Fireweed Increases Mineral Resources at the Macpass Project Including an Inaugural Resource for Boundary Zone
1
NEWS RELEASE
September 04, 2024 TSXV: FWZ
OTCQX: FWEDF
FSE: M0G
Fireweed Increases Mineral Resources at the Macpass Project Including an
Inaugural Resource for Boundary Zone
Vancouver, British Columbia: Fireweed Metals Corp. (“Fireweed” or the “Company”) (TSXV:
FWZ; OTCQX: FWEDF) is pleased to announce the updated Mineral Resource Estimate (“MRE”)
for the Tom and Jason deposits , as well as the inaugural resource estimates for the Boundary
Zone and End Zone deposits at the Macmillan Pass Project (“Macpass”). The MRE was prepared
by SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. in accordance with Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
and Petroleum (“CIM”) definitions, as required under National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”).
Peter Hemstead (Interim CEO) commented, “ The delivery of the updated Mineral Resource
Estimate for the Macpass project marks another key milestone in demonstrating the exploration
potential of the Macpass district. The team has increased the contained zinc equivalent* metal in
the Indicated Resources category by approximately 300% and more than doubled the overall
tonnage. The addition of Boundary Zone now positions Macpass as one of the world’s largest
undeveloped primary zinc districts1.”
Mineral Resource Estimate Highlights
• Global Mineral Resource Estimate comprising:
o An Indicated Resource of 56.00 Mt at 7.27% Zinc Equivalent (“ZnEq”)* (5.49%
zinc, 1.58% lead, and 24.2 g/t silver).
o An Inferred Resource of 48.49 Mt at 7.48% ZnEq* (5.15% zinc, 2.08% lead,
and 25.3 g/t silver).
• Macpass is now one of the world’s largest undeveloped primary zinc districts1.
• Contained ZnEq* metal in the Indicated Resources category increased by approximately
300% compared to the 2018 resource estimate2.
• The resource estimate is supported by verified data, robust geological models, well -
defined estimation domains , constrained with open pit shells and underground mining
shapes and supported by thorough sensitivity analysis.
2
120011339 v1
• Fireweed continues to build and prioritize a portfolio of targets through a large regional
exploration campaign in an under-explored land package (977 km2).
Dr. Jack Milton, VP Geology, commented, “T his resource is the culmination of six years of
exploration success at Macpass, including an additional 43,000 metres of drilling at Tom, Jason,
End Zone, and our discovery at Boundary Zone, which is one of the most globally significant zinc
discoveries of the last 15 years 1. We have more than doubled the tonnage from our previously
reported resource2, increased the contained zinc metal by 83%, and added open-pit and
underground mining volume constraints for reporting. T he potential for by-product gallium and
germanium could enhance the Macpass district with further critical minerals exposure. The
deposits remain open along strike and at depth and, with the 2024 drill program (14,000 m) not
yet included in this MRE, there exists the potential for an increase to the resource as part of future
technical work. In addition, we are undertaking a large and comprehensive regional exploration
program to continue to provide a pipeline of high-quality targets for future testing.”
Conference Call and Webinar
Investors, media, and the public are invited to join the conference call and webinar hosted by Dr.
Jack Milton, P. Geo. , during which management will discuss the result of the Macpass MRE
update as reported in this release.
September 5, 2024, at 9:00am PT (12:00pm ET)
Toll-free in U.S. and Canada: +1 (844) 763-8274
All other callers: +1 (647) 484-8814
Webinar: https://www.c-
meeting.com/web3/joinTo/M94CVMUU83PQMW/vobcPfLtLGOvjaB9xTlsxQ
Webinar replay: Available on the Company’s website for one year.
Global Mineral Resource Estimate
The MRE at Macpass is comprised of four distinct deposits: Tom, Jason, End Zone, and Boundary
Zone (Figure 1). Table 1 lists the global mineral resources for Macpass by deposit.
