Seabridge Gold Drilling Expands KSM’s Iron Cap Deposit Hole IC-17-65 returns 422 meters grading 1.04 g/T Gold and 0.32% Copper Hole IC-17-66 returns 64 meters grading 4.77 g/T Gold Exceptional gold/copper values could accelerate plans for Iron Cap block cave
Seabridge Gold Drilling Expands KSM’s Iron Cap Deposit
Hole IC-17-65 returns 422 meters grading 1.04 g/T Gold and 0.32% Copper
Hole IC-17-66 returns 64 meters grading 4.77 g/T Gold
Exceptional gold/copper values could accelerate plans for Iron Cap block cave
TORONTO, Sept. 06, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Seabridge Gold (TSX:SEA) (NYSE:SA) announced today
that results from the first five holes drilled this year into the Iron Cap Deposit at KSM could warrant significant
changes to the project’s mine plan which could substantially improve project economics. Four of the five holes
have long intercepts with gold grades above one gram per tonne. The KSM project, located in north western
British Columbia, Canada is 100%-owned by Seabridge and hosts four large porphyry gold-copper deposits
including Iron Cap.
Seabridge Chairman and CEO Rudi Fronk noted that the Company chose to pursue the Iron Cap program because
of its potential for accelerated development at a comparatively low capital cost. “Iron Cap is the closest deposit to
project infrastructure and is permitted as a cost-efficient block cave operation but the current plan has it being
mined after the Kerr deposit. Iron Cap could be developed years earlier than the Kerr deposit at a much lower
cost. Also, Iron Cap has historically reported higher gold grades than the Kerr deposit. The gold potential was
reinforced last year by hole 62 which reported an amazing 555 meters of 0.83 grams of gold per tonne and 0.24%
copper and an additional 61 meters of 1.20 grams per tonne gold and 0.95% copper,” said Fronk.
“We see the potential to make another substantial improvement to KSM’s projected economics if we can grow
the gold-rich Iron Cap deposit. The first five holes drilled this year are confirming this potential. The widths of
mineralization are excellent and the gold grades are much higher than expected.”
This year’s +10,000 meter drill program has been planned to off-set and step-out from IC-16-62. The 10 to 12
hole program has been designed to test a volume of about 600 meters wide by 500 meters long and up to 1000
meters deep surrounding hole 62 and extending to the current resource in order to potentially add several hundred
million tonnes of mineralized material with sufficient pierce points to report an inferred resource.
The original target concept for follow-up drilling contemplated pursuing both a lower zone representing the down
plunge continuity of the existing Iron Cap resource, and a new blind discovery found in the upper 200 meters of
hole 62. This concept of two target zones was based on what appeared to be an intrusive unit not previously
recognized at Iron Cap juxtaposed along a fault to the main Iron Cap deposit. With the benefit of additional drill
holes, we now believe the upper blind discovery is a previously unrecognized mineralized intrusion potentially
expanding the size of the Iron Cap deposit significantly. The interpreted fault zone identified at the base of the
upper zone is now recognized as the sheared margin of a breccia pipe whose limits have not been fully defined.
The breccia pipe appears to represent a younger high-level or epithermal event superimposed on the Iron Cap
Porphyry Gold-Copper deposit, implying additional porphyry potential at depth. The upper intrusive unit is
resolving as a dike-like body parallel with other intrusions that form the Iron Cap deposit and showing continuity
with the main resource at depth.
“As the geology of the Iron Cap deposit becomes clearer to us, we are increasingly confident that it will rival the
plus billion tonne Kerr and Mitchell deposits in size,” said Fronk.
The wide zones of higher gold values in holes IC-17-65, 66 and 67 reflect the impact of an epithermal mineral
system superimposed on the main Iron Cap porphyry gold-copper system within and adjacent to a large phreatic
breccia pipe. The breccia pipe was likely generated by a younger porphyry mineralizing system at depth. These
gold-rich zones were previously recognized in the surface exposure of Iron Cap but erosion appears to have
removed most of the upper portions of this occurrence. Our model for Iron Cap predicts that elevated gold values
are likely to persist down plunge but the epithermal mineralization will probably give way to more traditional
porphyry-style mineralization with copper grades that may be enriched by the second porphyry system.
