ioneer Ltd 6-K, filed Apr 30, 2024
ioneer Ltd (IONR)
6-K
2024-04-30
For: 2024-04-30
View Original
Added on
April 05, 2026
About this 6-K
ioneer Ltd filed this 6-K on April 30, 2024.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 6-K
REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER
Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the month of April 2024
Commission File Number: 001-41412
ioneer Ltd
(Translation of registrant’s name into English)
Suite 5.03, Level 5, 140 Arthur Street
North Sydney, NSW 2060, Australia
(Address of principal executive offices)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F.
Form 20-F X ☒ Form 40-F ☐
EXHIBIT INDEX
The following exhibits are filed as part of this Form 6-K:
|
Exhibit
|
|
Description
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarterly Report for the Quarter ended March 31, 2024
|
||
|
Press Release dated April 30, 2024 (Rhyolite Ridge Resource Update)
|
||
|
Press Release dated April 30, 2024 (Private Placement)
|
||
|
Investor presentation
|
||
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
|
|
ioneer Ltd
|
|
|
|
(registrant)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: April 30, 2024
|
By:
|
/s/ Ian Bucknell |
|
|
Name:
|
Ian Bucknell |
|
|
Title:
|
Chief Financial Officer & Company Secretary |
Exhibit 99.1
QUARTERLY ACTIVITIES REPORT
for the period ending 31 March 2024
Highlights
| • |
Key permitting milestone achieved with issuance by BLM of the Draft EIS in April.
|
| • |
Draft EIS 45-day public comment period expected to conclude June 3.
|
| • |
Rhyolite Ridge Project moves one step closer toward construction.
|
| • |
Updated Estimated timeline
|
| o |
ROD anticipated by BLM to be October 2024.
|
| o |
FID anticipated by Management as December 2024.
|
Tuesday, 30 April 2024 – Ioneer Ltd (“Ioneer” or “the Company”) (ASX: INR, Nasdaq: IONR), an emerging lithium-boron supplier, is pleased to report on its activities for the
quarter ending 31 March 2024 and provide an update on the development of its 100%-owned Rhyolite Ridge Lithium-Boron Project in Esmeralda County, Nevada (“Rhyolite Ridge Project” or “the Project”).
Ioneer Executive Chairman, James D. Calaway noted:
“The release of the draft EIS on 19 April, represents six years of hard work to help build America’s critical minerals supply chain and reaffirms the viability of our
investment in Nevada. Rhyolite Ridge will help accelerate the electric vehicle transition and secure a cleaner future for our children and grandchildren. As we move through the final steps in the federal permitting process, Ioneer will keep
working to ensure this world-class project will operate efficiently and sustainably.”
Bernard Rowe, Ioneer’s Managing Director, added:
“This news sets a clear path forward to construction and brings us one step closer to making Rhyolite Ridge a reality. Rhyolite Ridge will be a significant, reliable and
sustainable source of critical minerals for the United States.”
Rhyolite Ridge Permitting
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Permitting Process
As announced on 15 April 2024 the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Project was made public by the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and was published in the Federal Register on 19 April
2024. A 45-calendar day public comment period commenced on that date during which BLM will conduct two in-person and one virtual public meeting on the Proposal and will continue to engage in further government-to-government consultation with
Tribal Nations.
Following the receipt of input provided during the public comment period, a Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS) will be prepared by the BLM contractor, intended to lead to final approval of the FEIS by
the BLM through the issue of a Record of Decision (ROD).
The completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitting process will then be reflected in the approval by the BLM of the Project’s Plan of Operations (Plan) through the ROD, allowing
construction of the Project to commence and providing the permitting framework for production at the site.
Updated expected milestones to complete the Federal permitting process are now expected as follows.
|
Completion of public comment period on draft Environmental Impact Statement
|
3 June 2024
|
||
|
Final Environmental Impact Statement incorporating responses to public comments lodged with BLM
|
Expected September 2024
|
||
|
Approval of the Project’s Mine Plan of Operations through issuance of a positive Record of Decision by BLM1
|
Expected October 2024
|
1 Exact timing is not within the control of the Company, being a BLM decision. Approval is subject to the discretion of BLM in accordance with regulatory provisions.
BLM approval of the Plan, together with Nevada Air Quality Permit (received June 2021) and Nevada Water Pollution Control Permit (received July 2021) will constitute completion of the 3 key permits required to commence construction of
stage 1 of the Project.
Ioneer continues to work closely with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to keep both the NEPA and the Section 7 Endangered Species Act (ESA) processes progressing
in parallel. Ioneer is confident the process can be completed in a timely fashion given the amount of preparation and cooperation that has taken place over the past several years.
Capital Expenditure and Project Economics
As previously advised, Ioneer continues to progress an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) 47 R 11 Class 2 (Class 2) capital estimate for stage 1 of the Rhyolite Ridge Project, with Fluor
and its other service providers across their respective fields of speciality. Preparation of the Class 2 cost estimate is a necessary precondition to the preparation of an Approved Feasibility Study (AFS) and the making of a Final Investment
Decision (FID) on the Project by the Company and Sibanye-Stillwater. The making of the FID decision by the Company is the precondition for the Project to proceed from the development to the construction phase.
The Class 2 cost estimates are being developed to have an accuracy range of +15%/-10% in accordance with applicable AACE 47 R 11 standards based on circa 70% of engineering complete.
|
|
|
p.2
|
 |
The AFS, including Class 2 estimate and updated economic analysis, will be finalised to coincide with delivery of the ROD (expected in October), to enable FID. The FID is now expected by end December 2024
(assuming completion of the permitting process as outlined above). Until the AFS is completed, Ioneer will not be in a position to estimate with a reasonable degree of certainty the Class 2 estimate as final definitive estimates from service
providers will need to be based on the construction market and supply chain conditions that then exist, and those estimates are then assessed and approved by the Company.
In April 2020 Ioneer released details of the then Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) for the Project that supported the then decision to proceed with further development of the Project. The DFS included an AACE
Class 3 (Class 3) capital cost estimate based on the then 30% of engineering completed (including an 8% contingency) and details of project economics based on then financial modelling.
The 2020 Class 3 cost estimate was for a capital cost estimate for stage 1 of the Project of US$785 million (compared to the prior Preliminary Feasibility Statement of US$599 million), and sustaining capital
expenditure for the life of mine of US$274 million, over a 26-year mine life.
Since 2020 there have been a number of changes that affect capital estimates and economic estimates. There has been considerable construction cost inflation in the global mining industry with many mining projects
under development subject to material increases in capital construction costs. Those pressures can be expected to also increase the Project’s capital cost estimate. In particular, the Company has noted material increases in equipment, labour,
fuel and logistics costs. The scope of the stage 1 Project construction works since the time of the 2020 Class 3 estimate has not materially changed, other than the increase in packaging and warehousing facilities at site, the use of
Davis-Bacon wage rates required by the terms of the DOE loan, access road upgrades, increased mine pre-stripping and equipment, and the inclusion of a process water line from Fish Lake Valley which have been partially offset by the removal of
the lithium hydroxide circuit planned for year 3.
The methodology of the Class 2 cost estimate proposed to be available at the time of the FID will vary from the Class 3 cost estimate prepared in 2020 in the degree of precision and assurance provided by the
estimates. Class 3 estimates are designed for an end usage of funding authorisation based on a methodology of semi-detailed unit costs while Class 2 estimates are designed for a higher specified end usage of project control based on a
methodology of detailed unit costs. The primary characteristic of Class 2 estimates is a maturity level of project definition deliverables of 30% to 70% while Class 3 estimates are based on a lower maturity level of 10% to 40%.
The operating costs are also being updated for the construction of stage 1 of the Project with Fluor and its other service providers across their respective fields of speciality. Ioneer will not be in a position
to reasonably estimate updated project economics over the life of stage 1 of the Project to prepare the AFS and make a decision on the FID until the Class 2 cost estimate is available to it as a key input into the financial model.
Since 2020, using either 1) the forecast methodologies applied in the DFS or 2) offtake contract terms subsequently negotiated, the price assumptions for lithium carbonate and boric acid are likely to increase in
the AFS as compared to the DFS. On the other hand, the Company has also noted material increases in sulphur (the Project’s main reagent), labour, fuel and logistics costs.
The April 2020 mine plan was based on mining 65Mt of ore at a rate of 2.5Mt per year, which was on the basis of an Ore Reserve of 60Mt and Mineral Resource of 146Mt (inclusive of Reserves) in 2020. The Resource
has grown materially since 2020 as the result of 1) additional drilling, 2) additional metallurgical testwork and 3) changes to mine design and plan. The Resource estimate was updated in April 2023 and then again in April 2024. The current
Resource estimate is 351Mt. A further update of both Resource and Reserve estimate is expected to be published in Q2 2024 with material increases currently expected.
In these circumstances Ioneer expects that the updated Class 2 estimate will be materially higher than the 2020 Class 3 estimate and that the Project economics that will form the basis of the FID are expected to
differ from those contained in the 2020 DFS.
|
|
|
p.3
|
|
|
Further details are not expected to be available until release of the Class 2 estimate and the AFS, expected by the end of December 2024.
|
PFS
|
DFS
|
AFS2
|
||
|
Date published
|
October 2018
|
April 2020
|
ROD/FID
|
|
|
AACE Class
|
3
|
3
|
2
|
|
|
Confidence level
|
P50
|
P50
|
P85
|
|
|
Initial Capex (US$’s m)
|
599
|
785
|
TBD
|
|
|
Engineering Complete
|
12%
|
30%
|
+70%
|
Construction Timeline
In the 2020 DFS, Ioneer indicated that the construction phase of the schedule would take 25 months from site mobilisation to first production. The most recent estimates provided concerning the Project have been
for an overall construction period of approximately 24 months and first production in 2026.
It is now estimated that if the AFS is prepared and the FID approval decision is made in late 2024, as outlined above, and having regard to currently expected construction market conditions and the need to place
orders for long lead time items only when an FID decision is made, the construction period will most likely be in the range of 24 to 36 months from the time an FID decision is made, with first production now expected during 2027.
Updated Estimated Project Timeline
Updated expected milestones to complete the Federal permitting process and construction are now expected as follows.
|
Milestone
|
Targeted timing3
|
||
|
Completion of public comment period on draft EIS
|
3 June 2024
|
||
|
Final EIS incorporating responses to public comments lodged with BLM
|
September 2024
|
||
|
Approval of the Project’s Mine Plan of Operations through issuance of Record of Decision by BLM2
|
October 2024
|
||
|
Construction Period3
|
24-36 Months
|
||
|
First Production
|
2027
|
Project Funding
As previously advised, stage 1 construction of the Project is expected to be largely funded through the combination of conditional commitments of US$490 million in equity from Sibanye-Stillwater and US$700
million in project debt funding from the US Department of Energy Loan Programs Office (DOE LPO).
There is an increasing likelihood that the Class 2 estimate will exceed these commitments (subject to the positive and negative accuracy deviation ranges that are likely to be inherent in such estimates and
subject also to the need to maintain deposit reserves in connection with the existing commitments).
As such, the Company continues to actively assess options to fund the Project beyond these sources of funding, including through strategic partnering, debt and equity. These measures may include revised
arrangements with existing stakeholders in the Company and the Project. Project funding considerations and funding sources will be considered in any decision to approve the FID.
DOE LPO Loan
Ioneer continues to work towards satisfying conditions precedent regarding the conditional commitment from the U.S. Department of Energy Loan Programs Office (DOE LPO)6 for financing the construction
of the Rhyolite Ridge processing facility.
| |
2 The AFS is not expected to be completed until December 2024 shortly ahead of an FID decision. This date is subject to the Record of Decision being received in October 2024, and may be subject to change.
3 Note: all dates are estimates only and are subject to change.
4 Exact timing is not within the control of the Company, being a BLM decision. Approval is subject to the discretion of BLM in accordance with regulatory provisions.
5 Includes purchasing of long lead items.
6 A conditional commitment is offered by DOE prior to issuing a loan and indicates that DOE expects to support the Rhyolite Ridge Project, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions including fulfilling remaining legal,
contractual, and financial requirements.
|
p.4
|
|
|
Sibanye-Stillwater equity commitment
In September 2021 Ioneer entered into a conditional agreement with Sibanye-Stillwater to establish a joint venture to develop the Project, under which Sibanye-Stillwater agreed to contribute US$490 million for a
50% interest in the joint venture. The equity funding commitment is subject to certain conditions precedent including receipt of final permits, debt financing commitments and approval of the Feasibility Study.
Since that time Sibanye-Stillwater has worked collaboratively with Ioneer, including supporting and approving the proposed DOE LPO project debt funding commitment and funding US$1.2 million for Phase 3B
geotechnical drilling of 6 holes, with amendments made to the original agreement to reflect developments that have occurred.
Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Estimates
Soon after quarter end, Ioneer announced that it had completed 53 drill holes targeting the southern extension of the lithium-boron deposit in order to collect and provide valuable geotechnical information for
the Project’s evaluation required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 53 holes were drilled outside of the then Mineral Resource over an area of approximately 0.8 km2 – compared to the 3 km2 footprint
of the current Resource. 49 of the 53 holes intersected mineralised sedimentary strata, extending the deposit a further 1 km to the south and southeast. The four holes (3 locations) that did not intersect mineralized sediments were the
furthest south holes and intersected volcanic rocks that underlie and form the margins of the sedimentary basin (South Basin).
Concurrently, Ioneer collected samples for geochemical analysis and metallurgical testing. Only 64Mt (26-years) of the high-boron Resource was included in the economic analysis reported in the 2020 Definitive
Feasibility Study (DFS).
Current estimates reflect multiple opportunities to increase production over time and extend the life of the Project.
Ioneer intends to report on metallurgical leach test work of the low-boron material during April and May. The test work is aimed at determining the most efficient way to process this material and provide options
for increasing annual lithium production. Early test work suggests the low-boron lithium mineralisation is amenable to the same method of VAT leaching as will be used for processing the high-boron ore.
A further update to the Mineral Resources has been made concurrently with this release.
Project Advancement and Operational Readiness
Focus areas for Project advancement during the quarter have been:
| • |
Geotechnical drilling (complete)
|
| • |
Updated geological model (Complete for Resource and reserve)
|
| • |
Updated resource/reserves including SK1300 technical report
|
| • |
Updated capex/opex estimates
|
| • |
Construction strategy and schedule
|
In November, Ioneer received its third drilling program approval from the BLM to collect additional geotechnical data to support the NEPA analysis of the Mine Plan of Operations.
The drilling targeted the proposed quarry wall locations on the southwestern, southern, and southeastern margins of the deposit. The drilling was completed in mid-January 2024 and the data is being integrated
into geological, geotechnical as resource models.
|
|
|
p.5
|
|
|
Sales & Marketing
Lithium Market and Price
In 2023, prices fell across the board as markets entered a supply surplus. Current forecasts see this surplus continuing until circa 2029-2030, ahead of a supply deficit.
According to Wood Mackenzie, the Q1 2024 spot price for battery-grade lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide was US$13,240/t and US$12,507/t, a decline on the previous quarter of 30% and 33% respectively.
China is the largest lithium chemical converter of raw materials, and continues to expand refineries, regardless of the surplus. Lithium prices were forecast to be subdued in 2024, however, have risen off the
back of increased activity from downstream producers in the spot market. Benchmark Minerals report spot spodumene prices increasing from $950/t in January to $1100/t at the end of March.
According to the Wood Mackenzie Q1 2024 forecast, the cathode industry will grow by 12.4% between 2024 and 2034. Within this:
| • |
LFP batteries are expected to grow by 13.2% to a forecast 41% market share.
|
| • |
High nickel cathode chemistry batteries are expected to grow by 14.1% to a forecast market share of 48%.
|
| • |
The global demand for lithium-ion batteries will grow by 13.5%, with the automotive sector making the highest contribution at 11.5%.
|
The EV industry’s growth was lower during 2023, slowing to 40% year-on-year from 56% in 2022, due to inflationary macroeconomic conditions. Wood Mackenzie forecasts the global BEV/PHEV penetration rate to be 20%
in 2024, then more than doubling by 2034 to 46% and increasing through to 2050. China is expected to continue to dominate the EV market.
Boric Acid Market and Price
Global boric acid demand and supply levels remain balanced, with prices steady during Q1 2024 compared to the previous quarter. Demand from the 2024 consumer electronic market, a key boric acid demand driver, is
forecast to be flat for the first half of the year. As the post-pandemic supply chain effects burn themselves out, boric acid demand is expected to rebound from 2H 2024.
Robert Dietz, chief economist for the National Association of Home Builders, forecasts growth in the US housing market in 2024, driven by gains in single-family housing construction - a traditional growth driver
for boric acid demand. This will be the first year of increase after declines in 2022 and 2023.
Major Chinese “two-step” boric acid producers are planning to halt production in late 2024 due to high raw material (sodium borate) prices and unprofitability. We expect this to increase Chinese imports,
offsetting any Chinese domestic demand downturn.
Current pricing remains higher than the boric acid prices assumed in the DFS economic model of April 2020. Boric acid accounts for approximately one-third of the Project’s revenue (with two-thirds coming from
lithium carbonate).
ESG/EHS Program
ISO 14001 Implementation
The Company is working on incorporating Environmental Aspects and Impacts into the company risk registers. Environmental Aspects have been identified for the majority of mining activities and impact assessment
will be completed this quarter.
Sustainability Road Mapping /External Disclosure Alignment
Ioneer has contracted with consulting firm ERM-CVS to develop a comprehensive materiality assessment, improve its sustainability strategic plan, and climate resiliency plan.
Ioneer continues to make head way on its three-year Sustainability Plan which was approved by the Board Committee in November 2023. 25% of FY24 actions have been completed and over 50% are in progress.
Ioneer participated in the International Lithium Association’s working group to standardize life cycle analysis for carbon across the various extraction methods including sedimentary, spodumene, and brines. The
final guidance was published on 13 March 2024.
|
|
|
p.6
|
|
|
Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM) Implementation
Work is ongoing to develop document registers for the TSM Action Plans and is midway through the self-assessments being used to gauge readiness of the programs for a TSM audit.
