Level 3
22 Railway Road
Subiaco 6008
Western Australia

PO Box 8187
Subiaco East
WA 6008
T: +61 8 6146 5325
www.ironbark.gl
admin@ironbark.gl

Monday 19 July 2021
Australian Securities Exchange Limited
Level 40, Central Park,
152-158 St Georges Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
2021 Bankable Feasibility Study Confirms Citronen as World Class Zinc Project
EXIM Loan Application Pending

Ironbark Zinc Limited (“Ironbark”, “the Company” or “IBG”) is pleased to announce the results of the 2021 Bankable
Feasibility Study (“BFS”) for the Citronen Zinc-Lead Project (“Citronen Project”).
2021 Bankable Feasibility Study Highlights•

Robust economics, with the 3.3Mtpa operation to deliver a post-tax free cash flow of
US$1.46 billion (Bn)oPost-tax NPV(8%) of US$363 million (M); IRR 15.2%; CAPEX US$654m•

Significant leverage to future zinc (Zn) price growth; 2.5 million tonnes (Mt) Zn metal produced lifeof mine (LOM) averaging ~130ktpa•

Competitive C1+sustaining capital costs per pound payable zincoYear’s 1 to 5 US$ 0.68/lb; LOM US$ 0.76/lb•

50% increase in mine life to 20 years in a low-risk jurisdiction and emerging mining frontier•

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) approvals and management plans are well advancedoProcess underway to ensure full compliance with Equator Principles and relevant IFC
Performance Standards•

Binding offtake agreements remain in place with major Ironbark shareholders Trafigura (35% of
LOM production) and Glencore 35% (10 years Zn, LOM Pb)•

IBG to now commence formal project financing process with United States EXIM Bank•

Significantly expanded Ore Reserve:•oMineral Resource of 85Mt @ 4.7% Zn and 0.5% Pb

oOre Reserve of 48.8Mt @ 4.8% Zn and 0.5% Pb

Substantial exploration upside

The 2021 BFS represents the first ground-up evaluation of the Project in a decade and supersedes the feasibility
study published on 12 September 2017.

Cautionary Statement:
The contents of this announcement reflect various technical and economic conditions at the time of writing. Given the nature of the resourcesindustry, these conditions can change significantly over relatively short periods of time. Consequently, actual results may vary from thosedetailed in this announcement.

The drivers of the preparation of this BFS were threefold:
1. To update the development plan;
2. To increase the level of confidence in the study parameters; and3. To apply a more conservative risk filter to key economic assumptions to demonstrate the robustnessof cash flows over the extended mine life.
In updating the BFS, IBG has drawn on the services of a range of leading consultants to provide a much broader
assessment of the project opportunities and risks. Some key assumptions adopted in the 2017 study were adjusted
to incorporate the results of additional study work and deliver a realistic assessment of the Project in line with theprevailing outlook.
The combination of these various changes has had a material impact on project economics. These include both theimpact of improved project design and more conservative economic and operational assumptions adopted as partof the financial analysis:•

Mine life extended to 20 years;•

Greatly improved, and more detailed, underground mine design has enhanced efficiency andlowered sustaining capital;•

Significant improvement on per tonne shipping costs;•

Evaluation uses a more conservative zinc price (US$1.30 vs US$1.38/lb);•

A higher ‘real’ discount rate has been applied (8.0% vs 5.5%); NPV(8%) in 2017 had previously
incorporated a 2.5% inflation rate to the zinc price;•

Full recognition of tax liabilities (in the 2017 Feasibility Study Announcement the ‘post tax’ NPV
excluded US$554m owed in withholding tax, impacting the ‘post tax’ NPV*); and•Cost increases occurred across CAPEX, OPEX (mostly energy costs) and overall project contingency*In completing the updated feasibility model the Company revised its previous assumption that withholding
tax should to be excluded from the post-tax NPV of the project. The Company considers the revised
assumption to produce a more prudent and pragmatic estimate than that contained in the prior feasibility
study dated 12 September 2017. The Company confirms however, that no material event or circumstance hasarisen that has necessitated the revision to occur.
While the net effect of these changes is a material decrease in the headline post-tax NPV and IRR, on a like-for-likebasis (using common assumptions) however, the 2021 BFS has delivered an improved financial result (US$48m
higher post tax NPV8%).
Most importantly, the approach enhances the level of confidence ahead of the next project development phasewhich is necessary to secure project funding. The adoption of more conservative CAPEX and OPEX assumptions
together with an increased project contingency and numerous technical and Project advancements since 2017
represents a sound basis for engaging with potential financiers, including the US EXIM Bank.
The Project has also been advanced with notable successes including:•~50% increase in mine life to 20 years;•

Positive reassessment of the further exploration potential of the various deposits;•

Declaration of an increased Ore Reserve;2•

Removal of the vendor NSR Royalty;•

Completion of further permitting (Section 19-43 permit); and•US EXIM Bank Letter of Interest in 2020.

IBG Managing Director Michael Jardine stated:“The 2021 BFS update is the culmination of an intensive reassessment of the development plan for the Citronen
Project. It is a pragmatic and grounded view of the asset that highlights the potential for Citronen to be developed
into a significant producer of zinc metal over multiple pricing cycles.
This study worked through several challenges that required creative thinking, disciplined decision making in termsof trade-offs and a willingness to reconsider some long-standing assumptions about the project. For these reasons I
am much more confident today than I was twelve months ago about the depth of understanding we have, and thesolutions that are proposed.
There are few known large, near surface SEDEX zinc ore bodies that still await development, and even fewer locatedin low sovereign risk countries such as Greenland. Once built, Citronen will be a multi-decade mine underwritten by
the strength of the Company’s existing offtake agreements with Glencore and Trafigura, the world’s largest andsixth largest zinc metal producers respectively.
Given Citronen’s highly strategic location and potential position within the Western World’s zinc value chain, projectfunding solutions were actively progressed in parallel to the BFS workstream resulting in a promising preliminary
dialogue with US EXIM Bank to provide substantial debt support linked to US content. With the completion of thisstudy, it is anticipated that these discussions can now be advanced towards a conclusion.

On behalf of the Board, I would like to thank the dedicated Ironbark team for their hard work over the last 9 months;
some of whom have been with the project since 2006 making them eminently qualified to develop the first everlarge scale mine in Greenland.”3

Maps 1-3 show the location of the Citronen Project in Greenland.
Map 1 – Citronen Project Location4

Map 2 - North Greenland showing the nearest settlements to the Citronen Project

Map 3 - Location of Frederick E. Heyde Fjord and Citronen Fjord

5

Financial Highlights
The financial analysis is based on capital, cost and revenue assumptions derived over the preceding six months
using industry consensus pricing and foreign exchange rates in line with a real discount rate of 8%. Key financial andproduction metrics and assumptions are listed below in Tables 1, 2 & 4.
Table 1 – Citronen Project key financial metrics
LOM US$M
Capex (see Table 3 for further details)(654)

Net revenue (after TCs)

5,431

Opex
Underground mining(1,466)

Open pit mining(30)

Processing

(971)

G&A

(298)

Sustaining capital(70)

Taxes and Royalties (to Greenland Government)(485)

Post tax free cash flow

1,457

C1 Cash Costs + sustaining capex /lb payable Zn (first 5 years)

0.68

C1 Cash Costs + sustaining capital /lb payable Zn (LOM)

0.76

Accumulated tax losses

37

Corporate tax rate in Greenland

25%

Post tax NPV8%

363

IRR

15.2%

Price assumptions

Zn 1.30/lb
Pb 0.95/lb

Treatment charges

160/t

Payability

85%

Opex costs - US$t/ore
O/P Mining

6.66

U/G Mining

25.77

Processing

14.93

G&A

4.58

It is considered that the long-term value generation potential of Citronen is not adequately recognised in the simple
discounted cash flow assessment of the Project’s economic worth given the relatively long initial mine life (20 years)
and the potential for it be extended through further exploration. With its competitive LOM operating cost, theCitronen Project is well positioned to survive periods of low prices and prosper by exploiting the upside in the cycle,
whenever it might occur and for whatever duration it might persist.

6

Figure 1 – Life of mine cash flows (US$ ‘000)
1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0
Yr -3

Yr -1

Yr 2

Yr 4

Yr 6

Yr 8

Yr 10

Yr 12

Yr 14

Yr 16

Yr 18

Yr 20

-500,000-1,000,000
Post Tax FCF

Cumulative Post Tax FCF

Capital expenditure
Total CAPEX (Table 2) has increased from US$514M (2017) to US$654M (2021) as seen in Table 2 with the main
drivers being:•

Genset cost increased by US$30M (new vs. second hand)•Indexation effect of US$27M (cost increases since 2017)•

Airport increased by US$24M (location change due to regulations)•Tailings Storage Facility increased by US$14M (primarily driven by higher earthworks unit costs)•

Concentrate storage and materials handling increased by US$13M (of which US$9M due to changes
to conveying system)

Table 2 – Capital cost estimate

Direct Costs(US$ M)

Mining81

Crushing plant and fine ore feed

16

Process plant

108

Concentrate storage

13

Tailings and water management

27

Plant site

39

Power and heating

80

7

Port

30

Infrastructure (airport and roads)

44

Site services and utilities

6

Temporary services

6

Sub Total – Direct Costs

448

Indirect Costs
Construction

43

Project

89

Owner costs

24

Contingency

49

Sub Total – Indirect Costs

206

TOTAL CAPEX

654

Cost Curve Position
Citronen’s C1 cash costs + sustaining capital of US$0.68/lb payable zinc in years 1-5 and US$0.76/lb LOM average isplotted against industry averages in Figure 2. The superior performance in years 1 to 5 is driven largely by the grade
differential in the Beach Zone relative to either Discovery or Esrum.
Figure 2 – Zinc producers C1+sustaining capital cost curve analysis
110

103

100

95
90

90

82
77

80

71

70
60
60

54

50
40
25th Centile
2020

50th Centile2021e

75th Centile
Citronen Yrs 1-5

90th Centile
Citronen LOM

Source: Wood Mackenzie “Centiles_Zinc” Costs Q2 2021 Zinc-Lead

Sensitivity Analysis
As a near pure zinc play, the Citronen Project demonstrates considerable sensitivity to movements in the zinc priceas expected with every US$0.10/lb impacting NPV by approximately US$150M and post-tax free cash flow by
US$360M (Table 3):8

Table 3 – Sensitivity Analysis
Zn price US$/lb and movement

Change to

-0.10

1.30

+0.10

Post tax NPV8% US$M

-158

363

+156

IRR %

-2.9

15.2

+2.6

Post tax FCF US$Bn

-0.36

1.46

+0.36

Production Highlights
Citronen will be a 3.3Mtpa combined open pit and underground operation treating an average grade of 4.7% Zn
and 0.5% Pb, over an initial 20 year mine life.
The Mine schedule is optimised to prioritise zinc grade in the early years of production, with the highest-grade zone
(Beach Zone) being prioritised for milling. Feed from the underground will be supplemented with ore from the
Discovery open pit. Waste rock generated during the initial development of the open pit and underground
operations will be used as fill for construction purposes (an open pit ore stockpile will be generated ahead of thecommencement of processing). Table 4 contains a breakdown of key mining metrics.

Table 4 – Citronen Project key mining metrics (LOM)

Open pit

UndergroundTotal

Ore tonnes (kt)8,001

Waste tonnes (kt)8,959

Zn grade

2.9%

Pb grade

0.5%

Zn metal tonnes (kt)228

Pb metal tonnes (kt)41

Ore tonnes (kt)

57,043

Waste tonnes (kt)

1,948

Zn grade

5.0%

Pb grade

0.5%

Zn metal tonnes (kt)2,820

Pb metal tonnes (kt)263

Ore tonnes (kt()

65,044

Waste tonnes (kt)

10,907Zn grade

4.7%

Pb grade

0.5%

For the first ten years of mill feed, 92% of ore tonnes will come from Proved and Probable Reserves.

9The Life of Mine plan is driven predominantly from Ore Reserves in the first instance with a modest contribution
from Inferred Mineral Resources. In IBG’s opinion, the Inferred Mineral Resources are likely to be converted into
Measured or Indicated Mineral Resources with further exploration and grade control drilling. The Company intends
to continue infill drilling upon mobilisation to convert Inferred Resources to a higher category.
The life of mine proposed mill feed schedule includes approximately 25% (16.3Mt) Inferred Mineral Resource.
There is a low level of geological confidence associated with Inferred Mineral Resource and there is no certainty
that further exploration work will result in the conversion of the material into a Measured or Indicated Mineral
Resource.
Further details of the mine plan are shown in Figure 3 (Forecast Annual Metal Production), Figure 4 (Total
Production Target by Resource Category and Figure 5 (Forecast Annual Schedule by Resource Category).

Figure 3 – Forecast annual metal production (tonnes)
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
Zinc

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Lead

10

Figure 4 – Total mill feed - Ore Reserve and Inferred Resource
Tonnes% of Production Target

25,000,000

50%

20,000,000

40%

15,000,000

30%

10,000,000

20%

5,000,000

10%

0

0%
ProvedProbable

Inferred

Figure 5 – Forecast Mine Schedule in Project Years by Mineral Resource category (tonnes)
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
-2

-1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Measured8910

Indicated

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Inferred

The elevated zinc metal production (and associated lower C1 Costs) expected in years 2 to 6 on Figure 2 is driven
by the milling of higher-grade Beach Zone Underground Ore, relative to the Discovery Open Pit to the southeast or
Esrum Underground to the northwest. It is the intention of the Board to re-commence exploration drilling upon theestablishment of site infrastructure with the aim of improving the grade profile of the Project by replacing Esrum
tonnes with Beach material in the schedule (Production by Mining Area is shown in Figure 6).

11For further information on the Citronen Exploration Target, please see the ASX announcement dated 11 February
2021. The Exploration Target has not been included in the calculation of the life of mine or project NPV.

Figure 6 – Production by mining area (tonnes)
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
-2

-1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Discovery O/P

8

9

10

Beach U/G

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Esrum U/G

The period highlighted in the red box relates to open pit development for construction fill generation.

Processing highlights
Process flow sheet
The updated flow sheet for the 3.3Mtpa Citronen Project processing circuit involves crushing, Dense Media
Separation (DMS), milling and flotation circuit. The significant changes to the previous flowsheet area aimed at
improving reliability and metallurgical performance, specifically:•

Three stages of crushing (tertiary crushing added);•

The change to primary and secondary ball milling rather than ball milling and vertical mills;•

Increasing the grinding circuit product size (flotation feed size); and•Replacing the multiple small stirred regrind mills with single mills in both lead and zinc regrind.

Crushing
The previous crushing circuit design included a primary jaw crusher and secondary cone crusher to crush ROM ore
to -38mm.
As part of the 2021 BFS, Ausenco reviewed the available comminution test work results and completed simulations
using software to analyse the crushing circuit. The review concluded that the jaw crusher was a suitable size for the
duty while the cone crusher was at its operating limit and therefore it is recommended to investigate a larger unit.
The Metso C140 (42” x 55”) jaw crusher selected in the previous stage has been discontinued by the Metso Outotec
Group (MO Group) so the C150 (47” x 55”) unit with the same 200 kW installed power was selected for this review.

12

The review of the DMS circuit indicated a higher risk of operational issues when feeding the DMS circuit with larger
material up to 38 mm so it was recommended to add a tertiary crushing stage to the flowsheet. Modelling of thethree-stage crushing circuit indicated the secondary HP5 crusher could be retained with the addition of a second
HP5 for the tertiary crusher. The secondary crusher would operate using a coarse liner setup while the tertiarycrusher would operate with fine liners. The crusher sizing screen remains unchanged.
The three-stage crushing circuit was selected to produce crusher product P80 of 12-15 mm with the major crushingequipment selected including:•••Primary CrusheroPrevious – C140, installed power 200kWo2021 – C150, installed power 200kW

Secondary CrusheroPrevious – 1xHP5, installed power 370kWo2021 – as above

Tertiary CrusheroPrevious – No Tertiaryo2021 – 1xHP5, installed power 370kW

Other crushing equipment such as the vibrating grizzly feeder and sizing screen remain unchanged. Additional
equipment added to the primary crusher building included an overhead crane for crusher maintenance and a
primary crusher area dust collection system. It is forecast that these changes will result in a more robust crushingcircuit with reduced operational risk.
Dense media separation (DMS)The DMS test work conducted prior to 2021 indicated metal recoveries in excess of 97% of lead and zinc can berecovered to the sink fraction containing approximately 75% of the feed material. This indicates the addition of the
DMS circuit is likely to be beneficial to the project and was recommended to be retained in the 2021 flowsheet
design.
The 2021 review of the DMS circuit indicated there might be potential operational issues with feeding the DMS
circuit with larger material up to 38 mm in size. Pumping coarse material requires higher line velocities to avoid
settling which leads to higher wear in the pumps, piping and dense media cyclones even with the use of siliconcarbide liner parts. Due to the high frequency of changing wear liners, it was recommended to reduce the feed size
to the DMS circuit to a more typical feed size.
The review of the fines DMS circuit indicated the added operational complexity of the circuit was potentiallychallenging and it was recommended to remove the fine DMS circuit and feed the screen undersize directly to themill cyclone feed pump box.
The coarse DMS equipment selection has been retained while the fine DMS has been removed from the process
flowsheet.
Milling
Ausenco has assessed various comminution circuit options to evaluate the most suitable design based on theavailable data. This design entitles a low-risk, robust flowsheet.

13

The previous flowsheet included a primary ball mill treating feed up to 38 mm material from the DMS sinks circuitand two secondary vertical mills. Feeding a ball mill with feed material up to 38 mm was considered to increase therisk of significant scatting and was therefore not recommended.
The two vertical mills add significant capital cost and are approximately double the price of a single ball mill withthe same installed power. Typically, a SAG/Ball circuit provides a lower capital cost and a slightly higher operating
cost than adding a vertical mill into the circuit.
The inclusion of three-stage crushing to feed the DMS removes the option for a SAG/Ball circuit, therefore it isrecommended to continue with primary and secondary ball mills. There is the possibility of using a single ball millto undertake this duty which will be investigated during Front End Engineering and Design (FEED).
The circuit has been designed to produce a flotation feed size P80 of 53 µm. Previous evaluations indicated that
there was no benefit in reducing the primary grind size below a P80 of 53 µm. No test work was reviewed to support
the P80 of 45 µm nominated by Metso.
Ausgrind models were used to estimate the specific energy requirements for the grinding circuits based on theinformation provided in the test work and Ausenco’s database. The primary mill selected is a 4.5 m diameter by 7.0
m long ball mill with 2.3 MW installed motor. The primary mill is operated in closed circuit with a discharge vibrating
screen and scats recycle conveyor. The secondary ball mill is 5.8 m in diameter and 8.5 m long with 4.5 MW of
installed power.
The secondary mill is operated in closed circuit with hydrocyclones.
Flotation and regrind
Ausenco reviewed the 2021 flotation test work and compared the current design with the previous designs. There
were some notable differences is the design methodology from that determined previously with the adjusted
flotation cell sizing and selection including:•

Organic Pre-flotation – 2x70m3 (previous) → 3x70m3 (2021)•

Lead Rougher - 3x70m3 → 3x70m3•

Lead Scavenger – 2x70m3 → 2x70m3•

Lead Cleaner 1 – 3x5m3 → 4x5m3•

Lead Cleaner 2 – 2x5m3 → 3x5m3•

Zinc Rougher – 4x130m3 → 4x130m3•

Zinc Scavenger – 2x130m3 → 2x130m3•

Zinc Cleaner 1 – 6x130m3 → 4x130m3•

Zinc Cleaner 2 – 5x70m3 → 4x70m3 (incl internal radial launders)•

Zinc Cleaner 3 – 2x70m3 → 3x70m3 (incl internal radial launders)•

Flotation Blowers – 3x500-05 Multistage centrifugal blowers → 2x600A-05 Multistage centrifugal
blowers

Ausenco reviewed the 2021 regrind and flotation testwork and selected a specific energy of 20 kWh/t for the lead
regrind circuit and 20 kWh/t for the zinc regrind circuit given there did not appear to be any metallurgical benefit
to grinding finer.

