Member Info for AGEOS

On 16.01,2019 I posted a summary of the N43-101 Technical Report for ANZA which OMI had filed on SEDAR on 10.01.2019. Subsequently OMI was required to produce a revised and amended version, which was filed on 05.02.2019. This contains new sections on “Environmental Permitting” (page 24 para 4.4.1.) and “Sustainability, Action Plans and Relationship with the Community” (page 26 para 4.5.).

The most significant element in the former is a section entitled “Temporary protected area of the tropical dry forest” which confirms, as I have suggested previously, that part of ANZA is subject to a forest protection order albeit temporary at this stage. The forest area is known as “Polygon 15” and affects unspecified parts of concession T13635011 (6738 hectares) and two areas for which concession applications are in progress ie ICQ 080035X (6219 hectares including La Cejita) and LHO 08011 (3903 hectares E of APTA). The limitations imposed by the order were extended on 22.10 2018 for a further year.

Whilst this information may have been a contributing factor in the recent decline of the share price, it appears that even if the forest protection becomes permanent it does not exclude mineral exploration and future mining activity. A new block diagram at the top of page 27 of the amended report illustrates the various environmental and social, planning and permitting stages, necessary for progression through the exploration and exploitation phases of mining. Far from being a negative influence this should be seen as confirmation of legislative and administrative support for environmentally and socially responsible future mining in the region.
AGEOS

continuation:

Since the Lyra Project area is more than three times the extent of ANZA and includes most of the terrain between the latter and Buritica we can assume that Newmont may wish to synchronise exploration and data acquisition between the two adjacent project areas. Geological data from one area may well be valuable in understanding the other. Also as I posted on 07.02.2019, the Newmont-Orosur agreement clearly requires integration of the existing and currently applied for ANZA concessions so we are unlikely to see much progress at ANZA until the three concession applications are resolved. In that respect, a SEDAR filing by Outcrop Gold Corp on 28.12.2018 entitled ‘Other’ and listing all Miranda Gold Corp’s concession applications (ref page 29) does not include any of the three for which Orosur has current applications, so no competition from that source. Hopefully, and soon, the next OMI RNS will be to confirm receipt of those three concessions but in the meantime I suspect Newmont will prioritize the BLEG and DSG work at Lyra before initiating any significant progress at ANZA.

NB. In a post dated 09.11.18. I emphasised the apparent lack of validity in claims for equating ANZA with Buritica on the basis that the latter is of Miocene age dated at 7.4 Ma (million years) whilst the former as evidenced by the APTA discovery would, if a VMS deposit, be of Middle Cretaceous agc ie100-110 Ma. Whilst this remains true, if the Tonusco Fault system proves to have been the feeder for the Buritica 2-phase Au mineralization then the southern extension of the fault system does open the possibility of a Buritica-style Au find within the ANZA region. It will however be dependent on the existence of a subsurface Miocene age igneous source. Those who wish to continue emphasising this possibility can therefore do so with some evidential support.
AGEOS

On 19.12.2018 I posted a brief reference to Miranda Gold’s Lyra Project, the subject of an August 2018 US$10.6m funded exploration agreement between Newmont and Miranda. In preparing that post I used a 2017 Miranda Gold Presentation which defined the Lyra Project as a 6100 hectare area 6-10km due east of Continental Gold’s Buritica Project and c50km NNE of ANZA. A series of gold bearing quartz-sulphide veins within that area were considered to be indications of a possible replication of Buritica-type mineralization. I also referred to Miranda’s Pantagora Project, defined in a separate company presentation as a 28,000 hectare area extending from Buritica southward to within 17km north of ANZA, within which several gold anomalies had been identified based on first-pass geochem and field mapping.

