Berkwood files robust pit constrained mineral resources at its Lac Guéret South Project on SEDAR
2200 – 1250 Rene Levesque Blvd. Montreal QC H3B 4W8
Phone: (438) 469-0705
2410 – 610 Granville Street Vancouver BC V6C 3T3
Phone: (604) 343-7740
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.berkwoodresources.com
Berkwood files robust pit constrained mineral resources
at its Lac Guéret South Project on SEDAR
Vancouver, August 19th, 2019 --Berkwood Resources Ltd. (TSX -V: BKR) is pleased to announce
the filing of a pit-constrained Mineral Resource Estimate technical report regarding its Lac Guéret
South Project. The final edits and assembly of the report show no material differences between the
earlier news release and the final, full version of the report filed on SEDAR.
The maiden Mineral Resource Estimate for Lac Guéret South, Zone 1, is summarized in Table 1 (with
annotation). The Mineral Resource Estimate is based on drilling campaigns in 2017 and 2018 totalling
6,232.49 meters.
Table 1: Base Case Pit-Constrained Mineral Resource Estimate at the Lac Guéret South Project1
Mineral Resource
Category
Current Resource (June 2019)8
Tonnage (Mt)5,7 Grade (% Cgr)4 Cgr (t)6
Indicated 1.76 17.00 299,200
Inferred3 1.53 16.4 250,200
Notes:
1 The mineral resources provided in this table were estimated using current Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definition and
Guidelines.
2 Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Additional
trenching and/or drilling will be require d to convert Inferred and Indicated Mineral Resources to
Indicated and Measured Mineral Resources.
3 Inferred Mineral Resource s represent material that is considered too speculative to be included in
economic evaluations. Additional trenching and/or drilling will be required to convert Inferred Mineral
Resource to Indicated or Measured Mineral Resources/Reserves.
4 All assays used for the Resource Estimates were performed by MS Analytical in Langley, BC with
verification samples analysed at ALS-Laboratory at Burnaby, BC for graphitic carbon (“% Cg”), internal
analytical code SPM-140 and GE_CSA05V respectively.
5 Current Resource effective June 30, 2019.
6 No recovery was applied in the calculation of tonnage of graphitic carbon (90% recovery was applied
in pit optimization to define pit constrained mineral resources).
7 The Current Mineral Resources are stated at a cut-off grade of 6.81% Cgr.
TSX-V: BKR
FSE: BK2
WKN: A110N3
2
Tom Yingling President and CEO states: “Berkwood has reached a significant milestone at our L ac
Guéret South project with the definition of a significant pit constrained mineral resource. With this
new data Berkwood has started the process of the permitting in order to permit forest logging in the
area of a potential pit and to allow for stripping and bulk sampling at surface. This resource presents
sufficient size and grade for the Company to move forward with immediate next step plans, as this
maiden resource compares favourably with other developed and in- development projects. We are
confident Lac Guéret South will figure into the emerging Lac Guéret graphite production camp in the
near future. Our exploration and metallurgical work has received an enthusiastic reception among
long-run graphite buyers and financiers, and we have embarked upon a program of resource expansion
in the local area. We will immediately refine our current resource and increase our knowledge on the
quality and size of the deposit and adjacent deposits which we expect will further add to our resource
base.”
Edward Lyons, PGeo (BC,QC,NL) states: “The results of the initial resource estimate and
metallurgical testwork demonstrate that the Zone 1 deposit as tested to date has substantial resources
and robust recoveries, subject to further testing. The deposit has not been closed off in the lateral
extents and the several geophysical surveys suggest that the shallower mineralisation continues around
the western fold hinge. The strike length has the potential to significantly increase resources with future
development drilling. The Zone 2 target now in an early exploration stage, may add mineralisation as
well.”
Table 2: Current Resource Pit Envelope Characteristics
Characteristics Main Layer 01
Length (m)1 290 340
Azimuth (⁰) 80 42
Maximum width (m) 130 35
Surface Area (km2) 0.13
(1) Measured length is approximate.
