Georgina Basin Group Annual Report 2010-11 · Figure 4 Georgina Basin EL 27044 Rock Chip Sample Locations 1:50,000 Figure 5 Georgina Basin EL 26380 Petrophysics Sample Locations 1:100,000

Titleholder Auvex Resources Limited & South Boulder Mines Limited

Operator Auvex Resources Limited

Tenement Manager/Agent Australian Mining & Exploration Title Services Pty Ltd

Title/Tenements EL 25982 Horse Creek, EL 25983 Halfway Dam, EL 26380 Lucy Creek, EL 26904 Tarlton Downs, EL 27044 Algamba, EL 27313 Mt Pozieres, EL 27314 Lucy Creek North, EL 27315 Desert Bore & E27985 Rocky Creek

Mine/Project Name Georgina Basin Manganese Project

Report Title and Reporting Period Group Report for period 9 January 2010 to 8 January 2011

Author Shackleton, I

Corporate Author Auvex Resources Limited

Target Commodities Manganese

Date of Report 21 January 2011

Datum/Zone GDA 94/ Zone 53

250,000 Map Sheet Tobermorey SF53‐12 and Sandover River SF53‐8

100,000 Map Sheet(s) Algamba 6253, Alkea 6353, Barry Plain 6454, Marqua 6352, Tarlton 6252 and Toko 6452

Contact Details: Postal Ian Shackleton Level 4, 15 Ogilvie Road Mt Pleasant WA 6153

Fax 08 9316 4448

Phone 08 9317 9700

Email for further Technical Details

[email protected]

Email for Expenditure [email protected]

CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

3.0 LOCATION AND ACCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

5.0 PREVIOUS EXPLORATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

6.0 EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES 2010‐2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

6.1 Rock Chip Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

6.2 Petrophysics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

6.3 Aeromagnetics Reprocessing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

6.4 Landsat TM Remote Sensing Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

6.5 Database Compilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7

6.6 Data Review and Reconnaissance Exploration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

REFERENCES

Figures Figure 1 Georgina Basin Project Location 1:1,000,000 Figure 2 Georgina Basin EL 26380 Rock Chip Sample Locations 1:50,000 Figure 3 Georgina Basin EL 26904 & EL 25983 Rock Chip Sample Locations 1:200,000 Figure 4 Georgina Basin EL 27044 Rock Chip Sample Locations 1:50,000 Figure 5 Georgina Basin EL 26380 Petrophysics Sample Locations 1:100,000 Figure 6 Georgina Basin TMI Regional Coverage & Reprocessed Area 1:1,000,000 Plans Plan 1 Georgina Basin Manganese Targets and Geology 1:100,000 Interpreted from TM Imagery Appendices Appendix 1 List of Magnetic and Radiometric MapInfo Images Appendix 2 Landsat TM Remote Sensing Study Report Appendix 3 Data Review and Field Excursion Report

1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During the reporting period exploration activities comprised the retrieval and compilation of

previous data and the construction of a project database.

A remote sensing study was undertaken using Landsat TM images that generated 70 targets.

Existing regional (200m and 400m line spaced) aeromagnetic digital data was recovered and

reprocessed, with images generated for interpretation. A review of the aeromagnetics

highlighted the potential relationship between structure and known manganese

mineralisation at Lucy Creek.

Analysis of five petrophysics samples confirms that gravity, Induced Polarisation (IP) or

Electromagnetic (EM) geophysical techniques could be useful techniques for local and

regional targeting of manganese.

A review of the aeromagnetics, previous exploration data and remote sensing generated a

further 25 targets. There were two phase of reconnaissance exploration undertaken over

the 95 aeromagnetic and remote sensing targets with six targets identified that warrant

further evaluation (18, 25, 30, 47, 92 and 95). Field inspection shows evidence of

hydrothermal brecciation and highly altered fluid pathways within favourable carbonate

stratigraphy within the project.

2. INTRODUCTION

Auvex Resources Limited operates nine exploration licences located in the southern portion

of the Georgina Basin. Auvex considers the project area prospective for carbonate‐hosted

manganese mineralisation associated with hydrothermal alteration. Extensive carbonate

dominate sequences occurs throughout the project.

3. LOCATION AND ACCESS

The project area is situated approximately 400 kilometres east north‐east of Alice Springs

commencing around Tarlton Downs Station in the Northern Territory. The tenement

portfolio then extend approximately 130‐150 kilometres to the east and 70‐100 kilometres

to the north of Tarlton Downs to almost the border with Queensland (Figure 1).

Access to the project is via the sealed Stuart Highway from Alice Springs, which is travelled

for 67 kilometres to the turnoff to the Plenty Highway. A further 355 kilometres distance is

travelled along the sealed (94 kilometres) and gravel (261 kilometres) Plenty Highway to the

commencement of the tenements. Access within the project is mostly afforded by a

network of station tracks and roads.

2

4. REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The project is situated on the southern boundary of South Georgina Basin. It is an intra‐cratonic basin of about 325,000 km², which formed within the Rodinia supercontinent rift zone during the Neoproterozoic, and is part of the much larger Centralian Craton. Regionally, the Georgina Basin contains volcanic ash and sedimentary units ranging from limestones to sandstones, which were deposited in small grabens and half‐grabens during the Proterozoic to the Devonian. These sediments entirely overlie a much older Paleoproterozoic to Archaean basement, the Altjawarra Block. Locally, sediments deposited during the end of the Cambrian and Ordovician form the majority of the outcropping and sub surface geology within the project area excepting the southernmost margins of tenements EL 25982 and EL 25983 where the younger Jurassic‐Cretaceous undifferentiated quartz sandstones are exposed. The local geology is comprised of the Ordovician‐Cambrian Tomahawk Formation and Ninmaroo Formation. These units have a fairly shallow south‐trending dip, generally less than 10 degrees, with the exception of the southern margin of the basin. The Tomahawk Formation is a quartz rich sandstone unit, with inter‐bedded limestone and conglomerate and the Ninmaroo is a dolostone and limestone unit. These units are overlain throughout the project area with unconsolidated lateritic sands and quaternary deposits around drainage channels. In the southeast of the project area the southeast plunging Toko Syncline emerges amidst the Toko Ranges, to the southwest the Marqua Monocline, which steps down into the basin. The Toko Syncline is a relatively shallow fold exposing the younger Toko Group near its centre. It is here that the Toko Group (Coolibah, Nora and Carlo Sandstone Formations) and Kelly Creek Formation outcrop. Immediately south of the project, on the southern margin of the Georgina Basin, basement reverse faults have thrust basement Paleoproterozoic granite formations to the surface. The Austral Downs Limestone, which outcrops mainly to the east in the project area, is thought to have formed on the bed of a paleolake. Elkedra Diamonds NL (Elkedra) noted a palaeo drainage channel running from northwest to southeast, draining to the southeast, running through the northwest of tenement E27315. This chalcedony‐rich limestone forms the caps on the Chalcedony Hills found throughout this area.

5. PREVIOUS EXPLORATION

Intermittent exploration was undertaken by Carpentaria Exploration Pty Limited (MIM Holdings Limited) and Western Mining Corporation Limited during the 1970’s and 1980’s. Activity increased in the 1990’s with exploration for phosphate minerals, uranium and base metals undertaken by several companies.

3

It was diamond explorer, Elkedra that began to look at the manganese occurrences about the Lucy Creek area and then the ground to the east that generated further activity in manganese exploration. Some exploration drilling was completed for manganese mineralisation by Elkedra in 1999‐2000. Assays of 50.5% Mn, 0.44% Fe, 0.06% P, 6% SiO2 and 0.71% Al2O3 were reported from samples taken by Elkedra 2002 from the western part of the Auvex tenement EL 26380 (source Northern Territory Geological Survey Tobermorey SF53‐12 1:250,000 Geological Explanatory Notes). It was the previous work undertaken by Elkedra that highlighted the manganese prospectivity of the area to Auvex. Initially Auvex purchased a 90% interest in the three South Boulder Mines Limited tenements (EL 25982, EL 25983 and EL 26380). Auvex subsequently applied for, and was granted, 100% beneficial rights in the remaining six exploration licences comprising the project.

6. EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES 2010‐2011

During the reporting period exploration activities comprised: compilation of work

undertaken by previous explorers; preparation of regional datasets including the

identification of initial targets; and reconnaissance exploration to assess the targets.

6.1. Rock Chip Sampling

A total of 60 rock chip samples were collected from across the project during three phases

of reconnaissance exploration undertaken between November 2009 and January 2011

(Table 1). Of the samples collected a total of 35 were assayed. Although some of the

samples were collected outside of the reporting period they are included for the purpose of

completeness.

Table 1 Summary of Rock Chip Samples Collected

Sample From Sample To Samples Date Collected Date Assayed

GB001 1 26/11/2009 12/7/2010

GB002 GB003 2 26/11/2009 Not Assayed

GB004 GB012 9 26/11/2009 12/7/2010

GB013 1 26/11/2009 Not Assayed

GB014 GB029 16 26/11/2009 12/7/2010

GB030 GB038 9 26‐28/3/2010 12/7/2010

GB040 GB061 22 19‐21/10/2010 Not Assayed

Total 60

(1) Samples GB001 to GB029 were originally numbered AV1 to AV29

(2) Samples GB002, 007, 009, 020 and 025 were also analysed for petrophysical properties

4

GB002 was not assayed as the sample was primarily collected to determine petrophysical

properties, for selection of geophysical techniques, of the sandstone (calc arenites) hosting

manganese mineralisation at Lucy Creek. Samples GB003 and GB013 were not assayed as

they collected for petrology. Petrology has not been undertaken on these samples at the

time of reporting.

Samples GB040 to GB060 were collected late in the field season and will be analysed and

results provided during the next reporting period.

A number of significant manganese results, greater than 30 % Mn, have been returned from

the rock chip samples assayed (Table 2). A full set of analysis included in the digital data file.

Locations of samples assayed are included on Figures 2‐4.

