Duluth Metals Announces SEDAR Filing Of AMEC Technical Report On The Twin Metals Project

The figures for resources presented herein, including the anticipated tonnages and grades that may be achieved or the indicated level of recovery that may be realized, are estimates and no assurances can be given as to their accuracy. Such estimates are, in large part, based on interpretations of geological data obtained from drill holes and other sampling techniques. Actual mineralization or favorable host rock units may be different from those predicted. It may also take many years from the initial phase of drilling before production is possible, and during that time the economic feasibility of exploiting a deposit may change.

The Company's business of mineral exploration has a high level of inherent risk. Although the Company is optimistic about the potential of many of its projects, there is no guarantee that any mineral deposits will be economically feasible and that these deposits will be put into production. The Company's exploration and development activities may also be affected by a number of risks, including environmental, metallurgical, financing, permitting, approval, legislative and other government risks which are normal to the industry and referenced in greater detail in the Company's Annual Information Form.

Tables of the updated resource tons and grades for various cut-offs are shown below.  The estimates at the cut-off grades that are higher and lower than the base case are to show sensitivity of the estimate to cut-off grade.  The Qualified Person for the estimates is Dr Harry Parker, RM SME, and the estimates have an effective date of 23 April 2012:

    Maturi Deposit, Minnesota
               Indicated Mineral Resources[1,2]
    Cut-off Tons  Cu   Ni   Au    Pt    Pd    TPM
     Grade  (Mt)  %    %    ppm   ppm   ppm   ppm
    0.2% Cu 836  0.51 0.16 0.073 0.139 0.317 0.529
    0.3% Cu 726  0.55 0.17 0.078 0.150 0.342 0.570
    0.4% Cu 607  0.59 0.18 0.083 0.162 0.367 0.612
    0.5% Cu 430  0.64 0.20 0.091 0.180 0.408 0.679
    0.6% Cu 248  0.71 0.22 0.101 0.205 0.464 0.770
               Inferred Mineral Resources[1,2]
    Cut-off Tons  Cu   Ni   Au    Pt    Pd    TPM
     Grade  (Mt)  %    %    ppm   ppm   ppm   ppm
    0.2% Cu 748  0.49 0.17 0.070 0.110 0.306 0.486
    0.3% Cu 651  0.53 0.18 0.075 0.118 0.328 0.521
    0.4% Cu 531  0.57 0.19 0.079 0.124 0.350 0.553
    0.5% Cu 354  0.63 0.21 0.088 0.132 0.389 0.609
    0.6% Cu 190  0.70 0.24 0.098 0.135 0.434 0.667

1. CIM Definition Standards (2010) were followed for Mineral Resource estimation and classification. 2. TPM is defined as Au + Pt + Pd.

    Birch Lake Deposit, Minnesota
               Inferred Mineral Resources[1,2]
    Cut-off  Tons    Cu   Ni   Au   Pt   Pd  TPM
    Grade    (Mt)    %    %   ppm  ppm  ppm  ppm
    0.2% Cu   346   0.44 0.14 0.09 0.18 0.39 0.66
    0.3% Cu   242   0.52 0.16 0.11 0.23 0.49 0.83
    0.4% Cu   196   0.57 0.17 0.13 0.26 0.55 0.94
    0.5% Cu   141   0.61 0.18 0.14 0.28 0.60 1.02
    0.6% Cu   65    0.68 0.20 0.16 0.32 0.68 1.16

1. CIM Definition Standards (2010) were followed for Mineral Resource estimation and classification. 2. TPM is defined as Au + Pt + Pd.

    Spruce Road Deposit, Minnesota
                   Inferred Mineral
                     Resources[1]
    Cut-off       Tons    Cu     Ni
    Grade         (Mt)    %      %
    0.2% Cu       674    0.38   0.14
    0.3% Cu       480    0.43   0.16
    0.4% Cu       254    0.50   0.18
    0.5% Cu       101    0.57   0.21
    0.6% Cu        24    0.66   0.24

1. CIM Definition Standards (2010) were followed for Mineral Resource estimation and classification

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last »