• $
  • %


Legal Information

This website is owned and operated by SolidusGold Inc. (“SolidusGold” or the “Company”). By using this website, you agree to the following terms and conditions.

SolidusGold updates the information on this website regularly. However, such information is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all matters and developments concerning SolidusGold and SolidusGold cannot guarantee the accuracy, currency or completeness of the information at all times and assumes no responsibility in this regard.

The information on this website is not intended to modify, qualify, supplement or amend information disclosed under securities legislation applicable to SolidusGold and should not be used for the purpose of making investment decisions. SolidusGold's public disclosure documents are available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com.This website does not represent an offer or recommendation to buy or sell the securities of SolidusGold.

All stock quotes and historical stock price data are provided by third party service providers and are provided for informational purposes only. Stock quotes may be delayed and are not intended for trading purposes. SolidusGold makes no representation or warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of any such stock price quotes or historical stock price data and has not taken any steps to verify the adequacy, accuracy or completeness of the information provided herein.

SolidusGold shall not be liable for any claims, expenses, damages (including direct, indirect, special or consequential damages), loss of profits, opportunities or information arising from:

  • the use of or reliance on information contained in this website;
  • any inaccuracy or omission in such information or failure to keep the information current;
  • use of any third party websites linked to this website;
  • any Internet software used in connection with this website or computer viruses or other destructive programs encountered as a result of using this website; and
  • any other matter connected with this website; even if SolidusGold is made aware of the possibility of such claims, expenses, damages or losses.

Links to third party websites are provided as a convenience only, and SolidusGold does not monitor, endorse or accept any responsibility for such websites.

Forward-Looking Statements

This website, including documents posted on this website, contains forward-looking information within the meaning of Canadian securities laws (referred to as “forward-looking statements”).All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this website, including, without limitation, statements regarding the acquisition of mineral projects, including the Northumberland Project, the Company’s financing efforts and the use of proceeds therefrom, exploration and development plans and other future plans and objectives of the Company and potential mineralization on mineral projects, including the Northumberland Project, are forward-looking statements.

Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance (often, but not always, identified by words or phrases such as "expects”, "is expected”, "anticipates”, "believes”, "plans”, "projects”, "estimates”, "assumes”, "intends”, "strategy”, "goals”, "objectives”, "potential”, "possible” or variations thereof or stating that certain actions, events, conditions or results "may”, "could”, "would”, "should”, "might” or "will” be taken, occur or be achieved, or the negative of any of these terms and similar expressions) are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking statements.

There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events may vary from those anticipated in such statements. Important risk factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the Company's plans or expectations include failure to obtain TSX Venture Exchange acceptance and other regulatory approvals required for proposed acquisition and financing transactions (collectively, “Transactions”), failure to remove conditions to completion of Transactions, failure to raise sufficient funds on the proposed terms or at all, risks associated with mineral exploration and development, including the risk that actual results of exploration and development will be different from those expected by management, the risk that potential mineralization will not be upgraded or verified, uncertainties involved in the interpretation of drilling results and geological tests and the estimation of mineral resources, unanticipated variations in geological structures, grades or recovery rates, unexpected cost increases, risks related to mineral properties being subject to prior unregistered agreements, transfers or claims and other defects in title, the risk that required cooperation of government agencies and other stakeholders in the development of the Company’s properties will not be obtained, risks related to the need for reclamation activities on the Company's properties and uncertainty of cost estimates related thereto, litigation risks, risks of operations such as accidents, fire, ground instability, flooding, labor disruption, equipment failure, metallurgical, environmental or other events that could delay or increase the cost of exploration or development, inadequate insurance or inability to obtain insurance and bad weather, non-compliance with environmental and permit requirements, fluctuations in metal prices and currency exchange rates, inability to procure equipment and supplies in sufficient quantities and on a timely basis and the other risks disclosed in this website and the Company’s other public disclosure. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended.Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.

The forward-looking statements were developed based on the assumptions and expectations of management, including that TSX Venture Exchange and other required approvals and financing for Transactions will be obtained, conditions will be satisfied, that the Company will be able to obtain any required government or other regulatory approvals and required financing to complete the Company’s planned exploration and development activities, that the Company will be able to procure equipment and supplies in sufficient quantities and on a timely basis, that actual results of exploration activities will be consistent with management’s expectations, that the assumptions underlying mineral resources estimates are valid, any proposed future development of the Company’s mineral projects will be viable operationally and economically and proceed as expected, that no accident, fire, ground instability, flooding, labor disruption, equipment failure, metallurgical, environmental or other events that could delay or increase the cost of exploration or development will occur, the other assumptions disclosed in this website and the Company’s other public disclosure and that the risks described above will not materialize.