Table 2 Significant Rock Chip Assay Results (>30% Mn)

Sample No Tenement Mn % Fe % Al2O3 SiO2 % P2O5 % LOI % Prospect

GB006 EL 26380 38.2 2.37 3.31 21.4 0.18 9.78 Lucy Ck 4(1)

GB009 EL 26380 52.9 0.58 1.03 3.44 0.45 11.80 MRS79(1)

GB012 EL 26380 32.3 1.00 2.33 37.4 0.25 7.41

GB015 EL 26380 41.5 9.71 1.90 8.07 0.32 11.40

GB018 EL 26380 54.2 1.57 0.87 2.33 0.24 12.20 Lucy Ck(1)

GB020 EL 26380 38.3 3.38 1.63 26.6 0.21 9.05 Lucy Ck(1)

GB022 EL 26380 31.2 23.5 1.41 7.16 0.19 11.30 Lucy Ck(1)

GB024 EL 26380 42.7 9.98 1.14 11.0 0.54 11.30 Lucy Ck(1)

GB025 EL 26380 48.7 7.44 0.85 2.57 0.53 12.40 Lucy Ck(1)

GB030 EL 26904 31.3 7.20 2.44 28.8 0.12 8.31

GB032 EL 26904 34.9 0.76 0.28 42.0 0.13 7.04 Loc 44(1)

GB034 EL 25983 33.0 1.70 3.33 27.7 0.33 8.30 Halfway

Dam(1)

GB036 EL 26380 37.1 12.7 1.81 12.0 0.23 10.90 Lucy Ck(1)

GB037 EL 26380 30.1 0.84 4.22 34.1 0.30 7.46 MRS79(1)

GB038 EL 27044 30.1 2.66 0.26 43.0 0.26 6.60 MRS80(1)

(1) Prospect – refer to targets areas previously identified by Elkedra Diamonds NL

Majority of the anomalous results included in the table above are from, or about, the known

manganese outcrops in the vicinity of Lucy Creek.

A number of the samples results report high silica, particular where the manganese grade is

lower, possibly indicating the incomplete replacement of the host sandstone units within

the Tomahawk Formation. Iron results are generally low indicating in the low intrinsic

content of this mineral in the sandstones.

5

Unfortunately of the samples assayed none were associated with carbonate units, which are

considered more likely to host significant manganese mineralisation.

6.2. Petrophysics

Auvex’s project covers a significant area (9,438 square kilometres) necessitating exploration

technique(s) that could provide rapid and cost effective method for generating targets, ie,

geophysics.

In order to determine the most appropriate geophysical method five samples were collected

for petrophysics in November 2009. Sample coordinates are included in the data file and

shown on Figures 5.

Table 3 Petrophysics Sample Locations

Sample Tenement Prospect(2) Mn % Fe % Date Collected

GB002 EL 26380 Lucy Creek 4 0.13(3) 26/11/2009

GB007 EL 26380 MRS79 22.4 0.83 26/11/2009

GB009 EL 26380 MRS79 52.9 0.58 26/11/2009

GB020 EL 26380 Lucy Creek 38.3 3.38 26/11/2009

GB025 EL 26380 Lucy Creek 48.7 7.44 26/11/2009

(1) Samples prefixed GB where originally prefixed as AV

(2) Location – refer to targets areas previously identified by Elkedra Diamonds NL

(3) Sample assay by hand held Niton XRF

Sample GB002 sandstone (calc‐arenites) considered representative of the unaltered host

lithology to manganese mineralisation about Lucy Creek. The samples were submitted Don

Emerson, System Exploration (NSW) Pty Ltd.

Properties tested on each of the samples are included below in Table 4:

Table 4 Petrophysics Properties Analysed

Mass Properties Inductive Properties Galvanic Properties

Dry bulk density(DBD) - (g/cm3) Magnetic susceptibility (SIx10-5) Galvanic electrical resistivity

dryt (1 kHz, ohm m)

Apparent porosity PA (%) Density approx (g/cc t/m3) Galvanic electrical resistivity saturated o (1 kHz, ohm m)

Composite apparent grain

density (SGAA) ‐ (g/cm3) EM conductivity (S/m)

Induced Polarisation saturated (ms)

Wet saturated bulk density

(g/cm3)

Est original water saturation

6

(Sw%)

Density original condition

(g/cm3)

Final results were received in March 2010. A summary of the results are included in Table 5

and full results in the digital data file.

Table 5 Summary of Petrophysics Results

Property GB002 GB007 GB009 GB020 GB025

Mn % 0.13 22.4 52.9 38.3 48.7

Porosity % 25.8 9.4 9.4 16.8 16.0

Solid grain densities g/cm3 2.54 3.31 4.50 3.68 4.48

Magnetic susceptibility SIx10-5 7 57 155 102 144

EM conductivity S/m >0 0.5 20 17 11

Resistivity dry 1 kHz, ohm m 3275 2.3 0.042 0.043 0.411

Resistivity saturated 1 kHz,

ohm m 155 2.1 0.042 0.043 0.411

IP ms 3 95 120 139 129

The sample results indicate a good contrast between the sandstone country rock (GB002) and the high‐grade manganese mineralised samples (GB009, 020 and 025) for gravity, EM and IP techniques.

6.3. Aeromagnetics Reprocessing

Explore Pty Ltd, Kim Francombe, in collaboration with Southern Geoscience Consultants was

commissioned to retrieve existing open file aeromagnetic and radiometric data, process and

produce a suite of images over the project.

The open file surveys used for merging the magnetic and radiometric data were as follows:

Table 6 Open File magnetic and Radiometric Survey Details

Survey Line Spacing (m) Line Direction Main Terrain

Clearance (m) Date

Elkedra 400 000‐180 60 August 1999

Eromagna 400 000‐180 80 July‐November

2001

Georgina Basin SE 400 000‐180 80 August 2002

Huckita East 400 000‐180 80 1983

Jervois Range 200 000‐180 60 April‐June 2004

7

Included in Appendix A is a list of the MapInfo images (GDA94, MGA Zone 53) that were

produced from the work on 14 May 2010. A copy of the known manganese mineralised

outcrops was provided Southern Geoscience who made the following comments on their

relationship to the images.

It appears that the manganese outcrops may be controlled by northeast to southwest

trending structures in the north and maybe also in the south of the project. That may mean

that what you are looking at is not the edge of a shallow dipping manganese rich pods but

leakage up a fault possible reflecting a deeper source.

The basement is not nicely dipping off to the north and is in fact quite rugose. If the

manganese outcrops are shown to be shallow dipping slabs then it is likely that there is a

younger sub‐basin or series of younger sub‐basins sitting on top of the faulted sediment

package sitting on basement in which case magnetic inversion may not be a lot of help as

the sub‐basins would likely have little to do with the basement profile.

The radiometrics did not help a lot except to highlight a uranium rich (in a relative sense)

drainage off to the east.

6.4. Landsat TM Remote Sensing Study

Auvex commissioned Remote Sensing and Geological Services (Garreg Pty Ltd), H (Taff)

Davies, to undertake a remote sensing study across the project.

Two mosaiced Landsat Thematic Mapper strips were purchased from Geoimage Pty Ltd,

Perth, WA. The TM imagery comprised six 30 metre resolution bands. The TM imagery was

processed in ER Mapper to produce TIF files for importation into MapInfo and for

interpretation and mapping purposes. A complete discussion of the processing and

interpretation is included in the technical report as Appendix 2.

Interpretation of the images identified 70 absorptive targets across the project.

Interestingly the interpretation indicated that the manganese mineralisation on EL 26380

and EL 27044 is related to structure, reinforcing the aeromagnetic interpretation. Each of

the targets was reviewed against previous data and inspected in the field, which discussed

further under Section 6.6.

6.5. Database Compilation

An extensive amount of time was spent retrieving, compiling and establishing a database

with data for the project. Previous data was supplied on CD by the Northern Territory

Department of Resources – Minerals and Energy, Geological Survey, based on an index of

reports identified from searching the on‐line Mineral Exploration Reports.

8

Data retrieved comprised most exploration, including surface geochemistry, drilling and

geophysics, completed by Elkedra. A database management group, rOREdata Pty Ltd, Perth

were contracted to import the historic information and data collected by Auvex. This work

commenced in July 2010 and was completed towards the end of August 2010.

6.6. Data Review and Reconnaissance Exploration

During the reporting period two phases of reconnaissance exploration were completed over the project in March and October 2010. A reconnaissance field inspection of known manganese outcrops previously identified by Elkedra was undertaken between the 26 and 28 March 2010. A helicopter, sourced from Alice Springs Helicopters (ASH), was used to inspect some of the more difficult to access localities on the 28 March 2010. Manganese outcrops inspected included, based on the naming convention from Elkedra: Location 44; Location 50; Lucy Creek 2; Lucy Creek 4; MRS79 and MRS80 over EL 25983, EL 26380, EL 26904 and EL 27044. A total of nine rock chip samples (GB030 to GB038) were collected and subsequently assayed. It was observed that the majority of the manganese mineralisation comprised replacement of thin, generally 5cm to 30cm thick, flat‐lying horizons with a sandstone unit of the Tomahawk Formation. Although in some instances these occurrences were extensive, occurring over areas greater than 1,000 metres by 200 metres, they were not considered likely to represent a large mineralised system or target. Nat Cull of Point Repose Consulting Pty Ltd, Perth, was contracted between September and November 2010 to undertake a review of the aeromagnetics, previous exploration data and remote sensing targets and generate priority targets for further reconnaissance exploration. In addition to the 70 targets from the remote sensing study another 25 targets were identified from the review by Point Repose. A reconnaissance exploration program was undertaken between 17 and 22 October 2010. ASH was again used to inspect each of the targets in the field and to collect 22 rock chip sample (GB040 to GB061). A total of six targets (18, 25, 30, 47, 92 and 95) were identified for further evaluation. Most of the targets showed evidence of hydrothermal brecciation and altered fluid pathways with carbonates. A complete discussion of the data review and results from inspection of the targets is included in the technical report as Appendix 3. 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Rock chip sampling of mostly known manganese outcrops confirms significant grades with

15 of 35 samples assayed returning grades >30% Mn. Analysis of five petrophysics samples

9

confirms that gravity, Induced Polarisation (IP) or Electromagnetic (EM) geophysical

techniques could be useful techniques for local and regional targeting of manganese.