Having recently accessed the SEDAR listing of the Miranda/Newmont agreement which is filed under Outcrop Gold Corp (Aug 29 2018 Material Change Report), I note that although entitled “The Lyra Project” the agreement relates to both the Lyra and Pantagora areas and several adjacent blocks totalling 54,895 hectares and including 14 concessions. The agreement therefore covers most of the area from Buritica south to within c10km north of ANZA and includes 25km of the N-S Tonusco Fault system which is inferred to have been the feeder channel for the Buritica Au vein system. Importantly, both the Aragon Fault which cuts through the APTA and Jesuitas targets, and the Pederero Fault which intersects the Guaimarala-Charrascala target (see 21.01.19 post) are possible southern extensions of the Tonusco Fault Complex which by inference re-enforces the possibility of Miocene-age mineralization within the ANZA region to supplement the presumed Cretaceous-age VMS APTA discovery.

The agreement between Miranda and Newmont includes initial funding from Newmont, of $600,000 for an 18month max prospecting program. According to a 28.12.2018 SEDAR filing, a high resolution digital elevation map of the project area has been completed by Newmont and a BLEG (Bulk Leach Extractable Gold) sediment survey based on protocols provided by Newmont is planned, presumably for this year. This will no doubt include Newmont’s DSG (Deep Sensing Geochemistry) technology which is designed to identify geochem anomalies in subsurface rocks beneath superficial sedimentary cover, with porphyry intrusives of which five are indicated, being the primary target.

To be continued

continuation:

Those reading the Agreement will no doubt be puzzled by reference to “Escorpion S.O.M., a Colombian corporation” submitting the application for Contratos de Concesiones for the ICQ-080035X area, especially as Minera Anza S.A. Sucursal Colombia, has submitted the other two applications and is the only operational subsidiary of OMI listed for Colombia. However, despite S.O.M. not being listed as an acronym for any form of company in Colombia, whatever “Escorpion” is, we can be assured that the Concesiones, if granted, will ultimately reside with Minera Anza and therefore OMI. Section 6 viii, page 12 of the Agreement ensures transfer of the Concession from Escorpion to Minera Anza free and clear of all encumbrances.

Although we have no guidance on the time-scale of the above procedures, OMI are unlikely to provide any update on progress until perhaps conclusion of the Concession application process. Concession integration and an Exploration Programme including drilling would then follow. In the meantime the improved gold price might offer revitalised opportunities in Uruguay where OMI has 12 subsidiaries at the Operational Level and has considerable interests backed by a sympathetic government. Of these subsidiaries only Loryser S.A. is involved in the “Loryser Reorganisation Proceedings” so the corporate framework is in place to renew, revive or newly instigate OMI’s greenstone-belt interests but, of necessity, with funding independent of Minera Anza S.A. and of ANZA.
AGEOS.

Those anticipating an imminent RNS regarding further drilling at ANZA might wish to reflect on information contained in the recent NI 43-101 Technical Report and in the Sept 2018 Newmont/Orosur Exploration Agreement with Venture Option, which suggests a more protracted time-frame for exploration activities. The NI Report can be accessed via SEDAR (www.sedar.com ; search on ‘company’ ‘Orosur’ and scroll down to Jan 10 Tech Report for download) and the Agreement (for which the full legal text is required) likewise at SEDAR, scroll down to Sep 14 2018 Material Document(s) 352K, a 45 page download.

Page 21 Fig 3 of the NI Report is a map of the ANZA Concessions. Note that the existing Concessions, outlined in green and constituting 10,615 hectares, cover most of the area of the southern ‘targets’ APTA, Charrascala and Guaimarala. Of the three Concessions for which applications are still in progress, totalling 10,136 hectares and outlined in red, the northernmost, ICQ-080035X, 6219 hectares, is especially important as it includes the very extensive La Cejita target and a significant portion of the Jesuitas target. Until Concessions are granted for this and the other two areas for which applications are outstanding, ‘Reconnaissance Exploration Work’ only is permissible in those areas and that excludes drilling. The applications appear to have been submitted sometime prior to Sept 2018, the assessment process is of unknown duration and there is no guarantee of a successful outcome. Miranda Gold Corp, which has been the subject of previous posts, are a potential rival applicant, and there is the added complication of an ongoing biodiversity survey of the Cauca valley to identify areas of ‘Dry Forest’ for possible National Park designation.

