in historical assays was observed that could be attributed to assay
methods or assay labs or different generations (ages) of data.
• Some historical data involved selective assaying. Inserting nominal waste values for
unsampled intervals yields a conservative gold content estimate at the sample location.
Based upon this analysis, the QP believes that the historical assays can be used for a mineral
resource estimate even with limited historical QA/QC data. Details of the Historical Assay Review
and Analysis will be provided in a technical report with an effective date of January 31, 2024,
prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) standards.
Moss Deposit Geology
The Moss Deposit is a structurally controlled gold deposit within the greenstone terrain of the
Shebandowan Belt in the Archean Superior Province. Mineralization is localized where the major
NE-trending Wawiag Fault Zone cuts a dioritic to granodioritic intrusion complex. The deposit
comprises a network of centimetre- to meter-scale northeast-trending shear zones hosting high-
grade gold mineralization. Surrounding the shear zones are areas of lower -grade gold
mineralization associated with less intense shearing and more brittle deformation. This includes
veining in both the intrusion rock and adjacent wall rocks between the shear zones. Mineralization
is associated with pyrite, sericite and chlorite alteration and millimetre- to centimetre-scale
irregular quartz-carbonate veinlets.
East Coldstream Deposit Geology
The East Coldstream Deposit is a structurally controlled gold deposit located approximately 13
km northeast of the Moss Deposit within the Moss Gold Project area. The East Coldstream
Deposit’s mineralized zones are located on the south margin of a shear zone that separates a
gabbroic intrusion to the north and a mafic-intermediate volcanic suite to the south. Mineralization
is found within sheared volcanic units, proximal to sills of quartz and quartz -feldspar porphyries
and distinctive, brick -red syenites. The mineralized zones show silica, carbonate, and hematite
alteration. Mineralization consists of fine disseminations of pyrite and lesser chalcopyrite
throughout the silica-hematite zones and within quartz -carbonate veinlets. Iron carbonate is
present in areas proximal to strong silicification. A north-south-trending diabase dike has cut the
two main mineralized zones.