Reconnaissance exploration over 95 aeromagnetic and remote sensing targets has identified

six targets that warrant further evaluation (18, 25, 30, 47, 92 and 95). Remote sensing

proved to be a useful technique with four of the 70 targets generated warranting further

evaluation from field inspection.

Field inspection shows evidence of hydrothermal brecciation and highly altered fluid

pathways within favourable carbonate stratigraphy within the project.

It is proposed that a mixture of EM and ground IP (Gradient Array) will be used to evaluate

the six areas and identify targets for drill testing during 2011.

REFERENCES

Kruse PD, Brakel AT, Dunster JN, Duffett ML, 2002. Tobermorey, Northern Territory. 1:250

000 Geological Series Explanatory Notes, SF 53‐12. Northern Territory Geological Survey and Geoscience Australia.

750,000 mE 800,000 mE 850,000 mE 900,000 mE7

,45

0,0

00

mN

7,5

00

,00

0 m

N650,000 mE 700,000 mE

7,5

50

,00

0 m

N7

,60

0,0

00

mN

EL25982

EL27313

EL26904

EL25983

EL26380

EL27044

EL27315EL27314

EL27985

EL25982

EL27313

EL26904

EL25983

EL26380

EL27044

EL27315EL27314

EL27985

Sta

te B

oa

rde

r

Auvex Resources LimitedGeorgina Basin Project

Location Plan

MGA 94 Zone 53January 2011

Scale: 1:1000000

QUEENSLAND

672,000 mE 674,000 mE 676,000 mE7

,52

0,0

00

mN

7,5

18

,00

0 m

N7

,52

2,0

00

mN

7,5

24

,00

0 m

N7

,52

6,0

00

mN

7,5

28

,00

0 m

N670,000 mE

7,5

30

,00

0 m

N


Scale 1:50000

Auvex Resources LimitedGeorgina Basin Project Area

EL26380Rock Chip Sample Locations

Tomohawk Formation

Tomohawk FormationBase

720,000 mE 730,000 mE7

,50

0,0

00

mN

7,4

90

,00

0 m

N7

,51

0,0

00

mN

700,000 mE 710,000 mE7

,52

0,0

00

mN

7,5

30

,00

0 m

N7

,54

0,0

00

mN


EL26904 and EL25983Rock Chip Sample Locations


Scale: 1:200000

680,000 mE 682,000 mE 684,000 mE 686,000 mE7

,53

2,0

00

mN

7,5

28

,00

0 m

N7

,53

0,0

00

mN

7,5

34

,00

0 m

N7

,53

6,0

00

mN

678,000 mE7

,53

8,0

00

mN

7,5

40

,00

0 m

N


Scale 1:50000


EL27044Rock Chip Sample Location

Tomohawk FormationBase

Sandplain

Tomohawk FormationQuartzose

Tomohawk Formation

674,000 mE672,000 mE 676,000 mE7

,52

0,0

00

mN

7,5

22

,00

0 m

N7

,52

4,0

00

mN

668,000 mE 670,000 mE7

,52

6,0

00

mN

7,5

28

,00

0 m

N7

,53

0,0

00

mN

7,5

32

,00

0 m

N

Auvex Resources LimitedGeorgina Basin Project

Tenement EL26380 - Lucy CreekLocations of Samples Submitted for Petrophysics Analyisis


Scale 1:1000000

600,000 mE 650,000 mE7

,45

0,0

00

mN

7,5

00

,00

0 m

N7

,55

0,0

00

mN

7,6

00

,00

0 m

N700,000 mE 750,000 mE 800,000 mE

LEGEND

Tenement Boundaries

2010 Aeromagnetic Reprocessed data

Auvex Resources LimitedGeorgina Basin ProjectTotal Magnetics Image

Regional Coverage and Reprocessed Area.


Scale: 1:1000000

7,5

25

,00

0 m

N7

,55

0,0

00

mN

7,5

75

,00

0 m

N825,000 mE750,000 mE 775,000 mE 800,000 mE

7,5

00

,00

0 m

N7

,47

5,0

00

mN

700,000 mE650,000 mE 675,000 mE 725,000 mE

MANGANESE EXPLORATION TARGETS

LITHOLOGY

GEOGRAPHY

LINEATIONS

Nat Cull ManganeseTargets

Taff Davies Manganese Targets

Sand PlainSheet Wash

Alluvium

Arrinthrunga Formation Base

Arrinthrunga Formation

Carlo Sandstone Formation

Coolibar Formation Base

Cza Austral Downs Limestone Lower

Cza Austral Downs Limestone Upper

Kelly Creek Formation Base

Kelly Creek Formation

Kelly Creek Formation Quartzose

Ninmaroo FormationNora Formation

Tomohawk Formation Base

Tomahawk Formation

Tomohawk Formation Quartzose

Jurassic-Cretaceous Undifferentiated

Lake

Spatial Targets

Bedding

Drainage

Major Interactive Faults

Fractures Faults

Major Faults

Weakly Absorptive Areas

Absorptive Points

Absorptive Areas

Trend Lines

Auvex Resources LimitedGeorgina Basin

Manganese Targets and GeologyInterpreted from TM Imagery

Projection: MGA 94 Zone 53January 2011

Scale 1:100000Author: H.Davies. of Remote Sensing and Geological Services

0 10

Kilometres

Appendix 1

List of Magnetics and Radiometrics MapInfo Images

• Auvex_GB_TMI_Sun180L ‐ TMI Image (L) Shaded with 50% South Gradient

• Auvex_GB_TMI_Sun180NL ‐ TMI Image (NL) Shaded with 50% South Gradient

• Auvex_GB_TMI_Sun180L ‐ TMI Image (NL) Shaded with 50% South Gradient

• Auvex_GB_TMI0p5VD_NL ‐ TMI 0.5 Vertical Derivative Image (NL) flat greyscale

• Auvex_GB_TMI1VD_NL ‐ TMI First Vertical Derivative Image (NL) flat greyscale

• Auvex_GB_TMI1p5VD_NL ‐ TMI 1.5 Vertical Derivative Image (NL) flat greyscale

• Auvex_GB_TMI1VD_AGC7_NL ‐ TMI First Vertical Derivative Image (NL) with Automatic Gain Control (AGC) flat greyscale

• Auvex_GB_TMITILT_NL ‐ TMI Tilt Angle Image (NL) flat greyscale

• Auvex_GB_TMIVITILT_Sun180NL ‐ Tilt Angle of Vertical Integral of TMI (TMIVI) (NL) Shaded with 50% South Gradient

• Auvex_GB_AS_Sun180NL ‐ Analytic Signal Image (NL) Shaded with 50% South Gradient

• Auvex_GB_AS_Sun180L ‐ Analytic Signal Image (L) Shaded with 50% South Gradient

• Auvex_GB_VIAS_Sun180NL ‐ Analytic Signal of TMIVI Image (NL) Shaded with 50% South Gradient

• Auvex_GB_RTP_Sun180L ‐ RTP Image (L) Shaded with 50% South Gradient

• Auvex_GB_RTP_Sun180NL ‐ RTP Image (NL) Shaded with 50% South Gradient

• Auvex_GB_TMIon1VD_Sun180L ‐ TMI over TMI1VDImage (L) Shaded with 50% South Gradient

• Auvex_GB_RTPon1VD_Sun180L ‐ RTP over RTP1VDImage (L) Shaded with 50% South Gradient

• Auvex_GB_Ternary_L ‐ Ternary Radiometrics (L) (Red:K, Green:Th, Blue:U)

• Auvex_GB_Ternary_NL ‐ Ternary Radiometrics (NL) (Red:K, Green:Th, Blue:U)

• Auvex_GB_Tern_TC_Sun180L ‐ Ternary Radiometrics (L) with TC South shading (Red:K, Green:Th, Blue:U)

• Auvex_GB_Tern_TC_Sun180NL ‐ Ternary Radiometrics (NL) with TC South shading (Red:K, Green:Th, Blue:U).

Appendix 2

Landsat TM Remote Sensing Study Report

AUVEX RESOURCES

SOUTH GEORGINA BASIN – NORTHERN TERRITORY THEMATIC MAPPER – BASED

REMOTE SENSING STUDY

5th June 2010 Prepared by H. Davies REMOTE SENSING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES

CONTENTS

Page 1. Objectives 1 2. Information Base 2 3. Image Processing 3 4. Spectral Targets 5 5. Stratigraphy 7 6. Manganese Targets 8 Images and Maps

- 1 –

1. OBJECTIVES

This rem ote sensing study was undertaken for Auvex Resources to establish

manganese targets in the South G eorgina Basin of the N orthern Territory.

Most manganese deposits have a sedim entary origin and tend to upgrade at or

near su rface. This m eans that spatially they often have an enlarg ed outcrop

expression which produces easily identifiable exploration targets.

Spectrally, these would be characterise d by very high absorption through the

visible and near infrared spectral wavelengths. There are few naturally

produced substances that do this, even iron oxides generally have som e

elevated component to their spectra wh ich can be exploited to discrim inate

them from manganese. Exceptions to this may be organic muds and carbon

associated with fire burns. There are also reports of black chalcedonic material

being present in som e areas and thes e to m ay create exploration target

ambiguity.

The com bination of a strong spectral co ntrast and potentially large target

dimension identifies m anganese as an easy m aterial to explore for under m ost

circumstances. In the South Georgina Basin these conditions are near optim al.