Results from the first five drill holes in the 2017 Iron Cap program are:
Drill Hole ID Total Depth (meters) From (meters)
To
(meters)
Interval
(meters)
Gold
(g/T)
Copper
%
Silver
(g/T)
IC-17-63
957.4
Including
146.9 625.4 478.5 0.43 0.45 4.0
566.4 624.5 58.1 1.12 0.23 5.7
IC-17-64
776.3
Including
105.5 700.3 594.8 0.52 0.38 4.5
642.4 683.4 41.0 0.93 0.18 3.4
IC-17-65
686.0
Including
197.0 619.5 422.5 1.04 0.32 4.2
346.4 484.1 137.7 1.56 0.29 3.4
IC-17-66
1050.4
including
including
62.5 126.1 63.6 4.77 0.01 0.9
173.5 1050.4 876.9 0.32 0.37 2.8
173.5 277.1 103.6 0.58 0.68 2.8
975.4 1027.4 52.0 1.04 0.28 3.4
IC-17-67
689.3
including
224.3 641.4 417.1 1.02 0.33 3.6
352.0 459.4 107.4 1.58 0.38 4.2
Drill holes were oriented using historical information and were designed to intercept the mineralized target at
right angles to the strike of the zone as close as topographic constraints permitted. The orientation will be refined
with additional drilling but current information indicates the intervals listed above approximate the true thickness
of the mineralized zones. For cross-sections please click this link.
Exploration activities by Seabridge at the KSM Project are conducted under the supervision of William E.
Threlkeld, Registered Professional Geologist, Senior Vice President of the Company and a Qualified Person as
defined by National Instrument 43-101. Mr. Threlkeld has reviewed and approved this news release. An ongoing
and rigorous quality control/quality assurance protocol is employed in all Seabridge drilling campaigns. This
program includes blank and reference standards, and in a ddition all copper assays that exceed 0.25% Cu are re-
analyzed using ore grade analytical techniques. Cross-check analyses are conducted at a second external
laboratory on at least 10% of the drill samples. Samples are assayed at ISO and ASTM certified laboratories in
Vancouver, B.C., using fire assay atomic adsorption methods for gold and ICP methods for other elements.
Seabridge Gold holds a 100% interest in several North American gold resource projects. The Company’s
principal assets are the KSM and Iskut properties located near Stewart, British Columbia, Canada and the
Courageous Lake gold project located in Canada’s Northwest Territories. For a breakdown of Seabridge’s
mineral reserves and resources by project and category please visit the Company’s website at
http://www.seabridgegold.net/resources.php.
Neither the Toronto Stock Exchange, New York Stock Exchange, nor their Regulation Services Providers accepts
responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
All reserve and resource estimates reported by the Corporation were calculated in accordance with the
Canadian National Instrument 43-101 and the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Classification
system. These standards differ significantly from the requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission. Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic
viability.
This document contains "forward-looking information" within the meaning of Canadian securities
legislation and "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the United States Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. This information and these statements, referred to herein as "forward-
looking statements" are made as of the date of this document. Forward-looking statements relate to future
events or future performance and reflect current estimates, predictions, expectations or beliefs regarding
future events and include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to: (i) the potential for the Iron
Cap deposit to be developed earlier than planned under the existing mine plan and at lower capital cost
than the Kerr deposit resulting in the potential for substantially improved projected economics for the
KSM Project; (ii) the potential to add several hundred tonnes of mineralized material to the Iron Cap
deposit with sufficient pierce points to report an inferred resource; (iii) the potential, given time for further
exploration, for the Iron Cap deposit to rival the Mitchell and Deep Kerr deposits and contain over 1
billion tonnes; (iv) the interpretation of the drilling results reflecting a shear margin of a breccia pipe that
represents a younger high level or epithermal mineralized system overlying the Iron Cap porphyry gold
copper deposit and the resulting prediction that elevated gold values are likely to persist down plunge but
the epithermal mineralization will probably give way to more traditional porphyry-style mineralization
with copper grades that may be enriched by the second porphyry system; and (v) the estimated amount
and grade of mineral resources at KSM. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to
predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives or future events or performance (often, but
not always, using words or phrases such as "expects", "anticipates", "plans", "projects", "estimates",
"envisages", "assumes", "intends", "strategy", "goals", "objectives" or variations thereof or stating that
certain actions, events or results "may", "could", "would", "might" or "will" be taken, occur or be
achieved, or the negative of any of these terms and similar expressions) are not statements of historical fact
and may be forward-looking statements.