14

Processing circuit construction
The processing circuit will be constructed on a modular basis and transported to site by sea before being secured
into position on the seabed via a gravity-based system (a cellular concrete structure that is able to be floated orballasted down as required). This will allow the circuit to be energised and tested off site and minimise the amountof construction required at Citronen.
Table 5 summarises the key processing metrics for the Project, and Figure 7 shows the new flow sheet in schematic
form.
Table 5 – Citronen Project Key Processing metrics (LOM)
Zn recovery %Zn metal produced

84% (weighted average)
2,573kt

Ave. production Yr 1-5 (run rate)

163ktpa Zn metal

Target Zn grade in concentrate55%

Pb metal produced

152kt

Mill ramp up

Q1-50%, Q2-75%, Q3-90%, Q495%, Q5 onwards-100%

Figure 7 – Updated Process Flow Sheet

15

Test work and concentrate quality
A large body of test work has been completed on the Citronen Project since its acquisition in 2007, including some
additional test work completed in the last nine months at ALS Burnie under the guidance of Mineralis Pty Ltd.
The key outcomes of this process include:•

Confirmation that Citronen metallurgy sits firmly within the stratiform of Sedimentary Exhalative(SEDEX) Deposits and the operation can be benchmarked accordingly;•

Besides zinc grade, the key driver of metallurgical performance (recovery in particular) is the levelof metamorphism in the ore body, which is highest in the SE of the overall deposit (Discovery, Beach)and trends lower to the NW (Esrum);•

All locked cycle test concentrates were of high quality with normal penalty elements for zincconcentrates well below typical limits for payment; and•Further opportunities for refinement of the processing circuit were apparent and have been
incorporated in the revised process flow sheet designed by Ausenco (Figure 7).

Environmental, social and governance
Environmental and Social
As the holder of a Section 19-43 Permit issued by the Government of Greenland (see ASX announcement 7
December 2020), Ironbark is well advanced on issues relating to Environmental, Social & Governance ("ESG") inGreenland.
Furthermore, as part of the 2021 BFS update, Ironbark has been working with Environmental Resource
Management ("ERM") to ensure its performance on crucial ESG criteria complies with supranational standards,
including:•Compliance with The Equator Principles ("EP4") and International Finance Corporation ("IFC")
Environmental and Social Performance Standards, and establish pathways to close any gaps; and•Conducting a Climate Risk Identification study to identify risks to the functionality of an asset fromthe physical effects of climate change and to understand the necessity of conducting a full climate
risk assessment

Both workstreams have been initiated by Ironbark and are additional to the completed Social and Environmental
Impact Assessments approved by the Government of Greenland as part of the Citronen Exploitation Licencegranted in 2016.
Governance
The Exploitation Licence 2016/30 granted to Ironbark in December of 2016 gave IBG the exclusive right to extract
zinc and lead ores for 30 years, which the Government of Greenland may extend for a further 20 years. All
operations, including decommissioning, must occur within that period of time and while the licence is in effect, and,no other party is allowed to conduct mineral exploration on the licence.
In return, and in addition to the usual obligations applicable to all business operating in Greenland, Ironbark must
pay the Government of Greenland royalties of (“Basic Royalty Amount”):
Years 1 and 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5+

1% of sales

1.5%

2%

2.5%

16

Sales are defined as received price minus freight if sold on CFR or CIF basis; the payment of these Royalties areincluded in the financial analysis presented in Table 1 of this announcement. The Exploitation Licence for 2016/30
also includes a Royalty offset against Corporate Tax Payable (CTP) whereby the Payable Royalty (PR) is equal to the
Basic Royalty Amount minus CTP. Whereby this amount is nil or negative (ie tax due > Royalty due) then the PR will
be zero for that year.
A further obligation on Ironbark is to meet specific performance criteria in terms of advancing the Project:•

Section 19-43 Approval before 31 December 2020 – achieved•

Demonstration of financial capacity to develop the asset – 31 December 2023•

Commencement of mineral exploitation – 16 December 2025

The Ironbark Board intends to meet the last two criteria by commencing activities at Citronen in accordance withthe plan laid out in this 2021 BFS.

Offtake agreements and zinc pricing
Current offtake agreements
Ironbark currently has binding offtake agreements covering a minimum of 70% of production for the first decadeof operations (Life of Mine in some cases) with global Tier 1 majors Glencore and Trafigura on terms summarised
below in Table 6.
Table 6 – Summary of Offtake Terms
Glencore – zinc

Glencore – lead

Nyrstar (Trafigura) –zinc

Nyrstar (Trafigura) leadDate

7 October 201112 October 2011

6 September 2011

6 September 2011

Duration

10 Years thenevergreen subject tomutual agreement

Life of mine

Life of mine

Life of mine

Quantity

35% of production

35% of production

35% of production

35% of production

Reference Benchmark/ European
settlements

Reference Benchmark/ Major miners(Cannington) and
Major Asian smelters(KZ)

Reference Benchmark/ European
settlements

Benchmark; standard
for agreements of thisnatureBenchmark; standard
for agreements of thisnatureBenchmark; standard
for agreements of thisnatureN/A

N/A

Years 1 ~ 3
US$145/DMT
After Year 3
Treatment Charges

Reference Benchmark/ Major miners (RedDog) and Major Asiansmelters (KZ)

Pricing & Penalties

Benchmark; standard
for agreements of thisnatureKey Conditions
Precedent

Shareholder approval as obtained at approved
meeting 20 December 2011.

17

Zinc pricing assumptions
The Ironbark Board elected to use a study price of US$1.30/lb Zn metal in the 2021 BFS based on:•

Lower price assumption than 2017 BFS (US$1.38/lb plus nominal 2.5% price inflation);•

Discount to last six months actual trading range (US$1.30/lb low, US$1.39/lb high);•

Inside range of long-term real pricing presented by global research firm Wood Mackenzie in their“Global Zinc Long Term Outlook Q1 2021 p8” report being US$1.14/lb (Low), US$1.26/lb (Base) andUS$1.37/lb (High)o

Wood Mackenzie on p10 of the same report presented two further scenarios “A” and “B”
that predicted a greater price range again, average price US$1.02/lb from 2022-2030 on the
low side and US$1.56/lb on the high side;•

Expert advice from its Corporate Advisor (Bacchus Capital Advisers) and Minerals Marketing Advisor(Albert de Souza); and•Its commercial judgement on the role zinc will play in traditional infrastructure spending plus growthfrom newer applications in agriculture and renewables broadly (batteries, increased galvanising on
wind turbines, especially offshore, and solar installations in particular).

Other key infrastructure
Power supply and distribution
Plant power generation: electricity production and supply will comply with Greenlandic electrical regulations andwill be based on European standards with 50 Hz frequency and 400/230 service voltage. The required power
consumption of approximately 23 MW will be met by a total of three generator units, with two in operation andone on stand-by duty/ maintenance. The generators will be medium speed units rated for continuous operation in
an arctic environment for a service life of at least 25 years.
Power will be delivered at 6.9 kV throughout the facilities. Substations are complete with step-down transformers(6.9/0.4 kV) and are rated 200 kW, 500 kW or 1,000 kW, depending on the requirements at each substation. The
substations will be located centrally within areas (to be determined at the appropriate time), where practical, tominimise distribution losses.
The fuel storage area consists of two tanks each with a capacity of 25,000 m3 fuel for arctic diesel, two tanks
each with a capacity of 250 m3 for jet fuel, hose station and lines, pipelines for both arctic diesel and jet fueland fuel station for arctic diesel. Further fuel capacity may be considered as part of FEED.
The power station will be the primary source of heat for the operation along with a Glycol system and Arctic
corridors where appropriate.
Site access including shipping, port and air operations
Shipping to and from Citronen will be conducted solely using ice class vessels including icebreakers, tugs, heavy lift
construction vessels, barges and bulk carriers for both resupply and export. The annual sealift will occur in themonths of July to September and the schedule has been designed such that only six weeks (of the twelve available)
will be sufficient to perform all required activities.
The Citronen port design has changed from a sheet pile berth to a floating pontoon berth (of sufficient scale toallow for mobile shiploading equipment, including bulk concentrates and containers) secured to an earth-based

18

access dike. The floating ponton will be moved and secured to the shoreline in the winter months to reduce the riskof adverse effects of sea ice.
Outside of the summer months, the operation will be air supported (including for personnel changeover) via a
dedicated 1000m runway as is typical of high latitude mining operations located elsewhere in the Arctic. The airstrip
and supporting infrastructure has been engineered to allow for year round all weather operations.
Waste Rock, tailings and water management
Waste materials from operations will be disposed of in a safe, environmentally acceptable and economicallyfeasible manner. Project waste materials will include waste rock from the open pit and underground mine
operations, and DMS rejects and tailings from the process plant operation. Total waste materials produced during
the mine life will include:•

Waste rock totalling 11Mt of which approximately 5.5Mt will be used for project construction and
5.5Mt permanently stored in the waste rock storage facility (WRSF).

•

DMS rejects totalling approximately 24.8Mt permanently stored within the DMS rejects facility;•

Tailings totalling approximately 37.7Mt, of which 26.9Mt (~71%) will be permanently stored
underground as structural fill; and•The remaining 10.8Mt of tailings will be permanently stored at surface within the tailings storage
facility (TSF).

Geochemical testing indicates the waste rock and DMS rejects are non-acid generating and the potential for acidrock drainage and metal leaching is low. Tailings are likely to be acid forming after long-term exposure to oxygen
and water and to limit the potential for acid rock drainage will be contained within the fully lined TSF facility or as
frozen backfill underground.
Precipitation in the Citronen Project area is low. Annual runoff of the local catchment area is small and limited toJune to September. Diversion drains will be constructed around the underground decline, TSF, open pit crest andwaste rock storage facility to prevent water from entering these facilities. Runoff water will be diverted to theEastern River and/or Citronen Fjord. The diversion drains at the open pit, underground mine access decline, TSF
and waste dumps will remain following mine closure.
Dewatering of the underground operation will be on an as needs basis as the mine will be mostly dry apart for
decant water from tailings backfill operation. Decant water and any water from local thaws will be pumped fromthe mine.
It should be noted that the underlying basis for the waste rock, tailings and water management remains unchanged
from previous feasibility studies with no additional design work complete apart from the waste quantities being
updated to be consistent with the 2021 Citronen BFS mine plan.
Raw water for the process plant and other project needs will be sourced from Lake Platinova and augmented whenavailable by water from the Eastern River.

19

Layouts 1 and 2 show the Project area and General Layout including all mine and surface infrastructure.
Layout 1 – Overview of Project Area

Layout 2 – Detailed Layout including all Mine & Surface Infrastructure

20Project financing
The 2021 BFS update has been undertaken to determine a set of technical and financial outcomes based on highconfidence Proved and Probable Ore Reserves.
To achieve the outcomes contained in this announcement, Ironbark will require a funding solution that delivers noless than US$654 million combined debt and equity funding to enable the completion of construction. Ironbark iscurrently prioritising the pursuit of debt funding (to procure US content, both goods and services) directly with theUnited States Government (via its official Export Credit Agency the Export-Import Bank of the US). It intends on
raising equity from public equity markets including current Ironbark shareholders.
Ironbark may also elect to target other value accretive strategies such as a partial sale of the Citronen Project and/or
joint venture. This would reduce Ironbark’s share of the Project from its current 100% to some lesser number (alsoreducing the amount of funding Ironbark is responsible for). It is also possible that Ironbark could elect to enter
some form of infrastructure sharing arrangement(s) with various parties to best exploit what is a highly strategic
location in northern Greenland, an increasingly contested part of the geopolitical map. Furthermore, Ironbark may
also consider different operational models, such as a power purchasing agreement for the Citronen power station,that would further alter the project financing requirements.
Furthermore, in addition to construction capital, some form of working capital facility will likely need to be in place
during the early years of operation at Citronen. This is primarily due to the highly seasonal nature of the operation
with site resupply and concentrate export all taking place in the summer months. A range of options are being
considered for addressing this issue until cash reserves are built up (see Table 1 for a summary of forecast
Operational Expenditure ratios).
Ironbark is confident of sourcing a funding solution given the results of preliminary discussion held to date; strong
project economics; shortage of large, development ready zinc projects worldwide at a time when new zincproduction is forecast to be required and the track record of the Ironbark Board in raising the capital for, building
and running new resource projects. It is possible that in the event of success, a funding solution will involve capital
markets from the northern hemisphere given their affinity with Arctic mining projects relative to the ASX.
Despite this, investors should note that there is no certainty that Ironbark will be able to conclude a successfulproject financing round at a time of its choosing.
Indicative pathway to production
Subject to a successful project financing event, detailed engineering and Section 86 Approval in Greenland (seeGovernance section of this announcement and ASX Announcement dated 7 December 2020 for further details on
the approvals process), construction would occur over a two-and-a-half-year period.
Due to the seasonality effect of operating in Greenland, the earliest this could occur is in spring 2022 subject toproject financing closing by the end of 2021 (or very early in 2022). The early works crew would land by air aheadof a construction fleet with heavy equipment mobilised to the site in July 2022. If works can begin on this targeted
timeline, the intended start of processing would be October 2024 (Figure 8).
If the project financing process stretches later in 2022 then the site construction process would commence in2023 on the same timeline. The FEED component could still commence immediately.

21

Figure 8 – Indicative timetable to production

Final Investment
Decision• Conditions
precedent to debt
drawdown
satisfied• Project equity
raised• Target Q4 2021 /Q1 2022

Detailed Engineering,
Section 86 Approval

Commencement ofconstruction• Estimated timeline~3-6 months• Section 86
approval may be
broken down toallow for early site
works

Commencement ofProcessing• Pioneer crew canland at Citronen in
mid Spring by air
to begin siteworks• Construction fleet
sails in July of2022, and again insummers of 2023
and 2024• Modular
processing plant
mobilised to site in
3rd summer (July2024)• Commissioning Oct
2024, mill at 90%
nameplate by 3rdquarter operations• First export 2025

Note: This timetable is indicative only and is subject to change due to factors both within and outside of theCompany’s control

Reliance on Experts
Ironbark has relied on the following experts in completing the 2021 BFS:•

Geology: Ironbark internal•

Mining: Mining Plus, Geoff Grow Mining Services•

Engineering: Ramboll Engineering, Tetra Tech Inc., Maritime Construction Services (Luxembourg)•

Metallurgy: Mineralis Pty Ltd, ALS•

Process Engineering: Ausenco•

Shipping: Ramboll Engineering, Fednav•

Minerals Marketing: Albert de Souza, Wood Mackenzie•

Environmental: Ironbark internal, ERM•

Project Finance: Bacchus Capital Advisers

Assumptions underpinning the production target and forecast financial information
The material assumptions underpinning the post-tax NPV of US$363 million and post-tax IRR of 15.2% aredescribed in Tables 1, 2 and 4 above. Other assumptions relating to construction, engineering & logistics, macroeconomic conditions or additional factors that impact the operation are reported within the body of thisdocument. These assumptions also extend to factors relating to marketing, legal, environmental, social andgovernment factors.
The updated Mineral Resource Estimates and Ore Reserves for the Citronen Project are listed in Appendix A and Bof this announcement. The estimated Ore Reserves underpinning the BFS (including underpinning the above22

production target) has been prepared by a competent person in accordance with the requirements of theAustralasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves, 2012 edition (JORC
Code 2012).

Information provided in accordance with ASX Listing Rule 5.9
Material assumptions
Key Inputs

Unit

Rate

Zinc price

US$/lb1.30

Lead price

US$/lb

0.95

Reserve grade – Zn%

4.8

Reserve grade - Pb%

0.5

Accumulated losses

US$M

37

%

25

Site construction period

Months28

Process plant ramp up

Quarters

Q1-50%, Q2-75%, Q390%, Q4- 95%, Q5
onwards-100%

Greenland Govt Royalties%

Yr 1 and 2 1%, Yr 3
1.5%, Yr 4 2%, Yr 5+
2.5% (see p16)

Zn recovery rate%

84% (weighted
average)

Open pit mining

US$t/ore

6.66

Underground mining

US$t/ore

25.77

Processing

US$t/ore

14.93

G&A

US$t/ore

4.58

Corporate tax rate (Greenland)

Operating costs

In addition to the above:•

Mine capital and operating costs were provided by Mining Plus and Geoff Grow Mining Services•

Capital cost estimates for non-process surface infrastructure were provided by Ramboll
Engineering, Tetra Tech Inc. and Marine Construction Services•

Capital and operating cost estimates for the processing facility were provided by Ausenco Limited•

Flight costs have been sourced by Ironbark internal using current market providers experienced inservicing northern Greenland•

Salary costs have been assumed on industry benchmarks for the region under study•

Capital and operating costs for shipping to Citronen during construction, and for annual resupply
and concentrate export, are included in the overall study results

23

Criteria for classification
Please see pages 6-9 of this announcement for information on the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve categories
underpinning the Production Target, and Appendices A and B (including an analysis of the different cut off grades
being applied). Appendix A also includes detail on the main mining methods to be implemented at the Citronen
Project.
Mining
Discovery Orebody – Surface Mining
The open pit Ore Reserve has been reported within a pit design based on pit shells from the Whittle
optimisations and with appropriate design parameters applied. These have included geotechnical and otheroperational parameters.
Beach and Esrum Orebodies – Underground Mining•

The mining method is cut and fill with primary and secondary panels.

•

No planned overbreak was included in the design.

•

The mine recovery was considered to be 98% as cut and fill is a high recovery low dilution mining
method. Regional pillars are considered to be partially extracted at the end of the mine life with arecovery factor of 50%. Access pillars were also assessed and factorized as 7% on top of the minerecovery.

Beach and Esrum Orebodies – Method Independent•

All mining parameters are based on geotechnical recommendations.

•Zn and Pb recoveries of respectively 84% and 50%.

Processing Method
Please see pages 9 and 10 of this announcement for information on Processing.

Cut-off grades
Cut-off grade for open pit mining is based around the Zinc modifying factors and is calculated to 1.55% Zn;•

Zn Recovery: 84%•

Zn Price: US$1.30/lb•

Process Cost: US$29.10 (inclusive of G&A)

Beach and Esrum Orebodies – Underground Mining
Cut-off grade is based on a Net Smelter Return (NSR), taking into account the net revenue from recovered Zn, Pb
and the cost of mining, processing and G&A. The NSR calculation relied upon the processing recoveries shown
below:•

Zn Recovery: 84%•

Pb Recovery: 50%•

Processing Costs - 18.00/tonne of ore

24

•

G&A Costs - 7.00/tonne of ore•

Mining Costs - 38.00/tonne of ore•

Other - 4.10/tonne of ore

Material modifying factors
1. Tenurea. Ironbark is the 100% holder of Exploitation Licence 2016/30. The conditions to be satisfied
to maintain this tenure are outlined on page 11 of this announcement. Annual holding
costs are currently low at approximately US$150,000 pa although this number will likely
increase as site activity increases as under Greenlandic regulations, tenement holders are
required to directly pay for any administration time committed by the governing
departments (or their advisors) on the Project.
2. Permitting and Approvals
a. Key permitting status and timeline guidance can be found on page 11 of thisannouncement. Refer to ASX announcement dated 7 December 2020 for further
information on the general permitting process in Greenland.
3. Infrastructurea. There is no permanent infrastructure at the Citronen Project currently other than
Ironbark’s exploration camp and landing strip. All infrastructure required to build andoperate the project will be new, including port, off grid power station, airport, mine &process infrastructure, roads, service buildings, workshops, accommodation and otherancillary structures typically found at an operation of this nature.
b. See Appendix C for a detailed overview of the site layout including proposed mine andsurface infrastructure.