There can be no assurance that proposed Transactions will complete. The Company expressly disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as otherwise required by applicable securities legislation.

Technical Information

Rick Van Nieuwenhuyse, Chairman of the Board and Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, is a Qualified Person for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 and has reviewed and approved the information of a scientific and technical nature contained in this website. Mr. Van Nieuwenhuyse has reviewed, but has not verified, the historical resource report for the Northumberland Project (defined below).

A qualified person has not done sufficient work to classify the historical estimate reported in the ‘Technical Report on the Northumberland Project, Nye County, Nevadan USA: Resources Update 2008, Amended August 8, 2008’ (the “Northumberland Report”), prepared by Fronteer Gold Inc. (formerly Fronteer Development Group Inc.) as current mineral resources or mineral reserves and accordingly the Company is not treating it as a current estimate of mineral resources or reserves. However, the Company believes that the historical estimate is relevant and reliable, as it was prepared by a reputable mining company utilizing modern quality assurance program and quality control measures and drilling procedures. In order to upgrade or verify the historical estimate as current mineral resources the Company anticipates that it will need to perform confirmatory drilling, including twin holes and additional infill drilling, on both the oxide and sulfide portions of the mineralization. The historical resource uses the categories set out in sections 1.2 of National Instrument 43-101. There are no more recent estimates available to the Company. Please refer to the SolidusGold news release dated September 15, 2016 for further details.

Cautionary Note to U.S. Readers Concerning Mineralization Estimates: The estimates of mineralization shown in this website have been prepared in accordance with the definition standards on mineral reserves of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum referred to in Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Mineral Disclosure Standards (“NI 43-101”). The definitions of mineralization used in NI 43-101 differ from the definitions in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Industry Guide 7. U.S. readers are advised that while these terms are recognized and required by Canadian regulations, these terms are not defined terms or the same as defined terms under SEC Industry Guide 7 and are normally not permitted to be used in reports and registration statements filed with the SEC. U.S. Readers are cautioned not to assume that any estimates of mineral reserves and resources shown in this presentation meet SEC Industry Guide 7 standards.

Northumberland Report - Key assumptions, parameters and methods used to prepare the historical resource estimate:

The following disclosure is sourced directly from the Northumberland Report. Please see the Northumberland Report, which is available on SEDAR, for the referenced tables and additional information.

Resource Classification

Gold resources were classified on the basis of: (i) geological confidence, (ii) the average distance of the model blocks to composite samples used in the estimate, and (ii) the minimum number of composites used to estimate the block grades (Table 17.16). The average distances are those measured in the unwrinkled block model, and correspond to approximately ¼ the variogram range for Measured, ½ the range for Indicated and the full range for inferred. In all cases the classified blocks lie at least partially within a defined mineral zone. In cases where a block was coded to both high and low grade domains, the classification parameters for the highest tonnage domain in the block were used.

No silver resources are classified as Measured due to the lack of time spent studying the geology of its occurrence, the high silver CV’s, and the generalized nature of the estimation. Silver was not modeled independently of the gold, so that only silver lying within the limits of the modeled gold zones was estimated. Significant additional silver lies outside of the gold zones and therefore was not estimated. This is far from an optimum method of estimating silver grades and tons, but it does serve to provide some insight into the magnitude of the silver mineralization associated directly with the gold. There is a good possibility that when estimated properly, the grades and tons will change.

The Northumberland resource contains approximately 27 million tonnes at a grade of 1.77 g/t Au (0.05 opt), or approximately 1.5 million ounces Au, that was formerly assigned to the “Measured” category to reflect the high confidence levels in that portion of the resource. However, due to less rigorous sampling of the silver contained in these blocks, the silver grade estimates do not meet the requirements of a “Measured” classification and the combined gold-silver resource is here amended and re-classified as “Indicated”. Fronteer is currently collecting the necessary information to upgrade the combined gold-silver resource to the “Measured” category.

The gold resources are tabulated using three gold-grade cut-offs that are applied to the block model on the basis of reasonably expected mining methods, metallurgical characteristics, and comparisons with similar mining operations in Nevada. A cut-off grade of 0.3 g/t Au (0.01 opt) is applied to blocks that can reasonably be considered to be available for potential open-pit extraction and heap-leach processing; all blocks above an elevation of 2,286 m (7,500 ft) with a cyanide extraction ratio of 50% or higher are deemed to be potentially mineable by open-pit methods and oxidized sufficiently to be amenable to heap leaching. The 2,286 m (7,500-ft) elevation limits blocks potentially available to open-pit mining. This elevation is supported by internal scoping-level economic studies undertaken by Jim Ashton, Senior Engineer, Fronteer. The 0.01 cut-off grade for oxide material is derived from comparable open-pit heap-leach operations in Nevada.