Table 1: Macpass Project Global Mineral Resource Estimate by Deposit (combined OP and UG
constrained resources).
2024 SLR
Class Deposit Tonnes
(Mt)
ZnEq
(%)
Zn
Grade
(%)
Pb
Grade
(%)
Ag
Grade
(g/t)
Zn
Contained
Metal
(Mlbs)
Pb
Contained
Metal
(Mlbs)
Ag
Contained
Metal (Moz)
Indicated
Tom 17.52 9.90 6.30 3.34 33.0 2,435 1,291 18.56
Jason 3.80 9.09 7.62 1.86 1.7 638 156 0.21
End Zone 0.34 16.15 3.81 12.32 86.2 29 93 0.95
Boundary
Zone 34.34 5.63 4.86 0.55 21.6 3,682 412 23.83
Total Indicated 56.00 7.27 5.49 1.58 24.2 6,784 1,952 43.54
Inferred
Tom 18.94 9.10 6.56 2.30 25.2 2,738 960 15.37
Jason 11.65 10.40 5.48 4.33 48.2 1,407 1,112 18.05
End Zone 0.44 8.76 1.86 6.88 48.1 18 67 0.68
Boundary
Zone 17.46 3.75 3.48 0.23 9.5 1,337 87 5.32
Total Inferred 48.49 7.48 5.15 2.08 25.3 5,500 2,227 39.42
3
120011339 v1
Table 1 footnotes:
• All mineral resources have been estimated in accordance with CIM definitions, as required under NI 43-101.
• Data for this mineral resource estimate has been independently reviewed and validated by a third -party consultancy, SLR Consulting
(Canada) Ltd.
• Pierre Landry P.Geo. of SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. (“SLR”) is independent of Fireweed Metals Corp., and a ‘Qualified Person’ as defined
under NI 43-101. Pierre Landry is responsible for the Macpass Mineral Resource Estimate.
• g/t: grams per tonne; Mlbs: million pounds; Moz: millions of troy ounces; Mt: million metric tonnes.
• Mineral resources are reported within conceptual open pit (“OP”) shells and underground (“UG”) mining volumes to demonstrate Reasonable
Prospects for Eventual Economic Extraction (“RPEEE”), as required under NI 43-101; mineralization lying outside of the OP shell or UG
volumes is not reported as a mineral resource. Note the conceptual OP shell and UG volumes are used for mineral resource reporting
purposes only and are not indicative of the proposed mining method; future mining studies may consider UG mining, OP mining or a
combination of both. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
• All quantities are rounded to the appropriate number of significant figures; consequently, sums may not add up due to rounding.
• All prices in Canadian dollars unless otherwise stated.
• Open Pit mineral resources are reported at a pit wall angle of 45° , Revenue Factors of 0.8 (Tom , End Zone ), 0.6 (Jason), 1.0 (Boundary
Zone), and Net Smelter Return (“NSR”) cut-off of $30/tonne (“t”).
• Underground mineral resources are constrained within reporting panels with heights (H) of 20 m, lengths (L) of 10 m, with 10 m H and 5 m L
sub-shapes and minimum widths of 2 m at Tom, Jason, and End Zone; and 20 m H by 20 m L with 10 m sub -shapes and a minimum width
of 5 m at Boundary Zone, using an average panel NSR cut-off of $112/t.
• NSR block values and zinc equivalency are based on a price of US$1.40/lb Zn, US$1.10/lb Pb, and US$25/oz Ag, CAD:USD exchange rate
of 1.32, and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions specific to each deposit or mineralization domain (see Tables 2 and 3).
• ZnEq has been calculated on a block-by-block basis using the NSR calculation and input parameters related to each deposit or mineralization
domain (Tables 2 and 3). For reporting subtotals and totals, ZnEq values have been calculated using the mass weighted average of the ZnEq
block values of each respective domain for its respective classification category within OP and UG reporting volumes.