The Newmont/Orosur Agreement of 7th Sept 2018 includes considerable detail relating to how exploration of the ANZA Concessions is to be implemented but in terms of the timescale for drilling, section 8g page 16 appears to be especially significant. This defines a process for integration of all the Concessions to ensure synchronicity within an 11 year time frame for the purpose of mineral exploration. Newmont clearly consider this of paramount importance since they “reserve the right to pursue and accomplish this in lieu of or in addition to any actions taken by Minera Anza” (ie OMI). It also follows that this process of ‘integration’ cannot be completed until the current applications for the three additional Concessions have been concluded as ‘integration’ requires the authority of ANM (Agencia Nacional de Mineria) . A programme of further drilling would logically and procedurally have to post-date the integration process.

To be continued

The eagerly awaited, Newmont directed drilling program at ANZA, inevitably invites speculation as to what the priority targets might be and what resource potential these could hold. Leaving aside the APTA discovery, for which infill and step-out drilling will be required at some stage, one of the most interesting prospects to emerge so far appears to be that which is centred on the Au-As anomaly identified last June (RNS 07.06.18) in the Guaimarala area c2km SW of APTA. There are positive gold and arsenic correlations elsewhere, at APTA and Charrascala but this occurrence is extensive and as is clear from figure 3 in the June RNS there are relatively high values for both elements in the soil geochemistry.

High arsenic is indicative , but not diagnostic, of late stage high-grade Au-Ag mineralization, usually as vein swarms, stockworks or brecciation, in CBM (Carbonate Base Metal) Systems, of which the recently discovered very high-grade extensions at Buritica (mentioned by MrP) are an example. Furthermore the occurrence at Guaimarala appears to coincide with the intersection of two major faults, the NW-SE Caracol Fault and the N-S Pederero Fault. Interceptions of post-Cretaceous, pre-Miocene high-angle faults in the Cauca belt appear to offer the structural setting for Miocene-age porphyry intrusions, so the inference is that there could be such an intrusion at depth beneath the anomaly with late stage Au-Ag mineralization in the periphery.

Of the 5 scout-holes drilled at Charrascala c1.5km to the NW, 4 intersected veinlet zones with significant Au-Ag and high sulphides, mostly pyrite with pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite and sphalerite. The NI Report also mentions stockworks, veins of quartz with carbonates and extensive silicification, all consistent with a CBM model. The June RNS also mentions “a well-developed alteration mineral suite” which I assume may allude to a possible thermal aureole, a further indication of an intrusive complex in the vicinity.

If the forthcoming drilling programme prioritizes the Guaimarala-Charrascala area it will probably be in anticipation of a potentially very significant mesothermal to epithermal Miocene-age resource.
AGEOS.

McGoogle

Thanks for the response. Yes, as INTHENO, I provided the series of predictive resource estimates for the Mariana Resources Hot Maden project. Hope you did well on that one.

The geology of the ANZA region includes not just the M Cretaceous Barroso Formation which hosts APTA and other possible VMS deposits but also a number of Late Cretaceous igneous intrusives such as that which constitutes the La Cejita target you refer to, and as part of the Charrascala target. Both are potential hosts for ‘porphyry’ style deposits. There is also evidence of Miocene age igneous intrusives, mostly subsurface, which elsewhere in the Cauca belt are known to be the source of high-grade Au epithermal deposits. I have commented on these in several previous posts but until drilling gets underway these prospects remain speculative.

Best wishes and good luck to you too.
AGEOS

continuation:

One of the particular merits of VMS deposits is that they usually occur in linear closely associated groups, being the product of hydrothermal vents along ocean-floor rifts. Atico have 15 such targets along the 10km N-S strike of the “Black Chert” horizon of the Barroso Formation 20-30km SW of APTA. That trend may extend further north through the Oribella, Miranda Gold Corp controlled property, which as outlined in my 19.12.18 post, extends to within 2km of APTA. If APTA is correlated with the same stratigraphic horizon, its continuation into the ANZA region could host other VMS deposits. The Charrascala target which also appears to have some hydrothermal characteristics, may be a stratigraphic equivalent to APTA displaced westwards by faulting.