Environmental Regulatory Compliance
Ioneer continues to maintain compliance with the issued State of Nevada Water pollution Control and Class 2 Air Permits. No compliance issues were noted during the quarter and ioneer continues to report ongoing
monitoring and compliance related activities as required under these obligations.
Other Permits
The Nevada Department of Environmental Protection – Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation approved the Geochemical Characterization plan for the reconfigured quarry described in the Plan of Operations. The
Geochemical Characterization is a primary study supporting the required modification of the Water Pollution Control Permit. Application to modify to the WPCP to align with Proposed Action is expected in the coming quarter.
Health & Safety
During the quarter no lost time incidents, first aid incidents, or fatalities were reported for Ioneer staff. One near miss was reported regarding a contractor falling asleep while driving.
Ioneer completed an initiative to develop all its MSHA-related policies in the last quarter.
Ioneer has offered the following H&S trainings this quarter:
| 1. |
Situational Awareness
|
| 2. |
Workplace Safety
|
| 3. |
Golden Rules and H&S Policy
|
Tiehm’s Buckwheat Conservation Center Propagation
Spring has initiated the blooming of most adult plants at the Tiehm’s Buckwheat Conservation Center. This spring-summer season looks very promising due to the early flowering of Tiehm’s buckwheat and the large
number of seeds, produced in 2023, that are beginning to germinate.
Germination started at the end of March, and to date, there are already more than 100 new seedlings.
This is the first year where seeds produced in the greenhouse are being germinated. It will be interesting to see if we can achieve a better germination rate with these, as they are seeds from plants that have
received more water and nutrients than those on site.
We expect to finish germination around the beginning of summer, so new seedlings still have time to keep growing before the winter, where plants go dormant.
Community & Tribal Nations
Ioneer remains committed to engaging with local communities and Tribal Nations to address environmental and social concerns and enhance local economic opportunities.
During the quarter, Ioneer and four Tribal Nations entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding Cultural Resource Monitoring of groundwater disturbance activities at Rhyolite Ridge. Though field studies
have been undertaken by archaeological experts for years as part of the NEPA process, Ioneer recognizes the unique knowledge that Tribal Nations have regarding traditional cultural resources and are pleased to fund observation by Tribal
specialists so that places, features and objects of cultural significance are preserved and protected.
|
|
|
p.7
|
|
|
Engineering
The focus this quarter has been on receiving detailed vendor engineering which will allow the EPCM (Fluor) to advance engineering deliverables to “Issued For Construction” (IFC) status which places the Project
well-ahead of other comparable U.S. development projects. Ioneer anticipates minimal engineering spending ahead of its Final Investment Decision (FID) expected later this year.
Ioneer continues to progress the updated Class 2 capital and operating cost estimates.
Organic Growth Projects
Ioneer continues to evaluate future growth potential at the Rhyolite Ridge project with concept-level studies of both the South Basin, where mine permitting is in progress, and the North Basin (located 5km
north), which is at a pre-resource stage.
The Rhyolite Ridge deposit hosts three main types of mineralisation, however, only one of these (high-boron) is included in the current project design and DFS economics.
The three distinct styles of mineralisation are described in the April 2024 Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) released concurrently with this quarterly.
EcoPro Lithium Clay Project
The EcoPro Lithium Clay R&D project commenced in January, and the Project Steering Committee was established to manage it. The current plan is to develop the commercially feasible process by the end of the
year.
The Lithium Clay R&D project is currently excluded from the Stage 1 Project design and economics.
North Basin Growth Project
The North Basin is located 5km north of the South Basin. No work was undertaken at North Basin during the quarter.
Upcoming Work Program
The work program over the coming months includes:
| • |
Advancing federal permitting through participation in the NEPA process in concurrence with the Section 7 ESA Consultation.
|
| • |
Preparing for the DEIS public comments.
|
| • |
Updated resource/reserve estimate including SK1300 technical report.
|
| • |
Updated Class 2 capex and opex estimates.
|
| • |
Continuing to close CP’s required for Sibanye’s FID and the DOE loan.
|
| • |
Evaluation of growth opportunities including leach testwork on low-boron non-clay mineralisation.
|
Corporate Activities
During the quarter, Ioneer participated in several industry and investor events, including:
| • |
BMO Metals and Mining, and Critical Minerals Conference, February 2024.
|
| • |
Ord Minnett Small and Mid-Cap Mining Conference, March 2024.
|
ASX Additional Information
The Company provides the following information pursuant to ASX Listing Rule requirements.
| 1. |
ASX LR 5.3.1: Exploration and Evaluation Expenditure during the quarter was US$8.9 million. Details of the exploration activity are set out in this report. A breakdown
of the expenditure is shown below:
|
|
Expenditure
|
US$’000
|
||
|
Exploration
|
-
|
||
|
Engineering
|
5,108
|
||
|
Environmental
|
1,700
|
||
|
Sales & Marketing
|
142
|
||
|
Other
|
2,009
|
||
|
Total
|
8,859
|
| 2. |
ASX LR 5.3.2: The Company confirms there were no production or development activities during the quarter.
|
|
|
|
p.8
|
|
|
| 3. |
ASX LR 5.3.5: Related party payments for the quarter totalled US$278,000, comprising salaries and fees for the Company’s executive and non-executive directors. No other
payments were made to any related parties of the entity or their associates.
|
| 4. |
ASX LR 5.3.3: INR confirms that it has not acquired tenements during the quarter (see appendix 1).
|
Capital Structure
Total cash and cash equivalents as of 31 March 2024 was US$19.0 million of which 61.6% was held in USD with the balance held in AUD.
At the end of the quarter, Ioneer had on issue:
| • |
2.1 billion ordinary shares
|
| • |
2.9 million options, and
|
| • |
33.9 million performance rights.
|
|
|
This ASX release has been authorised by Ioneer Managing Director, Bernard Rowe.
--ENDS--
Media Contact
|
Chad Yeftich
Ioneer USA Corporation
|
Ian Bucknell
Ioneer Limited
|
|
Investor Relations (USA)
|
Investor Relations (AUS)
|
|
T: +1 775 993 8563
|
T: +61 434 567 155
|
|
E: ir@ioneer.com
|
E: ibucknell@ioneer.com
|
About Ioneer
Ioneer Ltd is an emerging lithium–boron producer and the 100% owner of the Rhyolite Ridge Lithium-Boron Project located in Nevada, USA. Rhyolite Ridge is the only known lithium-boron deposit in North America and
one of only two known such deposits in the world. Once operational, the low-cost, world-class project is expected to power upward of 50 million electric vehicles and will instantly become a globally significant source of critical materials vital
to the clean energy transition.
Upon anticipated completion of the U.S. federal permitting process, construction at Rhyolite Ridge, largely funded through the combination of $490 million USD in equity from Sibanye-Stillwater and a $700 million
USD in debt from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office, will begin in 2024. Production and on-site processing are expected to follow in 2026.
To date, Ioneer has major offtake agreements with Ford Motor Company, Prime Planet Energy & Solutions (PPES), a joint venture between Toyota Motor Company and Panasonic, and EcoPro Innovation.
|
p.9
|
|
|
Recent Announcements
The table below lists announcements made by the Company during the quarter.
|
Date Released
|
Title
|
|
30/01/2024
|
December 2023 – Quarterly Activities Report
|
|
30/01/2024
|
December 2023 – Quarterly Cash Flow Report
|
|
01/02/2024
|
Application for quotation of securities - INR
|
|
01/02/2024
|
Change of Director’s Interest Notice – M Walker
|
|
01/02/2024
|
Change of Director’s Interest Notice – R McKinney-James
|
|
05/02/2024
|
Change of Director’s Interest Notice – A Davies
|
|
21/02/2024
|
Half Yearly Report and Accounts
|
|
23/02/2024
|
Change in substantial holding
|
|
26/02/2024
|
BMO 2024 Global Critical Minerals Conference Presentation
|
|
p.10
|
|
|
Appendix 1 - Schedule of Tenements
ASX listing rule 5.3.3
|
Country
|
Project
|
Tenement ID
|
Tenement Name
|
Area (km2)
|
Interest at beginning of
quarter
|
Interest at end of quarter
|
Note
|
|
USA
|
Rhyolite Ridge
|
NMC1118666
|
NLB claims (160)
|
13
|
100%
|
100%
|
No change
|
|
USA
|
Rhyolite Ridge
|
NV106310781
|
NLB claims (41)
|
1.2
|
100%
|
100%
|
No change
|
|
USA
|
Rhyolite Ridge
|
NMC1117360
|
SLB claims (199)
|
16.5
|
100%
|
100%
|
No change
|
|
USA
|
Rhyolite Ridge
|
NMC1117360
|
SLB claims (18)
|
1.5
|
100%
|
100%
|
No change
|
|
USA
|
Rhyolite Ridge
|
NMC1171536
|
SLM claims (122)
|
9.7
|
100%
|
100%
|
No change
|
|
USA
|
Rhyolite Ridge
|
NMC 1179516
|
RR claims (65)
|
5.4
|
100%
|
100%
|
No change
|
|
USA
|
Rhyolite Ridge
|
NMC 1179516
|
RR claims (14)
|
1.1
|
100%
|
100%
|
No change
|
|
USA
|
Rhyolite Ridge
|
NMC 1129523
|
BH claims (81)
|
7
|
100%
|
100%
|
No change
|
|
USA
|
Rhyolite Ridge
|
NV105272779
|
RMS claims (23)
|
0.5
|
100%
|
100%
|
No change
|
|
USA
|
Rhyolite Ridge
|
NMC1147932
|
SLP claims (120)
|
9.7
|
100%
|
100%
|
No change
|
|
USA
|
Rhyolite Ridge
|
NV105272053
|
PR claims (11)
|
0.9
|
100%
|
100%
|
No change
|
|
USA
|
SM
|
NMC1166813
|
SM claims (96)
|
7.7
|
100%
|
100%
|
No change
|
|
USA
|
GD
|
NMC1166909
|
GD claims (13)
|
1.1
|
100%
|
100%
|
No change
|
|
USA
|
CLD
|
NMC1167799
|
CLD claims (65)
|
5.2
|
100%
|
100%
|
No change
|
On 16 September 2021, the Company announced a strategic investment by Sibanye-Stillwater7 in the Rhyolite Ridge Project. Under the terms of the agreement,
Sibanye-Stillwater will contribute US$490 million for a 50% interest in the Joint Venture, with Ioneer to maintain a 50% interest and retain operatorship. Ioneer has also agreed to provide Sibanye-Stillwater with an option to participate in 50% of
the North Basin, upon the election of Sibanye-Stillwater to contribute up to an additional US$50 million, subject to certain terms and conditions. Establishment of the Joint Venture and Sibanye-Stillwater’s funding commitment is subject to certain
terms and conditions precedent, including receipt of final permits, commitments for remaining debt financing, and other customary approvals.
7 Refer ASX release titles ‘Sibanye-Stillwater to invest US$490M in Rhyolite Ridge’ announced on 16 September 2021.
|
p.11
|
|
|
Appendix 5B
Mining exploration entity or oil and gas exploration entity
quarterly cash flow report
|
Name of entity
|
||
|
ioneer Ltd
|
||
|
ABN
|
Quarter ended (“current quarter”)
|
|
|
76 098 564 606
|
March 2024
|
|
|
Consolidated statement of cash flows
|
Current quarter
$US’000
|
Year to date
(9 months)
$US’000
|
|
|
1.
|
Cash flows from operating activities
|
-
|
-
|
|
1.1
|
Receipts from customers
|
||
|
1.2
|
Payments for
|
-
|
-
|
|
(a) exploration & evaluation (if expensed)
|
|||
|
(b) development
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
(c) production
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
(d) staff costs
|
(1,127)
|
(2,864)
|
|
|
(e) administration and corporate costs
|
(485)
|
(4,078)
|
|
|
1.3
|
Dividends received (see note 3)
|
-
|
-
|
|
1.4
|
Interest received
|
209
|
1,092
|
|
1.5
|
Interest and other costs of finance paid
|
-
|
-
|
|
1.6
|
Income taxes paid
|
||
|
1.7
|
Government grants and tax incentives
|
-
|
-
|
|
1.8
|
Other (provide details if material)
|
-
|
-
|
|
1.9
|
Net cash from / (used in) operating activities
|
(1,403)
|
(5,850)
|
|
2.
|
Cash flows from investing activities
|
-
|
-
|
|
2.1
|
Payments to acquire:
|
||
|
(a) entities
|
|||
|
(b) tenements
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
(c) property, plant and equipment
|
-
|
(3)
|
|
|
(d) exploration & evaluation (if capitalised)
|
(8,859)
|
(30,730)
|
|
|
(e) investments
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
(f) other non-current assets
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
Appendix 5B
Mining exploration entity or oil and gas exploration entity quarterly cash flow report
|
|
Consolidated statement of cash flows
|
Current quarter
$US’000
|
Year to date
(9 months)
$US’000
|
|
|
2.2
|
Proceeds from the disposal of:
|
-
|
-
|
|
(a) entities
|
|||
|
(b) tenements
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
(c) property, plant and equipment
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
(d) investments
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
(e) other non-current assets
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
2.3
|
Cash flows from loans to other entities
|
-
|
-
|
|
2.4
|
Dividends received (see note 3)
|
-
|
-
|
|
2.5
|
Other (provide details if material)
|
-
|
-
|
|
2.6
|
Net cash from / (used in) investing activities
|
(8,859)
|
(30,733)
|
|
3.
|
Cash flows from financing activities
|
-
|
-
|
|
3.1
|
Proceeds from issues of equity securities (excluding convertible debt securities)
|
||
|
3.2
|
Proceeds from issue of convertible debt securities
|
-
|
-
|
|
3.3
|
Proceeds from exercise of options
|
-
|
54
|
|
3.4
|
Transaction costs related to issues of equity securities or convertible debt securities
|
(2)
|
(11)
|
|
3.5
|
Proceeds from borrowings
|
1,200
|
1,200
|
|
3.6
|
Repayment of borrowings
|
-
|
-
|
|
3.7
|
Transaction costs related to loans and borrowings
|
-
|
-
|
|
3.8
|
Dividends paid
|
-
|
-
|
|
3.9
|
Other (provide details if material)
|
(29)
|
(94)
|
|
3.10
|
Net cash from / (used in) financing activities
|
1,169
|
1,149
|
|
4.
|
Net increase / (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents for the period
|
||
|
4.1
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
27,988
|
52,709
|
|
4.2
|
Net cash from / (used in) operating activities (item 1.9 above)
|
(1,403)
|
(5,850)
|
|
4.3
|
Net cash from / (used in) investing activities (item 2.6 above)
|
(8,859)
|
(30,733)
|
|
4.4
|
Net cash from / (used in) financing activities (item 3.10 above)
|
1,169
|
1,149
|
|
Appendix 5B
Mining exploration entity or oil and gas exploration entity quarterly cash flow report
|
|
Consolidated statement of cash flows
|
Current quarter
$US’000
|
Year to date
(9 months)
$US’000
|
|
|
4.5
|
Effect of movement in exchange rates on cash held
|
135
|
1,755
|
|
4.6
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
|
19,030
|
19,030
|
|
5.
|
Reconciliation of cash and cash equivalents
at the end of the quarter (as shown in the consolidated statement of cash flows) to the related items in the accounts
|
Current quarter
$US’000
|
Previous quarter
$US’000
|
|
5.1
|
Bank balances
|
7,885
|
12,466
|
|
5.2
|
Call deposits
|
11,146
|
15,522
|
|
5.3
|
Bank overdrafts
|
-
|
-
|
|
5.4
|
Other (provide details)
|
||
|
5.5
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of quarter (should equal item 4.6 above)
|
19,031
|
27,988
|
|
6.
|
Payments to related parties of the entity and their associates
|
Current quarter
$US’000
|
|
6.1
|
Aggregate amount of payments to related parties and their associates included in item 1
|
278
|
|
6.2
|
Aggregate amount of payments to related parties and their associates included in item 2
|
|
|
Note: if any amounts are shown in items 6.1 or 6.2, your quarterly activity report must include a description of, and an explanation for, such payments
|
||
|
Directors’ fees – 102.6
Executive salary component of chairman’s fee – 78.0
Wages – 97.2
|
|
Appendix 5B
Mining exploration entity or oil and gas exploration entity quarterly cash flow report
|
|
7.
|
Financing facilities
Note: the term “facility’ includes all forms of financing arrangements available to the entity.
Add notes as necessary for an understanding of the sources of finance available to the entity.
|
Total facility
amount at quarter
end
$US’000
|
Amount drawn at
quarter end
$US’000
|
|
7.1
|
Loan facilities
|
-
|
-
|
|
7.2
|
Credit standby arrangements
|
-
|
-
|
|
7.3
|
Other (please specify)
|
1,200
|
1,200
|
|
7.4
|
Total financing facilities
|
1,200
|
1,200
|
|
7.5
|
Unused financing facilities available at quarter end
|
-
|
|
|
7.6
|
Include in the box below a description of each facility above, including the lender, interest rate, maturity date and whether it is secured or unsecured. If any additional financing facilities have been entered into or are proposed to
be entered into after quarter end, include a note providing details of those facilities as well.
|
||
|
Lender: Stillwater Mining Company
Lender Parent: Sibanye Stillwater Limited
Amount: US$1,200,000
Maturity date: Loan will mature and repaid in full 30 days following the termination of the unit purchase agreement (agreement to make an equity investment) by either party.
Interest rate: 0% to maturity date. If unpaid by maturity date, then the interest will be accrued at the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) plus 8% per annum.