Compliance Statements
Cautionary Statements and Risk Factors
The contents of this announcement reflect various technical and economic conditions at the time of writing.
Given the nature of the resources industry, these conditions can change significantly over relatively short periodsof time. Consequently, actual results may vary from those detailed in this announcement.
Some statements in this announcement regarding estimates or future events are forward-looking statements.
They include indications of, and guidance on, future earnings, cash flow, costs and financial performance.
Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements preceded by words such as “planned”,“expected”, “projected”, “estimated”, “may”, “scheduled”, “intends”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “potential”,"predict", "foresee", "proposed", "aim", "target", "opportunity". “could”, “nominal”, “conceptual” and similar
expressions.
Forward-looking statements, opinions and estimates included in this announcement are based on assumptions
and contingencies which are subject to change without notice, as are statements about market and industry
trends, which are based on interpretations of current market conditions. Forward-looking statements are25

provided as a general guide only and should not be relied on as a guarantee of future performance. Forwardlooking statements may be affected by a range of variables that could cause actual results to differ fromestimated results, and may cause the Company’s actual performance and financial results in future periods tomaterially differ from any projections of future performance or results expressed or implied by such forwardlooking statements. So there can be no assurance that actual outcomes will not materially differ from theseforward-looking statements.
These statements are subject to significant risks and uncertainties that include but are not limited those inherent
in mine development and production, geological, mining, metallurgical and processing technical problems, theinability to obtain and maintain mine licenses, permits and other regulatory approvals required in connection withmining and processing operations, competition for among other things, capital, acquisitions of reserves,
undeveloped lands and skilled personnel, incorrect assessments of the value of projects and acquisitions, changes
in commodity prices and exchange rate, currency and interest rate fluctuations and other adverse economic
conditions, the potential inability to market and sell products, various events which could disrupt operations
and/or the transportation of mineral products,
including labour stoppages and severe weather conditions, the demand for and availability of transportation
services, environmental, native title, heritage, taxation and other legal problems, the potential inability to secureadequate financing and management's potential inability to anticipate and manage the foregoing factors andrisks. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be correct.
Where the Company expresses or implies an expectation or belief as to future events or results, such expectation
or belief is expressed in good faith and on a reasonable basis. No representation or warranty, express or implied,
is made by the Company that the matters stated in this announcement will in fact be achieved or prove to becorrect.
Except for statutory liability which cannot be excluded, the Company, its officers, employees and advisers
expressly disclaim any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the material contained in thisannouncement and exclude all liability whatsoever (including in negligence) for any loss or damage which may besuffered by any person as a consequence of any information in this announcement or any error or omission there
from.

This announcement does not take into account the individual investment objectives, financial or tax situation or
particular needs of any person. It does not contain financial advice. You should consider seeking independent
legal, financial and taxation advice in relation to the contents of this announcement.
Except as required by applicable law, the Company does not undertake any obligation to release publicly any
revisions to any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date of thisannouncement, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as may be required under applicablesecurities laws.

Further details
This notice is authorised to be issued by the Board. Please contact Managing Director Mr. Michael Jardine for any
further inquiries on either mjardine@ironbark.gl or +61 424 615 047.

26

Appendices
Appendix A: Mineral Resource Estimate*
Category

Mt

Zn (%)Pb (%)

Measured

11,767,520

2.9

0.5

Indicated

2,159,548

2.6

0.3

M&I

13,927,068

2.8

0.5

Inferred

3,303,573

2.9

0.4

Open pit total

17,230,641

2.8

0.4

Measured

22,518,764

5.2

0.5

Indicated

26,208,555

5.5

0.5

M&I

48,727,319

5.4

0.5

Inferred

18,744,401

4.8

0.4

Underground total

67,471,720

5.2

0.5

Measured

34,286,284

4.36

0.51

Indicated

28,368,103

5.30

0.46

Inferred

22,047,974

4.55

0.42

Total

84,702,361

4.72

0.47

Open pit @ 1.5% Zn cut-off

Underground @ 3.5% Zn cut-off

TOTAL Mineral Resource*Calculated using Ordinary Kriging interpolation
These resource figures were estimated in early 2012 by consultants Ravensgate, who estimated the resources ofeach category (Measured, Indicated and Inferred) for each of the three orebodies at Citronen – Beach, Esrum andDiscovery Zones. Ravensgate estimated the resources using several cut-off grades from 0.1% zinc up to 6.0% zinc.
The Report by Ravensgate was prepared with reference to the guidelines of the 2004 JORC Code.

27

Appendix B: Ore Reserve

Deposit
Beach undergroundEsrum underground

Discovery open pit

Total

Category

Tonnes
(Mt)

ZnEq
grade
(%)*

Zn
grade
(%)

Pb
grade
(%)

ZnEq
metal
(Mt)

Zn
metal
(Mt)

Pb
metal
(Mt)

Proved

19.0

5.5

5.2

0.5

1.0

1.0

0.1

Probable

7.0

5.8

5.7

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.03

Proved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Probable

15.8

5.1

4.8

0.4

0.8

0.8

0.06

Proved

5.5

3.5

3.2

0.6

0.2

0.2

0.03

Probable

1.4

2.5

2.3

0.4

0.04

0.03

0.01

Proved

24.6

5.1

4.6

0.5

1.2

1.1

0.13

Probable

24.2

5.1

5.0

0.4

1.2

1.1

0.10

Total

48.8

5.1

4.8

0.5

2.5

2.3

0.24

*Please see page 49 of this announcement for an explanation of the calculated Zinc Equivalent grade.

Competent Persons Statement
The information included in this report that relates to Exploration Results & Mineral Resources is based on
information compiled by Ms Elizabeth Laursen (B. ESc Hons (Geol), GradDip App. Fin., MSEG, MAIG), an
employee of Ironbark Zinc Limited. Ms Laursen has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style ofmineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which they are undertaking toqualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of
Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Ms Laursen consents to the inclusion in the reportof the matters based on this information in the form and context in which it appears.
The mining-specific information in this report, which relates to Ore Reserves, is based on informationcompiled by Mr Andrew Gasmier CP (Mining), who is a Member of The Australasian Institute of Mining andMetallurgy. Mr Gasmier is employed full time by Mining Plus. He has sufficient experience which is relevantto the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he isundertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for
Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. Mr Gasmier consents to the inclusionin the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Competent Persons disclosure
Ms Laursen is an employee of Ironbark Zinc Limited and currently holds securities in the company.
Mr Gasmier does not currently hold securities in the company.

28

Appendix C: Citronen Mineral Resource Estimate and Ore Reserves (JORC Tables)

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 report template
Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary

Sampling
techniques• Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut
channels, random chips, or specificspecialised industry standard
measurement tools appropriate to theminerals under investigation, such as
down hole gamma sondes, or handheld
XRF instruments, etc). These examples
should not be taken as limiting thebroad meaning of sampling.

• All samples are from diamond core, andinclude a mixture of quarter, half orwhole core and BQ, NQ or HQ sizes.
Samples are taken from varying intervals
from 40cm length to 2.5m length
depending on visual differences andcompositions analysed by a hand-heldNiton XL3t Analyser.

• Include reference to measures taken to
ensure sample representivity and theappropriate calibration of any
measurement tools or systems used.
• Aspects of the determination ofmineralisation that are Material to the
Public Report.
• In cases where ‘industry standard’ work
has been done this would be relatively
simple (eg ‘reverse circulation drilling
was used to obtain 1 m samples fromwhich 3 kg was pulverised to produce a
30 g charge for fire assay’). In othercases more explanation may berequired, such as where there is coarse
gold that has inherent sampling
problems. Unusual commodities ormineralisation types (eg submarine
nodules) may warrant disclosure ofdetailed information.

• Mineralised zones were analysed with a
30 second reading every 5cm along thecore. These results are only used for
onsite interpretation and form the basisof the samples chosen for laboratory
assay.
• Sampling is carried out under QAQC
procedures as per industry standards.
• Certified sample standards and duplicate
samples are added in a ratio of 1 sample
per every 10 samples. Most hole collars
have been surveyed using a Trimble
DGPS system which has an accuracy of<1m; the remaining holes have beensurveyed by hand-held GPS with anaccuracy of <5m.
• Two distinct exploration drilling
campaigns have been conducted at
Citronen. The first was between 1993
and 1997 conducted by Platinova A/S
who drilled 149 holes totalling
32,842.95m. Sample intervals varied
from 0.15 - 2.5m, the average sample
width was 1.0m.
• The second campaign of drilling was
conducted by Ironbark Zinc Limited
between 2008 and 2011 who drilled 166
diamond holes totalling 34,239.93m.
Sample intervals varied from 0.2 - 1.5m

29

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary
and the average sample width was 0.9m.
• A sampling program was conducted by
Ironbark in 2007, where 2,645 samples
were taken from the Platinova drill core.
Samples varied from 0.2 - 1.3m and theaverage sample width was 0.95m. Someof these samples were from previously
un-sampled drill core and other samples
were quarter core samples frompreviously assayed intervals, used as aquality control check.
•

Core samples from the 1993 drilling weresent to Chemex Labs Ltd of North
Vancouver B.C. Canada. Samples werecrushed, spilt and a portion pulverised
followed by a four-acid digest andInductively Coupled Plasma Mass
Spectrometry (ICP-MS) finish.

•

Core samples from the 1994 drilling weresent to Bondar Clegg Inchcape Testing
Services of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
These samples were crushed split, and a
portion pulverised to minus 200 mesh. A
four-acid digest was used followed by
ICP-MS and also AAS for samples greaterthan 20% Fe and 15% Zn.

•

Core samples from the 1995 drilling weresent to Chemex Labs Ltd of Vancouver,B.C., Canada. Samples were crushed, split
and a portion pulverised to minus 150
mesh followed by reverse Aqua-Regia
digest finished by Atomic Absorption
Spectrometry (AAS).

•Core samples from the 1996 and 1997
drilling were sent to Cominco Ltd.
Laboratory in Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
Samples were crushed, split and a
portion pulverized to minus 150 meshfollowed by reverse Aqua-Regia digest
finished by AAS.

•

The core samples taken in 2007 by
Ironbark were sent to ALS Chemex inVancouver, B.C., Canada. The samples
were crushed, split and a portion
pulverised to 75μm, followed by a fouracid digest and an AAS technique.

•

The core samples taken in 2008 - 2011 by
Ironbark were sent to ALS Chemex in30

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary
Ojebyn, Sweden. The samples werecrushed, split and a portion pulverised to
75μm, followed by a four acid digest andan Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic
Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES) finish.

Drilling
techniques

Drill sample
recovery• Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation,•
open-hole hammer, rotary air blast,auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details(eg core diameter, triple or standard
tube, depth of diamond tails, facesampling bit or other type, whether coreis oriented and if so, by what method,etc).
•

All drilling at the Citronen Project has
been standard tube diamond drilling, of
either BQ, NQ or HQ diameter. In areas
with overburden (glacial till) either a tricone roller bit or shoe bit was used todrill down to competent rock.
Overburden material was discarded.

• Method of recording and assessing coreand chip sample recoveries and results
assessed.

•

Recovered drill core was measured every
3m run and any core loss was recorded.

•Core recoveries were excellent
throughout the project and the need fortriple tube drilling was not required. All
core was checked & measured by ageologist and rod counts carried out by
drillers.

• Measures taken to maximise sample
recovery and ensure representative
nature of the samples.

• Whether a relationship exists between
sample recovery and grade and whether
sample bias may have occurred due to•preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse
material.

Logging• Whether core and chip samples havebeen geologically and geotechnicallylogged to a level of detail to support
appropriate Mineral Resource
estimation, mining studies andmetallurgical studies.
• Whether logging is qualitative or
quantitative in nature. Core (or costean,channel, etc) photography.
• The total length and percentage of therelevant intersections logged.

Subsamplingtechniquesand sample
Preparation• If core, whether cut or sawn andwhether quarter, half or all core taken.
• If non-core, whether riffled, tube
sampled, rotary split, etc and whether
sampled wet or dry.

Most holes were vertical and therefore
not oriented. The few drilled at an angle
were oriented using a Reflex tool.

Information from the diamond drilling
does not suggest that there is acorrelation between recoveries andgrade. Diamond drill core from theCitronen deposit has a very highrecovery.

•All drill holes were logged for a
combination of geological andgeotechnical attributes to a level ofdetail to support a Mineral Resource
estimation.

•

Logging is both qualitative and semiquantitative in nature; all drill core wasphotographed.

•

The total length of all recovered drill core
was logged in detail.

•Of 7,395 samples, 6,421 are half-core(87%), 968 are quarter-core (13%) and six
samples are whole core samples. All core
was sawn with a core-saw.

•

All drilling conducted at Citronen was
diamond drilling.

31

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary• For all sample types, the nature, quality
and appropriateness of the sample
preparation technique.

•

All samples were crushed, split andpulverised at a laboratory. The sample
preparation is industry standard for thefine-grained nature of this SedimentaryExhalative (SEDEX) mineralisation style.

•

Laboratory certified standards andduplicates were used alternatively every
10 samples as a quality control measure.

•One duplicate per twenty samples was
taken.

•The sample sizes are appropriate to thefine-grained mineralisation of this SEDEX
mineralisation style.

• The nature, quality and appropriateness •of the assaying and laboratory
procedures used and whether the•technique is considered partial or total.

The assay methods used are consideredappropriate and near total digestion.

• Quality control procedures adopted forall sub-sampling stages to maximise
representivity of samples.
• Measures taken to ensure that the
sampling is representative of the in situ
material collected, including for
instance results for field
duplicate/second-half sampling.
• Whether sample sizes are appropriate
to the grain size of the material being
sampled.
Quality of
assay dataandlaboratory
tests• For geophysical tools, spectrometers,
handheld XRF instruments, etc, theparameters used in determining theanalysis including instrument make and •model, reading times, calibrations
factors applied and their derivation, etc.
• Nature of quality control procedures
adopted (eg standards, blanks,
duplicates, external laboratory checks)
and whether acceptable levels of
accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision
have been established.

Verificationof samplingandassaying• The verification of significant
intersections by either independent oralternative company personnel.

A Niton XL3t hand-held XRF analyser wasused to determine the appropriate coreintervals to send for laboratory assay.
Each reading was 30 seconds long, taken
each 5cm along the drill core.
Duplicate samples and laboratory
certified standards have been usedalternatively every ten samples. All
samples have returned results within an
acceptable range.

•

Ravensgate Consultants conducted averification procedure on the Citronen
database during the resource estimation
process.

•• Documentation of primary data, data
entry procedures, data verification, data
storage (physical and electronic)oprotocols.

Several drill holes have been twinned
and have shown comparable results
including;Holes CF08-153 & CF08-153A (bothvertical holes) were drilled 9m
horizontally apart at surface with anelevation difference of 12cm. CF08-153
returned 9.1m @ 5.16% Zn from 14.0m
and CF08-153A returned 9.0m @ 5.92%
Zn from 14.0m.
Holes CF10-245A and CF10-245B (bothvertical holes) were drilled 1 metre apart• The use of twinned holes.

• Discuss any adjustment to assay data.

o32Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentaryat surface. The drill holes intersected
12.2m and 13.7m of overburden (glacialtill) respectively and intersected theHangingwall Debris Flow Unit at 175.5m
and 174.5m depth respectively.

Location ofdata points• Accuracy and quality of surveys used tolocate drill holes (collar and down-holesurveys), trenches, mine workings andother locations used in Mineral
Resource estimation.

•

Primary data was either collected as
paper logs or entered into a databaseprogram or Excel spreadsheet. Paper logs
were later transferred to a digital
database. Data was verified and checkedby senior Ironbark staff and by external
consultants Expedio, Ravensgate &Mining Plus. The Database was stored as
Excel spreadsheets and a Microsoft
Access Database.

•

There has been no adjustment to theassay data.

•

All drill holes prior to 2011 weresurveyed using a DGPS which has an
accuracy of <1m. 2011 holes were picked
up by handheld GPS which has proven tohave an accuracy of approximately 5m.
Downhole surveys were conducted on all
angled drill holes using REFLEX (industry
standard) equipment.

•

The Grid System used for all location data
points at Citronen is UTM WGS 84 Zone
26.

•

Ironbark purchased a Digital Elevation
Model, produced from satellite imagery,for the Citronen Region that has an
accuracy of approximately 2.5m.

•

Hole spacing varies across the threeorebodies; in the Beach Zone andDiscovery Zone 30-100m, in the Esrum
Zone >150m.

• Specification of the grid system used.
• Quality and adequacy of topographic
control.

Dataspacing anddistribution

Orientationof data in
relation to• Data spacing for reporting of
Exploration Results.

• Whether the data spacing anddistribution is sufficient to establish thedegree of geological and grade•
continuity appropriate for the Mineral
Resource and Ore Reserve estimation
procedure(s) and classifications applied. •• Whether sample compositing has been
applied.
• Whether the orientation of sampling•achieves unbiased sampling of possible
structures and the extent to which this is
known, considering the deposit type.

The data spacing and distribution is
sufficient to determine geological andgrade continuity.
A composite length of 1m was selected
after analysis of the raw sample lengths
for use in resource calculations.
The orientation of the drilling isapproximately perpendicular to the strikeand dip of the mineralisation andtherefore should not be biased.

33

Criteria
geologicalstructure

JORC Code explanation

Commentary• If the relationship between the drillingorientation and the orientation of key
mineralised structures is considered tohave introduced a sampling bias, thisshould be assessed and reported if
material.

•

Angled drill holes provided a checkagainst mineralisation width in verticalholes.

•

There are no known biases caused by theorientation of the drill holes.

Samplesecurity• The measures taken to ensure sample
security.

•

Drill core was kept on site and sample
dispatch was overseen by the sitemanager. Samples were transported bycharter plane to Svalbard (Norway), then
air freighted to the laboratory by a local
logistics company.

Audits orreviews• The results of any audits or reviews ofsampling techniques and data.

•

Ravensgate reviewed original laboratory
assay files and compared them with the
database. No errors were found.

34Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary

Mineraltenement
and landtenurestatus• Type, reference name/number, locationand ownership including agreements ormaterial issues with third parties suchas joint ventures, partnerships,
overriding royalties, native title
interests, historical sites, wilderness or
national park and environmental
settings.

•

The Citronen Fjord Deposit is locatedwholly within Exploitation Licence
2016/30 which is 100% owned by
Ironbark Zinc Limited. The licence lies
within the Northeast Greenland National
Park.

•

The Licence was granted in December
2016 for a period of 30 years.

• The security of the tenure held at thetime of reporting along with any known
impediments to obtaining a licence tooperate in the area.
Exploration
done byotherparties• Acknowledgment and appraisal of
exploration by other parties.

•

The deposit was previously explored by
Platinova A/S between 1993 and 1997.

Geology• Deposit type, geological setting andstyle of mineralisation.

•

The Citronen Fjord deposit lies within the
Palaeozoic Franklinian Basin, asedimentary basin which extends acrossNorthern Greenland and into Canada.
The deposit lies within Ordovician deep
water argillaceous rocks, interbeddedwith carbonate debris flows sourced
from the carbonate platform to thesouth. Base metal mineralisation at
Citronen is primarily contained within
the Amundsen Land Group mudstones.
Three main stratigraphic horizons ofmineralisation were identified by
Platinova A/S. Known sulphide and zincmineralisation occurs over an area of
12km in strike (identified to date). The
main sulphides present are pyrite,
sphalerite and galena. Three types ofsulphide mineralisation are present:
mound-like masses, interbedded
sulphides that form laminae and beds
within the mudstones and cross-cutting
epigenetic mineralisation that is
primarily found in the carbonate debris
flows.