The sequence within the basin is predom inantly sedim entary and these

sediments m ay be eith er chem ical or clas tic a nd are of ten pallid – i. e. they

contrast strongly with the spectral properties of m anganese. Outcrop is near

complete in many areas and the perv asive lateritisation so common in Western

Australia is absent from this part of the Georgina Basin.

In addition there are a num ber of reco rded m anganese deposits, all located

within one of the m ajor stra tigraphic units, an d it was considered th at these

could be used to refine a spectral signa ture for m anganese. The objectives of

this project therefore devolved into an exercise to identify potential

manganiferous targets and to position them within the Georgina Basin

stratigraphy. Mapping out this stratigraphy enabled a more focused

- 2 -

identification of targets as well as providing a m ore de tailed, upgraded

stratigraphy within the tenements.

2. INFORMATION BASE

A package of infor mation is provided by the Northern Territory Geological

Survey, which includes geological m aps, stratigraphic inform ation,

geophysical and geochem ical data, satelli te images, metallogenic notes and so

on. This w as used to build a m ore detailed stratigraphy broadly com patible

with the terminology and chronology used by the Survey.

This was es sential as lithologica l elements of the str atigraphic assemblage are

often duplicated vertically and laterally throughout the South Georgina Basin.

These elements cannot be identified using satellite imagery alone.

The Auvex tenem ent interest in the Ge orgina basin consist of a contiguous

block of nine granted Exploration Li cences and one detached applied-for

license located to the north east of the m ain block. In aggregate these cover

9492 square kilometres.

Two mosaiced Thematic Mapper strips were purchased from the Perth office of

Geoimage. TM i magery has been available since the m id 1980’s and the

current Landsat satellite provides six 30 metre resolution bands, including the

red-green-blue visible wave length bands, three very n ear infrared ban ds and

two low re solution the rmal bands, togeth er with a 15 m etre res olution

panchromatic band. The latter can be used to ‘pan-sharpen’ the other bands to

give a higher spatial re solution wh ile pre serving m uch of the origina l TM

spectral resolution. T his m ozaiced im agery covered a rectangular area of

approximately 350 kilometres square.

- 3 - 3. IMAGE PROCESSING

The TM i magery was processed in ER Mapper to give a series of three band

colour composite and colour ratio im ages and then converted to TIF files for

importation into MapInfo for interpretation and mapping purposes. One of the

manganese occurrences located on the NT Geological Survey South Georgina

Basin sheet was used to develop a manganese spectral.

This occurrence probably equates to that shown on the geological map as Lucy

Creek 2, and represents a single m anganese outcrop about 800 m etres in

length. It is recorded as containing over 40% manganese and was extensively

sampled by Auvex in May of this year. It is reas suring that, without prior

knowledge of its location, this occurrenc e was selected as one of the first

exploration targets during this survey.

Measurement of the darkest pix els with in the outcrop were m ade using the

‘cell values’ function in ER Mapper, ga ve statistical data on a kernel around

the pixel w hich showed a consistent elevation in bands 5 and 7, with band 5

being the highest. The res ponses for bands 1, 2 and 4 were quite low, and the

visible red band 3 was only slightly elevat ed relative to th e others. Statis tics

on probable carbon-rich m aterial, probable iron oxide s and other absorptive

material failed to show this lift in the longer wavelengths.

A typical average reflectance for the Lucy 2 manganese outcrop would be :-

B1-65, B2-51; B3-69; B4-44; B5-104; B7 -94. Haze affects all bands to some

degree. In tropical regions this atmo spheric phenomena can render the shorter

wavelength bands 1, 2 and som etimes 3 practically un usable. O ver the

Georgina Basin at the time the images were captured, atmospheric haze effects

were minimal and a d ark pixel subtr action applied to each band had minim al

effect on image quality.

- 4 -

However, the dark pixel subt raction exercise was important in that it amplified

the band differences in rock spectra wh ich was im portant in generating band

ratio im agery. Band ratioing is a simple process of dividing the reflectance

values of one band into another. In the case of m anganese the higher

reflectance of the longer wavelength bands was ratioed with the shorter

wavelength bands to create a bright response for manganese oxide.

On its own, there was considerab le ambiguity with other rock types having a

similar appearance to m anganese, but by the use of an appropriate ratio using

its high absorption factor m anganese wa s converted to a bright orange-red

colour. The ratio imagery was then used in conjunction with three band colour

composite im agery by which the high absorption possible-m anganiferous

targets could be checked against its band ratio response.

A dark to near-b lack area identified on the band 3 5 7 i magery, for exam ple,

would be expected to give a bright m anganese-ratio response on the ratio

scene. Switching one Landsat scene on and another off was a quick method of

checking each target as it was identified.

An addition al facto r was the m orphology of an anom aly. Many absorptive

areas clearly related to dense vegetation patches or organic clay channel fill, so

these could also be omitted from the survey.

The imagery developed for this project contains histogram-modified bands 3 5

7 and 7 4 1 scenes and a num ber of ratio images. As discussed, bands 5 and7

were ratioed with bands 2 and 1 to give a ‘m anganese’ ratio scene, and other

combinations such as bands 5/1; 5/ 4 and 6/4 were generated to amplify

differences in rock spectra. The m ost ef fective of these were im ported into

MapInfo and used throughout the project.

- 5 -

4. SPECTRAL TARGETS

There are a large num ber of spectral targ ets within the main granted tenement

block and several within the pending tenement. The later lie principally within

drainages and are clas sified as ‘weakly abs orptive’. T hey m ay therefore

represent organic clays, dense vegeta tion, or a com bination of these two

elements.

In addition there are a n umber of targ ets located between these two tenem ent

groups and peripheral to the granted tene ments. All targets are divided into

either abso rptive o r weakly abso rptive features. The form er are relatively

scarce and display a characteristic manganese spectral response with high band

5 and 7 features. The latter, on the ot her hand, does not di splay th is lif t in

longer-wavelength reflectance and m ay have other attributes that point to an

anomaly source other than manganese.

This being so, it would be safer to treat all targets as equal and a

reconnaissance of at least one of the targets within a cluster of such targets

would be advisable. Apart from the possible spurious causes detailed above,

the reporting by Auvex of black chalce donic m aterial in the region would,

using the ex isting spectral identif iers, probably present as having m anganese

reflectance properties, with a high band 5 response and lower responses in the

other spectral bands. This exam ple m erely s erves to illu strate th e in herent

ambiguity and instability of ratios as indicators of m ineralisation and

exploration targets.

The influence of m ixed pixe ls and dilution of target signature is a problem

which increases with pixel size. A 30 metre pixel is not large and ASTER and

TM im agery both have this resolution and both provide very useful spectral

data. The step into th e high resolution are a of a f ew metres to sub -metre

resolution im agery is an expensive one and su ch im agery of ten cuts o ut the

very useful band 5 and band 7 spectral information of TM and ASTER. It is

- 6 -

recommended that th is be reserved for the next stage when targets hav e been

defined and more detailed information is required.

The tailing off of strong anomalism to weak is to be expected, and a number of

highly absorptive targets demonstrate this, passing from near complete

absorption of visible and VNIR spectra to various shades of grey which may be

caused by manganiferous of other scree in progressively diminished quantities

away from the target core.

A sm all number of spatia l ta rgets are pr esent within th e tenem ents. These

generally have a circular or domal outline and follow on f rom the interp retive

exercise completed by consultant Nick Locket in December 2001, which

targeted k imberlitic/lamproitic f eatures in a s mall part of the m ain tenem ent

group. In fact it is easy to generate such targets in an environm ent where

sediments are strongly lam inated and gently dipping and therefore easily

eroded into diapire-like structures. W ithout the advantage of a high resolution

airphoto base and a stereographic view it is difficult to differentiate real targets

from spurious anomalies.

- 7 -

5. STRATIGRAPHY

The stratigraphic nom enclature u sed is as def ined by the NT Geological

Survey. This extends from rocks of Ordovician age through to the Tertiary,

and it is presum ed that these are def ined to a la rge extent, a ccording to their

fossil content. That being so the only re finement that can be added during this

interpretation is to f urther break do wn these units on the b asis of dete ctable

compositional differences on the Landsat imagery.

This has be en ca rried o ut with the m ain stratig raphic m embers – the Kelly

Creek Group, the Tom ahawk Formation, the Arrinthrunga Form ation and the

Austral Do wns Lim astone. W ithin thes e there are stron g colour co ntrasts

representing fundamentally different sedi mentary lithologies. To m ake some

use of these a basal unit was established to cover all areas defined by the NT

Geological Survey as being of a particul ar stratigraphic age. These areas often

passed into cover, and at tim es the cover-bedrock boundary was difficult to

define. Also they generally did not display strong lithological differences

detectable on the satellite imagery.

Onto these were m apped the strongly contrasting carbonates and high silica

members of the upper com ponent of the particular unit. These were often

stiking in th eir appearan ce and easily mapped. On the band 3 5 7 i magery,

siliceous sedim ents oft en have a high band 5 reflectance while im pure

sandstones may appear strongly or vivi dly green – a com bined mix of band 5

and band 7. Sedim ents with even a sm all percentage of iron oxide appear red

to pale red in the band 3 5 7 composite imagery.

The f inal objective of the stra tigraphic mapping was to produce a reasonably

detailed geological coverage within the tenements, to define areas of outcrop

and cover and to position exploration targets within th is f ramework. The

resultant map probab ly lies som ewhere betw een th at of the Nick Locket

interpretation and the small scale Geol ogical Survey m ap, with the advantage

that it is in MapInfo format and can be upgraded in areas where some potential

has been proven and there is a need for more detail. In this case a s tep toward

more advanced, high resolution satellite imagery might be required.