AGEOS/INTHENO.

continuation:

My initial conclusion as previously posted and in agreement with Snowden, that APTA is a Cretaceous-age VMS deposit, remains unchanged and is now refined to add that the original massive (ie unstructured) and semi-massive stratiform sulphides were subjected to at least one phase of ductile deformation and thermal recrystallization, probably contemporaneous with associated brecciation and/or replacement of the host sedimentary sequence including the anhydrite/gypsum component of the sea-bed hydrothermal system. Subsequent N-S strike-slip faulting then broke up the previously single, sulphide rich body, into the three northerly tabular units as represented on the page 89 reconstruction. This VMS phase was then overprinted at APTA with presumed Miocene-age mineralization in at least two phases, associated with local igneous intrusions.

The stratigraphic context of the APTA deposit has not, it appears, been studied in any detail but from the limited information available in the Snowden Report and elsewhere, I suggest a possible correlation with the “Black Chert/Grey Chert” sequence which hosts the VMS deposit of the El Roche Mine c30km SW of APTA. This Cu/Au mine, in production since 1991, is owned and operated by Minera El Roble S A, a 90% owned subsidiary of Atico Mining Corp (TSX-V, ATY). For those interested, the NI 43-101 El Roble Technical Report filed on SEDAR on 28.12.2018 is an example of how a report should be written and compiled, and provides both an insight into what a mine at APTA would probably look like and access to a comparative economic model. The current Resource of 2.36M tonnes in the Zeus zone (325m strike, 600m down-dip x 45m max thickness) at El Roble is graded at 2.16g/Au & 4.17% Cu (ie 1.92g/t Au equivalent) producing a predicted EBIDTA margin of 40-44% for the period 2019-22. This compares well with the Jan 2017 resource estimation by MDA (Mine Development Associates) of Reno, Nevada for APTA, based on 53 legacy drill-cores, of 1.6-2.3M tonnes at 3.2-3.7g/t Au ie 165,000-274,000oz Au if one accepts the highest grade. As the potential tonnage at APTA appears to be considerably greater than that calculated by MDA, an El Roble scale mine at APTA seems feasible given all other factors being supportive. So even if exploration of the other targets at ANZA produces nothing of value, the APTA discovery at least provides some prospect of an economically viable mine, which under the terms of the agreement with Newmont would be the ‘residue project’ for OMI after the agreement was terminated.

To be continued.

NI Reports, as required by CIM (Canadian Inst of Mining) standards, are intended for “the investing public and their advisors” and should be “simplified” such as to allow “ an investor to understand the nature, importance, and limitations of the data, interpretations, and conclusions summarized in the report.”
Having spent several days reading and attempting to understand the geotechnical content of this report I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is little to be gained from further effort in that regard. Unfortunately much of the text fails to provide clarity of meaning in what are complex issues and since most of the content is a poorly integrated ‘cut and paste’ amalgam from a variety of sources this detracts further from the report’s value.

I have however examined the detail of pages 90-113 with regard to the APTA bore-hole data and concluded there is no reason to alter my Au Inferred Resource estimates as posted on 12.10.2018. Thus the ‘ball-park’ figure for the four high-grade zones as defined in my October post remains at c500,000oz Au. The 24 diagrammatic E-W cross-sections through the high-grade zones, sequenced from N to S, on pages 99-110 of the NI Report, are a useful addition as they translate core-data into a structural interpretation of the deposit. This confirms my initial interpretation of the complex, up to five-fold tabular form of the northern section, which on page 98 of the NI Report is represented in a simplified triple zone form.

With regard to the metallogenesis of the APTA deposit this NI Report perpetuates the inconsistency of interpretation which I have commented on in previous posts. It incorporates all the evidence included in the Snowden report (May 2010) alluding to APTA being a mafic-type VMS (Volcanogenic Massive Sulphide) deposit but also quotes the later company statements rejecting this model in favour of an undefined multi-phase mineralization process, without any discussion of the geological evidence and relative merits of the two different interpretations. The ambiguity is compounded by the “Interpretation and Conclusions” on page 181 and “Recommendations” on page 182, which appear to accept the VMS and associated hydrothermal model. A conclusion to this interpretation is important as it has implications for further exploration of the APTA and ANZA region.

To be continued.

