IP Anomaly with 1971 Shallow and Amarc Deep Drill Holes (Looking NE)
Historical IP Anomaly Shows Significant Mineralized System at DUKE
Amarc Drilling at DUKE Deposit Successfully Tests Depth Potential: Mineralization Still OpenAmarc has discovered a significant body of porphyry Cu-Mo-Ag mineralization at the DUKE Deposit, located only 30 km north of the formerly producing Bell Mine.
Prior to acquiring the DUKE District, Amarc recognized that historical drilling at DUKE was limited, shallow and closely-spaced. Many drill holes ended in significant Cu-Mo-Ag-Au mineralization and only tested a small portion of a 3 km2 mineralized system as identified by IP chargeability geophysics surveys.
Highlights from Amarc’s subsequent exploration work
- Seven holes drilled over an area ~ 400 m N-S by 600 m E-W intersected porphyry Cu-style mineralization to depths of 360 m (see DUKE Table). The deposit remains open to expansion in all directions
- A single hole drilled 1 km N of the DUKE deposit discovery holes, and within the IP chargeability anomaly, intersected substantial lengths of moderate to low grade Cu and Mo mineralization, confirming an extensive lateral dimension to the DUKE system
Amarc is planning an expanded drill program at the DUKE Deposit with the goal of establishing a mineral resource, which will provide the basis to commence preliminary engineering and economic studies.
DUKE DEPOSIT
Selected Historical and Amarc Drill Hole Results
| DRILL HOLE | FROM (m) | TO (m) | INT.(m)1,2,3 | Cu% | Au(g/t) | Ag(g/t) | Mo(%) | CuEQ(%)4,5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 70-027 | 30.5 | 143.3 | 112.8 | 0.29 | 0.060 | 1.1 | 0.012 | 0.38 |
| Incl. | 73.1 | 85.3 | 12.2 | 0.41 | 0.091 | 1.6 | 0.010 | 0.50 |
| 70-107 | 21.3 | 164.6 | 143.3 | 0.26 | 0.068 | 1.7 | 0.016 | 0.37 |
| Incl. | 115.8 | 131.0 | 15.2 | 0.47 | 0.110 | 2.9 | 0.027 | 0.64 |
| 71-147 | 28.6 | 115.2 | 86.6 | 0.40 | 0.053 | 2.2 | 0.021 | 0.52 |
| Incl. | 34.8 | 74.4 | 39.6 | 0.48 | 0.067 | 2.6 | 0.023 | 0.61 |
| DK17002 | 17.0 | 32.0 | 15.0 | 0.44 | 0.126 | 2.1 | 0.019 | 0.59 |
| 40.3 | 142.0 | 101.7 | 0.22 | 0.064 | 1.3 | 0.014 | 0.31 | |
| 238.0 | 268.0 | 30.0 | 0.33 | 0.069 | 1.9 | 0.019 | 0.45 | |
| 308.5 | 399.0 | 90.5 | 0.21 | 0.043 | 1.1 | 0.025 | 0.34 | |
| 450.5 | 523.0 | 72.5 | 0.23 | 0.030 | 1.2 | 0.022 | 0.33 | |
| Incl. | 486.0 | 495.0 | 9.0 | 0.41 | 0.062 | 2.0 | 0.040 | 0.61 |
| DK18005 | 13.5 | 89.9 | 76.4 | 0.23 | 0.042 | 1.1 | 0.012 | 0.30 |
| 98.9 | 246.0 | 147.1 | 0.27 | 0.046 | 1.1 | 0.028 | 0.40 | |
| Incl. | 125.0 | 137.0 | 12.0 | 0.32 | 0.072 | 1.1 | 0.037 | 0.51 |
| Incl. | 212.1 | 231.9 | 19.8 | 0.45 | 0.062 | 2.0 | 0.033 | 0.62 |
| 302.0 | 344.0 | 42.0 | 0.28 | 0.059 | 1.2 | 0.019 | 0.38 | |
| DK18006 | 98.0 | 416.0 | 318.0 | 0.24 | 0.052 | 1.1 | 0.012 | 0.32 |
| Incl. | 206.0 | 296.0 | 90.0 | 0.27 | 0.067 | 1.2 | 0.015 | 0.37 |
| Incl. | 338.0 | 416.0 | 78.0 | 0.30 | 0.055 | 1.4 | 0.016 | 0.39 |
| and | 347.0 | 405.2 | 58.2 | 0.34 | 0.059 | 1.5 | 0.015 | 0.45 |
| >=0.30 & <0.50 | CuEQ% | |
| >=0.50 |
- Widths reported are drill widths, such that the thicknesses are unknown.
- All assay intervals represent length-weighted averages.
- Some figures may not sum exactly due to rounding.
- Copper equivalent (CuEQ) calculations use metal prices of: Cu US$3.00/lb, Mo US$12.00/lb, Ag US$18.00/oz and Au US$1,400.00/oz and conceptual recoveries of: Cu 90%, Au 72%, Ag 67% and Mo 82%. Conversion of metals to an equivalent Cu grade based on these metal prices is relative to the Cu price per unit mass factored by predicted recoveries for those metals normalized to the copper recovery. The metal equivalencies for each metal are added to the Cu grade. The general formula for this is: CuEQ % = Cu% + (Au g/t * (Au recovery / Cu recovery) * (Au $ per oz/ 31.1034768) / (Cu $ per lb* 22.04623)) + (Ag g/t * (Ag recovery / Cu recovery) * (Ag $ per oz/ 31.1034768) / (Cu $ per lb* 22.04623)) + (Mo % * (Mo recovery / Cu recovery) * (Mo $ per lb / Cu $ per lb)).
- The estimated metallurgical recoveries are conceptual in nature. There is no guarantee that the metallurgical testing required to determine metal recoveries will be done or, if done, the metallurgical recoveries could be at the level of the conceptual recoveries used to determine the CuEQ.
- Details of analysis, QA/QC and data verification for the DUKE Deposit drilling are provided in the 2020 DUKE National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report, which is posted on the Amarc website and the Company’s profile on SEDAR.
- Results of these historical Ducanex JV drill holes are from the 1991 Corona resampling and analyses by Acme.