Secured/not secured: Not secured.
|
|||
|
8.
|
Estimated cash available for future operating activities
|
$US’000
|
|
8.1
|
Net cash from / (used in) operating activities (Item 1.9)
|
(1,403)
|
|
8.2
|
Capitalised exploration & evaluation (Item 2.1(d))
|
(8,859)
|
|
8.3
|
Total relevant outgoings (Item 8.1 + Item 8.2)
|
(10,262)
|
|
8.4
|
Cash and cash equivalents at quarter end (Item 4.6)
|
19,030
|
|
8.5
|
Unused finance facilities available at quarter end (Item 7.5)
|
-
|
|
8.6
|
Total available funding (Item 8.4 + Item 8.5)
|
19,030
|
|
8.7
|
Estimated quarters of funding available (Item 8.6 divided by Item 8.3)
|
1.9
|
|
8.8
|
If Item 8.7 is less than 2 quarters, please provide answers to the following questions:
|
|
|
1. Does the entity expect that it will continue to have the current level of net operating cash flows for the time being and, if not, why not?
|
||
|
Answer: No, the Company expects it will decrease the current level of cash used in operating activities with the completion of drilling in January 2024.
|
||
|
2. Has the entity taken any steps, or does it propose to take any steps, to raise further cash to fund its operations and, if so, what are those steps and how likely does it
believe that they will be successful?
|
||
|
Appendix 5B
Mining exploration entity or oil and gas exploration entity quarterly cash flow report
|
|
Answer:The Company continues to monitor market conditions and manages its cash reserves prudently. The Company regularly assesses its budgeted expenditure and the capital markets
with a view to raising capital at a time most beneficial to long term shareholder value, and has announced today completion of its capital raising of A$38.4m in the announcement and “Investor Presentation” lodged with the ASX. The shares
to be issued pursuant to this capital raising will be issued on 6 May 2024. In the March quarter, Sibanye-Stillwater contributed US$1.2 million toward the drilling of Phase 3B holes at the Rhyolite Ridge Project.
|
|
|
3. Does the entity expect to be able to continue its operations and to meet its business objectives and, if so, on what basis?
|
|
|
Answer: Yes, the Company expects to continue its operations and meet its objectives using the measures outlined in 8.8.2.
|
Compliance statement
| 1 |
This statement has been prepared in accordance with accounting standards and policies which comply with Listing Rule 19.11A.
|
| 2 |
This statement gives a true and fair view of the matters disclosed.
|
|
30 April 2024
|
|
|
Date:
|
|
Bernard Rowe – Managing Director
|
|
|
Authorised by:
|
|
|
|
Name of body or officer authorising release – see note 4)
|
Notes
| 1. |
This quarterly cash flow report and the accompanying activity report provide a basis for informing the market about the entity’s activities for the past quarter, how they have been financed and the effect this has had on its cash
position. An entity that wishes to disclose additional information over and above the minimum required under the Listing Rules is encouraged to do so.
|
| 2. |
If this quarterly cash flow report has been prepared in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards, the definitions in, and provisions of, AASB 6: Exploration for and Evaluation of Mineral
Resources and AASB 107: Statement of Cash Flows apply to this report. If this quarterly cash flow report has been prepared in accordance with other accounting standards agreed by ASX
pursuant to Listing Rule 19.11A, the corresponding equivalent standards apply to this report.
|
| 3. |
Dividends received may be classified either as cash flows from operating activities or cash flows from investing activities, depending on the accounting policy of the entity.
|
| 4. |
If this report has been authorised for release to the market by your board of directors, you can insert here: “By the board”. If it has been authorised for release to the market by a committee of your board of directors, you can insert
here: “By the [name of board committee – e.g. Audit and Risk Committee]”. If it has been authorised for release to the market by a disclosure committee,
you can insert here: “By the Disclosure Committee”.
|
| 5. |
If this report has been authorised for release to the market by your board of directors and you wish to hold yourself out as complying with recommendation 4.2 of the ASX Corporate Governance Council’s Corporate
Governance Principles and Recommendations, the board should have received a declaration from its CEO and CFO that, in their opinion, the financial records of the entity have been properly maintained, that this report complies
with the appropriate accounting standards and gives a true and fair view of the cash flows of the entity, and that their opinion has been formed on the basis of a sound system of risk management and internal control which is operating
effectively.
|
Exhibit 99.2
Mineral Resource update delivers high-grade, shallow Shelf Zone,
outside of critical habitat
Highlights:
| • |
Drill and geophysical data define a highly promising “Shelf Zone” within the South Basin.
|
| o |
Li-B mineralisation is notably shallower than elsewhere in the basin.
|
| o |
Lithium grades are significantly higher compared to the resource average.
|
| o |
Mineralised sedimentary layers are relatively flat lying with favourable geotechnical characteristics.
|
| o |
Lies completely outside of Critical Habitat.
|
| o |
Largely within the pit shell currently being permitted by the BLM.
|
| • |
Given the significance of this zone, the Resource estimate is being updated and will be further updated within the next three months as pending drill results are received and finalized. Drilling was
completed in January 2024 and results for 12 holes are pending.
|
| • |
For the first time, the April 2024 Resource is subdivided into three separate streams:
|
| o |
Stream 1 – high-boron lithium mineralisation (low clay content)
|
153Mt Resource containing 1.33Mt LCE and 11.26Mt BAE.
| o |
Stream 2 – low-boron lithium mineralisation (low clay content)
|
142Mt Resource containing 1.20Mt LCE and 1.16Mt BAE.
| o |
Stream 3 – low-boron lithium mineralisation (high clay content)
|
56Mt Resource containing 0.72Mt LCE and 0.39Mt BAE.
| • |
Streams 1 and 2 are both suitable for vat leach processing based on extensive testwork – although only Stream 1 is included in the 2020 DFS mine plan and economic analysis.
|
| • |
Stream 3 is high in clay and is not amenable to Rhyolite Ridge vat leaching. This material will be stockpiled and is subject to a research partnership with Eco Pro.
|
| • |
The 2022-2023 drilling was solely focused on the southern and southeastern extension of the deposit and has added approximately 32Mt of Stream 1 and Stream 2 mineralisation, the majority of which is in
Measured and Indicated resource categories.
|
| • |
71% increase in the overall Measured Resource (75Mt) compared to 2023 (44Mt).
|
| • |
Allows mining to commence outside of Critical Habitat and further underpins Ioneer’s commitment to minimise and manage mine related activity within Critical Habitat, consistent with the Mine Plan of
Operation currently under NEPA review.
|
| • |
Updated mineral resource and ore reserve estimate to be completed over the next three months.
|
Tuesday 30 April 2024 – Ioneer Ltd (“Ioneer” or the “Company”) (ASX: INR, NASDAQ:
IONR), is pleased to announce an updated Mineral Resource estimate for the South Basin at the Rhyolite Ridge Lithium-Boron Project located in Nevada, USA. The effective date for the updated
Mineral Resource estimate is April 19, 2024.
Ioneer Ltd. (ASX: INR, NASDAQ: IONR) Suite 16.01,
213 Miller Street, North Sydney, NSW 2060 T: +61 2 9922 5800 W: Ioneer.com ABN: 76 098 564 606
 |
Independent Mining Consultants, Inc (IMC) estimated the April 2024 Mineral Resource. The previous Resource estimate was completed in March 2023, and an Ore Reserve estimate
in April 2020, for the Rhyolite Ridge Definitive Feasibility Study (‘DFS’).
For the first time, the Mineral Resource is being reported as three separate streams:
| • |
Stream 1 – high-boron lithium mineralisation (low clay content)
153Mt Resource containing 1.33Mt LCE and 11.26Mt BAE.
|
| • |
Stream 2 – low-boron lithium mineralisation (low clay content)
142Mt Resource containing 1.20Mt LCE and 1.16Mt BAE.
|
| • |
Stream 3 – low-boron lithium mineralisation (high clay content)
56Mt Resource containing 0.72Mt LCE and 0.39Mt BAE.
|
Streams 1, 2 and 3 all contain high levels of lithium. Stream 1 is differentiated by having high boron content (>5000ppm) and low clay content. Stream 2 is
differentiated by having low boron content (<5000ppm) and low clay content. Stream 3 is differentiated by having low boron content and high clay content and is solely restricted to one stratigraphic unit within the deposit (M5 unit).
Streams 1 and 2 are both suitable for vat leach processing. Only Stream 1 is included in the 2020 DFS mine plan and economic analysis. Due to the high clay content of
Stream 3, it cannot be processed through the same vat leach flowsheet and requires an alternative processing path. This material is subject to a research partnership with Eco Pro.
The total Resource decreased slightly compared to 2023 due to 1) an adjustment in density assumptions based on new, superior density data and 2) the updated
geological/structural model which captured a break in continuity of the units where faulting has uplifted a block in the central part of the basin.
The total number and spacing of drill holes has resulted in a material increase in the portion of the Resource classified as Measured and Indicated, the two highest
confidence categories. The Measured Resource for all three streams has increased from 44Mt to 75Mt, an increase of 71%.
The updated South Basin Mineral Resource Estimate comprises:
| • |
Total Mineral Resource of 351 Mt
|
| • |
Contained lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) of 3.25 Mt
|
| • |
Contained boric acid equivalent (BAE) of 12.82 Mt
|
| • |
Measured & Indicated Resource for Streams 1 & 2 of 214 Mt
|
| • |
Cut-off grades unchanged at 5,000ppm B (Stream 1) and 1,090ppm Li (Streams 2 & 3)
|
| p.2 |
 |
|
Contained
|
||||||||
|
Stream
|
Classification
|
Tonnage
Ktonnes
|
Li
ppm
|
B
ppm
|
Li2CO3
Wt. %
|
H3BO3
Wt. %
|
Li2CO3
(kt)
|
H3BO3
(kt)
|
|
1
|
Measured
|
43,178
|
1755
|
14657
|
0.93
|
8.38
|
403
|
3619
|
|
Indicated
|
74,235
|
1599
|
12183
|
0.85
|
6.97
|
632
|
5171
|
|
|
Inferred
|
35,608
|
1581
|
12144
|
0.84
|
6.94
|
300
|
2473
|
|
|
Total S1
|
153,021
|
1639
|
12872
|
0.87
|
7.36
|
1335
|
11262
|
|
|
2
|
Measured
|
17,160
|
1509
|
1566
|
0.80
|
0.90
|
138
|
154
|
|
Indicated
|
79,264
|
1500
|
1560
|
0.80
|
0.89
|
633
|
707
|
|
|
Inferred
|
46,096
|
1737
|
1139
|
0.92
|
0.65
|
426
|
300
|
|
|
Total S2
|
142,520
|
1578
|
1425
|
0.84
|
0.81
|
1197
|
1161
|
|
|
3
|
Measured
|
14,768
|
2454
|
1733
|
1.31
|
0.99
|
193
|
146
|
|
Indicated
|
29,475
|
2420
|
1228
|
1.29
|
0.70
|
380
|
207
|
|
|
Inferred
|
11,619
|
2388
|
605
|
1.27
|
0.35
|
148
|
40
|
|
|
Total S3
|
55,862
|
2422
|
1232
|
1.29
|
0.70
|
720
|
394
|
|
|
ALL
|
Grand Total
|
351,403
|
1,739
|
6,379
|
0.93
|
3.65
|
3,251
|
12,817
|
Table 1. Summary of April 2024 Mineral Resource Estimate – Rhyolite Ridge South Basin
South Basin and The Shelf Zone
Rhyolite Ridge is a sediment-hosted lithium and boron deposit located in the Silver Peak Range of southwestern Nevada. Sedimentary layers containing lithium and boron were
deposited into a lake bed approximately six million years ago. The lake formed within a closed structural basin measuring approximately 2 km by 6 km (South Basin). Over time, the lake filled with sediments and was eventually drained of
water. The initially soft, sedimentary layers were turned into solid, competent rock over time. Today, the sedimentary rocks are up to 300m in thickness, can be subdivided into 11 separate units and are almost entirely concealed beneath a 20
m thick layer of unconsolidated alluvium (gravel).
Reprocessing and 3D modelling of detailed ground gravity and magnetic data coupled with drill hole information has resulted in a major advancement in the understanding of
the architecture of the South Basin. In summary, at least four sub-basins have been identified within the South Basin. The sub-basins are separated by faults, flexures and fold axis that have either uplifted or down-dropped the sedimentary
layers that host lithium and boron mineralisation. An uplifted block in the southeast portion of the South Basin that is herein referred to as “The Shelf Zone” was the primary focus of the most recent drilling. The Shelf Zone represents a
highly prospective area due to 1) the shallow depth of the mineralized units, 2) the sediments sub-crop beneath unconsolidated gravel, 3) lithium grades are consistently higher than the Resource average, 4) sediments are relatively flat lying
and 4) the entire area lies outside of Tiehm’s buckwheat critical habitat. The Shelf Zone measures approximately 1500 x 750 m and until recently, was largely undrilled. See Figure 1 below.
Within the area of The Shelf Zone, mineralised units lie within 30 metres of the surface and are covered by unconsolidated gravel. The mineralised units dip to the east at
shallow angles which is likely to prove favourable for geotechnical stability of pit walls. Previously, these units were thought to dip to the west – toward the centre of the basin. The uplifted block that separates The Shelf from the deeper
mineralised units to the west is well defined by gravity and magnetic data and has been confirmed with multiple drill hole intersections. Refer to cross-sections included in Appendix A.
| p.3 |
|
Figure 1. Rhyolite Ridge South Basin showing contoured and coloured topography of the top of the B5 unit overlain on a coloured image of the 3D gravity model. “The Shelf”
represents a broad area where the B5 is shallow, relatively flat and dips gently toward the east.
| p.4 |
|
Figure 2. Rhyolite Ridge South Basin showing the areal extent of the B5 Resource coloured by resource category – Measured, Indicated and Inferred. The basin outline is
shown as a black line.
| p.5 |
|
Updated Density Measurements
The density analyses performed by Ioneer’s geotechnical consultants present during both the 2018 and 2022-2023 drilling programs followed a strict repeatable process in sample collection and
analysis utilizing the Archimedes-principle (water displacement) method for density determination, with values reported in dry basis. This provided consistent representative data. Previous resource calculations were limited to data from the
2010 density data set. It was determined to exclude this data due to its small sample set and the inability to reproduce and validate data. The 2018 and 2022-2023 data aligned well and proved to be representative across the resource. This
adjustment resulted in a reduction in the tonnage of the 2023 Resource Estimate which was approximately compensated for by the increased tonnage relating to the 2022-2023 drilling. The result was a minor net reduction in the total Resource
tonnage.
Further detailed information is provided in:
| • |
Appendix A - Mineral Resource Statement and Parameters
|
| • |
Appendix B – JORC Table 1
|
This ASX release has been authorised by Ioneer Managing Director, Bernard Rowe.
--ENDS—
Ioneer Contacts:
|
Chad Yeftich
Ioneer USA Corporation
|
Daniel Francis
FGS Global
|
|
Investor Relations (USA)
|
Media Relations (USA)
|
|
E: ir@Ioneer.com
|
E: daniel.francis@fgsglobal.com
|
About Ioneer
Ioneer Ltd is the 100% owner of the Rhyolite Ridge Lithium-Boron Project located in Nevada, USA, the only known lithium-boron ore deposit in North America and one of only
two known such deposits in the world. The Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) completed in 2020 confirmed Rhyolite Ridge as a world-class lithium and boron project that is expected to become a globally significant, long-life, low-cost source of
lithium and boron vital to a sustainable future.
In September 2021, Ioneer entered into an agreement with Sibanye-Stillwater where, following the satisfaction of conditions precedent, Sibanye-Stillwater will acquire a 50%
interest in the Project, with Ioneer maintaining a 50% interest and retaining the operational management responsibility for the joint venture. In January 2023, Ioneer received a conditional commitment from the U.S. Department of Energy Loan
Programs Office for up to $700 million of debt financing. Ioneer signed separate offtake agreements with Ford Motor Company and PPES (joint venture between Toyota and Panasonic) in 2022 and Korea’s EcoPro Innovation in 2021.
To learn more about Ioneer, visit www.Ioneer.com/investors.
| p.6 |
|
Resource Estimate Advisors
Ioneer engaged the independent services of Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. (IMC) to compile and complete the updated South Basin Mineral Resource estimate, which has
been verified and approved by their appointed Competent Person in compliance with JORC Code (2012).
Competent Persons Statement
The information in this report that relates to the April 2024 Mineral Resource estimate is based on information compiled by Herbert E. Welhener, a
Competent Person who is a Registered Member of the SME (Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration), and is a QP Member of MMSA (the Mining and Metallurgical Society of America). Mr. Welhener is a full-time employee of Independent Mining
Consultants, Inc. and is independent of Ioneer and its affiliates. Mr. Welhener has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as
a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’ (JORC Code 2012). Mr. Welhener consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on
his information in the form and context in which it appears.
Important notice and disclaimer
Forward-looking statements
This announcement contains certain forward-looking statements and comments about future events, including Ioneer’s expectations about the Project
and the performance of its businesses. Forward looking statements can generally be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as ‘expect’, ‘anticipate’, ‘likely’, ‘intend’, ‘should’, ‘could’, ‘may’, ‘predict’, ‘plan’, ‘propose’,
‘will’, ‘believe’, ‘forecast’, ‘estimate’, ‘target’ and other similar expressions within the meaning of securities laws of applicable jurisdictions. Indications of, and guidance on, the Conditional Commitment, financing plans, future earnings
or financial position or performance are also forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties, both general and specific, and there is a risk that such predictions,
forecasts, projections and other forward-looking statements will not be achieved. Forward-looking statements are provided as a general guide only and should not be relied on as an indication or guarantee of future performance. Forward looking
statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainty and other factors which can cause Ioneer’s actual results to differ materially from the plans, objectives, expectations, estimates, and intentions expressed in such forward-looking
statements and many of these factors are outside the control of Ioneer. Such risks include, among others, uncertainties related to the finalisation, execution, and funding of the DOE financing, including our ability to successfully negotiate
definitive agreements and to satisfy any funding conditions, as well as other uncertainties and risk factors set out in filings made from time to time with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Australian Securities Exchange. As
such, undue reliance should not be placed on any forward-looking statement. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance and no representation or warranty is made by any person as to the likelihood of achievement or
reasonableness of any forward-looking statements, forecast financial information or other forecast. Nothing contained in this announcement, nor any information made available to you is, or shall be relied upon as, a promise, representation,
warranty or guarantee as to the past, present or the future performance of Ioneer.