Whilst we await the NI 43-101 Report, I thought I would enlarge on the status and possible resource significance of the Guintar Mines which I mentioned briefly in my last post, of 21.12.18. The three mines, Margarita, Las Palernas and Cara de Perro, are situated in the region of the upper Niverengo River, north of Charrascala and west of Jesuitas, so occupying a potentially significant infill-area between these two already identified exploration targets.
In c2016 AngloGold Ashanti acquired 100% rights to the area, designated the Nuevo Guintas project, and in 2016/17 drilled 6 exploratory holes, 1478m total, targeting two prospects, one a 500 x 300m Au multi-element anomaly, the other a potential high-grade epithermal porphyry-type deposit. Wide but low-grade Au intercepts were reported from several of the holes.

In its Q3 Nov 2018 Report and in conformity with its stated policy to downgrade involvement in Colombia, AngloGold Ashanti confirmed that Nuevo Guintas was available for divestment. As Miranda Gold has recently extended its Oribella Project (see post of 19.12.2018) NW to within 3km of Nuevo Guintas, OMI may well have a competitor for the Guintas concession, although presumably representations from Newmont will decide the issue.
Best wishes for 2019 to all.
AGEOS

Regarding the ‘news’ from spike192, that the forthcoming NI report will not include a resource update, the report will nevertheless have to include details of the Historical Assessment by MDA of Reno, Nevada in Jan 2017 based on the initial 53 bore-holes at APTA. The consequent “potential resource of 165,000-274,000 oz Au” and the basis of that estimation as stated by MDA will also be required. In addition all the core-data derived from the subsequent drilling program, up to hole 71 and some assessment of its relevance to further resource, should be included. Anything less than this might constitute a ‘failure of disclosure’.

As I have stated previously, the spacing of bore-holes at the APTA discovery does not meet the requirements necessary for calculating ‘indicated resource’ so most would have to be classified as ‘inferred’, a measure which, at this early stage, the company (and QP) have, it appears, decided does not justify reporting as ‘resource’ even though the NI rules allow for this.

Whilst this will disappoint some, the report should contain much of alternative interest. The Disclosure of Exploration Interests, will I hope provide clues as to Newmont’s assessment of the potential for a large in-depth Miocene age Au/Cu porphyry find.
The report should also clarify the situation regarding the exploration and exploitation rights for those parts of the ANZA region not, as far as I’m aware, already acquired, especially the Margarita, Las Palernas and Cara de Perro mines (Guintar Mines) of the upper Niverengo River, another possible VMS and/or Au/Cu porphyry complex.
NI Reports are always useful in amalgamating otherwise scattered information and with the independent assessment of a QP can be valuable for LTI’s.
AGEOS

Yesterday I mentioned that the Miranda Gold Corp had mineral exploration interests to both north and south of the ANZA Project. It is worth noting that the southerly interest, the Oribella Project, abuts against the boundary of Orosur’s concession and is only c2km from the APTA discovery.

Although at pre-drill stage, sufficient exploratory and interpretative work has been undertaken at Oribella to allow comparison with the APTA discovery and to suggest a possible reason for Newmont’s interest in ANZA. In August 2018 Miranda and Newmont announced a US$10.6m funding agreement for MGC’s Lyra Project c50km NNE of ANZA which could lead to Newmont acquiring a 70% interest. Lyra is thought to host an extension of the Buritica-type Au vein system and if proven to be comparable would be a major addition to Newmont’s reserves. During its evaluation Newmont would presumably have also considered the potential of Miranda’s other projects in the area; Pantagora which extends from Buritica to 17km N of ANZA, Oribella, and Kuntur further S, all of which are available for joint development agreements.