6. MANGANESE TARGETS

Target ID East WGS84

North WGS84

Absorption Tenement Maximum Dimensions

01 666700 7565200 1 EL27314 200m 02 659300 7560700 2 EL27314 1100m 03 663600 7560600 2 EL27314 400m 04 665600 7556100 2 EL27314 300m 05 666700 7556600 2 EL27314 300m 06 660100 7548500 3 EL27314 400m 07 660540 7540350 2 EL27314 600m 08 657790 7538250 2 EL27314 200m 09(Group) 656680 7538140 2 EL27314 500m 10 678000 7565000 2 EL27314 350m 11 681700 7562300 2 EL27314 450m 12 682800 7565700 2 EL27314 200m 13 677600 7531500 1 EL27044 200m 14 679700 7532200 1 EL27044 400m 15 682000 7532200 1 EL27044 400m 16 682700 7533200 1 EL27044 200m 17 G 683900 7534300 1 EL27044 500m 18 683000 7536100 2 EL27044 200m 19 698500 7525500 2 EL27044 200m 20 G 701400 7524700 2 EL27044 900m 21 673200 7532000 1 EL27044 200m 22 671700 7529700 1 EL26380 600m 23 671700 7525700 1 EL26380 600m 24 669700 7525000 1 EL26380 200m 25 670500 7523100 1 EL26380 500m 26 671400 7523400 1 EL26380 300m 27 674200 7524400 1 EL26380 200m 28 671500 7522600 1 EL26380 200m 29 670200 7522000 1 EL26380 900m 30 669900 7521600 1 EL26380 400m 31 676000 7526700 1 EL26380 200m 32 669900 7518500 1 EL26380 1600m 33 668400 7517100 1 EL26380 400m 34 667300 7516200 1 EL26380 400m 35 679700 7525800 1 EL26380 400m 36 G 695000 7527500 1 EL26380 800m

37 G 695300 7526500 1 EL26380 700m 38 743400 7556200 2 EL27315 200m 39 752300 7549000 2 EL27313 250m 40 750200 7546000 1 EL27313 200m 41 752000 7545600 1 EL27313 200m 42 696900 7509400 2 EL27313 700m 43 699400 7508500 2 EL25983 200m 44 701400 7507900 2 EL25983 300m 45 688600 7498000 1 EL25983 500m 46 693400 7498900 1 EL25983 1300m 47 716200 7480800 1 EL25983 500m 48 (G) 724500 7486400 1 EL25983 1000m+ 49 (G) 729100 7486800 1 EL25983 2000m+ 50 (G) 731200 7486900 1 EL25983 700m 51 (G) 736100 7484900 1 EL25983 300m 52 (G) 727600 7476600 2 EL25983 60m 53 739700 7485400 1 EL25983 200m 54 740900 7484800 1 EL25983 600m 55 743540 7484660 1 EL25983 500m 56 744200 7493300 2 EL25983 200m 57 744100 7496600 2 EL25983 700m 58 (G) 733700 7497900 1 EL25983 500m 59 743700 7540200 1 EL26904 700m 60 719500 7529000 1 EL26904 600m 61 746100 7503800 2 EL25982 300m 62 771700 7503600 1 EL25982 200m 63 772700 7495400 2 EL25982 200m 64 765000 7476800 1 EL25982 500m 65 756600 7476600 1 EL25982 400m 66 755400 7480700 1 EL25982 500m 67 754300 7481300 1 EL25982 400m 68 751400 7482800 1 EL25982 300m 69 746300 7482900 1 EL25982 600m 70 771600 7503500 2 EL25982 200m

Appendix 3

Data Review and Field Excursion Report

1

AUVEX RESOURCES LIMITED

Georgina Basin Data Review and Field Excursion Report

November 2010

I. Shackleton

N. Cull

2

Contents Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 3

Data Review ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Target Generation ................................................................................................................................... 5

Hydrothermal Brecciation ....................................................................................................................... 5

Lucy Creek Style Manganese Mineralisation .......................................................................................... 5

Categorisation and Prioritisation of Targets ........................................................................................... 9

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 14

Tables

Table 1: Auvex granted tenements relating to this report ............................................................... 3

Table 2: Explanations of Geological Images ................................................................................... 13

Figures

Figure 1: Lucy Creek Mineralisation Schematic ................................................................................. 7

Figure 2: The Lucy Creek area shown adjacent to NE trending structures. ....................................... 8

Figure 3: Georgina Basin Field Excursion Images ............................................................................. 11

Appendices Appendix A: Target names, coordinates and basis for geophysical, structural and aerial

interpretational targets................................................................................................. 16

Appendix B: Target names, coordinates, basis and priorities for all targets. ................................... 17

Appendix C: Field Notes .................................................................................................................... 18

3

Overview Auvex Resources has the right to explore over a number of granted tenements in the Northern

Territory, Australia. Details of these tenements are listed in Table 1. Nat Cull was tasked with

reviewing existing data and generating targets prior to a field trip to the region. A number of existing

targets generated by H (Taff) Davies, documented within the report “Thematic Mapper‐Based

Remote Sensing Study, June 2010”, were also visited.

Ian Shackleton (Auvex Exploration Manager), and Nat Cull (Consultant Geologist), visited the

tenement area from 17th – 22nd October 2010. Accommodation was provided by Tarlton Downs

Station and transport between sites was provided by Alice Springs Helicopters.

This report aims to appraise the tenement holdings by way of reviewing all available data and

compiling comments and recommendations following an investigative field trip. Further to this, the

report aims at progressing to the next stage of exploration.

Table 1: Auvex granted tenements relating to this report

Tenement ID Area Name Area (ha)

EL26904 Tarlton Downs 160,678

EL27044 Algamba 37,030

EL27313 Mt Pozieres 120,106

EL27314 Lucy Creek North 120,428

EL27315 Desert Bore 119,784

EL25982 Horse Creek 125,902

EL25983 Halfway Dam 128,800

EL26380 Lucy Creek 71,162

EL27985 Rocky Creek 59,900

Rock chip and thin section samples were collected from numerous sites. The assay and petrological

results are not part of this report.

4

Data Review A data review was undertaken as part of the scope of works.

Initially, the geological settings were reviewed in order to gain an understanding of the prospectivity

of the over‐all area. The Arrinthrunga Formation (predominantly dolostone), Tomohawk Formation

(sandstone), Keepera Group (dolostone), Ninmaroo Formation, and the Mopunga Group (siliclastic

sediments) all contain known occurrences of manganese.

Several publications elude to hydrothermal processes being responsible for manganese

replacement. There are records of breccia textures in high grade manganese hand samples along

with siliceous in‐filling. There are also mentions of karst structures, and epithermal origins. No single

publication claims to have definitively identified the style of mineralisation.

The Northern Territory Geological Survey (NTGS) literature mentions dissolution of carbonates as

being associated with hydrothermal processes. Carbonate units within the Georgina Basin are

documented by the NTGS as varying in thickness between 0 to 120 metres. The Arthur Creek

Formation is commonly over 400 metres thick and contains dolomitic units. The fact that these

carbonate units exist as considerable thicknesses allows for dissolution on a greater scale and hence

does not rule out Woodie Woodie style manganese mineralisation styles.

Elkedra reports surmise that the manganese mineralisation is most likely supergene deposits laid

down by groundwater moving through sub‐vertical fractures, collapse‐features, and permeable sub‐

horizontal country rock units.

Elkedras applied method for manganese exploration was simple. Various manganese occurrences

were defined and recorded. Rock chip samples were collected and a drill program was carried out

over the area deemed to be most prospective.

The drill hole data appears to be in good order and the logging appears to be of good quality. The

drill assay data that was collated from Lucy Creek was considered to be of such a low grade as to not

warrant modelling or metallurgical test work. Elkedra did, however note that more work was

warranted in the area.

The geology of the Georgina Basin is well documented and has been covered in considerable detail.

The vast majority of sedimentary strata is relatively undeformed allowing for simple aerial

interpretations. At this stage of exploration, it is unnecessary for further geological mapping data to

be collected as the existing data appears to be detailed and robust. Detailed mapping of individual

manganese occurrences would assist in building a more robust geological model.

5

Target Generation A report generated by H (Taff) Davies entitled “Thematic Mapper‐Based Remote Sensing Study”,

June 2010, outlined a list of seventy (70) targets. These were generated by spectral analysis.

A further twelve (12) targets were generated by Nat Cull (consulting geologist). These were

generated by collating geophysical (TM) responses, geological boundaries, structural interpretations,

and aerial imagery. Details of these targets are outlined in Appendix A.

The entire set of target numbers, coordinates, and reasons are located in Appendix B.

Hydrothermal Brecciation There is some evidence for hydrothermal brecciation within manganese mineralised sandstone beds,

although it is not commonly seen. Brecciation types include matrix supported, jigsaw, and crackle

breccias. Zones displaying mineralised brecciation could give clues as to the possibility of feeder

zones existing in relatively close proximity.

Evidence of Fe replacement of manganese and manganese replacement of Fe was also recorded.

Very thin (5mm wide) seams of high concentration manganese were recorded within lower grade

manganiferous material. These seams were contained within a siliceous manganese material that

has been suggested to be braunite. The differing concentrations on a small scale, and the

hydrothermal textures indicate that a number of mineralising events may have occurred.

Manganese mineralisation that is adjacent to structurally complex zones and also display matrix

supported breccia could indicate areas for manganese mineralisation at depth. Matrix supported

breccia is generally caused by either higher pressure/temperature hydrothermal fluids or multiple

phases of fluid injection.

Lucy Creek Style Manganese Mineralisation The manganese occurrences from the Lucy Creek area were visited on 19/10/2010. The

mineralisation appears extensive due to the large areas of ground covered by manganiferous

material. This material is simply scree and float material that has eroded from the manganiferous

sandstone ‘seam’ that is evident in the upper parts of the surrounding sandstone hillocks or mesas.

The manganiferous ‘seams’ are relatively thin (5 to 30cm wide), and are shallow dipping. Seam

thickness is difficult to determine due to limited clean exposure and the leaching and staining

properties of manganese. The seams are discontinuous due to removal of material by erosion.

6

The surficial material occurs as a very shallow skin of scree and float material. Although easily

removed and processed, the product tonnes of both the scree and remnant mineralised seams is

negligible.