Except as required by law or the ASX Listing Rules, Ioneer assumes no obligation to provide any additional or updated information or to update any forward-looking
statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or results, or otherwise.
| p.7 |
|
Appendix A
Mineral Resource Statement and Parameters
A summary of the April 2024 Mineral Resource estimate is provided in the table below.
April 2024 Mineral Resource Estimate for Rhyolite Ridge South Basin
|
Contained
|
|
Stream
|
Group
|
Classification
|
Tonnage
Ktonnes
|
Li
ppm
|
B
ppm
|
Li2CO3
Wt. %
|
H3BO3
Wt. %
|
Li2CO3
(kt)
|
H3BO3
(kt)
|
|||||
|
Stream 1 (>= 5,000 ppm B)
|
Upper
Zone
B5 Unit
|
Measured
|
29,701
|
1875
|
16801
|
1.00
|
9.61
|
296
|
2853
|
|||||
|
Indicated
|
39,623
|
1815
|
15126
|
0.97
|
8.65
|
383
|
3427
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
14,507
|
1818
|
13047
|
0.97
|
7.46
|
140
|
1082
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
83,830
|
1837
|
15359
|
0.98
|
8.78
|
819
|
7362
|
|||||||
|
Upper
Zone M5 Unit
|
Measured
|
1,255
|
2519
|
5851
|
1.34
|
3.35
|
17
|
42
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
934
|
2226
|
5947
|
1.18
|
3.40
|
11
|
32
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
269
|
2444
|
6451
|
1.30
|
3.69
|
3
|
10
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
2,458
|
2400
|
5953
|
1.28
|
3.40
|
31
|
84
|
|||||||
|
Upper
Zone
S5 Unit
|
Measured
|
589
|
1483
|
6586
|
0.79
|
3.77
|
5
|
22
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
1,289
|
1622
|
6677
|
0.86
|
3.82
|
11
|
49
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
304
|
2520
|
5899
|
1.34
|
3.37
|
4
|
10
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
2,182
|
1709
|
6544
|
0.91
|
3.74
|
20
|
82
|
|||||||
|
Upper
Zone Total
|
Measured
|
31,544
|
1893
|
16175
|
1.01
|
9.25
|
318
|
2917
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
41,846
|
1818
|
14660
|
0.97
|
8.38
|
405
|
3508
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
15,079
|
1844
|
12785
|
0.98
|
7.31
|
148
|
1102
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
88,470
|
1849
|
14881
|
0.98
|
8.51
|
871
|
7528
|
|||||||
|
Lower
Zone
L6 Unit
|
Measured
|
11,634
|
1382
|
10541
|
0.74
|
6.03
|
86
|
701
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
32,389
|
1316
|
8982
|
0.70
|
5.14
|
227
|
1663
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
20,529
|
1388
|
11673
|
0.74
|
6.67
|
152
|
1370
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
64,551
|
1351
|
10118
|
0.72
|
5.79
|
464
|
3735
|
|||||||
|
Total
Stream
1 (all
zones)
|
Measured
|
43,178
|
1755
|
14657
|
0.93
|
8.38
|
403
|
3619
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
74,235
|
1599
|
12183
|
0.85
|
6.97
|
632
|
5171
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
35,608
|
1581
|
12144
|
0.84
|
6.94
|
300
|
2473
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
153,021
|
1639
|
12872
|
0.87
|
7.36
|
1335
|
11262
|
|||||||
|
Stream 2 (>= 1,090 ppm Li, no B COG. Low Clay)
|
Upper
Zone
B5 Unit
|
Measured
|
1,704
|
2331
|
2381
|
1.24
|
1.36
|
21
|
23
|
|||||
|
Indicated
|
4,216
|
2355
|
2058
|
1.25
|
1.18
|
53
|
50
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
3,714
|
2412
|
1518
|
1.28
|
0.87
|
48
|
32
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
9,633
|
2373
|
1907
|
1.26
|
1.09
|
122
|
105
|
|||||||
|
Upper
Zone
S5 Unit
|
Measured
|
589
|
1483
|
6586
|
0.79
|
3.77
|
5
|
22
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
1,289
|
1622
|
6677
|
0.86
|
3.82
|
11
|
49
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
304
|
2520
|
5899
|
1.34
|
3.37
|
4
|
10
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
2,182
|
1709
|
6544
|
0.91
|
3.74
|
20
|
82
|
|||||||
|
Upper
Zone Total
|
Measured
|
6,716
|
1658
|
1484
|
0.88
|
0.85
|
59
|
57
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
14,425
|
1789
|
1405
|
0.95
|
0.80
|
137
|
116
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
9,351
|
2006
|
1419
|
1.07
|
0.81
|
100
|
76
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
30,493
|
1826
|
1427
|
0.97
|
0.82
|
296
|
249
|
|||||||
|
Lower
Zone
L6 Unit
|
Measured
|
10,444
|
1414
|
1620
|
0.75
|
0.93
|
79
|
97
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
64,839
|
1435
|
1595
|
0.76
|
0.91
|
495
|
591
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
36,745
|
1669
|
1068
|
0.89
|
0.61
|
326
|
224
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
112,028
|
1510
|
1424
|
0.80
|
0.81
|
900
|
912
|
|||||||
|
Total
Stream
2 (all
zones)
|
Measured
|
17,160
|
1509
|
1566
|
0.80
|
0.90
|
138
|
154
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
79,264
|
1500
|
1560
|
0.80
|
0.89
|
633
|
707
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
46,096
|
1737
|
1139
|
0.92
|
0.65
|
426
|
300
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
142,520
|
1578
|
1425
|
0.84
|
0.81
|
1197
|
1161
|
|||||||
|
Stream 3(>= 1,090 ppm Li, no B COG,
High Clay)
|
Total
Stream
3 (M5
zone)
|
Measured
|
14,768
|
2454
|
1733
|
1.31
|
0.99
|
193
|
146
|
|||||
|
Indicated
|
29,475
|
2420
|
1228
|
1.29
|
0.70
|
380
|
207
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
11,619
|
2388
|
605
|
1.27
|
0.35
|
148
|
40
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
55,862
|
2422
|
1232
|
1.29
|
0.70
|
720
|
394
|
|
Grand Total All Streams and All Units
|
351,403
|
1,739
|
6,379
|
0.93
|
3.65
|
3,251
|
12,817
|
Notes:
1. Ktonnes- thousand tonnes; Li= lithium; B= boron’ ppm= parts per million; Li2CO3 = lithium carbonate;
H3BO3 = boric acid; kt = thousand to
2. Totals may differ due to rounding, Mineral Resources reported on a dry in-situ basis. Lithium is converted to
Equivalent Contained Tonnes of Lithium Carbonate (Li2CO3) using a stochiometric conversion factor of 5.322, and boron is converted to Equivalent Contained Tonnes of Boric Acid (H3BO3) using a stochiometric conversion factor of 5.718. Equivalent
stochiometric conversion factors are derived from the molecular weights of the individual elements which make up Lithium Carbonate (Li2CO3) and Boric Acid (H3BO3).
3. The statement of estimates of Mineral Resources has been compiled by Mr. Herbert E. Welhener, a Competent Person who is a Registered
Member of the SME (Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration), and is a QP Member of MMSA (the Mining and Metallurgical Society of America). Mr Welhener is a full-time employee of Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. and is independent of
Ioneer and its affiliates. Mr Welhener has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012
Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’ (JORC Code 2012).
4. All Mineral Resource figures reported in the table above represent estimates at April 19, 2024. Mineral Resource estimates are not
precise calculations, being dependent on the interpretation of limited information on the location, shape and continuity of the occurrence and on the available sampling results. The totals contained in the above table have been rounded to reflect
the relative uncertainty of the estimate.
5. Mineral Resources are reported in accordance with the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and
Ore Reserves (The Joint Ore Reserves Committee Code – JORC 2012 Edition).
6. The Mineral Resource estimate is the result of determining the mineralized material that has a reasonable prospect of economic
extraction. In making this determination, constraints were applied to the geological model based upon a pit optimization analysis that defined a conceptual pit shell limit. The conceptual pit shell was based upon a net value per tonne calculation
including a 5,000ppm boron cut-off grade for high boron – high lithium (HiB-Li) mineralization (Stream 1) and 1,090ppm lithium cut-off grade for low boron (LoB-Li) mineralization below 5,000ppm boron broke in to two material types low clay and high
clay material respectfully (Stream 2 and Stream 3). The pit shell was constrained by a conceptual Mineral Resource optimized pit shell for the purpose of establishing reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction based on potential mining,
metallurgical and processing grade parameters identified by mining, metallurgical and processing studies performed to date on the Project. Key inputs in developing the Mineral Resource pit shell included a 5,000ppm boron cut-off grade for HiB-Li
mineralization, 1,090ppm lithium cut-off grade for LoB-Li low clay mineralization and 1,090 ppm lithium cut-off grade for LoB-Li high clay mineralization; mining cost of US$1.54 /tonne; plant feed processing and grade control costs which range
between US$52.34/tonne and US$87.43/tonne of plant feed (based on the acid consumption per seam based on the mineral resource average grades); boron and lithium recovery for Stream 1 of 80.2% and 85.7%; Stream 2 and 3: M5 65% and 78%, B5 80% and
86%, S5 50% and 88%, L6 37% and 85%, respectively; boric acid sales price of US$1,016.67/tonne; lithium carbonate sales price of US$17,868.50/tonne.
In December 2022, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed Tiehm’s buckwheat as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and has
designated critical habitat by way of applying a 500 m radius around several distinct plant populations that occur on the Project site. ioneer is committed to the protection and conservation of the Tiehm’s buckwheat. The Project’s Mine Plan of
Operations submitted to the BLM in July 2022 and currently under NEPA review has no direct impact on Tiehm’s buckwheat and includes measures to minimise and mitigate for indirect impacts within the designated critical habitat areas identified.
The mineral resource pit shell used to constrain the April 2024 mineral resource estimate was not adjusted to account for any impacts from avoidance of Tiehm’s buckwheat or
minimisation of disturbance within the designated critical habitat. Environmental and permitting assumptions and factors have not been taken into consideration during modifying factors studies for the Project. The tonnes and grade within the
avoidance polygons have not been removed from the Mineral Resources for the April 2024 estimate. Environmental and permitting assumptions and factors may be taken into consideration during future modifying factors studies for the Project. These
permitting assumptions and factors may result in potential changes to the Mineral Resource footprint in the future.
Comparison with Previous Resource
The Table below presents a summary comparison of the current April 2024 Mineral Resource estimate against the previous Mineral Resource estimate for the Project, prepared by
Golder (now WSP) in March 2023 in association with the 2023 JORC Mineral Resource Statement.
|
Processing
Stream
|
Group
|
Classification
|
Tonnes
(Mt)
|
Li
(ppm)
|
B
(ppm)
|
Li2CO3
(wt. %)
|
H3BO3
(wt. %)
|
Li2CO3
(kt)
|
H3BO3
(kt)
|
|
Combined Streams
|
April 2024
Resource
|
Mea + Ind
|
258.1
|
1731
|
6779
|
.9
|
3.9
|
2,378
|
10,004
|
|
Inf
|
93.3
|
1759
|
5272
|
1.0
|
3.0
|
873
|
2,813
|
||
|
Total
|
351.4
|
1739
|
6379
|
0.9
|
3.6
|
3,251
|
12,817
|
||
|
March 2023
Resource
|
Mea + Ind
|
294.5
|
1726
|
7235
|
0.9
|
4.1
|
2,720
|
12,200
|
|
|
Inf
|
65.7
|
1821
|
4952
|
1.0
|
3.0
|
630
|
1,860
|
||
|
Total
|
360.2
|
1743
|
6819
|
0.9
|
3.9
|
3,350
|
14,060
|
||
|
Variation
|
Mea + Ind
|
-36.4
|
1684
|
10468
|
0.9
|
5.9
|
-342
|
-2,196
|
|
|
Inf
|
27.6
|
1610
|
6032
|
0.9
|
3.5
|
243
|
953
|
||
|
Total
|
-8.8
|
1918
|
24381
|
1.1
|
13.3
|
-99
|
-1,243
|
The updated April 2024 Mineral Resource estimate has been constrained by applying a 5,000 ppm Boron cut-off grade to HiB-Li mineralisation within the B5, M5, S5 and L6 geological units (Stream 1)
as well as a 1,090 ppm Lithium cut-off grade to LoB-Li low clay mineralisation in the M5, B5, S5 and L6 geological units (Stream 2) and LoB-Li high clay mineralization in the M5 geological unit (Stream 3). All three styles of mineralisation have
also been constrained by the application of a single high-level optimised resource pit shell.
Relative to the March 2023 Mineral Resource estimate, the updated April 2024 Mineral Resource estimate for the Project reflects a small reduction in the estimated resource
tonnes and grades. The impacts to this reduction include:
| • |
Additional drilling has identified lower grade extensions to the deposit,
|
| • |
A new geologic interpretation which includes the representation of faulting within the geologic framework used for grade assignments to the mineralized seams,
|
| • |
A reduction in the density assigned to each of the mineralized seams, ranging from 21% reduction for M5 to a 6% reduction for L6,
|
| • |
The inclusion of the calculation of acid consumption during processing and accounting for this cost has raised the process costs,
|
| • |
A change in the grade estimation parameters resulting in slightly shorter search distances for assigning grades in the block model and a more conservative method of assigning measured and indicated
classifications.
|
The updated Mineral Resource estimate also presents a net expansion of the constraining Mineral Resource pit shell. Additional exploration drilling conducted November
2022-December 2023 has allowed for expansion of the resource to the south and east, expanding the 3 square kilometre (km2) area as the March 2023 to 4.67 kilometre (km2) for the April 2024 Mineral Resource.
Summary of Resource Estimate Parameters and Reporting Criteria
In accordance with ASX Listing Rules and the JORC Code (2012 Edition), a summary of the material information used to estimate the Mineral Resource is summarised below (for
further information please refer to Table 1 in Appendix D).
| • |
The Rhyolite Ridge Mineral Resource area extends over a north-south strike length of 4,240 m (from 4,337,540 mN – 4,341,780mN), has a maximum width of 2,110m (863,330 mE – 865,440 mE) and includes the 585 m
vertical interval from 2,065mRL to 1,480 mRL.
|
| • |
The Rhyolite Ridge Project tenements (unpatented mining claims) are owned by ioneer Minerals Corporation, a company wholly owned by ioneer Ltd. The unpatented mining claims are located on US federal land
administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
|
Geology and Geological Interpretation
| • |
Lithium and boron mineralisation is stratiform in nature and is hosted within Tertiary-age carbonate-rich sedimentary rock, deposited in a lacustrine environment in the Basin and Range terrain of Nevada, USA.
|
Drilling Techniques and Hole Spacing
| • |
Drill holes used in the Mineral Resource estimate included 51 reverse circulation (RC) holes and 104 core holes for a total of 30,935m within the defined
mineralisation. The full database for the South Basin contains records for 163 drill holes for 33,045m of drilling.
|
| • |
Drill hole spacing is 100m by 100m (or less) over most of the deposit.
|
| • |
Drill holes were logged for a combination of geological and geotechnical attributes. The core has been photographed and measured for RQD and core recovery.
|
Sampling and Sub-Sampling Techniques
| • |
Drilling was conducted by American Lithium Minerals Inc., the previous owner of the property between 2010 and 2011 and by ioneer in 2017 to 2019 and 2022 to 2024. For RC drilling, a 12.7-centimetre (cm) hammer was used with sampling conducted on 1.52m intervals and split using a rig mounted rotary splitter. The hammer was replaced with a tri-cone bit in instances of high groundwater flow. For diamond
core, PQ and HQ core size diameter with standard tube was used. Core recoveries of 93% were achieved by ioneer at the project. The core was sampled as half core at 1.52m intervals using a standard electric core saw.
|
Sampling Analysis Method
| • |
Samples were submitted to ALS Minerals Laboratory in Reno, Nevada for sample preparation and analysis. The entire sample was oven dried at 105˚ and crushed to -2 millimetre (mm).