• The effective date of the MRE is September 4, 2024 and the MRE is based on all drilling data up to and including holes drilled in 2023 with a
final database cut-off date of June 23, 2024. The MRE does not include any data from holes drilled in 2024.
• Inferred mineral resources are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that w ould enable
them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is also no certainty that these inferred mineral resources will be converted to the measured
and indicated categories through further drilling, or into mineral reserves, once economic considerations are applied. The Inferred Mineral
Resource in this estimate has a lower level of confidence than that applied to an Indicated Mineral Resource and must not be converted to a
Mineral Reserve. It is reasonably expected that the majority of the inferred Mineral Resource could be upgraded to an Indicated Miner al
Resource with continued exploration.
Deposit Geology
The Tom, Jason, End Zone, and Boundary Zone deposits are examples of stratiform, strata-
bound sediment hosted zinc -lead-silver deposits. Historically the term SEDEX was used to
describe these deposits of Yukon’s Selwyn Basin and since then the term has been used to
describe these deposits worldwide. This class of deposits are now referred to as sediment hosted
massive sulphide deposits and are also known as clastic-dominated or “CD” deposits. Previously
considered to be formed strictly at the sediment-seawa ter interface by the exhalation of
mineralizing fluids in seafloor environments, the model at Tom, Jason, End Zone and Boundary
Zone has subsequently been reinterpreted to involve the replacement of porous, poorly
consolidated muddy to silty, barite-rich sediment in the sub-seafloor environment.
Mineralization at these deposits comprises an early stage of finely laminated and stratiform pyrite,
sphalerite, and galena grading to semi-massive and massive sulphides with increasing proximity
to feeder structures , and these intervals are associated with barite-rich layers at multiple
stratigraphic levels within black mudstone sequences . At Boundary Zone a later, cross-cutting
style of mineralization is also present, forming discrete, broadly stratiform bodies consist ing of
breccia and veins of pyrite, sphalerite, and galena; flooding and replacement of matrix material
by pyrite, sphalerite, and galena; all accompanied by abundant siderite and hosted in
conglomerates, diamictites, mudstones, and carbonate-altered mafic volcaniclastic rocks.
Geological domains have been modeled at Tom, Jason, End Zone, and Boundary Z one
representing the primary mineralization styles. These domains represent contiguous bodies and
vary in complexity between deposits and lenses. At Tom, the main stratiform mineralized zone
has been sub-domained into distinct facies to support a detailed estimation model. At Boundary
Zone, the early phase of mineralization is represented by the massive sulphide domain, the later
phase by the Boundary Vein domains, and surrounding low-grade mineralization is captured in
the Boundary Halo domain. Further details will be available in the technical report.
4
120011339 v1
The Macpass MRE is based on 124,632 m of drilling, including historical (pre-2017) and
contemporary (2017-2023) drilling across 544 drill holes from 1952 to 2023. The estimate is based
on drilling up to and including TS23-009D2, completed October 15, 2023 using a final database
cut-off for 2023 and earlier drilling of June 23, 2024.
Detailed geological and fault models were created in 3D for each of Tom, Jason, End Zone and
Boundary Zone. These models use a sequence stratigraphic approach and are based on an
improved understanding of the regional stratigraphy and structural setting of the deposits. A
mineralization model was developed using the geological domains as a framework for defining
estimation domains. Contact-plot analysis was used to determine how composite samples should
be managed at domain contacts during estimation.
Data Verification
The data used in this Mineral Resource Estimate is supported by Quality Assurance and Quality
Control ("QA/QC") procedures, such as the insertion of certified standards and blanks into the
sample stream and the utilization of certified independent analytical laboratories for all assays.
Historical QA/QC data and methodology on the project were reviewed and will be summarized in
the NI 43-101 technical report. No significant QA/QC issues were discovered during review of the
data.