If mining were to ever progress in the area, it may be worthwhile to classifying typical Lucy Creek

manganese formations into categories. This could be done on surface area, topography, manganese

and deleterious element concentrations, as well as form of ore. An estimate could be made as to

approximate tonnes of product achievable from each surficial deposit.

There is some evidence for hydrothermal brecciation, although it is not commonly seen. Evidence of

Fe replacement of manganese and manganese replacement of Fe was also recorded. Very thin (5mm

wide) seams of high concentration manganese were recoreded within lower grade manganiferous

material. These seams were contained within a siliceous manganese material that has been

suggested to be braunite. The differing concentrations on a small scale, and the hydrothermal

textures indicate that a number of mineralising events may have occurred.

It is likely that the Lucy Creek manganiferous fluids were derived from either a fault structure or a

shallow intrusive unit. Given that the Georgina Basin could be seen to contain a large

manganiferous/ferrous system, it is not unreasonable to propose that manganese rich fluids have

travelled a considerable distance to replace sandstones within the Lucy Creek formation.

The Lucy Creek style seams are tabular. Field observations could not distinguish petrological

differences between the sandstone beds. The manganese may have preferentially replaced

sandstone beds with higher carbonate content. More likely is that manganiferous fluids have

become over‐pressured within the sedimentary strata, which has led to replacement along planes of

weakness (image I).

There are a number of possible mineralisation models for the Lucy Creek area. Figure 1, below, is a

schematic representation of two similar scenarios.

7

B

C

D

A

A

A—Deposition of unaltered sedimentary

sequences.

B – Manganese bedding replacement or fissure fill

along planes of weakness from source at depth. Some

brecciation may occur.

C—Erosion exposes or removes mineralised seams.

Formation of manganiferous scree slopes and float material.

D—Dissolution at depth associated with

carbonates induces slumping.

B

C

D

C—Slumping associated with dissolution at depth

caused by injection of manganese emplacement

fluids.

D– Erosion creating manganiferous scree slopes and

residual manganese.

Scenario A

Scenario B

Figure 1: Lucy Creek Mineralisation Schematic

8

It is unlikely that Lucy Creek types of manganese deposits will ever be mined due to the magnitude

of mineralised zones. Large scale slumping of sediments (image T) could be caused by dissolution of

carbonates at depth by fluids responsible for the Lucy Creek manganese mineralisation. If this is the

case, it is possible for large scale manganese replacement to occur in and adjacent to these areas.

Alteration and dissolution of limestone (image R) has been identified immediately below sandstones

and adjacent to manganese and iron mineralisation (image O and Q).

Alternatively, significant amounts of manganese mineralisation may exist in ‘feeder’ systems. These

could likely be located in or adjacent to structural linearments.

The Lucy Creek area contains a significant amount of manganese within a relatively defined area.

This area is constrained by a number of substantial fault structures trending East North East and

North East. See Figure 2. Image displays TM response.

Figure 2: The Lucy Creek area shown adjacent to NE trending structures.

9

Categorisation and Prioritisation of Targets Many of the targets were unable to be explained. The spectral targets that could not be explained

can be removed from the list of priorities at this early stage. A sample of claypan material was

collected from such a target in an effort to determine why such a spectral response was returned on

these areas. The geophysical/structural targets that showed no sign of surface manganese should be

assigned a low priority, however the areas should not be discounted as mineralisation is possible at

depth.

Large amounts of iron rich material was also found on numerous targets. This could be viewed as a

positive sign as iron is likely to use the same fluid pathways as manganese. Silica could also fall into

this category, however silicification in the Georgina Basin is common due to the large amounts of

siliceous sediments.

The manganese at Lucy Creek is remnant or residual manganese. It occurs as float material that has

originated from manganese accumulations associated with local manganiferous bedding

replacement of sandstones. The amount of manganese on surface at the Lucy Creek target areas is

considerable. The degree of brecciation, and the manganese grades are significant. It is fair to

assume that the origin of this manganese mineralisation could contain a sizeable resource and it is

with this in mind, that Lucy Creek (Target 30) warrants further investigation.

Priority targets are summarised in Appendix B.

Target 18 revealed in‐situ manganese that appears to be of a high grade, with a low iron content.

The manganese did not appear to be flat lying (bedding replacement), was very siliceous, and

displayed a high degree of brecciation. The exposed manganese appeared to be more siliceous along

its boundaries and has two adjacent occurrences 100m by 20m in size. Two smaller outcrops were

also found in the vicinity. This target has been given highest priority for further work.

Target 47 is second on the priority list. In–situ manganese mineralisation extends over a large area.

Very hard and competent limestone is overlain by sandstones and minor quartz arenite beds. High

concentrations of iron and manganese are recorded at the carbonate/silica contact. Non‐

manganiferous alteration zones are evident within the limestone. This hints at the possibility of

numerous phases of fluid injection along multiple fluid pathways.

The iron and manganese are estimated to be of relatively high grade although there is more iron

than manganese. It is possible that the manganese has incompletely replaced the iron at surface.

The overlying siliceous units would perform well as a mineralised fluid trap.

Target 95 is of high significance. Although similar in style to typical Lucy Creek mineralisation, it

seemingly has a vertical component. It is a sizeable outcrop on relatively flat topography and

appears to be manganese replacement within sandstone. The edges of the outcrop are quite well

defined.

Target 25 displays apparent high grade manganese mineralisation. Some of the mineralised material

is relatively soft and gives the appearance of pyrolusite. Mineralisation is predominantly

10

replacement of sandstone, however some manganese brecciation and secondary mineralisation is

evident.

Target 92 is of interest. The basis for this target was the TM low and the adjacent inferred fault. The

target was not intended to be exactly on the point, rather as a zone surrounding it. Within this zone,

two closely spaced significant outcrops were identified and sampled.

11

Images

A Lucy Creek Mn

occurrence showing

mineralisation on southern

side of hill. Lucy_Crk5.JPG

B Highly altered sandstone from Lucy

Creek. Mostly Fe

replacement with minor

Mn replacement.

C Strong Mn

mineralisation on

eastern side of Lucy Creek area. Forms

scree and outcrop.

Lucy_Crk11.JPG

D Apparent folding of

mineralised seam at

Lucy Creek.

Lucy_Crk17a.JPG

E Incomplete manganese replacement

of silica. Target18a.JPG

F Incomplete manganese replacement of

silica predominantly along planes of

weakness. Target18b.JPG

G High grade manganese

mineralisation within sandstone

joint planes. Described in

literature as manganocrete.

H Matrix supported hydrothermal

brecciation with angular to

subangular sandstone Mn oxide

fragments. Target25e.JPG

I Manganiferous

bedding plane

replacement.

J Vertical manganiferous seam.Target25J.JPG

K Botryoidal manganese.

Target33b.JPG

Figure 3: Georgina Basin Field Excursion Images

12

L Extensive area of Mn float or residual

manganese. Target33c.JPG

M Manganocrete infilling along

planes of weakness. Target43a.JPG N Manganese coating on sandstone

surfaces. Target43c.JPG

O High grade haematite with manganese (likely

braunite) as inclusions. Target47e.JPG

P Limestone close to sandstone

contact. Target47i.JPG.

Q Foreground limestone,

overlain by Fe/Mn

mineralisation, overlain by

sandstone with minor quartz

arenite. Target47j.JPG.

S Macro joint sets and fractures within

sandstone visible from air following unseasonal

and excessive rainfall. Joint_sets4.JPG

R Altered and unaltered limestone.

Target47k.JPG

T Large scale slumping of sedimentary strata.

Target85slumping.JPG

13

Table 2: Explanations of Geological Images

Image Description

A

Lucy Creek manganese occurrence showing mineralisation on southern side of hill. Manganese appears to 'leak' from one main manganese rich 'seam'. A large amount of scree and float material gives the impression of a large manganese occurence when viewed from the air. Lucy_Crk5.JPG

B

Highly altered sandstone from Lucy Creek. Mostly iron replacement with minor manganese replacement. Appears as if complete iron replacement has been followed by incomplete manganese replacement within this particular specimen. Original texture is completely obliterated, raising questions as to whether iron was the first alteration phase. Lucy_Crk9.JPG

C Strong manganese mineralisation on eastern side of Lucy Creek area. Forms scree and outcrop. Manganese is commonly very mobile and tends to replace or strongly stain most units. This tends to exagerate surface expressions. Lucy_Crk11.JPG

D Apparent folding of mineralised seam at Lucy Creek. This image should be viewed as a large image to fully appreciate the structure. The 'folded' seam is probably the result of complex slumping of underlying stratigraphy. Lucy_Crk17a.JPG

E Incomplete manganese replacement of silica showing broad scale mineralisation with defined mineralised boundaries. Target18a.JPG

F Incomplete manganese replacement of silica predominantly along planes of weakness. Target18b.JPG

G High grade manganese mineralisation within sandstone joint planes. Described in literature as manganocrete. This could be formed by fluidised injection. Target25a.JPG

H Matrix supported hydrothermal brecciation with angular to subangular sandstone manganese oxide fragments. This represents a more extreme brecciation and likely indicates multiple phases of mineralisation. Target25e.JPG

I Manganiferous bedding plane replacement. Mineralisation has either occurred along a plane of weakness or replaced a more 'susceptible' sedimentary bed. (a carbonate rich layer or bed would be more reactive than a sandstone bed) Target25f.JPG

J Vertical manganiferous seam.This could be fault-filled mineralisation or a clastic dyke formed by fluidised injection (also known as fissure-fill). Target25J.JPG

K Surficial botryoidal manganese. Occurring as float. This can also be complete haematite replacement. Target33b.JPG

L Extensive area of manganese float or residual manganese. These areas are relatively common and are generally high in iron and silica. They are not indicative of manfanese at depth. Target33c.JPG

M Manganocrete infilling along planes of weakness. This could indicate higher fluid pressures than target areas with simple bedding replacement. Evidence of multiple phases of mineralisation were not found. Target43a.JPG

14

Image Description

N Manganese coating on sandstone surfaces. This is another example of a 'distractive' mineralised area. The intensity of manganese mineralisation in this area is weak. Target43c.JPG

O High grade haematite with manganese (likely braunite) as inclusions. Thin section work on this mineralisation is advised as the order of replacement is unknown. Target47e.JPG

P Limestone directly below sandstone contact. Target47i.JPG

Q Foreground limestone, overlain by Fe/Mn mineralisation, overlain by sandstone with minor quartz arenite. The siliceous sandstone may have acted as a mineralisation barrier. Target47j.JPG.