Data Sources and Current Resource Estimation Methods
The block model used to generate this Resource is based on a total of 45 diamond drillholes and two
trenches for a total of 6,232.49 metres and 77 metres of trenches with 1194 samples and 28 samples
collected from trenches.
The present Resource block model was prepared under supervision of Claude Duplessis , P.Eng. of
GoldMinds Geoservices Inc. of Québec City, QC using Genesis © mining software. The block model
estimate was performed using interpolation according to the inverse of the distance fr om nearest
composites and the ellipsoid influenced distance in calculation which were adapted for the geology of
the deposit by application of the variable direction search ellipsoid special tool in Genesis software for
folded deposits.
3
The block size has been defined in order to respect the complex geometry of the envelopes. The mineral
resource estimate was carried out with a block size of twenty-seven cubic meters (3m (EW) x 3m (NS)
x 3m (Z)). The density to convert volume to tonnage used is 2.9.
The envelopes have been filled by regular blocks and only sample composites within the envelopes
were used to estimate the block grades. This represents a total of 3,015 sample composites.
The average percentage carbon (% Cgr) was calculated using interpolation according to the inverse of
the distance from nearest composites and the ellipsoid influenced distance in calculation. Interpolation
parameters were based on drill spacing, envelope extension and orientation.
Different numbers of runs and ellipsoid dimensions were used depending on the envelope. Two runs
were used in envelope “Main” and only one run was used in each remaining envelope s (Layer 01,
Layer A and Layer B), for the mineral Resource Estimate (see ellipsoids parameters in Table 3).
Specifically, run parameters were as follows: Main envelope: In run one (1), the number of composites
is limited to nine (9) with a minimum of three (3) per block and a maximum of two (2) composites
from the same drillhole. For run two (2), the number of composites was limited to nine (9) with a
minimum of three (3) and no limit number composites per drillhole. For Layer 01, Layer A and Layer
B: One run was executed with the number of composites limited to nine (9) with a minimum of three
(3) per block and a maximum of two (2) composites from the same drillhole.
Table 3: Variable Search Ellipsoid Parameters
Ellipsoids Parameters Main Pass01 Main Pass02 Layer01 Layer A Layer B
Azimuth 80 80 50 50 50
Dip 0 0 0 0 0
Spin 5 5 35 35 35
Major 30 40 30 10 15
Median 40 60 40 15 15
Minor 10 15 10 5 5
Within the folded or faulted nose of the Main envelope, a variable ellipsoid was used in the estimate,
as Genesis software (chosen specifically for its features) has the capacity to search along complex
planes.
The classical method of distance and composites within the search ellipsoid wa s selected to classify
the deposit where one defined class is used by ellipsoid. A total of two ellipsoids and two runs were
applied. Two runs were performed for the Main envelope (indicated and inferred) and one run was
done for each envelope Layer 01, Layer A and Layer B (inferred).
The block model was afterward processed in MineSight software to provide an optimized pit envelope
constraining the mineral resources (see Table 4 below). The technical and economic parameters used
to generate the pit shell envelopes are listed in the Table 5 below. The base case is in bold.
4
The resource shell parameters were derived from comparable graphite projects in the region and
preliminary metallurgical testing done at Met-Solve Laboratories of Langley, British Colombia in Item
13 of the filed NI 43-101 report presenting similar results aligned with adjacent project. Duplessis
elected to apply a conservative recovery of 90% as additional metallurgical testing is required to better
define the flake class and so to constrain the price point values of the eventual saleable products.
Table 4 Pit optimization Results (rounded)
Optimised Pit.