The QP is of the opinion that the sample preparation, analysis, and security procedures at
Macpass are sufficient for estimating Mineral Resources. Additionally, the QP is of the opinion
that the QA/QC program designed and implemented by Fireweed is adequate, and the assay
results in the database are suitable for use in the Mineral Resource Estimate.
Data verification for the drill hole database involved cross -checking database analytical values
with digital laboratory analysis certificates. These certificates were directly sent to the Fireweed
database manager by Bureau Veritas before being passed on to SLR. The verification process
also included validating historical assay results from previous operators using a selection of
historical certificates, which were scanned from the original paper copies by Fireweed.
In accordance with NI 43-101, Pierre Landry, P.Geo., of SLR, conducted a site visit to Macpass
and related facilities from September 15th to 17th, 2022. During this visit, Mr. Landry inspected the
core shack, core scanning workspace, and reviewed the logging environment and procedures for
data collection and sampling. He also examined core samples from the Tom, Jason, End Zone,
and Boundary Zone deposits, interviewed Fireweed Metals personnel, and gathered other
information necessary for completing the Mineral Resource Estimate and accompanying technical
report. Additionally, Mr. Landry inspected drill collars and drill hole cores relevant to the Mineral
Resource estimation, including checking collar locations with a handheld GPS and visually
comparing mineralization with interpreted drilling sections. Fi reweed Metals provided full access
to all facilities and personnel during the site visit. During the visit Mr. Landry was accompanied by
Dr. Jack Milton, Vice-President, Geology for Fireweed Metals.
A full description of the data QA/QC will be available in the technical report for the mineral
resource update.
Mineral Resource Estimation Methodology
5
120011339 v1
A data-driven approach was used to define grade caps for zinc, lead, and silver within each
estimation domain. Assay caps were applied prior to compositing. Regressions of measured
densities against the sum of assay values (Zn+Pb+Ba+Fe) were developed for each deposit or
domain in order to estimate densities of s amples that lack density measurements using assay
values. Variography and trend analysis were considered for domains with sufficient data support,
and dynamic anisotropy was implemented in the estimate, guided by the mineralization contacts
with the wall rock or other sub-domains where applicable. Density -weighted composites were
used for the interpolation of grades into the block model using inverse distance squared (ID 2)
interpolation and compared against nearest neighbor (NN) via swath plots and tables for
consistency. High-grade search restrictions were implemented within certain domains. Sub-block
models were created using a 5 m parent cell size with sufficient sub block increments to accurately
reproduce the wireframe volumes. Density was estimated into each block using length-weighted
density composites for each mineralization domain. Fixed, average values of density were
assigned to each of the areas of the model outside the mineralization domains.
Resource category classification was determined using a combination of drillhole spacing,
geological continuity, grade continuity , mineralization width, and data quality. Inferred and
Indicated categories were assigned, and no Measured resources were defined.
Metallurgy
The metallurgical variability of the Tom, Jason, and Boundary Zone deposits has been previously
disclosed and shown to have positive metallurgical performance, producing high grade
concentrates with high recoveries (see Fireweed News Releases May 15, 2018, and November
1, 2022 ). Another test program was completed in 2023 that focused on understanding the
performance of the massive sulphide mineralization domain at Boundary Zone. Two composites
were generated from drillholes NB21-001 and NB20-004, and open circuit tests were completed
using the flowsheet from 2022 as a basis. Initial metallurgical performance of the samples is
deemed as positive with representative results for each Boundary Zone domain given in Table 2.
Table 2: List of Deposit-Specific Metallurgical Assumptions for NSR and ZnEq Calculations.