A sub-sample of the crushed material was then pulverised to better than 85% passing -75 microns (µm) using a LM5 pulveriser. The pulverised sample was split with multiple feed in a Jones riffle
splitter until a 100-200 gram (g) sub-sample was obtained for analysis.
|
| • |
Analysis of the samples was conducted using aqua regia 2-acid and 4-acid digest for ICP-MS on a multi-element suite. This method is appropriate for understanding sedimentary lithium deposits and is a total
method.
|
| • |
Standards for lithium, boron, strontium and arsenic and blanks were routinely inserted into sample batches and acceptable levels of accuracy were reportedly obtained. Based on an evaluation of the quality
assurance and quality control (QA/QC) results all assay data has been deemed by the IMC Competent Person as suitable and fit for purpose in Mineral Resource estimation.
|
Cut-off Grades
| • |
The Mineral Resource estimate presented in this Report has been constrained by the application of an optimized Mineral Resource pit shell. The Mineral Resource pit shell was developed using the Independent
Mining Consultants, Inc. (IMC) Mine Planning software.
|
| • |
The Mineral Resource estimate assumes the use of three processing streams: one which can process ore with boron content greater than 5,000 ppm and two which can process ore with boron content less than 5,000
ppm.
|
| • |
The Mineral Resource estimate has been constrained by applying a 5,000 ppm Boron cut-off grade to HiB-Li mineralisation within the B5, M5, S5 and L6 geological units as well as a 1,090 ppm Lithium cut-off
grade to LoB-Li mineralisation in the M5, B5, S5 and L6 geological units.
|
|
•
|
Key input parameters and assumptions for the Mineral Resource pit shell included the following:
|
| • |
B cut-off grade of 5,000 ppm for HiB-Li processing stream and no B cut-off grade for LoB-Li processing stream
|
| • |
No Li cut-off grade for HiB-Li processing stream and Li cut-off grade of 1,090 ppm for LoB-Li processing stream
|
| • |
Overall pit slope angle of 42 degrees in all rock units (wall angle guidance provided by Geo-Logic Associates who developed the geotechnical design).
|
| • |
Mining cost of US$1.54 /tonne
|
| • |
Ore processing and grade control costs include a fixed cost per tonne and a variable cost of acid based on the acid consumption rate which is calculated for each block within the mineralized seams. For
HiB-Li Processing Stream the fixed cost is $30.50/mt and the acid costs range between $36.98/mt to $54.85/mt based on the average grades per seam. For LoB-Li Processing Streams, the fixed cost ranges between $15.19/mt to $30.80/mt and the
acid costs range between $37.15/mt to $56.93/mt based on the average grades per seam .
|
| • |
Boron and Li recovery of 80.2% and 85.7% respectively for HiB-Li Processing Stream .
|
| • |
Boron Recovery for LoB-Li Processing Stream variable by lithology as follows: 65% in M5 Unit, 80% in B5 unit, 50% in S5 unit, and 37% in L6 unit.
|
| • |
Lithium Recovery for LoB-Li Processing Streams variable by lithology as follows: 78% in M5 unit, 86% in B5 unit, 88% in S5 unit, and 85% in L6 unit.
|
| • |
Boric Acid sales price of US$1,016.67/tonne.
|
| • |
Lithium Carbonate sales price of US$17,868.50/tonne.
|
| • |
Sales/Transport costs are included in the process cost.
|
Estimation Methodology
| • |
Drill core samples were assayed on nominal 1.52 m lengths and this data set was used for the interpolation of grade data into the block model. The data set honoured geological contacts (i.e. assay intervals
did not span unit contacts).
|
| • |
Based on a statistical analysis, extreme B grade values were identified in some of the units other than the targeted B5, M5, S5 and L6 units. The units other than B5, M5, S5 and L6 were not estimated so no
grade capping was applied to the drill hole database.
|
| • |
The geological model was developed as a gridded surface stratigraphic model with fault domains included which offset the stratigraphic units in various areas of the deposit. The geological model was
developed by NewFields under direction of ioneer and provided to IMC as the geologic basis for grade estimation. IMC has reviewed the geological model and accepts the interpretation.
|
| • |
Domaining in the model was constrained by the roof and floor surfaces of the geological units. The unit boundaries were modelled as hard boundaries, with samples interpolated only within the unit in which
they occurred.
|
| • |
The geological model used as the basis for estimating Mineral Resources was developed as a stratigraphic gridded surface model using a 7.6m regularized grid. The grade block model was developed using a 7.6m
north-south by 7.6m east-west by 1.52m vertical block dimension (no sub-blocking was applied). The grid cell and block size dimensions represent 25 percent of the nominal drill hole spacing across the model area.
|
| • |
Inverse Distance Squared (‘ID2’) grade interpolation was used for the estimate, constrained by stratigraphic unit roof and
floor surfaces from the geological model. The search direction for estimating grade varied and followed the floor orientation of the seams which changed within some of the fault block domains. The search distances ranged from 533 m in B5 to
229 m in S5.
|
| • |
The density values used to convert volumes to tonnages were assigned on a by-geological unit basis using mean values calculated from 120 density samples collected from drill core during the 2018 and more
recent 2022-2023 P1 and P2 drilling programs. The density values by seam ranged from 1.53 grams per cubic centimetre (‘g/cm3’) for S3 to 1.98/cm3 in seam L6. The density analyses performed by geotechnical consultants present during both the 2018 and 2022-2023 drilling programs (P1 and P2) followed a
strict repeatable process in sample collection and analysis utilizing the Archimedes-principle (water displacement) method for density determination, with values reported in dry basis. This provided consistent representative data. Previous
resource calculations were limited to data from the 2010 density data set. It was determined to exclude this data due to its small sample set and the inability to reproduce and validate data. The 2018 and 2022-2023 data aligned well and
proved to be representative across the resource.
|
Classification Criteria
| • |
Estimated Mineral Resources were classified as follows:
|
| • |
Measured: Between 107 and 122m spacing between points of observation depending on the seam, with sample interpolation from a minimum of four drill holes.
|
| • |
Indicated: Between 168 and 198m spacing between points of observation depending on the seam, with sample interpolation from a minimum of three drill holes.
|
| • |
Inferred: To the limit of the estimation range (maximum 533m, depending on the seam), with sample interpolation from a minimum of one drill hole.
|
| • |
The Mineral Resource classification has included the consideration of data reliability, spatial distribution and abundance of data and continuity of geology, fault structures and grade parameters.
|
Mining and Metallurgical Methods and Parameters
| • |
The Mineral Resource estimate presented in this Report was developed with the assumption that the HiB-Li mineralization within the Mineral Resource pit shell has a reasonable prospect for eventual economic
extraction using current conventional open pit mining methods.
|
| • |
The basis of the mining assumptions made in establishing the reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction of the HiB-Li mineralization are based on preliminary results from mine design and planning
work that is in-progress as part of an ongoing Feasibility Study for the Project.
|
| • |
The basis of the metallurgical assumptions made in establishing the reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction of the HiB-Li (Stream 1) mineralization are based on results from metallurgical and
material processing work that was developed as part of the ongoing Feasibility Study for the Project. This test work was performed using current processing and recovery methods for producing Boric acid and Lithium carbonate products.
|
| • |
A second and third process streams (Stream 2 and Stream 3) to recover Li from low boron mineralized (LoB-Li) units has been confirmed. Current results indicate a reasonable process and expectation for
economic extraction of the LoB-Li from the S5, M5, B5 and L6 units. This test work was performed using current processing and recovery methods for producing Boric acid and Lithium carbonate products.
|
|
APPENDIX A: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
The following table provides a summary of important assessment and reporting criteria used at the ioneer Ltd. Rhyolite Ridge Project (the Project) for the reporting of exploration results and
Lithium-Boron Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves in accordance with the Table 1 checklist in The Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (The JORC Code, 2012 Edition). Table 1 is a checklist or
reference for use by those preparing Public Reports on Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Ore Reserves.
JORC TABLE 1
SECTION 1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND DATA
(Criteria listed in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
Sampling
Techniques
|
• Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down
hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc.). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling
|
• The nature and quality of the sampling from the various sampling programs includes the following:
• Reverse circulation (RC) Drilling: a sample was collected every 1.52 metre (m) from a 127-millimetre (mm) diameter drill hole and split using a
rig-mounted rotary splitter. Samples, with a mean weight of 4.8 kilograms (kg) were submitted to ALS Minerals laboratory in Reno, NV where they were processed for assay. RC samples represent 63% of
the total intervals sampled to date.
• Core Drilling: Core samples were collected from HQ (63.5 mm core diameter) and PQ (85.0 mm core diameter) drill core, on a mean interval of 1.52 m, and cut using a water-cooled diamond blade
core saw. Samples, with a mean weight of 1.8 kg, were submitted to ALS where they were proceeded for assay.
• Drill Hole Deviation: Inclined core drill holes were surveyed o obtain downhole deviation by the survey company (International Directional Services, LLC) or drilling company (Idea Drilling,
Alford Drilling, IG Drilling, Boart Long Year, Major Drilling,) with a downhole Reflex Mems Gyros and Veracio TruShot tools and, for all but three of the drill holes. One drill hole could not be surveyed due to tool error (SBH-72), and
two were intentionally surveyed using an Acoustic Televiewer (SBH-60, SBH-79).
• Trenches: In addition to sampling from drill holes, samples were collected from 19 mechanically excavated trenches in 2010. The trenches were excavated from the outcrop/subcrop using a backhoe and or hand
tools. Chip samples were then collected from the floor of the trench. Due to concerns with correlation and reliability of the results from the trenches, The Competent Person has not included any of this data in the geological model or
Mineral Resource estimate.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.
|
• Measures taken to ensure sample representivity include the following:
• Due to the nature of RC samples, lithological boundaries are not easily honoured; therefore, continuous 1.52 m sample intervals were taken to ensure as representative a sample as possible.
Lithological boundaries were adjusted as needed by the senior ioneer geologist once the assay results were received.
• Core sample intervals were selected to reflect visually identifiable lithological boundaries wherever possible, to ensure sample representivity. In cases where the lithological boundaries were gradational, the
best possible interval was chosen and validated by geochemical assay results.
• All chip and core sampling were completed by or supervised by a senior ioneer geologist. The senior ioneer, Newfield’s and WSP geologists referenced here, and throughout this Table 1, have sufficient relevant
experience for the exploration methods employed, the type of mineralization being evaluated, and are registered professional geologists in their jurisdiction; however, they are not Competent Persons according to the definition presented
in JORC as they are not members of one of the Recognized Professional Organization” included in the ASX list referenced by JORC.
• The Competent Person was not directly involved during the exploration drilling programs and except for observing sampling procedures on two drill holes during the site visit (August 10, 2023), was not present
to observe sample selection. Based on review of the procedures during the site visit and subsequent review of the data, it is the opinion of the Competent Person that the measures taken to ensure sample representivity were reasonable for
the purpose of estimating Mineral Resources.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the
Public Report. In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (eg ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for
fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed
information
|
• Aspects of the determination of mineralization included visual identification of mineralized intervals by a
senior ioneer geologist using lithological characteristics including clay and carbonate content, grain size and the presence of key minerals such as Ulexite (hydrated sodium calcium borate hydroxide) and Searlesite (sodium borosilicate).
A visual distinction between some units, particularly where geological contacts were gradational was initially made. Final unit contacts were then determined by a senior ioneer geologist once assay data were available.
• The Competent Person was not directly involved during the exploration drilling programs; however, the visual identification of mineralized zones and the process for updating unit and
mineralized contacts was reviewed with the ioneer senior geologist during the site visit. The Competent Person evaluated the identified mineralized intervals against the analytical results and agrees with the methodology used by ioneer
to determine material mineralization.
|
||||
|
Drilling
techniques
|
• Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc..) and details (e.g. core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit
or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc.).
|
• Both RC and core drilling techniques have been used on the Project. Exploration drilling programs targeting Lithium-Boron (Li-
B) mineralization on the Project have been implemented by
American Lithium Minerals Inc. (2010-2012) and ioneer (formerly Global Geoscience) in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2022, and 2023.
• Prior to 2018, all RC drilling was conducted using a 127 mm hammer. All pre-2018 core drill holes were drilled using HQ sized core with a double-tube core barrel.
• For the 2018-2023 drilling programs, all core holes (vertical and inclined) were tricone drilled through unconsolidated alluvium, then cored through to the end of the drill hole. A total of 87
core holes were drilled, 55 holes were PQ diameter and 32 were drilled as HQ diameter. Drilling was completed using a triple-tube core barrel (split inner tube) which was preferred to a double-tube core barrel (solid inner tube) as the
triple-tube improved core recovery and core integrity during core removal from the core barrel.
|
|||
|
Drill sample
recovery
|
• Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed.
|
• Prior to 2017, chip recovery was not recorded for the RC drilling therefore the Competent Person cannot comment on drill sample recovery for this period of drilling.
• For the 2017 RC drilling program, the drill holes were geologically logged as they were being drilled; however, no estimates of chip recoveries were recorded. Therefore, the Competent Person
cannot comment on drill sample recovery for this period of drilling.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• For the 2010-2012 and 2016 core drilling programs, both core recovery and rock quality index (RQD) were recorded for each cored interval. Core recovery
was determined by measuring the recovered linear core length and then calculating the recovered percentage against the total length of the core run from the drill advance. The core recovery for all the drilling ranged from 0% to 100%,
with over 65 % of the drill holes having greater than 80% mean core recovery. The core recovery values were recorded by the logging geologist and reviewed by the senior ioneer geologist. The majority of the 2010-2012 and 2016 core drill
holes reported greater than 95% recovery in the B5, M5 and L6 mineralized intervals.
• For the 2018-2019 drilling program, both core recovery and RQD were recorded for each cored interval. Core recovery was determined by measuring the recovered linear core length and then calculating the
recovered percentage against the total length of the core run from the drill advance. The core recovery for all the drilling ranged from 41% to 100%, with over 65% of the drill holes having greater than 90% mean core recovery. The core
recovery values were recorded by the logging geologist and reviewed by the senior ioneer geologist. In the target mineralized intervals (M5, B5 & L6), the mean core recovery was 86% in the B5, 87% in the M5 and 95% in the L6 units,
with most of the drill holes reporting greater than 90% recovery in the mineralized intervals.
• The Competent Person considers the core recovery for the 2023, 2022,2018- 2019, 2016 and 2010-2012 core drilling programs to be acceptable based on statistical analysis which identified no grade bias between
sample intervals with high versus low core recoveries. On this basis, the Competent Person has made the reasonable assumption that the sample results are reliable for use in estimating Mineral Resources.
|
|||||
|
• Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples.
|
• Chip recoveries were not recorded for the 2010-2012 and 2017 RC drilling programs, and there is no indication of measures taken to maximize sample recovery and ensure representative nature of samples.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• No specific measures for maximizing sample recovery were documented for the 2010-2012 and 2016 core drilling programs.
• During the 2018-2023 drilling programs, ioneer used a triple-tube core barrel to maximize sample recovery and ensure representative nature of samples. The use of triple-tube was originally used during the 2018
drill program. A triple-tube core barrel generally provides improved core recovery over double-tube core barrels, resulting in more complete and representative intercepts for core logging, sampling and geotechnical evaluation. It also
limited any potential sample bias due to preferential loss/gain of material.
|
|||||
|
• Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.
|
• Chip recovery was not recorded for the 2010-2012 and 2017 RC drilling program and, therefore, there is no basis for evaluating the relationship between grade and sample recovery for samples from these programs.
• Based on the Competent Person’s review of the 2010-2012, 2016 and 2018-2019, 2022-2023 drilling recovery and grade data there was no observable relationship between sample recovery and grade.
|
||||
|
Logging
|
• Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies.
|
• All core and chip samples have been geologically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, such that there are lithological intervals for each drill hole, with a
correlatable geological/lithological unit assigned to each interval.
• The 2018-2019 and 2022-2023 drilling were also geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation.
• The Competent Person has reviewed all unit boundaries in conjunction with the ioneer senior geologist, and where applicable, adjustments have been made to the mineralized units based on the
assay results intervals to limit geological dilution.
|
|||
|
• Whether logging is
qualitative or quantitative in nature.
|
• The RC and core logging were both qualitative (geological/lithological descriptions and observations) and
quantitative (unit lengths, angles of contacts and structural features and fabrics).
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• Core (or
costean, channel, etc.) photography.
|
• All chip trays and Core photography was completed on every core drill hole for the 2010-2012, 2016, 2018-2019 and 2022-2023 drilling programs.
|
||||
|
• The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.
|
• Prior to 2018, a total length of 8,900 m of RC drilling and 6,000 m of core drilling was completed for the Project, 100% of which was geologically logged by a logging geologist and reviewed by the senior ioneer
geologist.
• For the 2018-2019 drilling, a total length of 300 m of RC drilling and 8,800 m of core drilling was completed for the Project, 100% of which was geologically logged by a logging geologist and reviewed by the
senior ioneer geologist
• For the 2018-2019 drilling, 86% of the 8,800 m of core was geotechnically logged by an engineering geologist/ geotechnical engineer and reviewed by the senior ioneer geologist.
• For the 2022-2023 drilling, 100% of the 7,362m of core was geotechnically logged by an engineering geologist/ geotechnical engineer and reviewed by the senior ioneer geologist
The Competent Person reviewed the geological core logging and sample selection for two drill holes.
|
||||
|
• If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.
|
• The following sub-sampling techniques and sample selection procedures apply to drill core samples:
• During the 2010-2012 and 2016 program, core samples were collected on a mean 1.52 m down hole interval and cut in two halves using a manual core splitter. The entire sample was submitted for
analysis with no sub-sampling prior to submittal.
• During the 2018-2019 drilling program, core samples were collected for every 1.52 m down hole interval and cut using a water-cooled diamond blade core saw utilizing the following methodology for the two target
units. For the M5 unit, ½ core samples were submitted for assay, while the remaining ½ core was retained for reference. For the B5 unit, ¼ core samples were submitted for assay, while ¼ was reserved for future metallurgical test work and
½ core was retained reference.
• During the 2022-2023 drilling programs, core samples were collected for target units every 1.52 m down hole interval. Target units were cut using a water-cooled diamond blade core saw utilizing the following
methodology for the target units. For the M4, M5, B5, S5 and L6 unit, ½ core samples (HQ) or ¼ core samples (PQ) were submitted for assay, while the remaining ½- ¾ core was retained for reference.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Sub-sampling
techniques
and sample
preparation
|
• If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.
• If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc. and whether sampled wet or dry.
|
• The following sub-sampling techniques and sample selection procedures apply to drill core samples:
• During the 2010-2012 and 2016 program, core samples were collected on a mean 1.52 m down hole interval and cut in two halves using a manual core splitter. The entire sample was submitted for
analysis with no sub-sampling prior to submittal.
• During the 2018-2019 drilling program, core samples were collected for every 1.52 m down hole interval and cut using a water-cooled diamond blade core saw utilizing the following methodology for the two target
units. For the M5 unit, ½ core samples were submitted for assay, while the remaining ½ core was retained for reference. For the B5 unit, ¼ core samples were submitted for assay, while ¼ was reserved for future metallurgical test work and
½ core was retained for reference.
• During the 2022-2024 drilling programs, core samples were collected for target units every 1.52 m down hole interval. Target units were cut using a water-cooled diamond blade core saw utilizing the following
methodology for the target units. For the M4, M5, B5, S5 and L6 unit, ½ core samples (HQ) or ¼ core samples (PQ) were submitted for assay, while the remaining ½- ¾ core was retained for reference.
• The following sub-sampling techniques and sample selection procedures apply to RC Chip Samples:
• Pre-2017 RC chips samples were collected using a wet rotary splitter approximately every 1.52 m depth interval. Two samples were collected for every interval (one main sample and one
duplicate). Only the main sample was submitted for analysis.