Drill hole
Information• A summary of all information material
to the understanding of the exploration
results including a tabulation of thefollowing information for all Material• Refer to Annexure 1.

35

Criteria

JORC Code explanation
drill holes:
o easting and northing of the drill holecollaro elevation or RL (Reduced Level –elevation above sea level in metres)of the drill hole collar
o dip and azimuth of the holeo down hole length and interception
depth
o hole length.

Commentary• If the exclusion of this information isjustified on the basis that the
information is not Material and thisexclusion does not detract from theunderstanding of the report, theCompetent Person should clearly
explain why this is the case.
Dataaggregation
methods• In reporting Exploration Results,
weighting averaging techniques,maximum and/or minimum grade
truncations (eg cutting of high grades)
and cut-off grades are usually Materialand should be stated.

• All reported assays have been length
weighted.
• No metal equivalents have beenreported.

• Where aggregate intercepts
incorporate short lengths of high grade
results and longer lengths of low grade
results, the procedure used for suchaggregation should be stated and sometypical examples of such aggregations
should be shown in detail.
• The assumptions used for any reportingof metal equivalent values should beclearly stated.
Relationshipbetweenmineralisati
on widths
andintercept
lengths• These relationships are particularly
important in the reporting of
Exploration Results.

Diagrams• Appropriate maps and sections (withscales) and tabulations of intercepts• If the geometry of the mineralisation
with respect to the drill hole angle is
known, its nature should be reported.
• If it is not known and only the downhole lengths are reported, there should
be a clear statement to this effect (eg‘down hole length, true width not
known’).

•The mineralisation is interpreted to beflat-lying to gently dipping and drill holes
have been angled (either vertical or at 60
degrees) to intercept the mineralisation
as close to perpendicular as possible,
therefore resulting in true widths ofmineralisation.

• Refer to Figures 1A to 1D.

36

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary

should be included for any significant
discovery being reported These should
include, but not be limited to a planview of drill hole collar locations andappropriate sectional views.
Balanced
reporting• Where comprehensive reporting of all
Exploration Results is not practicable,
representative reporting of both low
and high grades and/or widths should
be practiced to avoid misleading
reporting of Exploration Results.

• All results have been reported.

Other
substantive
explorationdata• Other exploration data, if meaningful•
and material, should be reported
including (but not limited to): geologicalobservations; geophysical survey
results; geochemical survey results; bulk
samples – size and method oftreatment; metallurgical test results;
bulk density, groundwater, geotechnicaland rock characteristics; potential
deleterious or contaminating
substances.

Geological mapping, geotechnical andmetallurgical studies have been
conducted and are included in the
Feasibility Study for the Project. The
Feasibility Study Updated was released
on 12 September 2017.

Furtherwork• The nature and scale of planned further •work (eg tests for lateral extensions or
depth extensions or large-scale step-out
drilling).

Further infill drilling in the Beach Zone isplanned and will commence during
Project construction.

• Diagrams clearly highlighting the areasof possible extensions, including themain geological interpretations andfuture drilling areas, provided thisinformation is not commerciallysensitive.

37

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources
Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary

Database
integrity• Measures taken to ensure that data has •not been corrupted by, for example,
transcription or keying errors, between
its initial collection and its use forMineral Resource estimation purposes.
• Data validation procedures used.

•

o
o
o

Site visits• Comment on any site visits undertakenby the Competent Person and theoutcome of those visits.
• If no site visits have been undertaken
indicate why this is the case.

Geologicalinterpretation• Confidence in (or conversely, theuncertainty of ) the geologicalinterpretation of the mineral deposit.
• Nature of the data used and of any
assumptions made.
• The effect, if any, of alternativeinterpretations on Mineral Resource

All drilling data has been reviewed andaudited by several internal personnel
and external consultants. Data
validation techniques include: further
assaying historic core, surveying holecollars, use of laboratory standards &duplicates, three internal cross-checksof all drill hole data by geologists andseveral external consultant crosschecks of all available data.
Three Resource Estimates have been
calculated prior to the Ravensgate
Resource 2012;
Wardrop Consulting, 2007
Ironbark, 2008 (in-house)
Ravensgate, 2010•

Examination of the prior estimate
reports were used as part of the data
validation procedures for theRavensgate Resource Report 2012.

•

One of the Ravensgate Resource Report
2012 authors was involved in Ironbark’s
exploration programmes and project
development in 2007, 2008 & 2009.

•

The author was integral in theestablishment of industry best QA/QC
practices and has intimate knowledgeof all procedures used on site.

•

The author of the Wardrop 2007
Resource Estimate Report was involvedin the planning and execution of the
1990's drilling.

•

The author of the Ironbark 2008 inhouse Resource Estimate was involvedin the planning and execution of the2007 sampling, and 2008-2011 drilling
programs.

•

The Ravensgate Resource Report 2012
states "Interpretation of the lithologicalboundaries model for themineralisation interpretation used forthe resource modelling is supported bya significant amount of drill logging or
surface mapping and is at an advanced38

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary

estimation.

level". Ravensgate classified the
Geological Interpretation as a lowmoderate risk in the Resource
Calculation Risk Assessment. Zinc-leadmineralised domains were initiallymodelled using MineSight 3-D
modelling software. Interpretation was
primarily done in cross-section using
geological logging and the 3D
geological model. Cross sections wereoriented on 100m and 50m sections
oriented perpendicular to thedominant strike of the domain being
modelled.

• The use of geology in guiding andcontrolling Mineral Resource
estimation.
• The factors affecting continuity both ofgrade and geology.

Dimensions• The extent and variability of the Mineral •Resource expressed as length (along
strike or otherwise), plan width, anddepth below surface to the upper andlower limits of the Mineral Resource.

The area containing the Citronen
Resource stretches 6.5km from thenorth-west corner of the Esrum Zone tothe south-east corner of the Discovery
Zone. The deposit is exposed at surface
in the Discovery Zone and reaches adepth of 575m below surface in theEsrum Zone. The deposit is open along
strike and at depth.

Estimation
andmodellingtechniques• The nature and appropriateness of the•estimation technique(s) applied and key
assumptions, including treatment of
extreme grade values, domaining,•interpolation parameters and maximum
distance of extrapolation from data
points. If a computer assisted
estimation method was chosen include
a description of computer software and•parameters used.

Resource estimations were generatedusing standard 3D 'uniform block size'modelling techniques.

• The availability of check estimates,
previous estimates and/or mine
production records and whether the
Mineral Resource estimate takes
appropriate account of such data.
• The assumptions made regarding
recovery of by-products.
• Estimation of deleterious elements orother non-grade variables of economic
significance (eg sulphur for acid minedrainage characterisation).
• In the case of block model interpolation,
the block size in relation to the average
sample spacing and the search•

The Ordinary Kriging interpolation
technique was employed owing to the
low coefficients of variation observed
for sample composites for each domain
area.
Three separate block models werecreated - one each for the Beach,
Esrum and Discovery Zones due to thelarge file sizes. Variable upper highgrade Zinc cut-offs were applied to the
1m down-hole composite data set prior
to carrying out interpolation.
In Ravensgate's opinion a general levelof cut-off at the 98th or 99th percentile
level be implemented in conjunction
with local domain statistics to help
minimise the change of over-estimationof grades. Major, minor and down holeaxis length for interpolation wereobtained by using variograms. Thesevary depending on Zone.

39

Criteria

JORC Code explanation
employed.

Commentary•

Higher Zn grade domains wererestricted according to the probability
statistics observed within eachmineralisation domain. Generally thegrade cut-off - distance restriction
regime was applied to at the 98th or
99th percentile level.

•

A composite length of 1m was used as
it was deemed this length was shortenough to honour the dimensions ofgeological and mineralisation domains
being modelled. The composite
subsequent data processing andstatistical analysis, were carried out in
MineSight Compass Software.
Wireframe development was guided
using a minimum true width of 2m.

•

An approximate 'half of drill holespacing' distance of influence approach
was used for extrapolating.

•

Block size was 10m x 10m with benchheight of 1m.

•

No assumptions behind modelling of
selective mining units were made.

•No assumptions about correlation
between variables was made.

•Zinc and Lead distribution within thedefined domains is relatively
predictable and mostly display low
coefficients of variation (CV 0.4-1.0).

•

In Ravensgate's opinion, considering
the relatively low coefficients ofvariations observed for the three main
Citronen project areas that only
minimal outlier treatment need beconsidered. Ravensgate used the 9899th percentile level as the main
starting point for the grade restriction
implementation level. The
restriction distance was also set as 60
to 80 metres depending on the drilling
density available within any givenmineralisation domain.

•

Wardrop Consulting completed aresource estimate in 2007 and in 2008
an in-house resource was calculated by
Ironbark. Ravensgate consultants were

• Any assumptions behind modelling of
selective mining units.
• Any assumptions about correlation
between variables.
• Description of how the geologicalinterpretation was used to control the
resource estimates.
• Discussion of basis for using or notusing grade cutting or capping.
• The process of validation, the checking
process used, the comparison of model
data to drill hole data, and use ofreconciliation data if available.

40

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary
contracted in 2010 to calculate aresource to include the 2008, 2009 and2010 drilling. Ravensgate were
contracted again after the 2011 drilling
was completed to provide a resource
encompassing all drilling to date at the
project. The resource estimates from2007, 208 and 2010 were used as check
estimates against the 2012 Resource.
•

No by-product recovery assumptions
have been made.

•Deleterious elements have not been
considered in the Resource Calculation
based on the results from metallurgicaltestwork to date.

•

The resource estimate was reviewed by
two Competent Persons from
Ravensgate and the block model crosschecked with the drilling data both by
Ravensgate and in-house.

Moisture• Whether the tonnages are estimated ona dry basis or with natural moisture,and the method of determination of the
moisture content.

• Bulk densities were based on dry
tonnes.

Cut-off
parameters• The basis of the adopted cut-off
grade(s) or quality parameters applied.

•

A 6.0% zinc cut off was used as theresource is being used in mine
optimisation studies.

Miningfactors orassumptions• Assumptions made regarding possible
mining methods, minimum mining
dimensions and internal (or, if
applicable, external) mining dilution. It
is always necessary as part of theprocess of determining reasonable
prospects for eventual economic
extraction to consider potential mining
methods, but the assumptions maderegarding mining methods andparameters when estimating Mineral
Resources may not always be rigorous.
Where this is the case, this should bereported with an explanation of thebasis of the mining assumptions made.

•No specific assumptions were madeabout mining methods by Ravensgate
whilst calculating the resource
estimate, other than considering theuse of standardised surface (Discovery
Zone) and underground mining (Esrum& Beach Zones) methods. Mining Plus
consultants have proposed the roomand pillar underground mining method
to maximise recovery. Further
information on mining methods can befound in Ironbark’s Feasibility Study
Update released 12 September 2017.

Metallurgica
l factors orassumptions• The basis for assumptions or predictions •regarding metallurgical amenability. It
is always necessary as part of theprocess of determining reasonable
prospects for eventual economic

Metallurgical testing has been carriedout on Citronen drill core after the
2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 drilling
campaigns. The testwork has been
conducted by Burnie Laboratories in41

Criteria

JORC Code explanation
extraction to consider potential
metallurgical methods, but theassumptions regarding metallurgicaltreatment processes and parameters
made when reporting Mineral
Resources may not always be rigorous.
Where this is the case, this should bereported with an explanation of thebasis of the metallurgical assumptions
made.

Environment
al factors orassumptions

Bulk density

Commentary
Tasmania (now part of ALS Global). Ore
processing will incorporate thefollowing stages: primary & secondarycrushing, dense media separation,
grinding and classification, flotationand concentrate thickening andfiltration. Very high zinc flotation
recoveries of 85% have been achieved.
•

Further information on metallurgicaland process testwork can be found in
the Ironbark Feasibility Study Update
released 12 September 2017.

• Assumptions made regarding possible•
waste and process residue disposal
options. It is always necessary as part ofthe process of determining reasonable
prospects for eventual economic
extraction to consider the potential
environmental impacts of the mining
and processing operation. While at thisstage the determination of potential•
environmental impacts, particularly fora greenfields project, may not always
be well advanced, the status of earlyconsideration of these potential
environmental impacts should bereported. Where these aspects have notbeen considered this should be reportedwith an explanation of theenvironmental assumptions made.

A full Environmental Impact
Assessment has been completed andsubmitted to the Government ofGreenland. Environmental factors andmanagement solutions are outlined in
the Feasibility Study Report for
Citronen released on the ASX on 29
April 2013.

• Whether assumed or determined. If•
assumed, the basis for the assumptions.
If determined, the method used,
whether wet or dry, the frequency ofthe measurements, the nature, size andrepresentativeness of the samples.

Ironbark conducted numerous
empirical Specific Gravity (SG)measurements of drill core from a large
range of different rock types andmineralisation styles from the deposit.
Ironbark also examined statisticalmethods to calculate bulk density
based on element assay andstoichiometric density. To calculate thebulk density in the deposit, Ironbark
produced a theoretical density for eachblock in the model based upon theinterpolated value of Fe, Pb and Zn androck type coding. This approach isthought to be more accurate than using
a constant density value for eachdomain. The interpolated densities foreach block were calculated using a• The bulk density for bulk material musthave been measured by methods that
adequately account for void spaces(vugs, porosity, etc), moisture anddifferences between rock and alteration
zones within the deposit.
• Discuss assumptions for bulk density
estimates used in the evaluation
process of the different materials.

Tailings from the mine will be used as
backfill underground or stored in an onground Tailings Storage Facility. Waste
rock will be stored in a waste dump on
surface. Environmental studies
concluded that mine wastes will notsignificantly increase the levels of
metals in the aquatic or terrestrial
environment of the area.

42

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary
formula that utilised the Ordinary
Kriged Fe, Pb and Zn values for thatblock. The formula assumes that all Zn
is reporting to sphalerite (SG of 4.05),
Pb to galena (SG of 7.4) and Fe to pyrite(SG of 5.01), with the remainderconsisting of mudstone gangue (SG of2.78).

Classification• The basis for the classification of theMineral Resources into varying
confidence categories.

•

The Citronen Resource was classified
into Measured, Indicated & Inferredcategories using a mathematical
calculation based on distance to thenearest composite and the number ofcomposites used in each ore domain.
The resource estimate calculated by aCompetent Person of Ravensgate
Consultants has adhered to the JORC
(2004) guidelines and the resource
estimate and all its working has beenverified by another Competent Person.
Both Competent Persons signed off on
the resource calculation. The Resource
calculation has not been recalculated
since 2011 as no further drilling has
been completed.

•

A JORC compliant resource for Citronen
was initially calculated in 2007 by
Wardrop Consulting. In 2008 a JORC
compliant in-house resource wascalculated by Ironbark, thenRavensgate calculated a JORC
compliant estimate in 2010 and 2011 toinclude the latest drilling. Each of these
Resource Estimates and Reports havebeen extensively reviewed inhouse andthe latest resource was reviewed by
Mining Plus Consultants to ensure its
suitability for underground mining
optimisation.

• Whether appropriate account has beentaken of all relevant factors (ie relative
confidence in tonnage/grade
estimations, reliability of input data,
confidence in continuity of geology andmetal values, quality, quantity anddistribution of the data).
• Whether the result appropriatelyreflects the Competent Person’s view ofthe deposit.

Audits orreviews• The results of any audits or reviews ofMineral Resource estimates.

Discussion ofrelativeaccuracy/
confidence• Where appropriate a statement of the•relative accuracy and confidence level in
the Mineral Resource estimate using anapproach or procedure deemed
appropriate by the Competent Person.
For example, the application of
statistical or geostatistical procedures
to quantify the relative accuracy of theresource within stated confidence

Ravensgate have categorised therelative accuracy/confidence of the
Citronen Resource as low risk andstated "The Citronen Project Area
continues to be deemed to havepotential for economic merit andpossible larger scaled development.
Further development work should becontinued if possible in order to try to43Criteria

JORC Code explanation
limits, or, if such an approach is notdeemed appropriate, a qualitative
discussion of the factors that could
affect the relative accuracy andconfidence of the estimate.

Commentary
extend or increase the underlying
resource base".

• The statement should specify whether it
relates to global or local estimates, and,if local, state the relevant tonnages,
which should be relevant to technicaland economic evaluation.
Documentation should include
assumptions made and the procedures
used.
• These statements of relative accuracy
and confidence of the estimate should
be compared with production data,
where available.

44

Level 3
22 Railway Road
Subiaco 6008
Western Australia

PO Box 8187
Subiaco East
WA 6008
T: +61 8 6146 5325
www.ironbark.gl
admin@ironbark.gl

JORC 2012 Table 1 – Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves
Criteria

Mineral Resource
Estimate forConversion to Ore
Reserves

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

The current JORC 2012 compliant resource as released on 19 July 2021 for Citronen
Description of theMineral Resource
Table 1 – 84.7 million tonnes at 4.72% Zn & 0.47% Pb
estimate used as abasis for theconversion to an Ore
Reserve

Table 2 shows a breakdown of the resource by cut-off, mining method and deposit.

Cautionary Statement:
The contents of this announcement reflect various technical and economic conditions at the time of writing. Given the nature of the resources industry, these conditions can change significantly overrelatively short periods of time. Consequently, actual results may vary from those detailed in this announcement.

Table 2 – Citronen Fjord Resource by cut-off, mining method and deposit

JORC Table 1 included in an announcement to the ASX released on 19 July 2021. Ironbark confirms that it is notaware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in this announcement and46

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates continue to apply and have notmaterially changed. The Company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Person’s findings arepresented have not been materially modified from the original market announcement.

Clear statements as
to whether the
Mineral Resources
are reported
additional to, or
inclusive of, the Ore
Reserves
Site Visits

Comment on any
site visits
undertaken by theCompetent Person
and the outcome ofthose visits

If no site visits havebeen undertaken
indicate why this is
the case

The estimated Ore Reserve is inclusive of Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources.

••

One of the Ravensgate Resource Report 2012 authors was involved in the drilling and project development at an
early stage and visited the site. The author was integral in the establishment of industry best QA/QC practices andhas an intimate knowledge of all procedures used on site.
The author of the Wardrop 2007 Resource Estimate Report was involved in the planning and execution of the 1990's
drilling.
The author of the Ironbark 2008 in-house Resource Estimate was involved in the planning and execution of the 2007
sampling and 2008 drilling programs.
The Competent Person for the reporting of the Ore Reserve has not undertaken a site visit.