Category Unit
Tom, Jason &
End Zone
Boundary Zone
Massive Sulphide
Boundary
Zone Vein
Boundary Zone
Halo
Recovery Zn, Zn Conc % 89% 85% 88% 80%
Recovery Ag, Zn Conc % 22% 30% 22% 22%
Recovery Pb, Pb Conc % 75% 55% 55% 38%
Recovery Ag, Pb Conc % 59% 40% 30% 20%
Zn Concentrate Grade Zn % 58% 49% 56% 58%
Zn Concentrate Grade Hg g/t 155 777 693 922
Hg Penalty USD$/dmt $0.00 $14.11 $11.63 $21.63
Pb Concentrate Grade Pb % 62% 45% 46% 44%
Zn Conc Payable Zn % 85% 84% 85% 85%
Pb Conc Payable Pb % 95% 93% 93% 93%
Net smelter return (“NSR”) values were calculated on a block-by-block basis using zinc, lead, and
silver block grades with the input parameters listed in Tables 2 and 3. For NSR and ZnEq
calculations, fixed values are applied to all blocks within each domain for: metallurgical recoveries;
grades of Zn, Pb, and Hg in Zn and Pb concentrates; mercury penalties; and payability of Zn and
Pb. Silver grades and payability in zinc and lead concentrates were calculated on a block -by-
block basis. For silver grades in lead concentrates less than 620.0 g/t, a minimum deduction was
6
120011339 v1
applied of 31 g/t silver with a maximum payability of 95% for silver in lead concentrates. For silver
grades in zinc concentrates less than 311.0 g/t, a minimum deduction was applied of 93 g/t silver
with a maximum payability of 70% for silver in zinc concentrates.
Table 3: List of Global Assumptions for NSR Calculations, Cut-off-grade Determinations, and
Reporting Parameters
Category Unit Parameter
Cut-off grade $/t NSR
$112.00 UG/ $30.00
OP
Processing $/t milled $22.00
G&A $/t milled $8.00
Mining (OP) $/t moved $4.67
Mining (UG) $/t milled $61.00
UG Sustaining (capex) $/t milled $21.00
Foreign Exchange rate CAD:USD 1.32
Transport Costs $/wmt conc $293.55
Treatment Charges Zn/Pb USD$/dmt conc $225.00/$150.00
Concentrate moisture content % 8.0
Silver Refining Costs USD$/oz $1.25
Zn Price USD$/lb $1.40
Pb Price USD$/lb $1.10
Ag Price USD$/oz $25.00
Royalty NSR % 0.00
Mining Constraints
Blocks were constrained by OP shells and UG mining shapes at a base case mining scenario to
demonstrate RPEEE at an NSR cut -off of $ 30/t OP and $112/t UG. The cut-off grades were
selected us ing cost estimates listed in Table 3 that assum e: a mill throughput rate of 10,000
tonnes-per-day (tpd); open-pit mining rates of 10,000 tpd; and underground mining rates of 5,000
tpd per deposit.
Resources were reported for Inferred or Indicated blocks that are above the stated cut-off within
the OP shells, and for all Inferred or Indicated blocks within UG reporting panels that meet the
average panel cut-off including all “must -take” internal dilution material within those panels .
Tables 5 and 6 show portions of the global resource that are constrained by OP shapes and UG
reporting panels, respectively (see Figures 2– 9 for block model cross sections, plan views and
base case mining shape visualizations).
Table 4: Macpass Revenue Factors and Strip Ratios for Base Case OP Reporting Shells.
Category Tom Jason
End
Zone
Boundary
Zone
Base Case OP Revenue Factor 0.8 0.6 0.8 1.0
Base Case OP Strip Ratio 9.4 6.2 10.0 4.9
Different r evenue factors between 0.6 and 1.0 were selected for each deposit during the OP
optimization process. The revenue factor is a scaling parameter applied to the metal prices (or
commodity prices) used in the economic evaluation of pit shells. It is expressed as a percentage
or factor of the base case (or expected) metal price. For example, a revenue factor of 1.0
7
120011339 v1
corresponds to using the full base case metal prices in the optimization process, while a revenue
factor of 0.8 means that the prices used are 80% of the base case prices. This approach was
used to optimize the strip ratio, maximize net resource, minimize w aste production, limit
environmental impacts, and provide a resource suitable for optimizing economics in any future
studies (revenue factors and strip ratios are listed in Table 4).