Two cut-off grades are used for sulfide material, which will likely require oxidation prior to cyanide leaching. The sulfide material is identified by cyanide extraction ratios less than 50%. Sulfide blocks that lie above 2,286 m (7,500 ft) can reasonably be considered available for potential open-pit extraction and are compiled using a cut-off grade of 1.0 g/t Au (0.03 opt). This cut-off was chosen with consideration given to the Fronteer internal economic analyses mentioned above. Blocks lying below 2,286 m (7,500 ft) will likely require more costly underground mining methods and are compiled using a cut-off grade of 2.5 g/t Au (0.07 opt).

The gold grades for each block represent the weighted average of the grades estimated for each of the mineral domains included in the block; they are not diluted to full blocks but rather to the mineralized zone only. Similarly, the tons of a block are derived from that portion of the block below surface topography and within the gold mineral domains. The silver resources are compiled from all gold resource blocks based on the gold cut-off grades discussed above; no silver cut-off is applied.The Indicated and Inferred gold and silver resources are summarized in Table 17.17. The gold resources at additional cut-offs are listed in Table 17.18.

Other Mineralization

In addition to the resources reported in Table 17.17, there are approximately 80 million tons grading 1.5 g/t Au (0.04 opt) at a cut-off of 0.3 g/t Au (0.01opt) [which] were estimated in the model but excluded from the resources. This additional gold mineralization is not currently considered to have reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The portion of this material that lies above 2,286 m (7,500 feet) warrants re-evaluation, if silver mineralization is properly modeled, which may lead to added value, or if positive changes are realized in such factors as commodity prices, operating-cost efficiencies, or metallurgical advances.In addition to the other gold mineralization described above, a significant amount of silver lies outside of the gold mineral domains and therefore was not estimated.

Block Model

A 3D block model was created using Gemcom software to capture all of the relevant data for resource estimation. Block codes were assigned for each grade envelope in each deposit along with the percentage of each domain falling within the block. Each block was assigned a gold and silver grade, a density, oxidation indicator, and an extraction ratio, according to the estimation process and modeling described below. Block model dimensions are given in Table 17.11. A separate unwrinkled block model was created for each layer at an arbitrary elevation below the actual deposit to capture the grade estimates. The unwrinkled block model dimensions were chosen to mimic the original block model in the X and Y directions, but with half the vertical thickness to account for the reduced uniform thickness of 100 ft. The unwrinkled block dimensions are: 25 feet in the X direction, 40 feet in the Y direction and 10 feet in the Z direction.

Grade Estimation

Gold grades were estimated using Ordinary Kriging in a single pass for each of the unwrinkled block model layers. Each block was assigned a high grade value and a low grade value using only those composites coded from each respective domain. The estimation parameters for the samples used in the grade estimates are given in Table 17.12. These parameters were derived from the variography for each separate domain and represent approximately 90% of the full range defined by each respective variogram model. Silver grades were estimated in a single pass by Inverse Distance Squared weighting in the unwrinkled block models, using the same search parameters as those used for gold.All grade estimates in the unwrinkled block models were back-transformed into real space and used to update the real space block model. A single back-transformed grade value was used to populate each block with a nearest neighbour interpolation.

Density and Oxidation Modeling

Specific gravity (“SG”) measurements of mineralized Northumberland material were made by WSMC using the immersion method and the Marcy direct-reading pulp-density scale.For the immersion method, selected samples of core were cleaned with a brush and sprayed with a thin lacquer (Krylon) to prevent the samples from absorbing water during the test (Lanier, 1992b). Hip chain string was used to suspend the samples, which were weighed suspended in air and in tap water. Bulk specific gravity was then calculated using the following equation:

SG = A / (A - B)

where: A = weight in air; and B = weight in water

A comparison was made of 30 Marcy measurements with determinations on the same samples using the immersion method. The Marcy and immersion method measurements averaged 2.59 and 2.61, respectively (Lanier, 1997). In addition to the WSMC data, Core Laboratories, Inc. of Dallas, Texas determined the SG of 19 samples for Cyprus.