All forward-looking statements are based on Seabridge's or its consultants' current beliefs as well as
various assumptions made by them and information currently available to them. The principle
assumptions are listed above, but others include: (i) the ability to grow the Iron Cap deposit at grades
more valuable than the Kerr deposit; (ii) the presence of and continuity of metals at the Project between
drill holes, including at modeled grades; (ii) the capacities of various machinery and equipment; (iii) the
availability of personnel, machinery and equipment at estimated prices; (iv) exchange rates; (v) metals
sales prices; (vi) block net smelter return values; (vii) conceptual cave footprints, draw points and heights;
(viii) appropriate discount rates; (ix) tax rates and royalty rates applicable to the proposed mining
operation; (x) financing structure and costs; (xi) anticipated mining losses and dilution; (xii) metallurgical
performance; (xiii) reasonable contingency requirements; (xiv) success in realizing proposed operations;
(xv) receipt of regulatory approvals on acceptable terms; and (xvi) the negotiation of satisfactory terms
with impacted Treaty and First Nations groups. Although management considers these assumptions to be
reasonable based on information currently available to it, they may prove to be incorrect. Many forward-
looking statements are made assuming the correctness of other forward looking statements, such as
statements of net present value and internal rates of return, which are based on most of the other forward-
looking statements and assumptions herein. The cost information is also prepared using current values, but
the time for incurring the costs will be in the future and it is assumed costs will remain stable over the
relevant period.
By their very nature, forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties, both general
and specific, and risks exist that estimates, forecasts, projections and other forward-looking statements will
not be achieved or that assumptions do not reflect future experience. We caution readers not to place
undue reliance on these forward-looking statements as a number of important factors could cause the
actual outcomes to differ materially from the beliefs, plans, objectives, expectations, anticipations,
estimates assumptions and intentions expressed in such forward-looking statements. These risk factors
may be generally stated as the risk that the assumptions and estimates expressed above do not occur, but
specifically include, without limitation: risks relating to variations in the mineral content within the
material identified as mineral reserves or mineral resources from that predicted; variations in rates of
recovery and extraction; developments in world metals markets; risks relating to fluctuations in the
Canadian dollar relative to the US dollar; increases in the estimated capital and operating costs or
unanticipated costs; difficulties attracting the necessary work force; increases in financing costs or adverse
changes to the terms of available financing, if any; tax rates or royalties being greater than assumed;
changes in development or mining plans due to changes in logistical, technical or other factors; changes in
project parameters as plans continue to be refined; risks relating to receipt of regulatory approvals or
settlement of an agreement with impacted First Nations groups; the effects of competition in the markets in
which Seabridge operates; operational and infrastructure risks and the additional risks described in
Seabridge's Annual Information Form filed with SEDAR in Canada (available at www.sedar.com) for the
year ended December 31, 2016 and in the Corporation's Annual Report Form 40-F filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on EDGAR (available at www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml). Seabridge
cautions that the foregoing list of factors that may affect future results is not exhaustive.
When relying on our forward-looking statements to make decisions with respect to Seabridge, investors
and others should carefully consider the foregoing factors and other uncertainties and potential events.
Seabridge does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement, whether written or oral, that may
be made from time to time by Seabridge or on our behalf, except as required by law.
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD
"Rudi Fronk"
Chairman & C.E.O.
For further information please contact:
Rudi P. Fronk, Chairman and C.E.O.
Tel: (416) 367-9292 · Fax: (416) 367-2711
Email: [email protected]
NSR Model
1100m el.
MTT projection
KSM PROJECT
IRON CAP ZONE – PLAN VIEW
2017 EXPLORATION DRILLING
COLLAR LOCATIONS - SEP. 01, 2017
500m
N
Current Resource
Model (Mar. 2017)
Note: NSR cutoff
for KSM block cave
resources is $16/T
ice
Upper Zone
Intrusion
Upper Panel
Hazelton/Jack Fm.