Table 5: Macpass OP Constrained MRE by Deposit
2024 SLR
Class Deposit Tonnes
(Mt) ZnEq (%) Zn Grade
(%)
Pb Grade
(%)
Ag Grade
(g/t)
Zn
Contained
Metal (M
lbs)
Pb
Contained
Metal (M
lbs)
Ag
Contained
Metal
(Moz)
Indicated
Tom 13.63 8.60 5.84 2.63 24.1 1,754 789 10.56
Jason 1.63 8.63 6.96 2.12 2.1 251 76 0.11
End Zone 0.32 16.43 3.91 12.51 87.3 28 89 0.90
Boundary
Zone 33.50 5.46 4.72 0.53 20.9 3,486 388 22.45
Total Indicated 49.08 6.51 5.10 1.24 21.6 5,518 1,342 34.02
Inferred
Tom 4.20 10.16 6.37 3.24 39.7 591 300 5.37
Jason 1.06 6.59 5.68 1.16 0.9 132 27 0.03
End Zone 0.24 9.57 2.27 7.32 50.1 12 38 0.38
Boundary
Zone 16.90 3.63 3.39 0.21 8.9 1,260 77 4.85
Total Inferred 22.40 5.06 4.05 0.90 14.8 1,995 442 10.63
See Table 1 footnotes
Table 6: Macpass UG Constrained MRE by Deposit
2024 SLR
Class Deposit Tonnes
(Mt) ZnEq (%) Zn Grade
(%)
Pb Grade
(%)
Ag Grade
(g/t)
Zn
Contained
Metal (M
lbs)
Pb
Contained
Metal (M
lbs)
Ag
Contained
Metal
(Moz)
Indicated
Tom 3.90 14.46 7.93 5.85 63.9 681 502 8.00
Jason 2.17 9.43 8.12 1.67 1.5 388 80 0.10
End Zone 0.02 11.43 2.16 9.07 68.0 1 4 0.04
Boundary
Zone 0.84 12.46 10.55 1.31 51.0 196 24 1.38
Total Indicated 6.92 12.64 8.29 4.00 42.8 1,266 610 9.52
Inferred
Tom 14.74 8.80 6.61 2.03 21.1 2,148 660 10.00
Jason 10.59 10.78 5.46 4.65 52.9 1,274 1,085 18.01
End Zone 0.20 7.83 1.40 6.38 45.9 6 29 0.30
Boundary
Zone 0.56 7.35 6.29 0.84 26.6 77 10 0.47
Total Inferred 26.09 9.56 6.09 3.10 34.3 3,505 1,784 28.79
See Table 1 footnotes
Sensitivity Analysis
Cut-off grade (“CoG”) sensitivity analyses were run on each deposit at increments of 20% NSR
cut-off, starting at a -20% scenario and ending with a +80% scenario to determine continuity of
mineralization and resiliency of the resource to changes in cost environment or metal pricing
(Table 7). A highly robust method was used to perform the sensitivity analysis: new OP shells and
UG mining shapes were generated based on each of the revised cut-off values for each sensitivity
8
120011339 v1
scenario at each deposit to most accurately reflect mineral resources that would be reported at
cut-off values that deviate from the base case scenario. Results show excellent continuity of
mineralization within both OP and UG environments across the range of scenarios tested, with
contiguous UG reporting panels generating very few isolated outlying reporting panels . Visual
representations of these scenarios are presented in Figures 10–12.