R Altered and unaltered limestone located directly beneath sandstone. Target47k.JPG

S Macro joint sets and fractures within sandstone visible from air following unseasonal and excessive rainfall. Joint_sets4.JPG

T Large scale slumping of sedimentary strata. This could be indicative of dissolution of carbonates at depth caused by fluidised injection. Target85slumping.JPG

Conclusion The prospectivity for economical manganese deposits within the Georgina Basin is viewed as

moderate to high. The geology is favourable for hydrothermal/dissolution manganese mineralisation

given the number and size of carbonate units at depth, the evidence of hydrothermal brecciation,

and the highly altered fluid pathways within carbonates. In addition, the extent of manganese

mineralised zones and proximity to interpreted structures (possible fluid conduits) are encouraging

for exploration success.

Six (6) targets have been identified for further work. Geophysical test work over these targets will be

proposed. Siliceous sandstones and shales within the Georgina Basin create problems for many

geophysical techniques. The stand‐out technique, and by no means the cheapest, is the use of

Induced Polarisation (IP). This comes in two forms. One is Dipole‐Dipole IP(DDIP) and the other is

Gradient Array IP (GAIP). DDIP is a very definitive tool that has the ability to accurately identify ore

zone shape and ore zone boundary locations along a particular vertical plane. GAIP is a more useful

exploration tool that pin‐points areas of interest that can then be targeted by drilling. It must be

15

noted that there is no known definitive geophysical technique available that will give conclusive

results.

Air‐borne electromagnetic (EM) surveys, can be useful for more broad scale targeting. One option

for further investigation of Target 92, would be to cover the TM low and associated structure with an

EM survey. Due to the fact that economic manganese deposits can be quite small, a flight line

spacing of no more than 80 metres is advised. Air‐borne EM surveys become incrementally cheaper

upon expansion and simplicity of the area/s to be assessed. It is with this in mind, that an EM survey

should be delayed until all areas within the Auvex tenancy can be assessed to allow for a single

program to proceed. A 17km by 10km wide aerial EM program, with 80m flight line spacings would

cost in the vicinity of $180,000 (not including mobilisation).

Another geophysical tool used for manganese exploration is gravity. This is especially useful when

exploring for massive manganese ore zones within highly altered material that typically have low

density (clays). Electrical techniques have difficulties penetrating clays which tend to return a

masked response. No significant areas of high alteration have been noted over the Auvex

tenements.

The exploration potential for economical manganese in the Lucy Creek area is low to medium and as

such, Lucy Creek is not a high priority target. If exploration were to progress in this area, a

combination of geology and geophysics (GAIP) could be used to further refine targets. Reassessment

of existing drill chips (if they exist), and reassessment of existing drill logs, along with a geological

interpretation of the deeper geology of the area is critical prior to applying a geophysical technique.

The stratigraphy of the area requires understanding so that depths of silica rich layers can be

properly assessed. Silica acts as a very good non‐conductor and tends to mask conducting bodies. If

the silica rich layers are relatively thin, GAIP would be a good choice for further work.

Geologically based manganese exploration techniques useful within the Georgina Basin include the

following:

Identification of zones of subsidence/slumping/collapse structures within zones of

manganese mineralisation (high density surface expressions of manganese).

Identification of areas of structural complexity – especially vertical or steep structures,

spatial examination of Si/Fe/Mn relationships, and

Examination of areas displaying hydrothermal textures, including those identified in core by

Exoil.

16

Appendix A: Target names, coordinates and basis for geophysical, structural and aerial interpretational targets.

Final Target Number Easting Northing Field NotesOriginal Target

NameTargetting Reason

Target 83

7522938 664422

Middle of creek. Darker sandstone.

No Mn to speak of.83 664421.53 7522937.93 NC6

TM high. Along strike of Lucy Creek Minzn trend.

Centre of high anomaly is 680m to the south.

Target 84

7531457 663304

84 663303.75 7531457.16 NC7400m diameter circular feature. No sig. TM anomaly.

Tomahawk base.

Target 85

7547282 676472

Two hills in open area surrounded by

trees.85 676471.66 7547281.7 NC9 Dark cloured area within NE minzd 'zone'

Target 86

7547651 678107

Quartzite hill overlying

sandstone?/pumice? Void of Mn.86 678106.64 7547650.89 NC14

Dark area adjacent to NE structure within zone of

interest (NE minzd trend)

Target 87

7546649 693560

Outcrop of darkish sandstone in

desert sands. No Fe or Mn viewed.87 693559.78 7546648.8 NC10 O/C located interpd NE structure.

Target 88

7527257 704664

Fe scatter over sandstone. 88 704663.55 7527256.81 NC8TM mod low, beside TM high. poss exposure 150m to

the south. Tomahawk base.

Target 89

7545091 737487

Nothing of any interest 89 737487.2 7545091.25 NC3TM low. 2km radius. looks to be covered. Possible

exposure 2.5km to the NE.

Target 90

7556202 742297

Clay pan. There is a lot of

outcropping Fe rich sandstone in the

area.

90 742297.28 7556201.91 NC12, NC13 darkened exposures at Tomahawk base

Target 91

7519483 768177

Faint circular feature. Slightly darker

than usual 'limestone'91 768176.78 7519482.78 NC4

Circular TM feature. 2km radius. Hosted within

Ninmaroo Fmt.

Target 91Mudhole. Check if on junction of

structures.91a 743923.2 7558031.1 NC11

Circular surface features with dark coloured surface

expression

Target 92 751924 7560471

850m east of target. Fe rich outcrops

over extensive area. Very siliceous.

Located above fine to med grained

92 751036.66 7560605.41 NC1TM low. Tomohawk fmt. 1.5-2km radius anomaly

trending E-W

Target 92 743070 7557180

Sandstone/Qtz arenite. One photo of

outcrop next to fence. GB059. Fe rich

with Mn staining.

Target 93 7556812 757947 93 757946.94 7556811.62 NC2 TM low. Tomohawk fmt. 2.5-3km radius anomaly.

Target 95 670854 7541213

GB048. Very siliceous Mn outcrop.

Sandstone replacement. Massive

with no remnant features. 50m x

15m outcrop. Relatively flat

topography.

95 670383.3 7540094.95 NC5Tomahawk Base. TM high - high topgraphy. No

overlying Tmahawk FMT

APPENDIX A.

17

Appendix B: Target names, coordinates, basis and priorities for all targets.

Number MGA94_East MGA94_North Source Absorbtion Target Description

Original

Target

Number

Priority

1 666767.25 7565160.98 Taff Davies Absorbative

2 659436.24 7560783.48 Taff Davies Weak

3 663550.05 7560572.51 Taff Davies Weak

4 665659.7 7556142.24 Taff Davies Weak

5 666661.77 7556669.65 Taff Davies Weak

6 660174.62 7548494.75 Taff Davies Weak

7 660627.71 7540298.21 Taff Davies Weak

8 657782.3 7538299.65 Taff Davies Weak

9 656630.62 7538198.03 Taff Davies Weak

10 678001.16 7565108.26 Taff Davies Weak

11 681745.8 7562260.21 Taff Davies Weak

12 682853.31 7565741.15 Taff Davies Weak


14 679732.44 7532304 Taff Davies Absorbative



18 682950.5 7536063.99 Taff Davies Weak 1

19 698532.41 7525427.64 Taff Davies Weak





25 670484.93 7523175.04 Taff Davies Absorbative 4











36 694941.7 7527477 Taff Davies Weak & Absorbative

37 695212.7 7526359.17 Taff Davies Weak & Absorbative

38 743516.71 7556134.16 Taff Davies Weak

39 752527.11 7549698.15 Taff Davies Weak



42 696974.23 7509506.97 Taff Davies Weak

43 699413.09 7508558.53 Taff Davies Weak

44 701547.18 7507813.3 Taff Davies Weak






50 732440 7486794.65 Taff Davies Absorbative






56 744194.16 7493501.64 Taff Davies Weak

57 743990.97 7496584.14 Taff Davies Weak

58 733761.11 7497939.03 Taff Davies Weak


60 719398.58 7529018.25 Taff Davies Weak & Absorbative

61 746091.09 7503765.36 Taff Davies Weak







APPENDIX B

Number MGA94_East MGA94_North Source Absorbtion Target Description

Original

Target

Number

Priority

70 771564.15 7503494.38 Taff Davies Weak





75 778271.1 7568464.13 Taff Davies Weak


77 779829.31 7582250.79 Taff Davies Weak

78 787213.77 7579269.91 Taff Davies Weak

79 789449.51 7581641.07 Taff Davies Weak

80 793175.58 7580082.87 Taff Davies Weak



83 664421.53 7522937.93 Nat Cull

TM high. Along strike of Lucy Creek

Minzn trend. Centre of high anomaly is

680m to the south.

NC6

84 663303.75 7531457.16 Nat Cull400m diameter circular feature. No sig.

TM anomaly. Tomahawk base.NC7

85 676471.66 7547281.7 Nat Cull Dark cloured area within NE minzd 'zone' NC9

86 678106.64 7547650.89 Nat CullDark area adjacent to NE structure within

zone of interest (NE minzd trend)NC14

87 693559.78 7546648.8 Nat Cull O/C located interpd NE structure. NC10

88 704663.55 7527256.81 Nat Cull

TM mod low, beside TM high. poss

exposure 150m to the south. Tomahawk

base.