• 2017 RC chip samples were collected using a wet rotary splitter attached to a cyclone. One, approximately 10 kg, sample was collected every 1.52 m depth interval. All samples were submitted for analysis.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.
|
• The Competent Person considers the nature, type and quality of the sample preparation techniques to be appropriate based on the general homogeneous nature of the mineralized zones and the drilling methods
employed to obtain each sample (i.e., RC and core).
|
||||
|
• Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples.
|
• Quality control procedures adopted for sub-sampling to maximize representivity include the
following:
• During 2016-2017 and 2018-2023 drilling programs, field duplicate/replicate samples were obtained. For the 2017 and 2023 RC drilling, a duplicate sample was collected every 20th sample. For
the 2016 and 2018-2023 core drilling programs two ¼ core samples were taken at the same time and were analysed in sequence by the laboratory to assess the representivity.
• Twin drill holes at the same site were drilled during the 2010- 2012 drilling program. The twin drill hole pairing comprises one RC drill hole (SBH-04) and one core drill hole (SBHC-01). The Competent Person
recommends twinning additional drill hole pairs as part of any future pre-production or infill drilling programs to allow for a more robust review of sample representivity.
• The Competent Person reviewed the results of the duplicate/replicate sampling and twin drill holes. For the
duplicate/replicate samples, the R2 value is 0.99, which is very good. Visual observation of the lithological intervals and the assays for the twin drill holes show that they are very similar, despite the difference in drilling
techniques.
|
||||
|
• Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling.
|
• The Competent Person considers the samples to be representative of the in-situ material as they conform to lithological boundaries determined during core logging. A review of the primary and duplicate sample
analyses indicates a high degree of agreement between the two sample sets (R2 value of 0.99).
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of
the material being sampled.
|
• The Competent Person considers the sample sizes to be appropriate given the general homogeneous nature of
the mineralized zones. The two main types of mineralization are lithium mineralization with high boron >/=5,000 parts per million (ppm) (HiB-Li) and
lithium mineralization with low boron <5,000 ppm (LoB-Li). The HiB-Li mineralization occurs consistently throughout the B5, M5 and L6 target zones, while LoB-Li mineralization occurs throughout
the M5, S5 and L6 units, and is not nuggety or confined to discreet high-grade and low-grade bands.
|
||||
|
Quality of
assay data
and
laboratory
tests
|
• The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.
|
• The nature and quality of the assaying and laboratory procedures used include the following:
• All RC and core samples were processed, crushed, split, and then a sub-sample was pulverized by ALS Minerals in Reno, Nevada.
• All sub-samples were analysed by Aqua Regia with ICP mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) finish for 51 elements (including Lithium (Li)) and Boron (B) by NaOH fusion/ICP high grade analysis (>/=10,000 ppm B).
• Additionally, 95% of the 2018-2019 samples were analysed for Inorganic Carbon and 30% were analysed for Fluorine (F).
• The laboratory techniques are total.
• The Competent Person considers the nature and quality of the laboratory analysis methods and procedures to be appropriate for the type of mineralization.
|
|||
|
• For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc., the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading
times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc..
|
• Not applicable to this Report, no geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments were used on the Project.
|
||||
|
• Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established.
|
• The following Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures were adopted for the various drilling programs:
• During the 2010-2012 program, Standard Reference Material (SRM) samples and a small number of field blanks were also
inserted regularly into the sample sequence to QA/QC of the laboratory analysis.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• For 2016-2017 program, a duplicate sample was collected every 20th primary sample. Field blanks and SRM’s were also inserted approximately every 25 samples to assess QA/QC.
• During the 2018-2019 and 2022-2023 programs, QA/QC samples comprising 1 field blank and 1 SRM standard were inserted into each sample batch every 25 samples. Submission of field duplicates,
laboratory coarse/pulp replicates and umpire assays were submitted in later stages of the 2018-2019 and 2022-2023 drilling programs.
• The Competent Person reviewed the SRM, field blanks and field duplicates and determined the following:
• SRMs: Review of the five SRMs used determined that there was a reasonable variability for Li between the upper and lower control limits (± 2 standard deviation (SD)), however B shows an overall bias towards lower than expected values (i.e. less than the mean) for all sample programs. For each of the 5 SRMs, there were some sample outliers (both low and high); however, the majority
fell within the control limits. There is a concern with the SRM sample submission protocol in that ioneer leaves the SRM standard name on the sample when submitting to the laboratory for analysis. This removes the blind nature from the
SRM as the laboratory can readily identify which standard sample is being evaluated and confirm what the expected values are for that SRM. It is recomeneded that two additional SRM samples be added which have grades between current high
and low grade samples and are closer to the cutoff range for boron ( 5,000 ppm).
• Field Blanks: Review of the field blanks indicate that there is some variability in both the Li and B results. There are several samples that return higher than expected values, with an increased number being
from the 2018-2019 drilling program. Further review is required to determine if this is a result of the material used for field blanks (coarse dolomite) or a problem with the laboratory analysis.
• Field Duplicates: No field duplicates were submitted for the pre-2018 drilling programs. Review of the 230 field duplicate sample pairs from the 2018-2019 drilling program determined that there was a strong
correlation between each pair, as evidenced by an R2 value of 0.99 for Li.
• Umpire Laboratory Duplicates: 20 assay pulp rejects were sent from ALS to American Assay Laboratories (AAL) in Sparks, NV for umpire laboratory analysis. Review of the 20 umpire duplicate pairs found a strong
correlation between each pair, with B returning an R2 value of 0.98.
• The Competent Person reviewed the control charts produced for each SRM, field blank and field duplicate, and determined that there was an acceptable level of accuracy and precision for each for the purpose of
estimating Mineral Resources.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
Verification of
sampling and
assaying
|
The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.
|
• Significant intersections have been verified by visual inspection of the drill core intervals by at least two ioneer geologists for all drilling programs.
|
|||
|
• The use of twinned holes.
|
• One pair of twin drill holes at the same site were drilled during the 2010-2012 drilling program. The twin drill hole pairing comprises one RC drill hole (SBH-04) and one core drill hole
(SBHC-01).
• The Competent Person reviewed and assessed two drill holes and the variance for thickness and grade parameters were within acceptable levels.
|
||||
|
• Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.
|
• For the 2022-2023 drilling programs, the field protocols utilized in the 2018-2019 drilling program were reviewed by both ioneer and WSP. These protocols were refined and improved to assure proper compliance.
Formal Documentation and enforcement by WSP and ioneer personnel actively involved in the program.
• For the 2018-2019 drilling program, Newfields developed a series of field protocols covering all aspects of the exploration program, including surveying, logging, sampling and data documentation. These
protocols were followed throughout the 2018-2019 drilling program. Formal documentation of field protocols does not exist prior to the 2018-2019 program; however, the same senior personnel were involved in the earlier programs and field
protocols employed were essentially the same as those documented in the 2018-2019 protocols.
• Primary field data was captured on paper logs for the 2010-2012 drilling program, then transcribed into Microsoft (MS) Excel files. For the 2016 through 2019 drilling,
all field data was captured directly into formatted MS Excel files by logging geologists. All primary field data was reviewed by the senior ioneer geologist.
• Data is stored in digital format in a MS Access database. This database was compiled, updated and maintained by Newfields personnel during the 2018-2019 drilling program.
• The Competent Person used the relevant information from various tabular data files provided by ioneer and Newfields in a MS Access database, which was reviewed and verified by the Competent
Person prior to inclusion in the geological model.
|
||||
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• Discuss any
adjustment to assay data.
|
• There has been no adjustment to assay
data.
|
||||
|
Location of
data points
|
• Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.
|
• Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes is as follows:
• All inclined core drill holes were surveyed to obtain downhole deviation using a downhole Reflex Mems Gyros tool, except for SBH-72, which could not be surveyed due to tool error. Two core
drill holes (SBH-60, SBH-79) were surveyed using an Acoustic Televiewer instead of the Gyros tool.
• All 2018-2019 drill hole collars were surveyed using a differentially corrected GPS (DGPS).
• Locatable pre-2018 drill holes that were previously only surveyed by handheld GPS have been re-surveyed in 2019 using DPGS. Some pre-2018 drill holes could not be located by the surveyor in
2019, and the original locations were assumed to be correct.
• Upon completion, drill casing was removed, and drill collars were marked with a permanent concrete monument with the drill hole name and date recorded on a metal tag on the monument.
|
|||
|
• Specification of
the grid system used.
|
• All pre-2018 and 2018-2019 drill holes were originally surveyed using handheld GPS units in UTM Zone 11 North, North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) coordinate system.
Pre-2018 drill holes were re-surveyed using DPGS in NAD83 in 2017/2018.
• All 2018-2019 drill holes and locatable pre-2018 drill holes were re-surveyed in 2019 using DPGS in NAD83 coordinate system. All surveyed coordinates were subsequently converted to Nevada State Plane Coordinate
System of 1983, West Zone (NVSPW 1983) for use in developing the geological model. Those holes that could not be located had the original coordinates converted to NVSPW 1983 and their locations
verified against the original locations.
• All 2022-2023 holes were surveyed Nevada State Plane Coordinate System of 1983, West Zone (NVSPW 1983) for use in developing the geological model.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
Quality and adequacy of topographic control.
|
• The quality and adequacy of the topographic surface and the topographic control is very good based on comparison against survey monuments, surveyed drill hole collars and other surveyed
surface features.
• A 2018 satellite survey with an accuracy of ± 0.17 m was produced for the Project by PhotoSat Information Ltd. The final report generated by PhotoSat stated that the difference between the
satellite and ioneer provided ground survey control points was less than 0.8 m.
• The topographic survey was prepared in NAD83, which was converted to NVSPW 1983 by Newfields prior to geological modelling.
|
||||
|
Data spacing
and
distribution
|
• Data spacing for
reporting of Exploration Results.
|
• Drill holes are generally spaced between 90 m and 170 m on east- west cross-section lines spaced approximately 180 m apart. There was no distinction between RC and core holes for the purpose of drill hole
spacing.
• For the 2018-2023 drilling program, there were multiple occurrences where several inclined drill holes were drilled
from the same drill pad and oriented at varying angles away from each other. The collar locations for these inclined drill holes drilled from the same pad varied in distance from 0.3 m to 6.0 m apart; intercept distances on the floors of
the target units were typically in excess of 90 m spacing.
|
|||
|
• Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve
estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied.
|
• The spacing is considered sufficient to establish geological and grade continuity appropriate for a Mineral Resource estimation.
|
||||
|
• Whether sample compositing has been applied.
|
• Samples were predominately 1.52 m intervals honouring lithological boundaries and kept as the
database for grade estimation. The 1.52 m sample length represents the modal value of the sample length distribution and the 1.52m vertical block height in the model.
|
||||
|
Orientation of
data in
relation to
geological
structure
|
• Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.
|
• Drill holes were angled between -45 and -90 degrees from horizontal and at an azimuth of between 0- and 350-degrees.
• Inclined drill holes orientated between 220- and 350-degrees azimuth introduced minimal sample bias, as they primarily intercepted the mineralization at angles near orthogonal (94 drill
holes with intercept angles between 70-90 degrees) to the dip of
the beds, approximating true-thickness.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
|
• If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.
|
• Inclined drill holes orientated between 0- and 220-degrees azimuth, especially those that were drilled at between 20- and 135-degrees azimuth, generally intercepted the beds down dip (14 drill holes with
intercept angles between 20-70 degrees), exaggerating the mineralized zone widths in these drill holes.
|
|||
|
Sample security
|
• The measures taken
to ensure sample security.
|
• The measures taken to ensure sample security include the following:
• For the 2010-2012 drill holes, samples were securely stored on-site and then collected from site by ALS. Chain of custody forms were maintained by ALS.
• For the 2016-2017 drill holes, samples were securely stored on-site and then collected from site by ALS and transported to the laboratory by truck. Chain of custody forms were maintained by
ALS.
• For the 2018-2019 and 2022-2023 drill holes, core was transported daily by ioneer and/or Newfields personnel from the drill site to the ioneer secure core shed (core storage) facility in
Tonopah. Core awaiting logging was stored in the core shed until it was logged and sampled, at which time it was stored in secured sea cans inside a fenced and locked core storage facility on site. Samples were sealed in poly-woven sample
bags, labelled with a pre-form numbered and barcoded sample tag, and securely stored until shipped to or dropped off at the ALS laboratory in Reno by either ioneer or Newfields personnel. Chain of custody forms were maintained by either
Newfields or ioneer and ALS.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
Audits or reviews
|
• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.
|
• There were no audits performed on the RC sampling or for the pre-2018 drilling programs.
• The Competent Person reviewed the core and sampling techniques during a site visit in August 2023. The Competent Person found that the sampling techniques were appropriate for collecting data for the purpose of
preparing geological models and Mineral Resource estimates.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
SECTION 2 REPORTING OF EXPLORATION RESULTS
(Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
Mineral
tenement and
land tenure
status
|
• Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical
sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings.
|
• The mineral tenement and land tenure for the South Basin of Rhyolite Ridge (the Project) comprise 386 unpatented Lode Mining Claims (totalling approximately 3,150 hectare (Ha));
claim groups SLB, SLM and RR, spatial extents of which are presented in maps and tables within the body of the Report are held by ioneer Minerals Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of ioneer. The Competent Person has relied upon
information provided by ioneer regarding mineral tenement and land tenure for the Project; the Competent Person has not performed any independent legal verification of the mineral tenement and land tenure.
• ioneer has entered into a proposed joint venture agreement with Sibanye-Stillwater, the details of which are presented in the September 16, 2021, ASX press release by ioneer.
• With the exception of the proposed joint venture agreement with Sibanye-Stillwater, the Competent Person is not aware of any agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint
ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings relating to the 386 Lode Mining Claims for the Project.
• The
mineral tenement and land tenure referenced above excludes
241 additional unpatented Lode Mining Claims (totaling approximately 2,000 Ha) for the North Basin which are located outside of the
current South Basin Project Area presented in this Report. These additional claims are held by ioneer subsidiaries (NLB claim group; 160 claims) or ioneer holds an option to acquire 100% ownership of the claims (BH claim group; 81 claims).
|
|||
|
• The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.
|
• There are no identified concerns regarding the security of tenure nor are there any known impediments to obtaining a license to operate within the limits of the Project. The 386 unpatented Lode Mining Claims
for the Project are located on federal land and are administered by the United States Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
|
||||
|
Exploration
done by other parties
|
• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.
|
• There have been two previous exploration campaigns targeting Li- B mineralization at the Project site.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
|
|
• US Borax conducted surface sampling and drilling in the 1980s, targeting B mineralization, with less emphasis on Li mineralization. A total of 57 drill holes (totalling approximately 14,900 m)
were drilled in the North Borate Hills area, with an additional 12 drill holes (unknown total meterage) in the South Basin area. These drill holes were not available for use in the current Study.
• American Lithium Minerals Inc and Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation (JOGMEC) conducted further Li exploration in the South Basin area in 2010-2012. The
exploration included at least 465 surface and trench samples and 36 drill holes (totalling approximately 8,800 m), of which 21 were core and 15 were RC. Data collected from this program, including drill core, was made available to ioneer.
The Competent Person reviewed the data available from this program and believes this exploration program, except for the trench data, was conducted appropriately and the information generated is of high enough quality to include in
preparing the current geological model and Mineral Resource estimate.
• Due to concerns regarding the ability to reliably correlate the trenches with specific geological units as well as concerns regarding representivity of samples taken from incomplete exposures of the units in
the trenches, the Competent Person does not feel the trench sample analytical results are appropriate for use and has excluded them from use in preparing the geological model and Mineral Resource estimate.
|
|||
|
Geology
|
• Deposit type,
geological setting and style of mineralisation.
|
• The HiB-Li and LoB-Li mineralization at Rhyolite Ridge occurs in two separate Miocene sedimentary basins; the North Basin and the South Basin, located within the Silver Peak Range in the Basin and Range terrain
of Nevada, USA. The South Basin is the focus of the Study presented in this Report and the following is focused on the geology and mineralization of the South Basin.
• The South Basin stratigraphy comprises lacustrine sedimentary rocks of the Cave Spring Formation overlaying volcanic flows and volcaniclastic rocks of the Rhyolite Ridge Volcanic unit. The Rhyolite Ridge
Volcanic unit is dated at approximately 6 mega-
annum (Ma) and comprises rhyolite tuffs, tuff breccias and flows.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
The Rhyolite Ridge Volcanic rocks are underlain by sedimentary rocks of the Silver Peak Formation.
• The Cave Spring Formation comprises a series of 11 sedimentary units deposited in a lacustrine environment, as shown in the following table. Within the study area the Cave Spring Formation can
reach total thickness in excess of 400 m. Age dating of overlying units outside of the area and dates for the underlying Rhyolite Ridge Volcanic unit bracket deposition of the Cave Spring Formation between 4-6 Ma; this relatively young
geological age indicates limited time for deep burial and compaction of the units. The Cave Spring Formation units are generally laterally continuous over several miles across the extent of the South Basin; however, thickness of the units
can vary due to both primary depositional and secondary structural features. The sedimentary sequence generally fines upwards, from coarse clastic units at the base of the formation, upwards through siltstones, marls and carbonate units
towards the top of the sequence.
• The key mineralized units are in the Cave Spring Formation and are, from top to bottom, the M5 (high-grade Li, low- to moderate- grade B bearing carbonate-clay rich marl), the B5 (high-grade B, moderate-grade
Li marl), the S5 (low- to high Li, very low B) and the L6 (broad zone of laterally discontinuous low- to high- grade Li and B mineralized horizons within a larger low-grade to barren sequence of siltstone-claystone). The sequence is
marked by a series of four thin (generally on the scale of several meters or less) coarse gritstone layers (G4 through G7); these units are interpreted to be pyroclastic deposits that blanketed the area. The lateral continuity across the
South Basin along with the distinctive visual appearance of the gritstone layers relative to the less distinguishable sequence of siltstone-claystone-marl that comprise the bulk of the Cave Spring Formation make the four grit stone units
good marker horizons within the stratigraphic sequence.