••

The project is currently in the Pre-development stage and there are no facilities or establishments on site
COVID-19 international travel restrictions prevent a site visit from being undertaken at this stage

•
•

47

Criteria

Study Status

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

The type and level of The mine designs and schedules that were used to estimate this Ore Reserve form part of Ironbark Zinc Limited’s
study undertaken to 2021 Bankable Feasibility Study.
enable Mineral
Resources to beconverted to Ore
Reserves
The code requiresthat a study to atleast Pre-feasibility
Study level has been
undertaken toconvert Mineral
Resource to Ore
Reserves. Suchstudies will havebeen carried out andwill havedetermined a mineplan that is
technicallyachievable andeconomically viable,
and that material
modifying factors
have been
considered

•
•
•

•
•

(2011) A Feasibility study conducted by Wardrop in 2011 deemed the project technically and economically viable.
(2017) An update of the 2011 Wardrop Feasibility Study was carried out by Ironbark in 2017.
(2020) Turner Mining and Geotechnical Pty Ltd (TMG) undertook a geotechnical review of the 2011 Wardrop study.
TMG reassessed local and regional pillar sizes, ground support and outlined further work to be undertaken by
Ironbark for a higher confidence on the deposit geotechnical parameters.
(2020) As part of the 2020 Citronen Mine Study, a mine plan was developed that was technically achievable and
EBITDA positive. This mine plan considered material modifying factors such as mining, processing, and metallurgy.
(2021) Ironbark Zinc Limited, Citronen Fjord Project Bankable Feasibility Study48

Criteria

Cut-off Parameters

Explanation

The basis of the cutoff grade(s) or
quality parameters
applied

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

•
•
•

•
•
•

Discovery Orebody – Surface Mining
Cut-off grade for open pit mining is based around the Zinc modifying factors and is calculated to 1.55% Zn;
Zn Recovery: 84%
Zn Price: US$1.30 /lb
Process Cost: US$29.10 (inclusive of G&A)
Beach and Esrum Orebodies – Underground Mining
Cut-off grade is based on a Net Smelter Return (NSR), taking into account the net revenue from recovered Zn, Pb and thecost of mining, processing and G&A. The NSR calculation relied upon the processing recoveries shown below:
Zn Recovery: 84%
Pb Recovery: 50%
Costs:

Item

Cost (US$)

Processing Costs

18.00/tonne ofore
7.00/tonne ofore
38.00/tonne ofore
4.10/tonne ofore

G&A Costs
Mining Costs
Other

The Citronen project is a multi-material and recovery project. Thus, it is not possible to set the cut-off value based on thecontained metal. To overcome this limitation, an NSR value calculation was undertaken, taking into consideration therecoveries and smelter terms for Zn and Pb. With the NSR value, a ZnEq grade was back calculated and resulted in theapproximate value of 3.57% ZnEq.
The formula for the ZnEq calculation is as stated below:
ZnEq=Zn+0.58×Pb

49

Criteria

Mining Factors orAssumptions

Explanation

The method andassumptions used asreported in the PreFeasibility or
Feasibility Study toconvert the Mineral
Resource to an Ore
Reserve (i.e. either
by application of
appropriate factors
by optimisation orby preliminary or
detailed design)

The choice, nature
and appropriatenessof the selectedmining method (s)and other mining
parameters
including associateddesign issues such as
pre-strip, access,etc.

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1
•

•
•
•

Discovery Orebody – Surface Mining
The Open Pit Ore Reserve has been reported within a pit design based on pit shells from the Whittle optimisations
and with appropriate design parameters applied. These have included geotechnical and other operationalparameters.
Beach and Esrum Orebodies – Underground Mining
The mining method is cut and fill with primary and secondary panels.
No planned overbreak was included in the design.
The mine recovery was considered to be 98% as cut and fill is a high recovery low dilution mining method. Regionalpillars are considered to be partially extracted at the end of the mine life with a recovery factor of 50%. Access pillars
were also assessed and factorized as 7% on top of the mine recovery.

••

Beach and Esrum Orebodies – Method Independent
The Ore Reserve estimate is based on the Mineral Resource released in 2012, by Ravensgate, with the competentperson being Ravengate’s Stephen Hyland.
All mining parameters are based on geotechnical recommendations.
Zn and Pb recoveries of respectively 84% and 50%.

•

Discovery Orebody – Surface Mining
The mining method is conventional truck and excavator open pit mining.

•

Beach and Esrum Orebodies – Underground Mining•••

The current mining method (cut and fill) is an optimisation of the previously selected method (room and pillar).
Furthermore, it takes into consideration the current geotechnical parameters and mining practicalities.
The key driver of the mining method selection was to maximise the recovery under the geotechnical assumptionthat all panels need to have the top (backs) supported. The presumption excludes options for longhole drilling
methods, as the height of the production areas is relatively small (average of 6m), which excludes the possibility ofdeveloping a bottom drive for a panel.
The mining method was optimised to follow the contours of the orebody mineralisation increasing recovery andreducing dilution. The new design will also help with mining productivity, as it reduces development issues andmakes the backfill process easier.

50

Criteria

Explanation

The assumptions
made regarding
geotechnicalparameters (e.g. pit
slopes, stope sizes,etc.), grade control
and pre-production
drilling

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1
Discovery Orebody – Surface Mining
The indicative slope configuration for the Discovery open pit design were provided by the 2009 geotechnical assessments
produced for Ironbark, these assessments included batter angles of between 60o and 80o for fresh rock and 34o to 40o forthe overlying sediments, with safety berms between 5m and 6m for each 10m vertical depth.
Beach and Esrum Orebodies – Underground Mining

Geotechnical parameters and advice were supplied by the TMG’s review:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

The information was used to generate the mine design.
Not Applicable

The major
assumptions madeand the Mineral
Resource model
used for pit andstope optimisation(if appropriate)
The mining dilution
factors used

Recommended drive dimensions
Local pillar sizes
Regional pillar sizes
Mining method
Panel sequence
Recommended ground support standards
Risk of surface subsidence in shallow mine areas•

Discovery Orebody – Surface Mining
SMU modelling estimated a dilution of 9% and an ore loss of 8%
Beach and Esrum Orebodies – Underground Mining

The mining recovery
factors used•

Any mining widths
used•Mining Recovery Factors
o Development, 100%o Stopes, 90%
Mining Dilution – 0%51

Criteria

Explanation

The manner inwhich Inferred
Mineral Resources
are utilised in mining
studies and thesensitivity of theoutcome to their
inclusion

Metallurgical
Factors orAssumptions

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1
The mining method planned for the extraction of the underground resource is highly selective and it is reasonable to expectthat the ore can be extracted cleanly with no dilution.
There is a portion of the Citronen Inferred Mineral Resource that is included in the life of mine mill feed but is not part of theOre Reserves. The material represents 25% of the overall life of mine mill feed and was removed from the economics of the
project. The project is highly sensitive to variations in recovered zinc metal.

The infrastructure
requirements of theselected mining
methods

Sufficient infrastructure will be established by the mining contractor for the mine to operate, including, but not limited to,surface access roads, waste storage facilities, surface explosive magazine, declines, ventilation fans and return airways,
sumps and pump stations.

The metallurgicalprocess proposed
and theappropriateness ofthat process to thestyle of themineralisation

Ore processing will incorporate the following stages: primary secondary and tertiary crushing, dense media
separation, grinding and classification, flotation and concentrate thickening and filtration. The process method
chosen is considered standard for the commodity and style of mineralisation. Zinc flotation recoveries of 85%
have been achieved in test work. Further information on metallurgical and process test work can be found in the
Ironbark Feasibility Report released 29 April 2013.

Whether the
metallurgical

The metallurgical process is well-tested in the industry.

52

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

process is welltested technology ornovel in nature
The nature, amountandrepresentativenessof metallurgical test
work undertaken,
the nature of themetallurgicaldomaining applied
and thecorresponding
metallurgicalrecovery factors
appliedSamples were prepared for mineralogical test work in ALS Ammtec and then sent for Qualitative Optical
Mineralogical Examination via Roger Townend and Associates.
For the test programme, ALS Ammtec was supplied with three spiral separation test work tail samples from theIronbark Citronen Project in Greenland:•

Sample # 1: Spiral Cut 6 Product: 3285•

Sample # 2: Spiral Cut 7 Product: 3286•

Sample # 3: Spiral Cut 8 Product: 3287

Final results can be seen in the mineralogical exam result table below:

53

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

Any assumptions or
allowances made fordeleterious
elements

No deleterious elements have been identified through the sampling and assaying of the mineralisation.

The existence of any
bulk sample or pilot
scale test work andthe degree to whichsuch samples are
considered
representative ofMetallurgical testing has been carried out on Citronen drill core after the 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 drilling
campaigns. Composite samples were created for each of the three deposits – Beach, Esrum and Discovery. The
test work has been conducted by Burnie Laboratories in Tasmania (now part of ALS Global).

54

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

the orebody as awhole

For minerals that are Not Applicabledefined by the
specification, has
the ore reserve
estimation been
based on theappropriate
mineralogy to meetthe specifications?
Environmental

The status of studies
of potential
environmental
impacts of themining andprocessing
operation. Details ofwaste rockcharacterisation andthe consideration ofpotential sites,
status of design
options considered
and, where

An Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed and submitted to the Government of Greenland.
Environmental factors and management solutions are outlined in the Feasibility Study Report for Citronen
released to the ASX on 29 April 2013.
Tailings from the mine will be used as backfill underground or stored in an on-ground tailings storage facility.
Waste rock will be stored in a waste-dump on surface. Waste Rock and Dense media separation (DMS) rejects are
non acid forming. Potentially acid forming tailings will be stored and managed using appropriately designed
tailings storage facilities. Environmental studies concluded that mine wastes will not significantly increase thelevels of metals in the aquatic or terrestrial environment of the area.

55

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

applicable, thestatus of approvals
for process residue
storage and waste
dumps should bereported.
Infrastructure

Costs

The existence ofappropriate
infrastructure:
availability of landfor plant
development,
power, water,transportation(particularly for bulk
commodities),
labour,accommodation; orthe ease with which
the infrastructure
can be provided oraccessed.
The derivation of, orassumptions made,regarding projected
capital costs in the
study

•
•

The Citronen Zinc Project is located in north-eastern Greenland approximately 2,100 km north of the capital ofGreenland, Nuuk. It is located at 83°05′N, 28°16′W.
There is no existing infrastructure at the site and consequently all infrastructure and ancillary facilities need to be
developed as part of the project. The facilities and infrastructure to be developed are based on the original 2010
studies.

Capital costs were derived on the following basis:
•
•

•
•

The overall plant layout and equipment sizing estimation sourced from the 2017 Citronen Feasibility Study Update.
The cost model was set up to have a mining contractor develop the declines, level accesses and ore drives andextract the ore. The mining contractor costs for equipment provision and maintenance, labour provision andmobilization/demobilisation are based on the current experience of Mining Plus (MP) with similar sized and locatedprojects.
Mining capital estimates have been made using, wherever possible, pricing obtained from the Citronen 2017 study
or the Mining Plus knowledge base by benchmarking of similar cut and fill/ room and pillar operations.
Mining capital costs include:56

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

The methodology
used to estimate
operating costs

Mine establishment activities
Primary ventilation fans
fixed plant
Mine air compressor
High voltage electrical distribution network
Water tanks for mine water supply
Radio Communication system
Pumping system
Survey equipment
Mine rescue equipment•

Contingency has been applied to account for the accuracy of the estimate.

•

The contractors' development equipment includes jumbos, loaders, charge-up units, ITs and a service truck. The
operating hours of the development equipment have been determined from first principles based on mobile
equipment productivity rates provided by MP (based on experience with similar-sized projects).
Personnel requirements were sourced in three ways:
o Principal management and technical staff positions numbers were sourced from the 2017 Citronen FS
update.
o Services positions were based on MPs experience and the requirements calculated to achieve the mine
plan.
o Operations personnel were linked to equipment requirements and determined from the equipment
schedule.
The consumables costs were calculated from first principles and the quantities determined using the physicals
schedule, mine profiles and input assumptions. The unit costs were sourced from the input assumptions worksheet.
A freight cost of 3% was applied to the consumable costs.
Service costs calculated for ventilation and pumping services based on BCM project database. The secondary
ventilation and mobile pumping were assumed to be provided by the mining contractor. A monthly ownership cost
was calculated from first principles and was applied in the Auxiliary Equipment worksheet in the cost model.
The mobilisation cost assumptions were based on MPs experience with similar projects.
Contractor mark-up has been applied to contractor personnel, equipment, consumables and mobilisation anddemobilisation costs. Contractor mark-up is applied at 10% with a further corporate mark-up of 3%. These rates are
based on MPs experience with similar projects and Australian rates.
An allowance was made within the cost model for the following miscellaneous works;o Raise boringo Box cut excavation

•

•

•

•
•

•

57

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1•••

o Surface truckingo Shaft sinking
General and administration costs sourced from the 2017 Citronen Feasibility Study Update
Processing plant operating costs sourced from the 2017 Citronen Feasibility Study Update
Open pit operating costs sourced from the 2017 Citronen Feasibility Study Update

Allowances madefor the content ofdeleterious
elements

No allowances were made for deleterious elements

The source of
exchange rates usedin the study

The cost model provides a first principles estimate, in USD.

Derivation oftransport charges

Two solutions were considered for the transport of concentrate from Citronen Fjord: An icebreaking tug withbarge versus two ice-class bulk carriers. The solution with the ice-class bulk carriers was chosen due to thegreater load capacity, resulting in fewer required trips per year, ease of operation and greater economic benefit.
Shipping to and from Citronen will utilise two high ice class mine re-supply vessels.
•

One Polar Class 3 (PC3), 65,000 Deadweight Cargo Capacity (DWCC) vessel designed to carry zinc and leadconcentrates, arctic diesel and TEUs (Class & Non-Class) without ice breaker escort.

•

One Polar Class 4 (PC4), 55,000 DWCC vessel designed to carry zinc and lead concentrates, arctic diesel
and TEUs (Class & Non-Class) without ice breaker escort.

Concentrate production will be approximately 300,000 tonnes per annum (peaking at 320,000). Based on theselected ships capacity, this corresponds to a requirement for approximately 3 return trips per year.

58

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

The basis for
Not Applicable
forecasting or
source of treatment
and refining charges,
penalties for failure
to meetspecification, etc.
The allowances
made for royalties
payable, both
Government andprivateRevenue Factors

The Citronen deposits are located wholly within Exploitation Licence 2016/30 which is held in the name of
Ironbark A/S a wholly owned subsidiary of Ironbark Zinc Limited. EL2016/30 lies within the Northeast Greenland
National Park. A 2.5% royalty is payable to vendors.

The derivation of, orassumptions maderegarding revenue
factors including
head grade, metal orcommodity price(s)exchange rates,transportation andtreatment charges,
penalties, net
smelter returns etc.

•
•
•

•

Head grade is determined as a result of initial strategic planning in Mine shape optimisation (MSO) and then further
detailed mine scheduling using Enhanced Production Scheduler (EPS) with mine physical data then provided to
calculate revenue, etc. in models.

The derivation ofassumptions madeof metal orcommodity price(s),for the principal•••

Metal prices derived from long term averages
Currency exchange rates
Royalties•

Zn price - US$ 2,867/t
Pb price - US$ 2,094/t
Smelting losses
o 0.25%
Maximum payable prices:o Zn – 85%
o Pb – 85%59

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

metals, minerals andco-products.

Market Assessment

The demand, supply
and stock situation
for the particularcommodity,
consumption trends
and factors likely toaffect supply anddemand into the
future.

The Zinc market is mature and highly liquid, with the metal freely traded on several exchanges, including the LME.

A customer andcompetitor analysis
along with theidentification of
likely market
windows for the
product

The Citronen Project has pre-committed 70% of its metal production on binding take or pay agreements with thetwo largest base metal trading groups in the world, Glencore and Trafigura. It is anticipated that the balance of
production (30%) will also be pre-sold prior to the commencement of mining.

Price and volume
forecasts and thebasis for these
forecasts

It is anticipated that the Zinc price will move moderately higher in the coming years as demand continues to
exceed available supply. This is based on an analysis of a range of freely available 3rd party market forecasts.

For industrial
minerals thecustomer
specification, testing

A rising price trend seen over the last ~12 months is indicative of a tightening supply-demand dynamic withseveral short to medium term catalysts likely to provide further support. These include supply constraints at some
operating zinc mines, combined with an expected upswing in demand due to broad based stimulus measures
being implemented by a number of macroeconomic actors globally.

Not Applicable60

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

and acceptancerequirements prior
to a supply contract

Economic

The inputs to theeconomic analysis to
produce the netpresent value (NPV),the source andconfidence of these
economic inputs
estimated inflation,
discount rate, etc.

The Financial model combined inputs from the 2017 and the cost model generated on the 2021 Citronen
Underground Mining Study. The portion of costs estimated as part of the Citronen optimization Study have an
accuracy of ±25%.
A summary of the costs is stated below:
Capital Costs:•

Mining US$ 81.4M•

Process and infrastructureoSurface Capital Infrastructure US$ 411.6M

oSurface Sustaining Capital US$ 65.1M

Operating costs:•

Underground Mining US$ 36.25/t of ore•

Open Pit Mining US$ 7.5/t of ore•

Processing US$ 14.9/t of ore•

G&A US$ 6.1/t of ore

The financial model is based on the following key criteria:•

Discount rate of 8%•

No allowance for inflation

The Open Pit costs, tonnes and grade were sourced from the 2021 Citronen Underground Study Update.

61

Criteria

Explanation

NPV ranges andsensitivity tovariations in thesignificant
assumptions andinputsSummary Comments for JORC Table 1

A sensitivity analyses was conducted within the financial model to identify the impact of the metal price on theforecasted project returns.
The analysis showed that the project is very sensitive to metal price variations.
The project also showed to be highly sensitive to the addition of the Discovery open pit to the end of the minelife.

SocialThe status ofRelationships with stakeholders are in good standing and there are no known social impediments to the project.
agreements with key A full Social Impact Assessment has been submitted to, and accepted by, the Government of Greenland.
stakeholders andmatters leading tosocial licence tooperate.

Other

To the extent
relevant, theimpacts of thefollowing on the
project and/or on
the estimation andclassification of theOre reserves:
Any identified
material naturally
occurring risks.

Mining Plus identified risks associated with assumptions made in the current study and recommends further analysis aroundthe following items:•

Mining on the Permafrost Zone
• The following up to date data should be gathered before mining commencement:• Daily and mean monthly air temperatures.
• The amplitude of ground temperature variation in the active layer (layer of rock or soil above
the permafrost zone).
• Stable permafrost temperature distribution at depth.
• Snow cover and precipitation measurements.

•

Hydrogeological studyo In regions of continuous permafrost, the frost table location can have a large impact on the water regime. Intact
permafrost is an impenetrable water boundary.
o The Citronen site is in an area of continuous permafrost where the ground stays frozen all year to an ultimate
depth of 400m, as projected by literature using measured geothermal gradient.

62

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1o•

The status ofmaterial legal
agreements andmarketingarrangements

Citronen is considered to be a dry mine based on the above mentioned and experience from drilling on site.
However, an underground hydrogeological study to pre-feasibility level needs to be undertaken to assess thepotential (if existing) sources of underground water inflow and risks associated with it.

oFrozen backfill
o The understanding of the properties and behaviours of the frozen backfill is fundamental for a successful
application of the studied mining method.
o Further tests should be conducted around the processing plant slurry for a better understanding of its
behaviour when frozen and exposed to heat. This will be the environment that the frozen backfill will be
subjected to in studied mining method.

•

Production rateo Mining Plus recommends a production rate optimization investigation in light of the potential reserves outlinedin the study. A lower production rate could reduce costs and improve the financials of the project.

•

Geotechnical Numeric Modellingo A geotechnical analysis and modelling should be undertaken in the next phases of the study around pillar sizes
and ground support. The recommended work to be carried out is outlined below:o Re-log Core data - Logging of RQD at least for 20m into the HW of each ore intersection.
o Underground stress analysis using 3DEC (Hangingwall) – the stress analysis will produce information about
deformations around the seams hanging wall. The model will generate reliable information that will back up a
3d stress analysis.
o 3D stress strain analysis (Map3D modelling) – the 3D stress-strain analysis will test ground support, pillar sizes,
spans, regional pillars, subsidence of the frozen sedimentary rock when exposed.

Not Applicable63

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

The status of
The Citronen Project lies within a granted Exploitation Licence which is owned 100% by Ironbark.
governmental
agreements andapprovals critical tothe viability of the
project, such as
mineral tenement
status, andgovernment andstatutory approvals.
There must be
reasonable grounds
to expect that allnecessary
government
regulations will bereceived within thetimeframes
anticipated in the
Pre-feasibility or
Feasibility study.
Highlight and discuss
the materiality of
any unresolved
matter that isdependent on athird party on which
extraction of thereserve is
contingent.