The fact that Newmont and Orosur announced their agreement 12 days later prompted me to investigate whether there was any geological evidence from the assessment of the Oribella Project which may have had a bearing on Newmont’s decision to favour ANZA, of which APTA was the only significant discovery at the time, rather than extend its agreement with Miranda to include Oribella also. My conclusion is that there are aspects of the mineralisation at Oribella, which suggest that the high-grade Au tabular components of the APTA discovery, previously interpreted as stratiform and therefore indicative of a VMS deposit, may in fact be structurally controlled hydromagmatic and injection breccias which are the surface expression of an in-depth low-grade/high tonnage Au/Cu porphyry system. Such an interpretation would place APTA, with possible northern extensions, amongst the potentially multi-million oz Au/Cu porphyry Miocene age prospects typical of the Andean Cauca Belt. That alone would explain Newmont’s preferential interest in APTA aside from the bonus of at least four other prospects within the ANZA area.
Hopefully the forthcoming NI Report will throw further light on this.
AGEOS

The NI 43-101 ANZA Technical Report currently in preparation by Andes GMS and due to be filed with SEDAR this December, is required to meet Orosur’s obligations relating to its TSX listing. The anticipated scope of this report is outlined in the penultimate paragraph of my 09.11.18 post.
Undoubtedly one of the most significant components of the Report will be the estimated Au resource of the APTA (Aragon-Pastorera Trend) discovery, based on core-data from the initial 71 holes drilled. On 12.10.18, I posted the basis for an approximation of Au indicated resource of c500,000oz Au, for which the full content of my post provides the evidence and justification.
Since then I note that the Miranda Gold Corp, which itself has exploratory interests over much of the area to both north and south of the ANZA region, has recently referred to ANZA ie APTA as a “plus 0.5M oz Au discovery”.
If the NI Report confirms this, albeit in both “inferred & indicated” categories, it will be a significant maiden resource on which to build.
AGEOS

shellymarie1985.
Please read my post of 08.38 today for a detailed answer to your question..
Alternatively bhargav's one-liner "they're obliged to produce the tech report for CSA" will suffice as a summary.

MisterPositive, I outlined the anticipated coverage of the forthcoming NI 43-101 Report in the penultimate paragraph of this morning’s post. CSA Standards require that the Report relates to the whole ANZA Project area irrespective of the data available for component target areas, as partial reporting is not permitted.

APTA will probably be apportioned between “indicated resource” and “inferred resource” primarily on the basis of evidence (or lack of it) of continuity of mineralization in the high-grade Au zones. There is insufficient infill drilling to prove continuity both along strike and down-dip, the gaps of necessity falling into the inferred category.

For the remaining 95% of the ANZA Project area, including La Cejita and the other targets, the data released to date cannot possibly justify anything other than a highly qualified “inferred” status which is why I described it as likely to be referred to as of “exploratory potential” only.

You can check the detailed definitions for resource categories on the Canadian Institute of Mining (CIM) website (download the 2014 pdf) which will also clarify why there is scant possibility of a “feasibility” element in the Dec NI 43-101 Report.
Hope this helps.
AGEOS

Professor 1. Thanks for the response.

The importance attached to recognition of a VMS-type system is a factor I emphasised in the penultimate paragraph of my 12.10.18. APTA Au Resource post.
However, the Edison Report you quote is misleading in implying the VMS process “could be the overarching geological process governing ANZA’s mineral deposition.” Substitute “APTA” for “ANZA” and the statement would be correct; yet another example of confusion in use of terminology I have previously highlighted.
The lithological and structural context of the APTA high-grade Au zones is not replicated throughout the ANZA region; parts of it maybe eg Jesuitas, E Guaimarula and Charrascala, so these may host local VMS deposits. Elsewhere, as the Edison extract mentions, epithermal type deposits which would most likely be associated with the Late Cretaceous intrusive complexes I referred to, appear more likely.
Only further exploratory drilling, as I detailed in my 18.10.18 ANZA Geotech Surveys & further drilling post, will elucidate the potential.
I have incidentally read every available report on all projects in the Middle Cauca Andean region and have access to the technical literature not available to non-specialists, should there be any other queries.
AGEOS

Whilst it is understandable that some are highlighting comparison of the ANZA Project potential with that of the Buritica complex c50km to the north, this fails to take into account fundamental dissimilarities in the metallogenesis of the two areas based on current evidence and which therefore renders such comparison baseless.