Argillites/conglomerates
Lower Zone
Intrusion
Lower Zone
Breccia/Intrusion
Complex
In progress
689.3 224.3 641.4 417.1 1.02 0.33 3.6
including 352 459.4 107.4 1.58 0.38 4.2
Silv er
(g/T)
Total Depth
(meters)
From
(meters)
To
(meters)
Interv al
(meters)
Gol d
(g/T)
Copper
(% )
IC-17-67
Drill Hole
ID
planned
Hazelton/Jack Fm.
Argillites/conglomerates
NNW SSE
Cross Section View to ENE
KSM PROJECT
IRON CAP ZONE – Section 03
2017 EXPLORATION DRILLING
ASSAY HIGHLIGHTS - SEP. 01, 2017500m
Proposed MTT
Haulage Tunnel
~ 200m
> $75
50-75
25-50
16-25
NSR $/T
Limits of current
Inferred Resource
ice
Upper Zone
Intrusion
Upper Panel
Hazelton/Jack Fm.
Argillites/conglomerates
Lower Zone
Intrusion
Lower Zone
Breccia/Intrusion
Complex
assays pending
(45m behind section)
planned
Hazelton/Jack Fm.
Argillites/conglomerates
NNW SSE
Cross Section View to ENE
KSM PROJECT
IRON CAP ZONE – Section 04
2017 EXPLORATION DRILLING
ASSAY HIGHLIGHTS - SEP. 01, 2017
Proposed MTT
Haulage Tunnel
~ 200m
500m
In progress
(45m in front of section)
686 197 619.5 422.5 1.04 0.32 4.2
Including 346.4 484.1 137.7 1.56 0.29 3.4
Silv er
(g/T)
IC-17-65
Total Depth
(meters)
From
(meters)
To
(meters)
Interv al
(meters)
Gol d
(g/T)
Copper
(% )
Drill Hole
ID
1050.4 62.5 126.1 63.6 4.77 0.01 0.9
173.5 1050.4 876.9 0.32 0.37 2.8
including 173.5 277.1 103.6 0.58 0.68 2.8
including 975.4 1027.4 52 1.04 0.28 3.4
Silv er
(g/T)
IC-17-66
Total Depth
(meters)
From
(meters)
To
(meters)
Interv al
(meters)
Gol d
(g/T)
Copper
(% )
Drill Hole
ID
1038.4 61 1.20 0.95 3.6
including 555 0.83 0.24 4.2
Silv er
(g/T)
IC-16-62
Total Depth
(meters)
Interv al
(meters)
Gol d
(g/T)
Copper
(% )
Drill Hole
ID
> $75
50-75
25-50
16-25
NSR $/T
Limits of current
Inferred Resource
ice
Upper Zone
Intrusion
Upper Panel
Hazelton/Jack Fm.
Argillites/conglomerates
Lower Zone
Intrusion
Lower Zone
Breccia/Intrusion
Complex
In progress
Hazelton/Jack Fm.
Argillites/conglomerates
NNW SSE
Cross Section View to ENE
KSM PROJECT
IRON CAP ZONE – Section 05
2017 EXPLORATION DRILLING
ASSAY HIGHLIGHTS - SEP. 01, 2017
Proposed MTT
Haulage Tunnel
~ 200m
500m
957.4 146.9 625.4 478.5 0.43 0.45 4
Including 566.4 624.5 58.1 1.12 0.23 5.7
Silv er
(g/T)
IC-17-63
Total Depth
(meters)
From
(meters)
To
(meters)
Interv al
(meters)
Gol d
(g/T)
Copper
(% )
Drill Hole
ID 776.3 105.5 700.3 594.8 0.52 0.38 4.5
Including 642.4 683.4 41 0.93 0.18 3.4
Silv er
(g/T)
IC-17-64
Total Depth
(meters)
From
(meters)
To
(meters)
Interv al
(meters)
Gol d
(g/T)
Copper
(% )
Drill Hole
ID
> $75
50-75
25-50
16-25
NSR $/T