64

Criteria

Classification

Explanation

The basis for theclassification of theOre Reserves into
varying confidence
categories.

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1•••

Part of the Measured and Indicated Resources has been classified as Proved and Probable Reserves.
The Ore Reserve consist of 50% Proved Reserve and 50% Probable Reserve.
The Competent Person, is satisfied that the stated Ore Reserves accurately reflect the outcome of mine planning andthe input of economic parameters into optimisation studies.

Whether the result
appropriatelyreflects theCompetent Person'sview of the deposit
The proportion of
Probable Ore
Reserves that havebeen derived from
Measured Mineral
Resources (if any)
Audits or reviews

The results of any
audits or reviews of
Ore Reserve
estimates

Discussion of
Where appropriate a
relativestatement of theaccuracy/confidence relative accuracy
and confidence levelin the Ore Reserve
estimate using andapproach orprocedure deemed
appropriate by the

Mining Plus has undertaken an internal peer review of the Ore Reserve in accordance with its consulting
guidelines•

The Mining component of the PFS has been completed with a relative accuracy of +/-25%.

••

All mining estimates are based on relevant costs in US$ or factored estimates from similar mining method and scale
projects.
Where practical and possible, current industry practices have been used to quantify estimations made.

•To mitigate risks associated with the project it is recommended that the following work be undertaken:ohydrogeological study
65Criteria

Explanation

Competent Person.
For example, theapplication of
statistical or
geostatisticalprocedures toquantify the relative
accuracy of thereserve withinstated confidence
limits, or, if such an
approach is notdeemedappropriate, aqualitative
discussion of thefactors which could
affect the relative
accuracy andconfidence of theestimate

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1ooFrozen backfill analysis
Geotechnical Numeric Modelling66

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

The statement
should specify
whether it relates toglobal or local
estimates, and if
local, state therelevant tonnages,
which should be
relevant to technicaland economic
evaluation.
Documentation
should include
assumptions madeand the procedures
used
Accuracy andconfidence
discussions should
extend to specificdiscussions of any
applied Modifying
factors that may
have a material
impact on Ore
Reserve viability, orfor which there areremaining areas of
uncertainty at thecurrent study stage
It is recognised that67

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

this may not be
possible orappropriate in all
circumstances.
These statements ofrelative accuracy
and confidence ofthe estimate should
be compared withproduction data,
where available.
Overall economic
statement

The economics of the Citronen Project were evaluated based on earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation andamortisation (EBITDA) model. Production, revenues, operating costs, capital costs, and corporate income tax
were considered in the financial model. All dollar figures are presented in US dollars (‘US$’).
The main economic assumptions are a US$ 3,042/t zinc price, US$ 2,315/t lead price.

68

Level 3
22 Railway Road
Subiaco 6008
Western Australia

PO Box 8187
Subiaco East
WA 6008
T: +61 8 6146 5325
www.ironbark.gl
admin@ironbark.gl

Appendix A4: Citronen Project Drill Hole Collar Locations & Significant Intercepts

HoleID

Zone

Easting

Northing

RL

Azi

Dip

EOH
(m)

From
(m)

To (m)

Width
(m)

Zn%

Pb%

CF9301

D4844479225037

161.40

360

-90

9.10

5.18

7.92

2.74

3.96

0.22

D

4844479225037

161.40

360

-90

78.30

4.90

30.60

25.70

3.49

0.73

57.80

68.10

10.30

3.42

0.66

CF9301A
CF9302
CF9303

D

4841249225070

101.40

360

-90

78.00

6.70

32.10

25.40

2.07

0.40

D

4841809224900

80.92

22

-60

100.30

11.90

35.20

23.30

4.01

0.85

12.40

15.93

3.53

7.62

2.55

including

CF9304D4842609224788

87.26

360

-90

75.90

28.80

30.40

1.60

2.50

0.80

CF9305

D

4840099225466145.98

360

-90

91.40

55.57

63.95

8.38

4.28

0.35

CF9306

D4838819225332

115.30

360

-90

91.10

52.30

53.40

1.10

5.40

0.23

CF9307D4846589224970

200.88

360

-90

91.10

9.44

30.52

21.08

2.75

0.43

D

4843419225218

170.20

360

-90

91.10

3.62

14.00

10.38

4.65

1.47

3.62

6.92

3.30

9.49

3.81

CF9308including

CF9308A

D

4843419225218

170.20

360

-90

18.50

Ineffective depth

CF9309

XX

4832409225629

90.31

360

-90

101.40Ineffective depth

B4825199227127

9.68

360

-90

227.70CF9310B

including

80.43

88.51

8.08

5.07

0.29

83.57

86.23

2.66

10.93

0.46

CF9311

B

4823199227206

12.68

360

-90

166.80

92.13

97.18

5.05

3.19

0.29

CF9409

XX

4832409225629

90.31

360

-90

116.00

56.00

57.00

1.00

1.11

0.08

CF9412NE4831709229870

8.14

360

-90

200.00

CF9413NE4831009229690

5.78

360

-90

182.302.00

0.02

CF9414

NE4839409231740

10.00

360

-90

140.00

CF9415

B

9226832

28.81

360

-90

149.00

2.13

0.22

NSI
67.00

69.00

2.00
NSI

48237699.20

110.8011.60

HoleID

Zone

Easting

Northing

RL

Azi

Dip

EOH
(m)

From
(m)

To (m)

Width
(m)

Zn%

Pb%

CF9415B

B

4823769226832

28.89

360

-90

221.00103.60111.30

7.70

2.03

0.21

CF9416NW

4805809231840

122.50360-90191.00

67.00

68.00

1.00

0.80

0.04

CF9417B

4818039227808

3.06

360

-90

284.00166.00168.50

2.50

2.32

0.16

CF9418B

4821769227044

44.89

360

-90

194.00178.20178.80

0.60

9.70

0.24

CF9419B

4820509227299

25.12

360

-90

215.00201.10205.10

4.00

1.80

0.13

CF9420D

4844509225477278.85360-90106.00

55.00

59.60

4.60

2.26

0.38

CF9421

B

4822269227502

6.95

360

-90

194.00109.00118.60

9.60

3.07

0.33

CF9422

D

4846629225249267.76360-90191.00103.50105.40

1.90

1.95

0.12

B

4825339227447

7.99

360

-90

206.0099.00

114.85

15.85

5.07

0.56

112.05114.85

2.80

17.91

1.22

130.00133.00

3.00

1.68

0.23

CF9423including

CF9424D

4848819225045268.85360-90178.00

CF9425D4845369224767134.18

360

-90

86.00

CF9426

B

4827899227309

18.53

360

-90

209.00163.00174.85

11.85

1.93

0.16

CF9427

BS

4832719226053

61.28

360

-90

212.00173.00176.00

3.00

1.60

0.39

CF9428B4827749227579

15.60

360

-90

179.00137.00138.00

1.00

0.62

0.04

CF9429D4836049225688

81.36

360

-90

122.00

58.00

65.00

7.00

2.26

0.09

CF9430E

4810989228520

91.99

360

-90

212.00210.00211.00

1.00

1.12

0.07

B

4824009227704

5.32

360

-90

221.00124.80134.05

9.25

5.37

0.51

196.20202.20

6.00

4.40

0.56

CF9431

NSI

CF9432

B4826419226883

14.82

360

-90

222.40

88.40

91.00

2.60

3.77

0.14

CF9433B

4821189227802

6.23

360

-90

220.00181.60204.00

22.40

1.97

0.21

CF9434

BS4825429226601

31.20

360

-90

308.00215.00216.80

1.80

2.50

0.47

CF9435

B4826549227828

4.47

360

-90

272.00230.00234.55

4.55

4.41

0.35

CF9436

BS4825539226327

51.01

360

-90

401.00284.00293.10

9.10

3.40

0.42

70

HoleID

Zone

Easting

Northing

RL

Azi

Dip

EOH
(m)

From
(m)

To (m)

Width
(m)

Zn%

Pb%

CF9437

B

4823269227953

3.04

360

-90

257.00191.00210.00

19.00

3.12

0.62

CF9438BS

4821769226461

48.61

360

-90

365.00337.00340.00

3.00

2.45

0.23

CF9439BS4830579225948

46.26

360

-90

275.00122.00123.00

1.00

1.14

0.05

CF9440B

4825899227640

6.07

360

-90

240.50207.50221.00

13.50

3.09

0.31

CF9441

XX

4831139225600

66.44

360

-90

230.00165.00166.00

1.00

2.78

0.09

B

4824669227907

3.77

360

-90

272.00141.00146.00

5.00

7.77

0.39

184.00198.00

14.00

4.90

0.75

186.50193.50

7.00

7.31

1.27

CF9442
includingCF9443
CF9444

XX

4835149225427

92.82

360

-90

227.0093.25

103.00

9.75

7.69

0.18

B

4820919228025

1.83

360

-90

245.00176.00185.00

9.00

3.80

0.31

180.50183.75

3.25

8.17

0.60

includingCF9445

XX

4833039225435

91.41

360

-90

287.00NSI

CF9446

XX

4835389225309

90.85

109

-61

197.00NSI

CF9447

B

4822349227685

5.82

360

-90

220.00102.50106.10

3.60

4.53

0.52

CF9448XX4834269225608

102.57360-90158.00

70.80

74.60

3.80

2.23

0.22

B

4824009227546

6.34

360

-90

218.00105.00126.15

21.15

4.95

0.47

116.90124.15

7.25

9.10

1.02

177.85189.00

11.15

4.25

0.21

172.55195.20

22.65

2.63

0.17

174.05178.12

4.07

6.69

0.28

210.00223.00

13.00

2.45

0.61

153.00157.30

4.30

4.99

0.30

CF9449includingB

4822479228178

CF9450

1.00

360

-90

245.00including

CF9451

B

4825669228172

1.00

360

-90

286.00

CF9452

B

4818539228254

-0.72

360

-90

141.00

CF9453B

4817139227240

11.33

360

-90

263.00239.50240.60

1.10

2.00

0.09

CF9552

B

4818539228254

-0.69

360

-90

258.00192.10192.66

0.56

3.72

1.25

CF9554E

4816609228610

0.00

360

-90

413.00288.80291.25

2.45

5.13

0.38

CF9555

B4824779228519

0.00

360

-90

416.00345.65345.90

0.25

1.28

0.14

Ineffective depth71HoleID

Zone

Easting

Northing

RL

Azi

Dip

EOH
(m)

From
(m)

To (m)

Width
(m)

Zn%

Pb%

CF9556E4814009228270

1.00

360

-90

326.00183.35186.00

2.65

2.45

0.56

CF9557B

4821259228428

1.00

360

-90

365.00260.15261.35

1.20

2.80

0.19

CF9558E4814809228970

1.00

360

-90

356.00253.90254.75

0.85

1.55

0.14

CF9559NW

4809909229700

30.37

360

-90

338.00274.10274.65

0.55

2.00

0.16

CF9560E

4812179227909

28.00

360

-90

238.00173.00181.30

8.30

1.51

0.24

CF9561

B

4828369228340

0.98

360

-90

356.00248.52249.27

0.75

7.60

0.47

CF9562

E4812789227676

4.83

360

-90

233.00177.00183.50

6.50

4.12

0.58

CF9563B

4815549228000

2.11

360

-90

188.00128.80131.00

2.20

3.97

0.47

CF9564B

4818259228016

0.71

360

-90

223.00172.80174.00

1.20

2.51

0.39

CF9565

B4815859227771

0.93

360

-90

212.00168.00168.00

1.00

0.99

0.12

CF9566

E

4808689228322112.32360-90393.50263.62267.02

3.40

2.68

0.53

CF9567E

4811019228529

92.33

360

-90

437.00278.00306.60

28.60

2.95

0.63

CF9568E4808199228882

171.76360-90467.00426.22426.85

0.63

3.94

0.15

CF9569E

4811039228528

92.01

112

-57

384.50302.90321.50

18.60

1.85

0.51

CF9570E4808879228541132.29360-90390.00293.00298.90

5.90

2.63

0.62

CF9571

E4806309229005232.95360-90317.00Ineffective depth

CF9571B

E

4806309229005232.95360-90469.50NSI

CF9572

E4806789228524

156.42360-90425.00355.30366.80

11.50

4.82

0.44

CF9573E4805649227688131.96360-90507.50443.00476.17

33.17

2.01

0.40

CF9574NW

4802339230269231.63360-90513.50466.00467.00

1.00

0.77

0.05

E

4805379228146152.72360-90442.00383.00399.05

16.05

5.19

0.55

390.00395.15

5.15

7.59

0.61

404.80424.60

19.80

3.74

0.49

CF9575
CF9576

includingE

4804889228379187.25360-90449.5072

HoleID

Zone

Easting

Northing

RL

Azi

Dip

EOH
(m)

From
(m)

To (m)

Width
(m)

Zn%

Pb%

CF9577

WG

4786409232940

165.69360-90201.00145.00148.00

3.00

1.28

0.10

CF9578E4803119228067

188.29360-90494.00451.90462.54

10.64

4.34

0.29

CF9579WG

4776409232530

326.11360-90437.00250.92

253.15

2.23

2.06

0.08

CF9580E4807869227897

77.47

360

-90

329.00280.57285.20

4.63

3.97

0.45

CF9581E4804019228652

219.49360-90509.00459.00460.13

1.13

2.59

0.25

CF9582

WG

4789009233070

120.01360-90288.00184.50186.50

2.00

4.43

0.03

E

4807829228143

116.21360-90379.00261.20270.00

8.80

3.44

0.86

333.98340.45

6.47

4.08

0.26

CF9583
CF9584
CF9585
CF9586

WG

4784709233220140.00360-90258.00226.00227.00

1.00

2.36

0.10

B

4824569227318

8.72

360

-90

203.0085.15

100.75

15.60

3.19

0.33

108.00111.00

3.00

12.58

1.28

includingB4825979227321

9.90

360

-90

320.00152.50165.75

13.25

2.20

0.27

B

4824509227628

5.60

360

-90

219.00128.46137.10

8.64

6.57

0.56

128.46131.26

2.80

13.90

1.12

177.97

192.00

14.03

3.38

0.27

131.60137.22

5.62

6.76

1.62

178.28195.00

16.72

4.00

0.84

185.07

189.74

4.67

5.66

0.58

219.00229.00

10.00

1.94

0.74

CF9687

includingB

4824349227809

CF9688

CF9689CF9690

4.40

360

-90

259.00includingD

4839109224933

67.93

360

-90

219.60218.00218.50

0.50

7.47

0.28

D

4843189224948123.16360-90230.00

31.00

53.60

22.60

3.24

0.72

37.80

44.00

6.20

5.35

1.18

16.00

20.00

4.00

2.52

4.31

CF9691

D4842809225048125.87

360

-90

92.00

CF9692

D4842649225274

159.40

360

-90

65.30

D

4840739225199113.29360-90100.00

CF9693

NSI
18.20

38.00

19.80

9.58

0.04

82.00

87.00

5.00

7.18

0.02

CF9694D4841939224993105.87

360

-90

93.00

5.50

39.00

33.50

2.87

0.54

CF9695

SE4845939223985

96.82

360

-90

250.00

95.55

97.30

1.75

14.00

0.30

XX

4834359225501

81.18

360

-90

155.00

57.95

90.00

32.05

8.87

0.12

73

HoleID

Zone

Easting

Northing

CF9696
CF9697

RL

Azi

Dip

EOH
(m)

includingXX

4837329225321119.61360-90125.00

CF9698D4838809225286

107.41360-90141.00

CF9699

XX

4836139225422

48.08

360

-90

103.50B

4824369227419

7.57

360

-90

179.00including
CF96100
includingB4825059227529

CF96101

7.07

360

-90

212.70including

From
(m)

To (m)

Width
(m)

Zn%

Pb%

68.20

76.75

8.55

19.02

0.05

67.00

77.65

10.65

10.50

1.10

74.29

75.79

1.50

24.00

0.18

40.00

43.02

3.02

9.55

0.33

NSI
93.95

103.90

9.95

5.09

0.68

101.65103.90

2.25

14.93

1.14

105.70114.80

9.10

3.13

0.51

159.00179.00

20.00

2.52

0.30

172.00174.00

2.00

4.63

0.39

108.00115.00

7.00

3.52

0.53

119.00126.00

7.00

10.22

0.53

121.65125.00

3.35

19.17

0.95

181.00191.37

10.37

5.26

0.28

96.00

98.00

2.00

5.09

0.07

CF96102

XX

4833529225584

104.50360-90119.00

CF96103

XX

4833329225508

76.39

360

-90

131.00NSI

CF96104

XX

4835579225399

92.33

115

-60

131.00NSI

B

4824209227222

10.03

360

-90

99.00

CF96105

including

71.80

86.02

14.22

4.29

0.38

74.28

79.25

4.97

6.65

0.43

CF96106

XX

4834969225351

92.90

360

-90

170.00

CF96107XX

4835059225500

82.46

360

-90

119.00

48.80

50.15

1.35

2.20

0.06

B

4823409227304

9.59

360

-90

125.0080.65

102.55

21.90

6.68

2.81

90.52

98.85

8.33

10.66

4.01

CF96108

including

NSI

CF96109XX

4835039225498

82.77

230

-62

146.00138.00139.00

1.00

4.71

0.16

CF96110

XX4834379225426

84.90

40

-60

137.00110.00118.33

8.33

4.51

2.12

CF96111B

4822449227337

9.21

360

-90

173.0092.15

109.90

17.75

2.11

0.33

CF96112

XX

4834379225426

115.3540-45130.00101.00102.00

1.00

3.11

0.05

B

4823429227409

8.57

360

-90

134.0094.05

117.00

22.95

3.86

0.65

98.68

101.32

2.64

10.79

0.99

CF96113

including74HoleID

Zone

Easting

Northing

RL

Azi

Dip

EOH
(m)

CF96114XX

4835579225394

91.92

198

-77

143.00

CF96115

XX

4833889225517

78.92

18

-73

127.00

87.45

93.10

CF96116

XX

4833889225516

78.81

360

-90

125.0086.28

CF96117B

4823229227123

22.04

360

-90

110.00

CF96118B

4823429227623

6.68

360

-90

D

4840519225207110.92360-90CF96119D

4840519225207

CF96121110.83

360

-90

Pb%

5.65

5.63

0.02

95.45

9.17

4.42

0.16

84.00

88.28

4.28

7.91

0.64

233.00113.73117.70

3.97

9.18

1.11

77.00

26.25

43.05

16.80

6.23

0.02

35.52

38.95

3.43

14.04

0.03

28.08

46.00

17.92

4.97

0.03

35.39

39.55

4.16

8.36

0.03

105.10106.60

1.50

6.45

14.00

146.00includingTo (m)

Width
(m)

Zn%

including

CF96120

From
(m)

NSI

D

4841369225183

118.28360-90125.00108.28111.80

3.52

6.25

0.49

B

4825379227840

4.07

360

-90

278.00143.00151.06

8.06

6.75

0.34

197.16212.00

14.84

3.19

0.43

208.77211.33

2.56

10.14

1.00

71.00

75.00

4.00

4.58

0.37

CF96122
including
CF96123

D

4839339225268140.44195-75

150.00

CF96124

XX

4836379225369

52.34

360

-90

109.00

CF96125

B

4825659228015

2.70

360

-90

260.00160.82162.02

1.20

8.80

0.36

CF96126

B

4824099227064

24.69

360

-90

89.00

76.85

81.95

5.10

4.55

0.89

CF96127B

4823179227016

44.35

360

-90

155.00136.14139.24

3.10

7.50

0.58

CF96128B

4825059227732

4.93

360

-90

227.00133.00140.80

7.80

9.37

0.50

139.13140.80

1.67

22.72

0.92

CF97129B

151.08

156.1

5.02

4.83

0.68

160.72

162.90

2.18

10.50

3.87

including
4822469226963

44.61

360

-90

179.00NSI

CF97130B

4822069227138

41.80

60

-75

158.00125.00130.20

5.20

4.02

0.25

CF97131B

4822629226862

45.73

360

-90

236.00144.82149.45

4.63

2.77

0.49

CF97132B

4825979227515

7.24

360

-90

170.00169.00170.00

1.00

4.24

0.98

CF97133

B

4821679226901

47.33

360

-90

215.00172.00176.00

4.00

3.78

0.18

B

4825469227927

3.53

360

-90

264.00149.00157.13

8.13

5.23

0.27

75

HoleID

Zone

Easting

Northing

RL

Azi

Dip

EOH
(m)

including

CF97134

From(m)