A total of 295 SG, or tonnage factor (“TF”), measurements collected from mineralized Northumberland samples were used to determine densities. The SG results vary principally by lithology and oxidation. Since a lithologic model of Northumberland has not been created, average TF’s were estimated for each deposit based on the percentage of each lithology in the deposit. Lithologic codes of all samples assigned to gold domains were used to estimate the relative amounts of mineralized dolostone, limestone, siltstone/silty limestone, jasperoid, hornfels, and intrusions in each deposit (Table 17.13). The average TF values for each of the lithologies were then weight-averaged to determine the ‘unfactored’ TF for each deposit. These values were increased by a 2% factor in oxidized rocks and 1% in unoxidized rocks in order to account for unmeasured void spaces, such as open fractures (Table 17.14).

In order to assign the tonnage factors to the blocks, an oxidation model was estimated using the oxidized (“2”), mixed (“1”), and unoxidized (“0”) codes in the drill sample database. Oxidation trends within the deposits mimic the stratigraphy. Drill hole geologic codes were therefore contoured to create a digital surface representing the base of the Roberts Mountains Formation. The relative vertical distance of the blocks to the Roberts Mountains surface were calculated and stored in the block model. The block model was then used to code the relative vertical distance to the 10-ft oxidation composites. These procedures normalize true elevations of the composites and blocks to the Roberts Mountains surface, effectively flattening the undulating stratigraphy for the purposes of the oxidation estimation.

The oxide code was interpolated using the inverse-distance-cubed method that recognized the relative distances stored in the composites as the elevation values. Each geologic area was interpolated separately with unique search parameters. The search ellipses were highly anisotropic, with relatively long axes in the horizontal directions and short minor axes in the vertical direction in order to honor the stratigraphic control. The lengths of the major and semi-major axes of the search ellipses ranged from 550ft in geologic area 1 to 440ft in areas 4 and 5, while the minor axes used ranges of 35ft to 50ft. A minor amount of blocks were not estimated in the Zanzibar deposit. These blocks were set to zero (unoxidized).

The oxide codes were interpolated to assign blocks oxidation codes to the first decimal place. All blocks greater than or equal to 1.5 were assigned oxidized tonnage factors, while the remaining blocks were assigned unoxidized tonnage factors.

Metallurgical Modeling

Portions of the Northumberland gold-silver mineralization are amenable to direct cyanidation, while other portions require metallurgical treatment that includes oxidation prior to cyanidation (see Section 16). Due to the significant difference in costs involved in the recovery of gold and silver from these two styles of mineralization, unique grade cut-offs are necessary for the purposes of resource reporting. A generalized metallurgical model was therefore developed to define both the mineralization that is amenable to direct cyanidation and the mineralization that requires oxidation prior to cyanidation. These types of mineralization were identified on the basis of gold cyanide extraction ratios, which are defined as the ratios of cyanide leach assays to original fire assays expressed in percent. The metallurgical modeling, therefore, has been completed solely for the purposes of tabulating the Mineral Resources at appropriate cut-offs. Additional work, including the possible development of a new metallurgical model, would need to be completed prior to taking these resources to reserves.

Variography performed on gold cyanide extraction ratio data indicated maximum ranges of about 700 to 800ft in both global and directional variograms, with most of the relationship between samples accounted for at a range of 550ft.

Cyanide extraction ratios were estimated by the inverse-distance-cubed (“ID3”) method using the parameters in Table 17.15. Relative elevations of the 10-ft composites to the Roberts Mountains surface were used in a similar fashion as the oxidation estimation described above. Cyanide extraction ratios derived from gold assays of less than 0.005 oz Au/ton were not used in the composites, as these low assay values can lead to spuriously high cyanide extractions and otherwise rather meaningless ratios. Only cyanide extraction ratios within the mineral domains were composited.

Approximately 90% of the blocks were estimated by the inverse-distance interpolation. The equation of a best-fit line derived from the relationship between cyanide extraction ratios and logged oxidation code was applied to the interpolated oxidation codes to calculate the cyanide extraction ratios for the unestimated blocks. The data used to derive the best-fit line were constrained to samples that: (1) have a minimum fire assay value of 0.01 oz Au/ton; (2) lie within the gold mineral domains; and (3) have a maximum extraction ratio of 115%.

The minimum fire assay limit is imposed in order to remove many of the spurious extraction ratios well in excess of 100% and otherwise meaningless ratios, which are common at grades of less than 0.01 oz Au/ton. Only data lying within the mineral domains were used in the estimation. While the best fit line reflects the expected positive relationship between increasing oxidation and increasing extraction values, the correlation is not strong (correlation coefficient = 0.49). This is partially due to the subjectivity associated with various loggers assigning codes of 1, 2, and 3 in the description of oxidation state. The interpolated extraction ratios were capped at 100%.