Table 7 illustrates the resiliency of the resource to decreases in metal pricing. Keeping cost
assumptions fixed at the base case, non-unique example combinations of break-even prices
would be approximately: at +20% NSR cut -off USD$1.24/lb Zn, USD$ 0.97/lb Pb, and
USD$22.10/oz Ag; at +40% NSR cut-off USD$1.12/lb Zn, USD$0.88/lb Pb, and USD$20.05/oz
Ag; at +60% NSR cut-off USD$1.03/lb Zn, USD$0.81/lb Pb, and USD$18.48/oz Ag; and at +80%
NSR cut-off USD$0.97/lb Zn, USD$0.76/lb Pb, and USD$17.28/oz Ag.
Table 7: OP and UG Macpass MRE Cut-Off Sensitivity Analysis
Scenario NSR CoG Class OP/UG
CoG
NSR
($/t)
CoG
ZnEq
%
Tonnes
(Mt)
NSR
($/t)
ZnEq.
% Zn % Pb % Ag
g/t
-20% Ind OP 24.0 1.10 57.19 131.7 6.39 5.00 1.37 21.9
Base Case Ind OP 30.0 1.40 49.08 130.4 6.51 5.10 1.24 21.6
20% Ind OP 36.0 1.70 41.78 137.7 6.68 5.38 1.33 23.7
40% Ind OP 42.0 2.00 35.27 142.5 6.91 5.57 1.38 24.8
60% Ind OP 48.0 2.30 29.89 149.3 7.24 5.85 1.44 26.7
80% Ind OP 54.0 2.50 24.31 157.3 7.63 6.19 1.48 28.9
-20% Inf OP 24.0 1.10 31.19 97.4 4.72 3.87 0.78 11.7
Base Case Inf OP 30.0 1.40 22.40 103.6 5.06 4.05 0.9 14.8
20% Inf OP 36.0 1.70 16.98 112.5 5.46 4.28 1.06 18.0
40% Inf OP 42.0 2.00 12.99 125.6 6.09 4.64 1.29 21.7
60% Inf OP 48.0 2.30 10.06 139.9 6.78 5.01 1.55 25.8
80% Inf OP 54.0 2.50 7.20 159.9 7.75 5.47 1.96 32.3
-20% Ind UG 89.6 4.20 4.22 225.2 10.92 7.59 2.97 34.5
Base Case Ind UG 112.0 5.30 6.92 259.9 12.64 8.29 4.00 42.8
20% Ind UG 134.4 6.30 7.45 266.9 12.94 8.34 4.05 43.1
40% Ind UG 156.8 7.40 7.62 285.9 13.87 8.94 4.38 50.4
60% Ind UG 179.2 8.40 7.04 308.2 14.95 9.39 4.89 57.9
80% Ind UG 201.6 9.50 6.44 329 15.96 9.78 5.39 66.2
-20% Inf UG 89.6 4.20 32.64 178.3 8.65 5.44 2.65 28.8
Base Case Inf UG 112.0 5.30 26.09 200.3 9.56 6.09 3.10 34.3
20% Inf UG 134.4 6.30 19.54 228.9 11.10 6.44 3.79 43.6
40% Inf UG 156.8 7.40 13.99 263.5 12.78 6.84 4.80 57.7
60% Inf UG 179.2 8.40 11.19 288.1 13.97 7.11 5.50 67.6
80% Inf UG 201.6 9.50 9.43 308.4 14.96 7.33 6.08 76.3
Tonnes have been reported in millions, rounded to the nearest 10,000.
NSR values were calculated on a block -by-block basis and reported as mass weighted averages for each scenario. Zinc equivalency in this table for
non-base case scenarios was approximated using a simplified formula: NSR($/t)/20.62 = ZnEq(%).
All scenarios presented in this table are deemed to meet the requirements for RPEEE.
Base case scenarios are presented as in Tables 5 and 6.
Gallium and Germanium By-Product Potential
Gallium and germanium are critical minerals that occur in elevated concentrations at MacPass.
Fireweed has carried out a comprehensive re-assay program for 2017–2023 drilling and selected