Very briefly, the mineralization of the Buritica deposit and the emplacement of the igneous intrusive complex from which the mineralization was derived, are dated at 7.4 Ma (million years) ie of Miocene age and consistent with the 6-8 Ma age range of Titiribi, Quebradona, Marmato and Quinchia, the other intermediate sulphidation deposits in the Middle Cauca belt. The mineralization (high-grade Au zones) of the APTA area, the only part of the ANZA Project area so far recognised as a potentially economic discovery, appears on the other hand, to be of Middle Cretaceous age (c100-110 Ma) ie a VMS deposit contemporaneous with the rock sequence within which it occurs. There may be overprinting of later, possibly Miocene age mineralization at APTA, but as yet there is no evidence of it being a significant contributory event. The mineralizing events at APTA and Buritica are therefore not age-related and there are additional fundamental incompatibilities relating to geochemistry and structural context to reinforce the disparity which I will not enlarge upon in the interests of brevity.

Hopefully the Phase 1, extensive further exploration at ANZA, to be announced, will confirm Miocene age intrusive complexes with associated mineralization which will bear comparison with Buritica or the more interesting Titiribi complex 25km to the south. In the meantime there are several more definite targets to explore, which may extend the APTA discovery or identify separate systems perhaps associated with the Late Cretaceous intrusive complexes.
AGEOS.

The “Colombia Update” (RNS 26 Oct) which announced the commissioning of an NI 43-101 technical report on the ANZA Project, has predictably prompted a range of speculation on this BB, much of it under the misleading heading of “Feasibility report “ or similar.

Those familiar with the NI 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects will be aware that under Chapter 5, Part 4 “Obligation to File a Technical Report”, section 4.2, sub-sections (1)(j)(ii), Orosur is required to file a Technical Report due to its disclosure of a “change in mineral resources…..from the most recently filed technical report …”

The “most recently filed technical report” is that which was filed with SEDAR (Filing system of the CSA ie Canadian Securities Administrators) on May 25th 2010 by Waymar Resources Ltd the then 100% legal and beneficial owners of the ANZA Project. That report, the 116 page Snowden Report, was an Exploration Stage Technical Report and did not include any estimation of mineral resource.

Since then, an Orosur RNS of 19.01.2017 reported an “estimate of an exploratory gold potential of a portion of the APTA (Aragon-Pastorera Trend)….prepared with the assistance of MDA Reno Nevada”. This was based on core-data from the then 53 legacy bore-holes and was the base-line from which my “APTA Au Resource” estimation of 12.10.2018 was compiled. Orosur has not filed a Technical Report with SEDAR since commencement of listing on TSX on May 14th 2012 and therefore has an outstanding obligation to do so in respect of disclosure of “a change in mineral resource.”

The NI 43-101 Technical Report currently in preparation by Andes GMS and due to be filed with SEDAR in Dec this year, is required to meet Orosur’s legal obligations relating to its TSX listing. As an early stage maiden report it will probably include a mineral resource estimation for that part of the APTA trend covered by core-log data up to hole MAP 71 only, plus an outline of the exploration potential for this, and also the Charrascala Prospect and the additional target areas within the scope of the ANZA Project. This and the total geochemical and geophysical data so far accrued falls well short of what would be required for a feasibility study of the whole project area to meet CSA Standards. The 2016 Buritica Feasibility Report, for example, was based on over 700 boreholes, 4000+samples and took a team of 10 specialists over 6 months to complete. It also followed a 2014 PEA Report.

The December 2018 ANZA report will be an initial step towards meeting Newmont’s requirements regarding Phase 1 of its deal with Orosur. As stated in the Exploration and Option Agreement with Newmont, an “NI 43-101 compliant pre-feasibility study” is scheduled for Phase 2 and an “NI 43-101 compliant feasibility study” for Phase 3.
Public reference to the forthcoming NI 43-101 Report as a “Feasibility” report or study might therefore be construed as misrepresentation.
AGEOS

Continuation:

Incidentally anyone reading the co website pages should be aware that there is frequent inconsistency in use of the names ANZA and APTA which if unappreciated leads to confusion; even the geology map labels the APTA site as ANZA.
I am always wary of AIM companies with poor reporting standards. However the Newmont involvement alleviates such concerns and will hopefully be reflected in more rigorous future investor communications.
AGEOS/INTHENO