• The Cave Springs Formation is unconformably overlain by a unit of poorly sorted alluvium, ranging from 0 to 40 m (mean of 20 m) within the Study Area. The alluvium is unconsolidated and comprises sand through
cobble sized clasts (with isolated
occurrences of large boulder sized clasts) of the Rhyolite Ridge
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
Volcanic Rocks and other nearby volcanic units.
 |
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• Structurally, the South Basin is bounded along its western and eastern margins by regional scale high angle faults of unknown
displacement, while localized steeply dipping normal, reverse and strike-slip faults transect the Cave Spring formation throughout the the basin. Displacement on these faults is generally poorly known but most appear to be on the order of
tens of meters of displacement although several located along the edge of the basin may have displacements greater than 30 m. Major fault structures within the basin tend to have a series of minor faults associated with them. These tend
to have smaller offset than the parent fault structure. Along the western side, South Basin is folded into a broad, open syncline with the sub-horizontal fold axis oriented approximately north-south. The syncline is asymmetric, moderate
to locally steep dips along the western limb. The stratigraphy is further folded, including a significant southeast plunging syncline located in the southern part of the study area.
• HiB-Li and LoB-Li mineralization is interpreted to have been emplaced by hydrothermal/epithermal fluids travelling up the basin bounding faults; based on HiB-Li and LoB-Li grade distribution and continuity it
is believed the primary fluid pathway was along the western bounding fault. Differential mineralogical and permeability characteristics of the various units within the Cave Spring Formation resulted in the preferential emplacement of
HiB-Li bearing minerals in the B5 and L6 units and LoB-Li bearing minerals in the M5, S5 and L6 units. HiB-Li mineralization occurs in isolated locations in some of the other units in the sequence, but with nowhere near the grade and
continuity observed in the aforementioned units.
|
|||||
|
Drill hole
Information
|
• A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes:
o easting and northing of the drill hole collar
o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in feet) of the drill hole collar
o dip and azimuth of the hole
o down hole length and interception depth
o hole length.
|
• Exploration
Results are not being reported.
• A summary table providing key details for all identified drill holes for the Project is presented by type and drilling campaign in the following table:
 |
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should
clearly explain why this is the case.
|
• Of the 159 drill holes reviewed, 155 (51 RC and 104 core) were included in the geological model and 4 were omitted. One RC twin hole was omitted in favour of the cored hole at the same location. Three
water/geotechnical drill holes were omitted due to a lack of lithology and quality data relevant to the geological model.
|
||||
|
Data
aggregation
methods
|
• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.
|
• Exploration
Results are not being reported.
• All grade parameters presented as part of the Mineral Resource estimates prepared by IMC are presented as mass weighted grades.
• Drill core samples are predominately 1.52 m lengths and this data set was used for the interpolation of grade data into the block model. The data set honoured geological contacts (i.e. assayed
intervals did not span unit contacts). The data set is the drill hole assay database.
• No minimum bottom cuts or maximum top cuts were applied to the thickness or grade data used to construct the geological models. No interpolation was applied to B and Li grade data for units other than the
targeted mineralized units (B5, M5, S5 and L6; discussed further in the Estimation and Modelling Techniques section of this Table 1).
• A cut-off grade of 5,000 ppm B for the HiB-Li mineralization and 1,090 ppm Li for the LoB-Li mineralization was applied during the Mineral Resource tabulation for the purpose of establishing reasonable
prospects of eventual economic extraction based on high level mining, metallurgical and processing grade parameters identified by mining, metallurgical and processing studies performed to date on the Project.
|
|||
|
• Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated
and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail.
|
• Not applicable as individual intercepts or Exploration Results are not being reported.
|
||||
|
• The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.
|
• Metal equivalents were not used in the Mineral Resource estimates prepared by IMC.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 Explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
Relationship
between
mineralisation
widths and
intercept
lengths
|
• These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results.
|
• All drill hole intercepts presented in the Report are down hole thickness not true thickness. As discussed in the Orientation of Data section
of this Table 1, most drill hole intercepts are approximately orthogonal to the dip of the beds (intercept angles between 70-90 degrees).
|
|||
|
• If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported.
|
• Based on the geometry of the mineralization, it is reasonable to treat all samples collected from inclined drill holes at intercept angles of
greater than 70 degrees as representative of the true thickness of the zone sampled.
|
||||
|
• If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are
reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (e.g. ‘down hole length, true width not known’).
|
• Not applicable as individual down hole intercepts or Exploration Results are not being reported.
|
||||
|
Diagrams
|
• Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery
being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations
and appropriate sectional views.
|
• Appropriate plan maps and sections are appended to the Report.
|
|||
|
Balanced reporting
|
• Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of
both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid
misleading reporting of Exploration Results.
|
• Exploration Results are not being reported.
|
|||
|
Other substantive exploration data
|
• Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological
observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics;
potential deleterious or contaminating substances.
|
• Surficial geological mapping performed by a senior ioneer geologist was used in support of the drill holes to define the outcrops and
subcrops as well as bedding dip attitudes in the geological modelling. Mapped geological contacts and faults were imported into the model and used as surface control points for the corresponding beds or structures.
• Magnetic and Gravity geophysical survey’s were performed and interpreted to inform the geological model, particularly in the identification of
faulting and geologic structures.
|
|||
|
Further work
|
• The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-
out drilling).
|
• Additional in-fill drilling and sampling may be performed based on the results of current mining project studies
|
|||
|
• Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations
and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.
|
• Refer to Figure 1 in the body of this report.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
SECTION 3 ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF MINERAL RESOURCES
(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section.)
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
Database integrity
|
• Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its
initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.
|
• Measures taken to ensure the data has not been corrupted by transcription or keying errors or omissions included recording of drill hole
data and observations by the logging geologists using formatted logging sheets in Microsoft (MS) Excel. Data and observations entered into the logging sheets were reviewed by senior ioneer and
Newfield’s geologists prior to importing the data into the MS Access drill hole database.
• IMC evaluated the tabular data provided by ioneer for errors or omissions as part of the data validation procedures described in the
following section.
|
|||
|
• Data validation procedures used.
|
• IMC performed data validation on the drill hole database records using available underlying data and documentation including but not
limited to original drill hole descriptive logs, core photos and laboratory assay certificates. Drill hole data validation checks were performed using a series of in-house data checks to evaluate for common drill hole data errors
including, but not limited to, data gaps and omissions, overlapping lithology or sample intervals, miscorrelated units, drill hole deviation errors and other indicators of data corruption including transcription and keying errors.
• Database assay values for every sample were visually compared to the laboratory assay certificates to ensure the tabular assay data was free
of errors or omissions by Golder for the 2020 resource estimate. IMC compared database to certificates for about 20% of the phase 2 and 3 drill holes and found no errors.
|
||||
|
Site visits
|
• Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits.
|
• The IMC Competent Person Herbert E. Welhener made a personal site inspection, this visit was performed on the Project site on August 10th
2023 for the Project.
• During the site visit the IMC Competent Person visited the ioneer core shed in Tonopah NV, and the South Basin area of the Rhyolite Ridge
Project site, which is the focus of the current
exploration and resource evaluation efforts by ioneer.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• The IMC Competent Person observed the active drilling, logging and sampling process and interviewed site personnel regarding exploration
drilling, logging, sampling and chain of custody procedures.
• The outcome of the site visit was that the IMC Competent Person developed an understanding of the general geology of the Rhyolite Ridge
Project. The IMC Competent Person was also able to visually confirm the presence of a selection of monumented drill holes from each of the previous drilling programs as well as to observe drilling, logging and sampling procedures during
the current drilling program and to review documentation for the logging, sampling and chain of custody protocols for previous drilling programs.
|
|||||
|
• If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.
|
• Not applicable.
|
||||
|
Geological interpretation
|
• Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral
deposit.
|
• The IMC Competent Person is confident that the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit is reasonable for the purposes of Mineral
Resource estimation.
|
|||
|
• Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.
|
• The data used in the development of the geological interpretation included drill hole data and observations collected from 104 core and 50 RC
drill holes, supplemented by surface mapping of outcrops and faults performed by ioneer personnel. Regional scale public domain geological maps and studies were also incorporated into the geological interpretation.
• It is assumed that the mineralized zones are continuous between drill holes as well as between drill holes and surface mapping. It is also
assumed that grades vary between drill holes based on a distance-weighted interpolator.
|
||||
|
• The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation.
|
• There are no known alternative interpretations.
|
||||
|
• The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.
|
• Geology was used directly in guiding and controlling the Mineral Resource estimation. The mineralized zones were modelled as
stratigraphically controlled HiB-Li and LoB-Li deposits. As such, the primary directions of continuity for the mineralization are
horizontally within the preferentially mineralized B5, M5, S5 and L6 geological units.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.
|
• The primary factor affecting the continuity of both geology and grade is the lithology of the geological units. HiB-Li mineralization is
favourably concentrated in marl-claystone of the B5 and L6 units and LoB-Li in the M5, S5 and L6 units. Mineralogy of the units also has a direct effect on the continuity of the mineralization, with elevated B grades in the B5 and M5
units associated with a distinct reduction in carbonate and clay content in the units, while higher Li values tend to be associated with elevated carbonate content in these units and sometimes k-felspar.
• Additional factors affecting the continuity of geology and grade include the spatial distribution and thickness of the host rocks which have
been impacted by both syn-depositional and post- depositional geological processes (i.e. localized faulting, erosion and so forth).
|
||||
|
Dimensions
|
• The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth
below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.
|
• The Mineral Resource evaluation presented in this Report covers an area of approximately 458 Ha within the South Basin of Rhyolite Ridge.
The Mineral Resource plan dimensions, defined by the spatial extent of the B5 unit Inferred classification limits, are approximately 3,650 m North-South by 1,400 m East-West. The upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource span from
surface, where the mineralized units outcrop locally, through to a maximum depth of 420 m below surface for the base of the lower mineralized zone (L6 unit).
• Variability of the Mineral Resource is associated primarily with the petrophysical and geochemical properties of the individual geological
units in the Cave Spring Formation. These properties played a key role in determining units that were favourable for hosting HiB-Li and LoB-Li mineralization versus those that were not.
|
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||||||
|
Estimation
and modelling techniques
|
• The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of
extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used.
|
• Geological modelling and Mineral Resource estimation for the Project was performed under the supervision of the Competent Person.
• Based on a statistical analysis, extreme B grade values were identified in some of the units other than the targeted B5, M5, S5 and L6
units. Boron, Lithium and the other elements were estimated in only units B5, M5, S5 and L6.
• The geological model was developed as a gridded surface stratigraphic model by NewFields and ioneer and provided to IMC as surfaces and
solids. The stratigraphically constrained grade block model was developed using Hexagon and IMC software, which are computer-assisted geological, grade modelling, and estimation software applications.
• Domaining in the model was constrained by the roof and floor surfaces of the geological units. The unit boundaries were modelled as hard
boundaries, with samples interpolated only within the unit in which they occurred. The impact of faulting is represented in fault blocks which generated sub-sets of the seam units. The faulting altered the orientation of the seam floors
and was used during the grade estimation process. Grade continuity is assumed across faults which in some cases offset the seams in a vertical direction. A larger vertical window was used during grade estimation to allow estimation of
grades across faults, still limited to the seam being estimated.
• Key modelling and estimation parameters included the following:
|
|||||||
|
Estimation Parameter
|
Description
|
||||||||
|
Estimation Block Size
|
7.62 x 7.62 x 1.524 m
|
||||||||
|
Estimation Method
|
Inverse Distance Squared
|
||||||||
|
Seams for Grade Estimation
|
M5, B5, S5, L6
|
||||||||
|
Maximum search distance, M5
|
259 x 259 x 30.5 m
|
||||||||
|
Maximum search distance, B5
|
533 x 305 x 30.5 m
|
||||||||
|
Maximum search distance, S5
|
229 x 229 x 30.5 m
|
||||||||
|
Maximum search distance, L6
|
305 x 305 x 30.5 m
|
||||||||
|
Minimum & Maximum samples |
1 and 10
|
||||||||
|
Maximum samples per hole
|
3
|
||||||||
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 explanation
|
Commentary | ||||||||||||
|
• The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such
data.
|
• The Table below presents a summary comparison of the current April 19, 2024 Mineral Resource estimate against the previous Mineral Resource estimate for the
Project, prepared by Golder (now WSP) in March 2023.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
Contained
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Stream
|
Group
|
Classification
|
Tonnage
|
Li
|
B
|
Li2CO3
|
H3BO3
|
Li2CO3
|
H3BO3
|
|||||
|
Ktonnes
|
Ppm
|
Ppm
|
Wt. %
|
Wt. %
|
(kt)
|
(kt)
|
||||||||
|
Stream 1 (>= 5,000 ppm B)
|
Upper Zone
B5 Unit
|
Measured
|
29,701
|
1875
|
16801
|
1.00
|
9.61
|
296
|
2853
|
|||||
|
Indicated
|
39,623
|
1815
|
15126
|
0.97
|
8.65
|
383
|
3427
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
14,507
|
1818
|
13047
|
0.97
|
7.46
|
140
|
1082
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
83,830
|
1837
|
15359
|
0.98
|
8.78
|
819
|
7362
|
|||||||
|
Upper Zone M5 Unit
|
Measured
|
1,255
|
2519
|
5851
|
1.34
|
3.35
|
17
|
42
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
934
|
2226
|
5947
|
1.18
|
3.40
|
11
|
32
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
269
|
2444
|
6451
|
1.30
|
3.69
|
3
|
10
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
2,458
|
2400
|
5953
|
1.28
|
3.40
|
31
|
84
|
|||||||
|
Upper Zone
S5 Unit
|
Measured
|
589
|
1483
|
6586
|
0.79
|
3.77
|
5
|
22
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
1,289
|
1622
|
6677
|
0.86
|
3.82
|
11
|
49
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
304
|
2520
|
5899
|
1.34
|
3.37
|
4
|
10
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
2,182
|
1709
|
6544
|
0.91
|
3.74
|
20
|
82
|
|||||||
|
Upper Zone Total
|
Measured
|
31,544
|
1893
|
16175
|
1.01
|
9.25
|
318
|
2917
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
41,846
|
1818
|
14660
|
0.97
|
8.38
|
405
|
3508
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
15,079
|
1844
|
12785
|
0.98
|
7.31
|
148
|
1102
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
88,470
|
1849
|
14881
|
0.98
|
8.51
|
871
|
7528
|
|||||||
|
Lower Zone
L6 Unit
|
Measured
|
11,634
|
1382
|
10541
|
0.74
|
6.03
|
86
|
701
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
32,389
|
1316
|
8982
|
0.70
|
5.14
|
227
|
1663
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
20,529
|
1388
|
11673
|
0.74
|
6.67
|
152
|
1370
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
64,551
|
1351
|
10118
|
0.72
|
5.79
|
464
|
3735
|
|||||||
|
Total Stream 1 (all zones)
|
Measured
|
43,178
|
1755
|
14657
|
0.93
|
8.38
|
403
|
3619
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
74,235
|
1599
|
12183
|
0.85
|
6.97
|
632
|
5171
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
35,608
|
1581
|
12144
|
0.84
|
6.94
|
300
|
2473
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
153,021
|
1639
|
12872
|
0.87
|
7.36
|
1335
|
11262
|
|||||||
|
Stream 2 (>= 1,090 ppm Li, no B COG)
|
Upper Zone
B5 Unit
|
Measured
|
1,704
|
2331
|
2381
|
1.24
|
1.36
|
21
|
23
|
|||||
|
Indicated
|
4,216
|
2355
|
2058
|
1.25
|
1.18
|
53
|
50
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
3,714
|
2412
|
1518
|
1.28
|
0.87
|
48
|
32
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
9,633
|
2373
|
1907
|
1.26
|
1.09
|
122
|
105
|
|||||||
|
Upper Zone
S5 Unit
|
Measured
|
589
|
1483
|
6586
|
0.79
|
3.77
|
5
|
22
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
1,289
|
1622
|
6677
|
0.86
|
3.82
|
11
|
49
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
304
|
2520
|
5899
|
1.34
|
3.37
|
4
|
10
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
2,182
|
1709
|
6544
|
0.91
|
3.74
|
20
|
82
|
|||||||
|
Upper Zone Total
|
Measured
|
6,716
|
1658
|
1484
|
0.88
|
0.85
|
59
|
57
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
14,425
|
1789
|
1405
|
0.95
|
0.80
|
137
|
116
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
9,351
|
2006
|
1419
|
1.07
|
0.81
|
100
|
76
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
30,493
|
1826
|
1427
|
0.97
|
0.82
|
296
|
249
|
|||||||
|
Lower Zone
L6 Unit
|
Measured
|
10,444
|
1414
|
1620
|
0.75
|
0.93
|
79
|
97
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
64,839
|
1435
|
1595
|
0.76
|
0.91
|
495
|
591
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
36,745
|
1669
|
1068
|
0.89
|
0.61
|
326
|
224
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
112,028
|
1510
|
1424
|
0.80
|
0.81
|
900
|
912
|
|||||||
|
Total Stream 2 (all zones)
|
Measured
|
17,160
|
1509
|
1566
|
0.80
|
0.90
|
138
|
154
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
79,264
|
1500
|
1560
|
0.80
|
0.89
|
633
|
707
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
46,096
|
1737
|
1139
|
0.92
|
0.65
|
426
|
300
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
142,520
|
1578
|
1425
|
0.84
|
0.81
|
1197
|
1161
|
|||||||
|
Stream 3
|
Total Stream 3 (M5 zone)
|
Measured
|
14,768
|
2454
|
1733
|
1.31
|
0.99
|
193
|
146
|
|||||
|
Indicated
|
29,475
|
2420
|
1228
|
1.29
|
0.70
|
380
|
207
|
|||||||
|
Inferred
|
11,619
|
2388
|
605
|
1.27
|
0.35
|
148
|
40
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
55,862
|
2422
|
1232
|
1.29
|
0.70
|
720
|
394
|
|||||||
|
Grand Total All Streams and All Units
|
351,403
|
1739
|
6379
|
0.93
|
3.65
|
3251
|
12817
|
|||||||
|
• There has been no HiB-Li or LoB-Li production on the Project to date.
|
||||||||||||||
|
• The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.
|
• No by-products are being considered for recovery at present.
|
|||||||||||||
|
• Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (e.g. sulphur for acid mine
drainage characterisation).
|
• In addition to Li and B, the geological model also included 10 additional non-grade elements (Sr, Ca, Mg, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Mo, Fe, Al) to
allow for calculation of acid consumption values for the metallurgical process. No deleterious elements were estimated.
|
|||||||||||||
|
• In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed.
|
• The stratigraphic gridded surface model was developed using a 7.62 m regularized grid. The grade block model was developed from the
stratigraphic model using a 7.62 m North-South by 7.62 m East-West by 1.52 m vertical block dimension with no sub-blocks. The block size dimensions represent 12 percent of the closer spaced drill hole spacing and 6 percent of the wider
spaced spacing across the model area.