NC8

89 737487.2 7545091.25 Nat CullTM low. 2km radius. looks to be covered.

Possible exposure 2.5km to the NE.NC3

90 742297.28 7556201.91 Nat Cull darkened exposures at Tomahawk base NC12, NC13

91 768176.78 7519482.78 Nat CullCircular TM feature. 2km radius. Hosted

within Ninmaroo Fmt.NC4

92 751036.66 7560605.41 Nat CullTM low. Tomohawk fmt. 1.5-2km radius

anomaly trending E-WNC1 5

93 757946.94 7556811.62 Nat CullTM low. Tomohawk fmt. 2.5-3km radius

anomaly.NC2

95 670383.3 7540094.95 Nat CullTomahawk Base. TM high - high

topgraphy. No overlying Tmahawk FMTNC5 3

17G 683661.75 7534031.56 Taff Davies Absorbative NC11

20G 701547.19 7524546.92 Taff Davies Weak

42a 741145.55 7544752.52 Taff Davies Absorbative

59a 743584.48 7540213.44 Taff Davies Absorbative

91a 743923.2 7558031.1 Nat CullCircular surface features with dark

coloured surface expression

18

Appendix C: Field Notes

Target 5 NC Targets

Priority One Targets

Priority Two Targets

19/10/2010

GB040 670330 7522244 Stromatolitic Mn float on side of Lucy Creek Hill. Complete Mn Replacement.

Photos of Fe/Mn "seam" shallow dipping. Fe replacing Mn or Mn replacing Fe? Slight deformation above seam. Very slight brecciation and crossbedding. More Mn on northern side.

GB041 670404 7522141 Mn replacement of Sandstones. (complete replacement in small, 5mm wide, seams that appear to be braunite. It is difficult to determine source)

GB042 670414 7522141 Appears to be coated, but is not. Possibly pyrolusite? Thuds when hit and is dirty.

Target 25 670494 7523207 Mn brecciation and secondary mineralisation. Also bedding replacement of sandstone.

GB044 670492 7523218 Thin fissures of Mn cross cutting shallow dipping sandstone (1‐8cm thick of botryoidal form). This is termed 'manganocrete' within literature.

Target 25 670345 7523363 Thin (1cm) wide Mn seam paralleling bedding above40cm thick alterred sandstone (thinly laminated). Unalterred sandstone above and below.

670336 7523372 Vertical mineralisation (steeply dipping). Striking 340, dipping ‐90. 25‐30cm wide mineralised "dyke" of Fe silicate intruding into alterred sandstone layer. Brecciation evident above this intrusion along with high Fe Mn alongside low Fe Mn.

Target 31 Manganiferous sandstone ‐ low grade. To be flagged as zone of low priority.

Target 13 Mn 'pond'. Lower grade. Botryoidal Mn on dome.

Target 15 300m x 200m manganese 'float' area. Surrounded by 5 Mn 'outcrops'. These could simply be large accumulations. Topography shows depression. Raised ground to NE and NW.

Target 18 682748 7536331 Does not appear to be flat lying. Very siliceous. Hydrothermal features and brecciation are evident. Two adjacent occurences approximately 100m x 20m. Low Fe. Appears to be more siliceous on edges. Striking NW and hosted within sandstone. GB047

Target 18 682715 7536375 approximately 15m wide.

Target 18 682716 7536421 approximately 2m wide.

Target 95 670854 7541213 GB048. Very siliceous Mn outcrop. Sandstone replacement. Massive with no remnant features. 50m x 15m outcrop. Relatively flat topography.

Target 95a 670854 7541213 Small siliceous outcrop 5m x 1m. Hosted within sandstone. Quite abrupt and seemingly vertical. GB049.

Target 85 Two hills in open area surrounded by trees.

Target 86 Quartzite hill overlying sandstone?/pumice? Void of Mn.

20/10/2010

Target 34 (photos 1 and 2) Mn replacement of sandstone. 10cm thick and shallow dipping.

Target 33 (3 photos with long shot and helicopter last) Mn along joints. Sandstone eroded away. Surficial Mn, commonly botryoidal. Google Earth for area estimation.

Target 33 667301 7516197 Two photos from top of hill. Panoramic shows Mn (High Si and Fe) in 1st photo possibly leaking into photo2 under helicopter. No Mn in hill beneath photographer.

Target 83 Middle of creek. Darker sandstone. No Mn to speak of.

Target 24 Thin lens of Mn replacing sandstone.

Target 22 671631 7529732 Two photos of outcrop. Incomplete Mn replacement of sandstone. Walked up hill to stand directly over target. No enriched seam, just weak Mn replacement of sandstone. A few photos taken from hill for Annual Report.

Target 22 Small 'zit' between the 2 hills (near helicopter) is a poorly sorted angular, tan coloured, med‐course grained sandstone. Possibly slumped feature (maybe collapsed structure at depth)

Target 21 three photos from air. Mn weakly replacing sandstone mostly along surfaces. Large area with very low grade.

Target 85 Sandstone. No Mn. Reasonable amount of slumping ‐ variable bedding ‐ photo of large scale slumping.

Target 10 Photo of Ians backside. Fe silicate 0.5m thick hosted in med grained sandstone over reasonably large area.

Target 12 As above (target 10)

Target 87 Outcrop of darkish sandstone in desert sands. No Fe or Mn viewed.

Target 19 Remnant Mn in sandstone ‐ mostly Fe (not Mn). 300m x 150m area. Could not see seam in adjacent hill.

Target 20G Dudd

Target 88 Fe scatter over sandstone.

Target 36 Fe rich sandstone. Extensive area.

Target 37 Fe rich sandstone pooled in low laying depressions. Did not land (DNL).

Target 60 Mn coatings on sandstone. Appears to be extensive beds, but ALL coatings. Outcrop of this material extends approx 200m. Sandstone possibly glauconitic. Photo of backpack beside outcrop.

Target 42 Mn leaking from small hill. Extensive float/agglomerations, most of which is high Fe. DNL

Target 43 3 photos. Manganiferous sandstone. Replacement along bedding and joints. Seam appears to be wide, but is nothing more than mineralised sandstone (along planes of weakness ‐ joints, breaks, and bedding. GB053

Target 44 Minor amount of Fe staining in plain. DNL.

Target 46 Large flat topped sandstone hill. No Mn. DNL.

Target 64 Sandstone (arenite?)adjacent to Fe lag and silicate Fe lag.

Target 69 Fe stone lag. DNL

Target 55 Fe enriched sediments

Target 54 Fe enriched sediments

Target 57 Fe enriched sediments. Most of hill

Target 61 Fe blow out side of sandstone hill. Doubtful to be replacement.

Target 58 Two photos of Fe rich seds

Probably should make mention in report of clay pans/ flood plains being identified in many of the southern targets. Could be very fine heavy mineral deposits?

Target 47 716287 7480833 One close‐up photo of rock. (Fe rich with some Mn growths ‐ also powdery Mn clay) + 2 scenic photos. Fe (+some Mn) replacement in sandstone. One photo of growths within growths ‐ quite manganiferous, but mostly Fe.

Three more photos of haematite with Mn inclusions. Mn approximate 5% of haematite.

GB055 716315 7480783 Massive haematite blows out side of hill. Mn has grown and replaced Fe. Limestone/sandstone contact is where the Fe is leaking. Limestone is very hard, coarse grained and shows typical limestone weathering. Definitely a coarse grained carbonate rock.

Photo of alterred carbonate rock and fresh carbonate with knife edge contact. Alterred is soft and powdery, while fresh is very hard‐ rings when struck. Sandstone predominantly overlays carbonate, however there is evidence that a thin quartz arenite may exist either along the contact or within the sandstone.

21/10/2010

Target 70 Intercalated sandstone and dolostone beds. Alterred material (powdery) within 'cracks' of dolostone. Texas Rose texture evident. No Mn. Minor Fe replacement along bedding.

Target 91 Faint circular feature. Slightly darker than usual 'limestone'

Target 80 Dark mud hole or soak. Possibly gave pin‐prick signature?

Target 82 790584 7589646 Gossanous Fe outcrop. Breccia evidence with approx 20% voids. Fe rich scree over large area. Siliceous. 1 photo

Target 78 Fe lag giving a darker response than surrounding clay rich soils

Target 79 Fe lag giving a darker response than surrounding clay rich soils

Target 77 Photo taken of browner surface ‐ to show typical view of the Fe rich, low laying areas.

Target 76 Extensive Fe 'lag'. Possibly replacing sandstone. One photo from air and one from ground (with pink flowers). No Mn. Minor limonite. Rounded quartz grains indicating possible transportation.

Target 92 751924 7560471 850m east of target. Fe rich outcrops over extensive area. Very siliceous. Located above fine to med grained sandstone. Actual target was clays in creek bed. CHECK THIS. Was there an offset? One photo of outcrop. GB058.

Target 91 Mudhole. Check if on junction of structures.

Target 92 743070 7557180 Sandstone/Qtz arenite. One photo of outcrop next to fence. GB059. Fe rich with Mn staining.

GB060 743076 7557209 Significantly improved Mn grades with less Fe. Mn seam leak.

Target 90 Clay pan. There is a lot of outcropping Fe rich sandstone in the area.

Target 38 Clay pan, mud hole, vegetation.

Target 40 Clay pan, mud hole, vegetation. Took sample of clays.

Target 74 Clay pan, scrub




Target 59 Thick spinifex, claypan

Target 42 Thick spinifex, claypan

Target 89 Nothing of any interest

Target 49 Fe rich quartz arenite below sandstone cap. Float on hillside includes sandstone with fossils, mudstone and conglomerate. Could be meteoric fluids percolating Fe. Maybe insignificant site.

Documents

Georgina Basin Group Annual Report 2010-11 · Figure 4 Georgina Basin EL 27044 Rock Chip Sample Locations 1:50,000 Figure 5 Georgina Basin EL 26380 Petrophysics Sample Locations 1:100,000