To (m)

Width
(m)

Zn%

Pb%

153.65156.31

2.66

11.06

0.55

210.13217.81

7.68

4.42

0.84

CF97135

B

4821809226790

47.07

85

-85

203.00154.66158.00

3.34

3.02

0.25

CF97136B

4824539228045

2.71

360

-90

279.00148.50153.74

5.24

7.73

0.35

B

4822619227248

14.11

264

-75

149.0098.30

104.32

6.02

7.38

0.39

99.24

101.00

1.76

15.61

0.73

92.15

99.66

7.51

5.57

0.88

93.80

95.80

2.00

11.96

1.52

102.25108.81

6.56

5.83

0.39

147.60158.30

10.70

7.29

0.33

147.60150.10

2.50

17.10

0.67

CF97137

includingB

4821799227414

CF97138

CF97139

9.55

360

-90

130.00includingB

4824759228174

1.51

360

-90

179.00including

CF97140B

4821259227519

8.38

360

-90

229.30185.50193.00

7.50

2.63

0.35

CF97141B

4822539227592

6.54

360

-90

213.6598.00

104.44

6.44

4.84

0.96

CF97142B

4823379227775

4.60

360

-90

245.00131.90133.05

1.15

21.50

2.60

CF97143B

4824709228283

1.00

360

-90

266.00235.68237.11

1.43

4.00

0.10

CF08144BS

4830449226369

20.30

360

-90

251.00206.25208.20

1.95

3.18

0.21

CF08144A

BS

4830439226366

20.30

360

-90

47.50

CF08145NE

4832829229486

13.87

360

-90

459.00373.72375.70

1.98

6.95

0.38

CF08146

NW

4811509231550

16.52

360

-90

359.00108.00109.20

1.20

4.37

0.40

CF08147BS

4824599226119

54.97

360

-90

422.30276.05286.45

10.40

3.61

0.59

CF08148BS

4825019225770

61.12

60

-60

404.00296.00303.80

7.80

2.13

0.20

NE

4834649228605

44.04

360

-90

468.00317.35323.90

6.55

7.67

0.39

317.35320.80

3.45

10.78

0.40

CF08149

includingIneffective depth

CF08150

BS

4823539226324

50.65

360

-90

451.00334.60342.20

7.60

4.56

0.59

CF08151NE

4836639228919

83.40

360

-90

351.00

22.75

23.45

0.70

2.39

0.01

CF08152

NE

4835489228388

48.69

360

-90

338.00306.00308.00

2.00

3.56

0.43

CF08153D

4839289225742123.81360-90116.40

14.00

23.10

9.10

5.16

0.12

76

HoleID

Zone

Easting

Northing

RL

Azi

Dip

EOH
(m)

From
(m)

To (m)

Width
(m)

Zn%

Pb%

CF08153A

D

4839309225733

123.93360-90

194.40

14.00

23.00

9.00

5.92

0.03

15.00

18.00

3.00

8.97

0.04

including

CF08154D

4837029226240

95.96

360

-90

262.70110.00113.00

3.00

1.32

0.08

CF08155B

4834039227135

77.48

360

-90

267.00117.00123.00

6.00

2.83

0.10

CF08156D

4842729224692

80.29

360

-90

257.40

24.00

29.60

5.60

1.16

0.18

CF08157E

4809079227444

37.09

360

-90

365.00338.90341.40

2.50

2.15

0.27

CF08158D

4841659224735

65.45

360

-90

53.00

26.20

29.30

3.10

1.71

0.17

CF08159D

4840829224828

58.47

360

-90

48.40

29.00

32.00

3.00

2.29

0.18

D

4840799224937

63.40

360

-90

44.00

4.90

24.45

19.55

3.47

0.70

11.70

16.00

4.30

7.51

0.53

CF08160

including

CF08161E

4805989227423132.85360-90332.00CF08161A

E

4805989227423132.86360-90449.00430.70431.30

0.60

5.63

0.07

CF08162D

4840069225010

60.12

360

-90

44.40

29.35

40.10

10.75

4.50

0.52

CF08163D

484211

9224835

81.02

360

-90

47.40

22.00

31.00

9.00

2.02

0.36

CF08164

D

4843879224854117.63

360

-90

45.10

38.80

39.80

1.00

3.11

0.27

D

4844139224960

147.61

360

-90

46.00

2.50

10.40

7.90

5.63

3.46

2.50

4.30

1.80

8.82

11.85

CF08165

includingIneffective depth

CF08166

BS

4823489226689

31.55

360

-90

228.60NSI

CF08166A

BS

4823549226689

31.55

360

-90

80.00

NSI

CF08167E

4804559227901

148.32360-90440.00394.60409.25

14.65

3.81

0.27

CF08168D

4842229225154128.47360-90109.50

70.07

71.72

1.65

3.28

0.02

CF08169E

4802909227792

168.37360-90485.00483.35485.00

1.65

3.56

1.23

CF08170D

4845539225008

175.67

360

-90

18.00

CF08170A

D

4845539225008

175.73

360

-90

97.00

17.90

37.00

19.10

4.35

0.84

CF08171E

4803519227590148.41360-90579.40528.40548.55

20.15

1.87

0.30

Ineffective depth77HoleID

Zone

Easting

Northing

RL

Azi

Dip

EOH
(m)

From
(m)

To (m)

Width
(m)

Zn%

Pb%

CF08172D

4848279224833205.21360-90209.90205.05207.50

2.45

0.91

0.10

CF08173E

4801789227644175.93360-90605.00546.85554.50

7.65

2.25

0.58

CF08174SE

4849059223940105.0020-89

236.00

98.20

98.70

0.50

0.96

0.02

BS

4824689226119

55.12

90

-60

423.63267.52281.81

14.29

3.64

0.45

272.50280.03

7.53

4.63

0.40

CF08175

including

CF08176B

4824679226974

38.97

90

-65

92.00

88.60

92.00

3.40

7.49

0.83

CF08177B

4824659226973

38.96

90

-80

128.0089.35

102.28

12.93

4.49

0.55

CF08178

BS

4824249225931

57.43

360

-90

409.00376.30380.00

3.70

7.21

0.79

CF08179BS

4824009226413

48.68

15

-75

310.55293.00299.37

6.37

3.71

0.68

CF08180

BS

4824619225774

60.05

360

-90

255.00CF08181BS

4822899226147

52.63

360

-90

396.00391.00394.00

3.00

4.02

0.09

CF09182B

4824419226925

39.83

360

-90

114.00

93.75

98.00

4.25

11.07

0.86

CF09183B

4824399226923

40.10

100

-70

117.00

94.55

99.00

4.45

11.29

1.17

CF09184B

4824029226915

39.13

360

-90

117.00102.00105.00

3.00

6.60

0.51

CF09185B

4824219226908

39.55

180

-70

120.0098.30

105.00

6.70

8.27

0.92

CF09186B

4824189226981

38.66

360

-90

120.0099.00

113.00

14.00

4.48

0.61

CF09187B

4824409226985

38.81

30

-70

129.00111.00117.00

6.00

7.46

0.67

CF09188B

4823719226972

36.76

360

-90

129.00102.50109.00

6.50

4.46

0.32

CF09189B

4824299226822

28.43

360

-90

105.00

89.50

96.50

7.00

3.46

0.33

CF09190B

4824829226776

28.40

360

-90

117.00

89.20

99.00

9.80

2.28

0.32

CF09191B

4824769226849

27.57

360

-90

105.00

76.50

82.80

6.30

7.66

0.76

CF09192B

4825089226853

26.56

30

-70

84.00

66.50

71.00

4.50

5.70

0.63

CF09193B

4825219226827

27.20

360

-90

78.00

58.40

71.00

12.60

4.95

0.73

Ineffective depth78HoleID

Zone

Easting

Northing

RL

Azi

Dip

EOH
(m)

From
(m)

To (m)

Width
(m)

Zn%

Pb%

CF09194

B

4825819226900

16.58

360

-90

61.50

42.00

47.00

5.00

3.69

0.33

CF09195

B

4825779226945

15.77

270

-70

72.00

43.00

49.00

6.00

3.84

0.42

CF09196B

4825539227018

11.13

360

-90

66.50

22.10

26.00

3.90

2.92

0.22

CF09197B

4824709227058

23.01

360

-90

87.00

49.50

57.00

7.50

4.20

0.58

CF09198

B

4823789227102

21.82

360

-90

99.00

77.00

80.10

3.10

7.87

0.63

CF09199B

4824029227150

15.30

360

-90

102.00

75.00

81.50

6.50

3.70

0.20

CF09200

B

4823579227167

15.10

360

-90

102.00

82.85

85.85

3.00

7.66

0.51

CF09201

B

4822909227203

14.50

180

-70

114.00

89.00

93.00

4.00

9.38

0.59

B

4822729227216

14.06

220

-70

117.0096.00

102.00

6.00

7.57

0.41

96.00

99.00

3.00

12.10

0.65

CF09202

including

CF09203

B

4824559227175

10.23

360

-90

90.00

59.10

61.40

2.30

5.32

0.38

CF09204

B

4824259227221

9.83

360

-90

99.00

76.05

77.70

1.65

4.20

0.21

CF10205

B

4819919228098

0.25

360

-90

198.00165.50167.50

2.00

3.27

0.21

CF10206

B

4825309228100

1.95

360

-90

240.00157.00164.00

7.00

5.40

0.27

CF10207B

4826259227890

3.78

360

-90

195.25

NSI

CF10208NE

4834359228730

26.56

360

-90

339.70NSI

CF10209B

4825959227780

4.98

360

-90

171.00NSI

CF10210B4824759227750

4.98

360

-90

159.00130.00135.00

5.00

11.67

0.53

B

4825009227675

5.62

360

-90

228.00132.00137.50

5.50

14.05

0.70

192.00201.00

9.00

5.74

0.36

CF10211
CF10212B

4825309227600

6.81

360

-90

231.00198.00203.00

5.00

4.02

2.62

B

4825009227645

6.00

360

-90

219.00130.50137.50

7.00

11.56

0.55

133.50137.00

3.50

18.97

0.85

191.50199.00

7.50

5.51

0.42

96.00

109.00

13.00

6.63

0.70

102.00105.00

3.00

18.83

1.58

CF10213

CF10214

includingB

4825209227370

8.00
including

360

-90

125.0579HoleID

Zone

Easting

Northing

RL

Azi

Dip

EOH
(m)

From
(m)

To (m)

Width
(m)

Zn%

Pb%

CF10215B

4824009227600

6.16

360

-90

222.00121.50132.00

10.50

8.86

0.65

122.00127.00

5.00

13.49

0.74

CF10216B

89.00

102.00

13.00

4.80

0.47

96.00

99.00

4.00

13.41

0.74

CF10217B

107.00121.50

14.50

6.12

0.66

113.00116.00

3.00

11.52

1.20

CF10218A

including
4824309227365

8.18

265

-77

194.70including
4824309227490

6.82

360

-90

147.00includingB

4824689227852

4.15

360

-90

69.00

B

4824669227846

4.19

360

-90

261.00

CF10218B

includingIneffective depth
134.50142.00

7.50

4.67

0.31

134.50137.50

3.00

8.08

0.43

184.00

194.00

10.00

4.28

0.56

CF10219B

4824809227568

6.00

270

-72

59.00

Ineffective depth

CF10220A

B

4825909227380

7.57

270

-80

33.00

Ineffective depth

CF10220B

B

4825949227386

8.56

270

-80

218.10169.25172.85

3.60

4.05

0.29

B

4824209227960

3.09

360

-90

258.00131.00139.00

8.00

5.12

0.25

137.00139.00

2.00

12.39

0.56

184.00196.50

12.50

5.41

0.81

233.00249.50

16.50

2.93

0.35

155.00158.00

3.00

10.14

0.42

260.60264.70

4.10

6.17

0.29

145.00153.00

8.00

5.64

0.22

151.00153.00

2.00

12.33

0.37

including

CF10221

CF10222

B

CF10223

B

CF10224
CF1022548247048250592281109227980

2.00

3.00

360

360

-90

-90

279.00272.40includingB

4826319227022

11.22

360

-90

59.00

B

4823909228015

2.74

360

-90

258.00Ineffective depth
186.55195.00

8.45

4.05

0.55

237.00243.00

6.00

4.25

0.30

CF10226

B

4823809228100

1.90

360

-90

162.80

CF10227B

4825979227957

3.35

360

-90

276.00225.40230.50

5.10

6.78

0.90

B

4825109228046

2.70

360

-90

246.00149.00157.00

8.00

7.56

2.72

154.50157.00

2.50

13.99

0.52

CF10228

includingIneffective depth

CF10229

B

4823529227354

9.14

360

-90

184.2097.00

115.50

18.50

4.73

0.69

CF10230D

4840139224943

56.79

360

-90

57.00

21.40

24.50

3.10

3.33

0.61

CF10231D

4839519225113

60.88

90

-70

65.00

NSI

80

HoleID

Zone

Easting

Northing

RL

Azi

Dip

EOH
(m)

CF10232

XX

4838119225347102.64180-70

122.00NSI

CF10233

D

4841059225309135.87360-90128.00NSI

CF10234D

4843079225252

167.13

360

-90

71.00

NSI

CF10235

D

4843079225252167.09

45

-70

65.00

NSI

CF10236D

4841719225111114.20

10

-70

89.15

NSI

D

4842269225017113.78

360

-90

44.00

CF10237

From(m)

To (m)

Width
(m)

Zn%

Pb%

7.00

24.00

17.00

1.99

0.48

28.00

40.00

12.00

2.56

0.65

CF10238D

4843499225160

156.45

304

70.8

47.00

10.20

11.20

1.00

3.16

1.81

CF10239D

4843489225160

156.46

350

-70

44.00

6.00

7.00

1.00

3.23

0.47

D

4846329224904

188.53

360

-90

71.00

2.70

13.00

10.30

4.42

0.79

4.30

8.00

3.70

7.49

0.85

CF10240
CF10241D

4846329224904

188.55

135

-70

92.00

3.70

19.00

15.30

3.72

0.63

CF10242A

D

4846909224952207.81

44

-70

50.65

10.50

29.00

18.50

4.11

1.22

CF10243D

4846909224952207.74

360

-90

39.70

11.20

31.00

19.80

4.04

0.73

CF10244D

4846749225115

246.83

360

-90

63.00

Ineffective depth

CF10245A

E

4809449227833

56.31

360

-90

188.00Ineffective depth

CF10245B

E

4809519227829

55.78

360

-90

302.00241.00243.00

2.00

7.41

0.44

E

4805619227844140.50360-90440.00378.00405.50

27.50

2.82

0.77

400.50402.50

2.00

10.37

2.80

CF10246

including

CF10247SE

4852469224288

167.96225-70285.00241.50242.00

0.50

5.39

-

CF10248XX

4834189225510

79.72

360

-90

122.00

92.00

97.00

5.00

5.06

0.16

XX

4834189225510

79.75

45

-70

122.40

58.30

60.30

2.00

20.71

0.10

69.50

98.00

28.50

12.84

0.07

69.50

84.50

15.00

20.23

0.03

87.30

106.00

18.70

4.36

0.97

98.30

103.15

4.85

6.76

2.23

90.00

112.00

22.00

3.21

0.33

93.50

67.00

3.50

6.12

0.55

CF10249
including
CF10250

B

CF10251B

4823499227356

8.99

360

-90

126.00including
4822849227415

8.38
including

360

-90

165.0081

HoleID

Zone

Easting

Northing

RL

Azi

Dip

EOH
(m)

From
(m)

To (m)

Width
(m)

Zn%

Pb%

CF10252B

4822729227379

8.31

360

-90

198.2091.50

115.50

24.00

2.84

0.30

B

4823239227530

7.70

360

-90

240.00103.20109.00

5.80

7.49

0.55

166.00179.00

13.00

3.07

0.22

169.50175.00

5.50

5.27

0.71

70.00

92.00

22.00

3.45

0.80

including

71.00

74.00

3.00

5.38

1.17

and

87.00

92.00

4.00

4.64

1.62

77.40

90.00

12.60

5.35

0.58

84.00

88.00

4.00

9.67

1.07

80.00

104.50

24.50

6.44

2.00

94.00

104.00

10.00

10.80

3.41

CF10253
includingB

4823709227251

CF10254

CF10255

B

CF10256B

4823709227251

9.88

9.90

360

216

-90

-70

165.00180.00including
4823759227317

B

9.48

360

-90

165.00including

CF10257B

4822539227230

14.12

240

-70

185.00101.00107.00

6.00

6.17

0.29

CF10258B

4821679227242

26.22

360

-90

211.50119.85123.35

3.50

3.84

0.23

CF10259B

4820019227346

23.54

360

-90

51.00

CF10260BS

4823759226053

54.56

360

-90

362.00347.00350.00

3.00

4.38

0.30

CF10261

BS

4825269226443

49.12

360

-90

326.00313.30318.00

4.70

5.28

0.26

CF10262B

4816689227519

5.78

360

-90

27.00

Ineffective depth

CF10263A

BS

4824109226405

49.15

360

-90

52.00

Ineffective depth

CF10263B

BS

4824109226405

49.16

360

-90

336.00303.50314.00

10.50

3.68

0.83

CF10264

BS

4824179226239

52.53

360

-90

372.00312.40320.00

7.60

4.72

1.05

CF10265BS

4824879226285

51.67

360

-90

373.20307.00312.50

5.50

6.89

1.04

CF10266

BS

4826739226392

49.56

360

-90

297.00259.50260.25

12.10

4.38

0.61

CF10267A

BS

4826599226292

51.42

360

-90

55.00

Ineffective depth

CF10267B

BS

4826629226293

51.35

360

-90

282.00NSI

CF10268

BS

4826219226472

48.38

360

-90

63.00

Ineffective depth

CF10269

BS

4824559226349

50.54

360

-90

327.00Ineffective depth

296.00308.00

12.00

2.50

0.61

82

HoleID

Zone

Easting

Northing

RL

Azi

Dip

EOH
(m)

From
(m)

To (m)

Width
(m)