• Grade interpolation into the model blocks was performed using an Inverse Distance Squared (ID2) interpolator with unique search distances for each of the 4 seams being estimated as shown in the table above. The same search parameters were used for all of the elements being
estimated (B, Li, Sr, Ca, Mg, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Mo, Fe, Al) within each of the seams.
|
|||||||||||||
27
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.
|
• Assumptions relating to selective mining units were based on the interpretation that the HiB-Li mineralization encountered is
stratigraphically constrained and that mineralized and non- mineralized units can be selectively separated by existing mining and processing methods.
|
||||
|
• Any assumptions about correlation between variables.
|
• No assumptions or calculations relating to the correlation between variables were made at this time.
|
||||
|
• Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control
the resource estimates.
|
• The geological interpretation was used to control the Mineral Resource estimate by developing a contiguous stratigraphic model (all units in
the sequence were modelled) of the host rock units deposited within the basin, the roof and floor contacts of which then served as hard contacts for constraining the grade interpolation. Grade values were interpolated within the
geological units using only samples intersected within those units.
|
||||
|
• Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.
|
• Grade capping or cutting was not applied for the targeted mineralized units B5, M5, S5 and L6 as a statistical analysis of the grade data
indicated there was no bias or influence by extreme outlier grade values.
• Grades and Mineral Resources were not estimated for the other units. Grades may be estimated for adjacent units to the targeted mineralized
units at a later date to allow for potential mining dilution evaluations during later studies.
|
||||
|
• The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of
reconciliation data if available.
|
• The geological model validation and review process involved visual inspection of drill hole data as compared to model geology and grade
parameters using plan isopleth maps and approximately 300 m spaced cross-sections through the model. Drill hole and model values were compared statistically as well as via along-strike and down-dip swath plots.
|
28
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• No reconciliation data is available because the property is not in production.
|
|||||
|
Moisture
|
• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture
content.
|
• The estimated Mineral Resource tonnages are presented on a dry basis.
• A moisture content evaluation needs to be done as part of future analytical programs.
|
|||
|
Cut-off parameters
|
• The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.
|
• The Mineral Resource estimate presented in this Report has been constrained by the application of an optimized Mineral Resource pit shell.
The Mineral Resource pit shell was developed using the IMC Mine Planning software.
• The Mineral Resource estimate assumes the use of three processing streams: one which can process ore with boron content greater than 5,000
ppm and two which can process ore with boron content less than 5,000 ppm.
• Key input parameters and assumptions for the Mineral Resource pit shell included the following:
• B cut-off grade of 5,000 ppm for HiB-Li processing stream and no B cut-off grade for LoB-Li processing stream
• No Li cut-off grade for HiB-Li processing stream and Li cut-off grade of 1,090 ppm for LoB-Li processing stream
• Overall pit slope angle of 42 degrees (wall angle guidance provided by Geo-Logic Associates who developed the geotechnical design).
• Mining cost of US$1.54 /tonne based on recent studies by ioneer.
• Ore processing and grade control costs vary by process stream and seam unit and are divided into fixed cost and the cost of acid
consumption. Shown below are the costs based on the average grades of the acid consuming elements in the Mineral Resource:
• Stream 1 (HiB-Li): fixed process cost = $30.50/mt and acid costs range between $36.98/mt and $54.85/mt based on the average grades of the
acid consuming elements in each seam.
• Streams 2 & 3 (LoB-Li): both the fixed and acid costs vary by seam with the fixed cost ranging between $15.19.mt to $30.80/mt and the
acid costs range between $37.15/mt and %56.93/mt.
|
29
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• Boron and Li recovery of 80.2% and 85.7% respectively for HiB-Li Processing Stream .
• Boron Recovery for LoB-Li Processing Stream variable by lithology as follows: 65% in M5 Unit, 80% in B5 unit, 50% in S5 unit, and 37% in L6
unit.
• Lithium Recovery for LoB-Li Processing Stream variable by lithology as follows: 78% in M5 unit, 88% in B5 unit, 88% in S5 unit, and 85% in
L6 unit.
• Boric Acid sales price of US$1,016.67/tonne.
• Lithium Carbonate sales price of US$17,868.50/tonne.
• Sales/Transport costs are included in the process fixed cost/t.
|
|||||
|
Mining factors or assumptions
|
• Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external)
mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters
when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made.
|
• The Mineral Resource estimate presented in this Report was developed with the assumption that the HiB-Li and LoB-Li mineralization within the
Mineral Resource pit shell, as described in the preceding section, has a reasonable prospect for eventual economic extraction using current conventional open pit mining methods.
• The basis of the mining assumptions made in establishing the reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction of the HiB- Li
mineralization are based on preliminary results from mine design and planning work that is in-progress as part of an ongoing Feasibility Study for the Project.
• Except for the Mineral Resource pit shell criteria discussed in the preceding section, no other mining factors, assumptions or mining
parameters such as mining recovery, mining loss or dilution have been applied to the Mineral Resource estimate presented in this Report.
|
|||
|
Metallurgical factors or assumptions
|
• The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process
of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral Resources may
not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.
|
• The basis of the metallurgical assumptions made in establishing the reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction of the HiB-Li
mineralization are based on results from metallurgical and material processing work that was developed as part of the ongoing Feasibility Study for the Project. This test work was performed using current processing and recovery methods
for producing Boric acid and Lithium carbonate products
• A second process stream to recover Li from low boron mineralized (LoB-Li) units is being developed. Current results indicate a reasonable
process and expectation for economic extraction of the LoB-Li from the S5, M5 and L6 units. This test work was performed using current processing and recovery methods for producing Boric acid and Lithium carbonate products.
|
30
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
Environment- al factors or assumptions
|
Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining
reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a
greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation
of the environmental assumptions made.
|
The project will require waste and process residue disposal. Assumptions have been made that all environmental requirements will be achieved
through necessary studies, designs and permits.
• Currently, baseline studies and detailed designs have been completed for both waste and process residue disposal facilities.
• In December 2022, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed Tiehm’s buckwheat as an endangered species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and has designated critical habitat by way of applying a 500 m radius around several distinct plant populations that occur on the Project site. Ioneer is committed to the protection and conservation of the Tiehm’s
buckwheat. The Project’s Mine Plan of Operations submitted to the BLM in July 2022 and currently under NEPA review has no direct impact on Tiehm’s buckwheat and includes measures to minimise and mitigate for indirect impacts within the
designated critical habitat areas identified.
• The mineral resource pit shell used to constrain the April 2024, mineral resource estimate was not adjusted to account for any impacts from
avoidance of Tiehm’s buckwheat or minimisation of disturbance within the designated critical habitat. Environmental and permitting assumptions and factors will be taken into consideration during future modifying factors studies for the
Project. These permitting assumptions and factors may result in potential changes to the Mineral Resource footprint in the future.
|
|||
|
Bulk density
|
• Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the
nature, size and representativeness of the samples.
|
• The density values used to convert volumes to tonnages were assigned on a by-geological unit basis using mean values calculated from 120
density samples collected from drill core during the 2018-2019 and the 2023-2024 drilling programs. The density analyses were performed using the water displacement method for density determination, with values reported in dry basis.
• The application of assigned densities by geological unit assumes that there will be minimal variability in density within each of the units
across their spatial extents within the Project area. The use of assigned density with a very low number of samples, as is the case with several waste units, is a factor that increases the uncertainty and represents a risk to the Mineral
Resource estimate confidence
|
31
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 explanation
|
Commentary
|
||
|
• The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void
spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit.
|
• The Archimedes-principle method for density determination accounts for void spaces, moisture and differences in rock type.
|
|||
|
• Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.
|
• Density values were assigned for all geological units in the model, including mineralized units as well as overburden, interburden and
underburden waste units. By-unit densities were assigned in the grade block model based on the block geological unit code as follows:
 |
32
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
Classification
|
The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories.
|
• The Mineral Resource estimate for the Project is reported here in accordance with the “Australian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results,
Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves” as prepared by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee (the JORC Code, 2012 Edition).
• IMC performed a statistical and geostatistical analysis for the purpose of evaluating the confidence of continuity of the geological units
and grade parameters. The results of this analysis were applied to developing the Mineral Resource classification criteria.
• Estimated Mineral Resources were classified as follows:
• Measured: Between 107 and 122 m spacing between points of observation depending on the seam, with sample interpolation from a minimum of four
drill holes.
• Indicated: Between 168 and 198 m spacing between points of observation, with sample interpolation from a minimum of three drill holes.
• Inferred: To the limit of the estimation range (maximum 533 m, depending on the seam), with sample interpolation from a minimum of one drill hole.
|
|||
|
• Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (i.e. relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations,
reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data).
|
• The Mineral Resource classification has included the consideration of data reliability, spatial distribution and abundance of data and
continuity of geology and grade parameters
|
33
|
APPENDIX D: JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1
|
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code 2012 explanation
|
Commentary
|
|||
|
• Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.
|
• It is the Competent Persons view that the classification criteria applied to the Mineral Resource estimate are appropriate for the
reliability and spatial distribution of the base data and reflect the confidence of continuity of the modelled geology and grade parameters.
|
||||
|
The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.
|
• Beyond high level review for the purpose of understanding the Project history, no formal audits or reviews of previous or historical Mineral
Resource estimates were performed as part of the scope of work; Mineral Resource estimation evaluation is limited to the estimate prepared by IMC and presented in this Report.
|
||||
|
• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an
approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an
approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the
• relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate.
|
• IMC performed a statistical and geostatistical analysis and applied Mineral Resource classification criteria to reflect the relative
confidence level of the estimated Mineral Resource tonnes and grades estimated globally across the model area for the Project.
|
||||
|
Audits or reviews
|
• The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages,
which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions
• made and the procedures used.
|
• The Mineral Resource tonnes and grade have been estimated globally across the model area for the Project.
|
|||
|
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence
|
These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available.
|
• Reconciliation against production data/results was not possible as the Project is currently in the development stage and there has been no
production on the Project to date.
|
34
Exhibit 99.3
Highlights
| • |
Commitments received for a placement to raise gross proceeds of US$25.1 million (A$38.4m) at A$0.18 per share (US$0.1177)1
|
| • |
Strong commitments from new and existing shareholders reflecting the world class quality of Rhyolite Ridge
|
| • |
Placement issue price of A$0.18 (US$0.1177), equal to Ioneer’s last close on 26 April 2024
|
| • |
Ioneer is now well funded to progress the Rhyolite Ridge project through to final investment decision expected in December 2024
|
SYDNEY, Australia – 30 April 2024 – Ioneer
Ltd (“Ioneer”) (ASX: INR, NASDAQ: IONR), is pleased to announce that the Company has received firm commitments to raise US$25.1 million (A$38.4m) via a placement to institutional, professional
and sophisticated investors (“Placement”).
Under the Placement, the Company will issue approximately 213.6 million new fully paid ordinary shares in the Company (“New Shares”). The
final Placement issue price of A$0.18 (US$0.1177) was equal to Ioneer’s last close on 26 April 2024.
Goldman Sachs Australia Pty Ltd acted as Sole Lead Manager to the Placement.
The Placement will provide funding to accelerate the development of Ioneer’s 100% owned Rhyolite Ridge Lithium-Boron Project (“Project”), including to:
| • |
Advance detailed engineering (~70% complete) and vendor engineering to construction ready status
|
| • |
Fund environmental, NEPA and permitting expenses
|
| • |
Financing costs; and
|
| • |
Rhyolite Ridge owners costs, working capital and general corporate purposes
|
Ioneer anticipates receiving the final permits to commence construction, known as the Record of Decision (“ROD”), in October 2024, ahead of the Final Investment Decision (“FID”) expected in December 2024, with
construction commencing following the FID.
“Rhyolite Ridge continues to demonstrate it is a world-leading lithium project, helping accelerate the electric vehicle transition and securing a
cleaner future for our children and grandchildren. This Placement represents another step forward towards ensuring this world-class project operates efficiently and sustainably.” said James Calaway,
Ioneer’s Executive Chairman.
Ioneer’s Managing Director, Bernard Rowe also commented: “Ioneer is pleased to announce the successful completion of
the Placement with strong engagement from U.S. cornerstone investors, signalling market confidence in the significant progress at Rhyolite Ridge as we head towards FID at the end of the calendar year and continue our journey towards becoming a
market leading supplier to the U.S. EV supply chain.”
1 Assumes a USD:AUD exchange rate of $0.6539$1:00.
Ioneer Ltd. (ASX: INR, NASDAQ: IONR) Suite 16.01, 213 Miller Street, North Sydney,
NSW 2060 T: +61 2 9922 5800 W: Ioneer.com ABN: 76 098 564 606
Indicative Placement Timetable
|
Event
|
Date (2024)
|
|
Trading halt lifted and announcement of completion of Placement
|
Tuesday, 30 April
|
|
Settlement of New Shares issued under the Placement
|
Friday, 3 May
|
|
Allotment and commencement of trading of New Shares issued under the Placement
|
Monday, 6 May
|
The above timetable is indicative only and subject to change.
This ASX release has been authorised by Ioneer Managing Director, Bernard Rowe.
—ENDS—
Ioneer Contacts:
|
Chad Yeftich
Ioneer USA Corporation
|
Daniel Francis
FGS Global
|
|
Investor Relations (USA)
|
Media Relations (USA)
|
|
E: ir@Ioneer.com
|
E: daniel.francis@fgsglobal.com
|
About Ioneer
Ioneer Ltd is an emerging lithium–boron producer and the 100% owner of the Rhyolite Ridge Lithium-Boron Project located in Nevada, USA. Rhyolite Ridge is the only known lithium-boron deposit in
North America and one of only two known such deposits in the world. Once operational, the low-cost, world-class project is expected to power upward of 50 million electric vehicles and will instantly become a globally significant source of
critical materials vital to the clean energy transition.
In September 2021, Ioneer entered into an agreement with Sibanye-Stillwater where, following the satisfaction of conditions precedent, Sibanye-Stillwater will acquire a 50% interest in the Project, with Ioneer
maintaining a 50% interest and retaining the operational management responsibility for the joint venture (SS Agreement). In January 2023, Ioneer received a conditional commitment from the U.S. Department of
Energy Loan Programs Office for up to $700 million of debt financing (Conditional Commitment). Ioneer signed separate offtake agreements with Ford Motor Company and PPES (joint venture between Toyota and
Panasonic) in 2022 and Korea’s EcoPro Innovation in 2021.
To learn more about Ioneer, visit www.Ioneer.com/investors.
p.2
Important notice and disclaimer
Forward-looking statements
This announcement contains certain forward-looking statements and comments about future events, including Ioneer’s expectations about the Project and the performance of its businesses. Forward
looking statements can generally be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as ‘expect’, ‘anticipate’, ‘likely’, ‘intend’, ‘should’, ‘could’, ‘may’, ‘predict’, ‘plan’, ‘propose’, ‘will’, ‘believe’, ‘forecast’, ‘estimate’, ‘target’ and
other similar expressions within the meaning of securities laws of applicable jurisdictions. Indications of, and guidance on, the SS Agreement, the Conditional Commitment, the ROD, the FID, financing plans, future earnings or financial position
or performance are also forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties, both general and specific, and there is a risk that such predictions, forecasts, projections and other forward-looking statements
will not be achieved. Forward-looking statements are provided as a general guide only and should not be relied on as an indication or guarantee of future performance. The forward-looking statements in this announcement are only as of the date of
this announcement and are based on information available to Ioneer as at the date of this announcement. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainty and other factors which can cause Ioneer’s actual results to differ
materially from the plans, objectives, expectations, estimates, and intentions expressed in such forward-looking statements and many of these factors are outside the control of Ioneer. Such risks include, among others, uncertainties related to
the finalisation, execution, and funding of the DOE financing, the conditions precedent in the SS Agreement, the ROD, the FID, including our ability to successfully negotiate definitive agreements and to satisfy any funding conditions, as well as
other uncertainties and risk factors set out in filings made from time to time with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Australian Securities Exchange. As such, undue reliance should not be placed on any forward-looking
statement. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance and no representation or warranty (express or implied) is made by any person as to the likelihood of achievement or reasonableness of any forward-looking statements,
forecast financial information or other forecast. Nothing contained in this announcement, nor any information made available to you is, or shall be relied upon as, a promise, representation, warranty or guarantee (express or implied) as to the
past, present or the future performance of Ioneer. Actual results, performance or achievement may vary materially from any projections and forward-looking statements in this announcement and the assumptions on which those statements are based.
Refer to Appendix B: Key Risks of the Investor Presentation dated 30 April 2024.
Except as required by law or the ASX Listing Rules, Ioneer assumes no obligation to provide any additional or updated information or to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of
new information, future events or results, or otherwise. Nothing in this announcement will under any circumstances create an implication that there has been no change in the affairs of Ioneer since the date of this announcement.
You are strongly cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, particularly in light of the current economic climate and significant volatility, uncertainty and disruption
caused in relation to Ioneer.
Not an offer in the United States
This announcement may not be distributed or released in the United States. This announcement is not, and does not constitute, an invitation or offer to sell, or the solicitation of an offer to buy,
any securities in any jurisdiction, including the United States, in which it would be unlawful to make such an offer. The New Shares have not been, and will not be, registered under the U.S. Securities Act. Accordingly, the New Shares to be offered
and sold in the Placement may not be offered or sold to any person in the United States unless they have been registered under the U.S. Securities Act or are offered or sold pursuant to an exemption from, or in a transaction not subject to, the
registration requirements of the U.S. Securities Act and applicable securities laws of any state or other jurisdiction of the United States.
p.3
Exhibit 99.4