Mineral Resource Waste(*) Stripping
Ratio Indicated Inferred
Tonnes Cg
(%) Tonnes Cg
(%) Tonnes
Pit 01 998 600 21.50 424,300 23.01 5,520,800 3.87
Pit 02 1,161,300 20.21 730,800 20.96 8,371,100 4.42
Pit 03 1,349,900 19.02 908,900 19.42 9,921,600 4.39
Pit 04 1,474,900 18.19 1,042,400 18.46 10.730,700 4.26
Pit 05 1 648 800 17,35 1,349,400 17.05 14,229,900 4.74
Pit 06 (base Case) 1,755,300 17.00 1,526,400 16.39 16,774,000 5.11
Pit 07 1,816,800 16.73 1,793,800 15.49 19,592,000 5.42
(*) “waste” here is not waste but is considered to be material which is not economic at the time of this pit
optimization.
Table 5: Current Resource Shell Envelope Generation Parameters Base Case ($CDN)
Parameters Values
Mining Cost 6 $/t
Transport 36 $/t
Processing 40 $/t
G & A 10 $/t
Recovery 90 %
Selling Price Cg 1,530 $/t
Quality assurance and control were maintained through the systematic use of blank samples (non-
graphitic) inserted into the sample sequence every 20th sample as well as duplicate quarter-cut drill core
samples. The blank samples consistently returned only trace Cg values . The duplicate sample results
closely repeated the comparison sample analyses on the half -core, though there is typically some
variation in grade owing to the lower material volume in quarter-cut core vs. half-core, in addition to
the local variations in Cg at decimeter scale. Fifty (50) samples selected by Lyons were taken from the
original rejects at MS Analytical and one -kilogram riffle-split coarse reject material was delivered to
ALS Laboratory for analyses that closely followed the original methods used by MS Analytical. These
had a close correlation , and the authors of the report are confident that the original assays are
representative of the samples assayed.
The database was reviewed by Lyons and GoldMinds. S everal errors were discovered and resolv ed,
and the final database included the corrections.
5
The technical data included in this release was prepared by qualified independent experts, as defined
by NI 43-101 Regulation, including Claude Duplessis Eng., of GoldMinds Geoservices Inc. (resource
estimation), Edward Lyons PGeo (BC, QC,NL) of Tekhne Research Inc. (senior author and most of
the report), and Florent Baril, Eng. of Bumigème Inc. (mineral processing and metallurgical testing).
Berkwood Resource Ltd has finalising the independently prepared Mineral Resource Estimate
technical report, in accordance with the National Instrument (NI) 43-101, detailing this important work,
and the report is now filed on SEDAR at www.sedar.com .
Edward Lyons PGeo (BC, QC, NL) is the Qualified Person under the definition of Canadian National
Instrument 43-101 for Berkwood Resources and has approved the technical information in this news
release. Ed has worked extensively on the Lac Gueret Property, now owned by Mason Graphite, and
on neighbouring graphite properties since 2000.
About the Company: Berkwood is engaged in exploration for the commodities that enable the modern
revolution in essential technologies. These technologies are dependent upon the ethical mining and
supply of naturally occurring elements and minerals that enhance the performance of energy storage
systems and permit the development and miniaturization of new electronics and structural components
for the new suite of innovative tools. The Company is led by a team with collectively over 200 years
experience and whose members have been involved with the discovery of several producing mines.
On Behalf of the Board of Directors
Berkwood Resources Ltd.
‘Thomas Yingling’
President, CEO & Director
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:
Investor Relations:
[email protected] or 1-604-343-7740 www.berkwoodresources.com
Disclaimer for Forward-Looking Information:
Certain statements in this release are forward-looking statements, which reflect the expectations of management. Forward-looking statements consist of
statements that are not purely historical, including any statements regarding beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions regarding the future. Such
statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results, performance or developments to differ materially from those contained in
the statements. No assurance can be given that any of the events anticipated by the forward-looking statements will occur or, if they do occur, what
benefits the Company will obtain from them. These forward-looking statements reflect management’s current views and are based on certain expectations,
estimates and assumptions, which may prove to be incorrect.
Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts
responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.