Zn%

Pb%

CF10270XX

4834069225468

81.69

52

-70

134.00100.50105.60

5.10

3.82

0.23

CF10271XX

4834549225527

78.98

225

-70

39.00

XX

4834549225527

78.98

225

-75

137.00

CF10271A

includingIneffective depth
61.00

95.00

34.00

9.09

0.39

61.00

81.00

20.00

14.10

0.24

CF10272XX

4833389225562

74.40

200

-75

152.00119.50121.00

1.50

3.69

0.14

CF10273BS

4826409225864

50.94

360

-90

358.25266.00267.50

1.50

5.74

0.46

CF10274BS

4825419225943

49.59

360

-90

326.00300.00303.00

3.00

3.48

0.20

CF10275

D4844519224906

146.92

360

-90

90.00

55.60

59.60

4.00

1.94

0.82

CF10276

D

4847489224863201.00360-90104.00

3.80

19.00

15.20

2.21

0.35

CF10277

SE4851929224749

288.01360-90260.00237.00252.50

15.50

2.23

0.40

CF10278SE4849669224528

180.22360-90278.00222.00225.00

3.00

1.91

0.17

CF10279

SE

4848069224258

115.19

360

-90

24.00

CF10280SE

4848299224251118.32360-90300.00

CF10281BS

4823429226231

52.30

360

-90

282.00

CF10282BS

4824769226038

54.99

360

-90

242.00

CF10283BS

4825099226202

53.26

360

-90

170.00

CF10283B

BS

4825109226205

53.24

360

-90

279.00245.00255.55

10.55

4.13

0.57

CF10284

BS

4824679226050

55.35

360

-90

323.00297.00304.50

7.50

3.10

0.51

CF10285

BS

4823839226139

53.76

360

-90

330.00304.20309.00

4.80

5.20

0.45

CF10286

BS

4823969225986

56.52

360

-90

397.70369.00370.00

1.00

5.39

0.49

CF10287

BS

4822899226230

51.24

360

-90

385.00356.50359.00

2.50

3.40

1.45

CF10288

BS

4825009225855

62.00

360

-90

347.50327.50340.50

13.00

1.51

0.11

CF10289

BS

4826329226526

33.46

225

-80

295.60258.65266.50

7.85

2.40

0.41

Ineffective depth
160.75163.00

2.25

2.73

0.61

Ineffective depth
158.00159.00

1.00

1.89

0.13

Ineffective depth83HoleID

Zone

Easting

Northing

RL

Azi

Dip

EOH
(m)

From
(m)

To (m)

Width
(m)

Zn%

Pb%

CF11290BS

4824609225774

47.00

85.7

80.3

383.30338.50343.50

5.00

3.23

0.23

BS

4823339226524

49.00

360

-90

303.00283.50288.05

4.55

7.10

0.59

283.50285.00

1.50

16.39

1.22

CF11291

including

CF11292

B

4821479227342

43.00

360

-90

140.00114.00121.70

7.70

7.01

0.51

CF11293E4803619228317206.27360-90497.00448.00460.10

12.10

2.87

0.20

E

4807029228292

138.2529084.2

401.00349.30358.80

9.50

5.27

0.90

349.30353.00

3.70

10.26

-

CF11294

including

CF11295

BS4822759226610

51.00

54.2

72.7

314.00297.00304.75

7.75

3.05

0.19

CF11296E4805669228662

178.78187-89460.00404.35416.70

12.35

3.08

0.27

CF11297E4805429228966

231.25360-90545.00503.90504.55

0.65

5.42

0.25

Hole
PrefixZone

Co-ordinates: UTM Zone 26N WGS84

CF93-

Holes drilled in 1993

E

Esrum

CF94-

Holes drilled in 1994

B

Beach

CF95-

Holes drilled in 1995

BS

Beach South

CF96-

Holes drilled in 1996

D

Discovery

CF97-

Holes drilled in 1997

XX

XX Zone

CF08-

Holes drilled in 2008

SE

Southeast

CF09-

Holes drilled in 2009

NE

Northeast

CF10-

Holes drilled in 2010

WG

CF-11

Holes drilled in 2011NSI

No Significant Intercept

Western Gossans

84

85

86

87

88

89

+61 8 9213 2600
info@mining-plus.com
www.mining-plus.com

Memorandum
To:

Michael Jardine (Managing director, Ironbark)

Cc:
From:

Andrew Gasmier MAusIMM CP, (Principal Consultant - Underground, Mining Plus)

Date:

15th July 2021

Subject: Brief Report on JORC Ore Reserve estimate – Ironbark Zinc Limited (Ironbark) Citronen Mining
Study

Mining Plus Pty Ltd (Mining Plus) has undertaken an underground and open pit mine optimisation, designand schedule to a feasibility level accuracy for the Citronen Zinc Project (Project). This work is part ofIronbark Zinc Limited’s 2021 Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS) and provides the basis for declaring an
update to the Project Ore Reserve, as reported in Table 3.

Mineral Resource
The current JORC 2012 compliant resource as released in July 2021 for Citronen and Shown in Table 1
Table 1 – 84.7 million tonnes at 4.72% Zn & 0.47% Pb

Table 2 shows a breakdown of the resource by cut-off, mining method and deposit.

DEFINE | PLAN | OPERATEMINING PLUS PTY LTD Ironbark – Citronen Underground Mining Study

Table 2 – Citronen Fjord Resource by cut-off, mining method and deposit

JORC Table 1 included in an announcement to the ASX released on July 2021. Ironbark confirmsthat it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information
included in this announcement and that all material assumptions and technical parameters
underpinning the estimates continue to apply and have not materially changed. The Company
confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Person’s findings are presented havenot been materially modified from the original market announcement.
Citronen Ore Reserve Statement – 15th July 2021
The updated Ore Reserve for the Citronen Mine is as shown in Table 3, and is reported in accordance with
the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (theJORC Code) 2012 edition. The estimated Ore Reserve is inclusive of Measured and Indicated Mineral
Resources.
Table 3 – Ore Reserve Estimate for Citronen Fjord Zinc Project

DepositCategory

Tonnes
(Mt)

ZnEq
Grade
(%)

Zn Grade(%)

Pb Grade
(%)

ZnEq
Metal
(Mt)

Zn Metal(Mt)

Pb Metal(Mt)

Discovery
Open Pit

Proved

5.5

3.5

3.2

0.6

0.2

0.2

0.03

Probable

1.4

2.5

2.3

0.4

0.04

0.03

0.01

Proved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Probable

15.8

5.1

4.8

0.4

0.8

0.8

0.06

Proved

19.0

5.5

5.2

0.5

1.0

1.0

0.1

Probable

7.0

5.8

5.7

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.03

Proved

24.6

5.1

4.6

0.5

1.2

1.1

0.13

Probable

24.2

5.1

5.0

0.4

1.2

1.1

0.10

Total

48.8

5.1

4.8

0.5

2.5

2.3

0.24

Esrum
Underground
Beach
Underground

Total

DEFINE | PLAN | OPERATE2MINING PLUS PTY LTD Ironbark – Citronen Underground Mining Study

There is an additional portion of the Citronen Mineral Resource that is included in the scheduled life ofmine mill feed (Table 4). This material was excluded from the Ore Reserve as it is currently not classified
as either a Measured or Indicated Mineral Resource. The additional material represents 25% of theoverall life of mine material and was removed from the economics of the project in order to test the Ore
Reserve economics.
Table 4 – Additional scheduled mill feed inventory for Citronen Zinc Project

Deposit
Beach
Underground
Esrum
Underground
Discovery
Open Pit
Total

Category

Tonnes
(Mt)

ZnEq
Grade
(%)

Zn Grade(%)

Pb Grade
(%)

ZnEq
Metal
(Mt)

Zn Metal(Mt)

Pb Metal(Mt)

Inferred

2.2

4.9

4.7

0.4

0.1

0.1

0.01

Inferred

13.3

4.8

4.5

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.05

Inferred

0.7

2.0

1.8

0.4

0.01

0.01

0.003

Inferred

16.3

4.6

4.4

0.4

0.7

0.7

0.07

All figures have been rounded to appropriate significant figures and may result in minor computational
discrepancies.
The additional mill feed inventory presented in Table 4, is currently classified as Inferred Resource and is
excluded from the Ore Reserve. This material is of insufficient confidence to form part the Ore Reserveand may not form the basis any future Ore Reserve estimate.

Modifying Factors
The modifying factors used in this study for the Ore Reserve are listed in Table 6 – JORC 2012 Table 1 –Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves.

Site visit
No site visit was conducted by Mining Plus.

Study status
Mining Plus undertook an update to the 2020 mining study which was completed in 2021 and supports
this Ore Reserve estimate. The study update includes a mine plan that is technically achievable and
EBITDA positive.

Cut-off parameters
Cut-off grade is based on a Net Smelter Return (NSR), taking into account the net revenue from recovered
zinc , lead and the cost of mining, processing and G&A. Separate cut-off calculations were performed forthe underground and surface mining operations.
Underground: Beach and Esrum orebodies

DEFINE | PLAN | OPERATE3MINING PLUS PTY LTD Ironbark – Citronen Underground Mining Study

The Citronen Mineral Resource contains economically recoverable lead and Zinc metals. In order toconsider the value of both commodities, an NSR value calculation was undertaken, taking into
consideration the recoveries and smelter terms for zinc and lead. With the NSR value, a zinc equivalent(ZnEq) grade was back-calculated and resulted in the approximate value of 5.1% ZnEq for the Beach andEsrum orebodies.
The formula for the ZnEq calculation:
𝑍𝑛𝐸𝑞 = 𝑍𝑛 + 0.58 × 𝑃𝑏
Using this formula, a cut-off grade of 3.57% ZnEq was calculated for the Beach and Esrum orebodies which
form the underground project.
Surface: Discovery orebody
The open pit cut-off grade estimation is based predominantly around the zinc modifying factors ofrecovery and revenue, which is then used within the optimisation process to determine the ore and waste
definitions. Using these modifying factors the cut-off grade for the open pit is 1.55% zinc

Mining factors or assumptions
Underground: Beach and Esrum orebodies
No planned mining dilution was included in this design. The mining recovery was considered to be 98%
as cut and fill is a high recovery low dilution mining method. Regional pillars are extracted at the end of
the mine life with a recovery factor of 50%. Access pillars were also assessed and factorised as 7% on topof the mine recovery.
All mining parameters are based on geotechnical recommendations.
Surface: Discovery orebody
Open pit dilution was modelled using selective mining unit (SMU) reblocking. The selected SMU size is
10m x 10m x 5m which includes 8% ore loss and 9% dilution.

Metallurgical factors or assumptions
The metallurgical factors and assumptions were sourced from the 2017 Citronen Feasibility
study.
••

Zinc recovery of 84%
Lead recovery of 50%

Permits
It is understood by Mining Plus that the Citronen Fjord Project is comprised of one Exploitation Licence,
listed in Table 5.

DEFINE | PLAN | OPERATE4MINING PLUS PTY LTD Ironbark – Citronen Underground Mining Study

Table 5: Citronen Fjord tenements

LicenceName

2016/30 Tasarneq

Area km2

Granted Date

120

December 16, 2016

Infrastructure
The deposit is located in the northeast of Greenland, it is accessible by air or ship. No infrastructure exists
at the Project site, other than a temporary camp and a gravel airstrip. All required infrastructure will haveto be established.

Project capital
Mining capital estimates have been made using, wherever possible, prices obtained by quotations
undertaken for the 2017 Citronen Feasibility study, or the Mining Plus knowledge base by benchmarkingof similar operations.

Operating costs
All mining operating costs have been built up from first principles based on inputs from Ironbark or fromestimates sourced from suppliers.

Revenue factors
Max payable zinc is 85% and max payable lead is 85% in concentrate.
Commodity prices as per discussions with Ironbark are detailed below:••

Zinc price of US$2,867/t
Lead price of US$2,094/t

Market Assessment
The zinc market is mature and highly liquid, with the metal freely traded on several exchanges, including
the LME.
A rising price trend seen over the past ~12 months is indicative of a tightening supply-demand dynamic
with several short to medium term catalysts likely to provide further support. These include supply
constraints at some operating zinc mines, combined with an expected upswing in demand due to broad
based stimulus measures being implemented by a number of macroeconomic actors globally.
It is anticipated that the zinc price will move moderately higher in the coming years as demand continues
to exceed supply. This is based on an analysis of a range of freely available 3rd party market forecasts.

Economic factors
The Project, given the above factors, returns a positive EBITDA of US$837.8M as estimated by thefinancial model built under assumptions provided by Ironbark.

DEFINE | PLAN | OPERATE
5

MINING PLUS PTY LTD Ironbark – Citronen Underground Mining Study

The Project is most sensitive to the following in order of impacts:••

Zinc grade, price and metal recovery
Upfront capital

Environmental
An Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed and submitted to the Government ofGreenland. Environmental factors and management solutions are outlined in the Feasibility Study Report
for Citronen released to the ASX on 29 April 2013. Tailings from the process plant will be used as backfill
underground or stored in an on-ground tailings storage facility. Waste rock will be stored in a wastedump on surface. Waste Rock and Dense media separation (DMS) rejects are non acid forming.
Potentially acid forming tailings will be stored and managed using appropriately designed tailings storage
facilities. Environmental studies concluded that run-off from mine wastes will not significantly increase
the levels of metals in the aquatic or terrestrial environment of the area.

SocialRelationships with stakeholders are in good standing and there are no known social impediments to theProject. A Social Impact Assessment has been submitted to, and accepted by, the Government ofGreenland.

Other
There are risks associated with assumptions made in the current study. Further analysis is recommended
in relation to the following items:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Mining in the permafrost zone
Hydrogeological study
Frozen backfill
Geotechnical numeric modelling
Production rate
Process plant and surface infrastructure

Mining on the permafrost zone
The following data should be gathered before the commencement of mining.
••••

Daily and mean monthly air temperatures
The amplitude of ground temperature variation in the active layer (layer of rock or soil above thepermafrost zone)
Stable permafrost temperature distribution at depth
Snow cover and precipitation measurements

Hydrogeological study
In regions of permafrost, the frost table location can have a large impact on the hydrology. Intact
permafrost is an impenetrable water boundary.

DEFINE | PLAN | OPERATE6

MINING PLUS PTY LTD Ironbark – Citronen Underground Mining Study

The Project site is in an area of permafrost where the ground stays frozen all year to an ultimate depthof 400m.
The Project is considered to be a dry mine based on the above mentioned and experience from drillingon site. However, an underground hydrogeological study to pre-feasibility level needs to be undertaken
to assess the potential (if existing) sources of underground water inflow and risks associated with it.

Frozen backfill
The understanding of the properties and behaviours of the frozen backfill is fundamental to a successful
application of the studied mining method.
Further tests should be conducted around the processing plant tailings for a better understanding of its
behaviour in the mining environment.

Production rate
The mine production rate is based on a processing throughput of 3.3Mtpa.

Geotechnical numeric modelling
A geotechnical analysis and modelling should be undertaken in the next phases of the study around pillar
sizes and ground support. The recommended work to be carried out is outlined below:•••

Re-log core data - logging of rock quality designation (RQD) at least for 20m into the hanging wall
(HW) of each ore intersection
Underground stress analysis using 3DEC (hanging wall) – the stress analysis will produce
information about potential deformations in the orebody hanging wall. The model will generatereliable information that will back up a 3D stress analysis
3D stress strain analysis (Map3D modelling) – the 3D stress-strain analysis will test groundsupport, pillar sizes, spans, regional pillars, subsidence of the frozen sedimentary rock when
exposed.

Processing plant and surface infrastructure.
A review of the processing plant and surface infrastructure (capital and sustaining) costs should to be
carried to provide further support for the financial model. Ironbark indicates that work will be undertakenon the course of the near future.

Audits or reviews
Mining Plus has undertaken an internal peer review on the study and Ore Reserve Statement. No external
audit has been conducted. .

Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence
Mining Plus has ranked the accuracy of key cost items in the mining cost model and produced a weighted
average accuracy for the study cost estimate. The portion of costs estimated as part of the Citronen
optimisation Study has an accuracy of ±25%.

DEFINE | PLAN | OPERATE7

MINING PLUS PTY LTD Ironbark – Citronen Underground Mining Study

Competent Persons Statement
The information included in this report that relates to Exploration Results & Mineral Resources
is based on information compiled by Ms Elizabeth Laursen (B. ESc Hons (Geol), GradDip App. Fin.,
MSEG, MAIG), an employee of Ironbark Zinc Limited. Ms Laursen has sufficient experience thatis relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to theactivity which they are undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012
Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore
Reserves. Ms Laursen consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on thisinformation in the form and context in which it appears.
The mining-specific information in this report, which relates to Ore Reserves, is based on informationcompiled by Mr Andrew Gasmier CP (Mining), who is a Member of The Australasian Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy. Mr Gasmier is employed full time by Mining Plus. He has sufficient experience which isrelevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which
he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian
Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. Mr Gasmier consents tothe inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which itappears.

Competent Persons Disclosure
Ms Laursen is an employee of Ironbark Zinc Limited and currently holds securities in thecompany.

DEFINE | PLAN | OPERATE
8

Table 6 – JORC 2012 Table 1 – Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves
Criteria

Explanation

Mineral Resource
Estimate forConversion to Ore
Reserves

Description of theMineral Resource
estimate used as abasis for theconversion to an Ore
Reserve

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

The current JORC 2012 compliant resource as released in July 2021 for Citronen and Shown in Table 1
Table 7 – 84.7 million tonnes at 4.72% Zn & 0.47% Pb

Table 2 shows a breakdown of the resource by cut-off, mining method and deposit.

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

9

Table 8 – Citronen Fjord Resource by cut-off, mining method and deposit

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

10

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

JORC Table 1 included in an announcement to the ASX released on July 2021. Ironbark confirms that it is not aware of any
new information or data that materially affects the information included in this announcement and that all material
assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates continue to apply and have not materially changed. The
Company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Person’s findings are presented have not beenmaterially modified from the original market announcement.
Clear statements as towhether the Mineral
Resources arereported additional to,or inclusive of, the Ore
Reserves
Site Visits

The estimated Ore Reserve is inclusive of Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources.

Comment on any site
visits undertaken by
the Competent Person
and the outcome ofthose visits

If no site visits havebeen undertaken
indicate why this is thecase

DEFINE•One of the Ravensgate Resource Report 2012 authors was involved in the drilling and project development at an
early stage and visited the site. The author was integral in the establishment of industry best QA/QC practices andhas an intimate knowledge of all procedures used on site.

•

The author of the Wardrop 2007 Resource Estimate Report was involved in the planning and execution of the 1990's
drilling.

••

The author of the Ironbark 2008 in-house Resource Estimate was involved in the planning and execution of the 2007
sampling and 2008 drilling programs.
The Competent Person for the reporting of the Ore Reserve has not undertaken a site visit.

••

The project is currently in the Pre-development stage and there are no facilities or establishments on site
COVID-19 international travel restrictions prevent a site visit from being undertaken at this stage

|

PLAN

|

OPERATE

11

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

Study Status

The type and level ofstudy undertaken to
enable Mineral
Resources to beconverted to Ore
Reserves

The mine designs and schedules that were used to estimate this Ore Reserve form part of Ironbark Zinc Limited’s 2021
Bankable Feasibility Study.

The code requires thata study to at least Prefeasibility Study levelhas been undertaken
to convert Mineral
Resource to Ore
Reserves. Such studies
will have been carriedout and will havedetermined a mineplan that is technicallyachievable andeconomically viable,
and that material
modifying factors havebeen considered
Cut-off Parameters

The basis of the cut-off
grade(s) or quality
parameters applied

•
•
•

•
•

(2011) A Feasibility study conducted by Wardrop in 2011 deemed the project technically and economically viable.
(2017) An update of the 2011 Wardrop Feasibility Study was carried out by Ironbark in 2017.
(2020) Turner Mining and Geotechnical Pty Ltd (TMG) undertook a geotechnical review of the 2011 Wardrop study.
TMG reassessed local and regional pillar sizes, ground support and outlined further work to be undertaken by
Ironbark for a higher confidence on the deposit geotechnical parameters.
(2020) As part of the 2020 Citronen Mine Study, a mine plan was developed that was technically achievable and
EBITDA positive. This mine plan considered material modifying factors such as mining, processing, and metallurgy.
(2021) Ironbark Zinc Limited, Citronen Fjord Project Bankable Feasibility Study

Discovery Orebody – Surface Mining
Cut-off grade for open pit mining is based around the Zinc modifying factors and is calculated to 1.55% Zn;• Zn Recovery: 84%• Zn Price: US$1.38 /lb• Process Cost: US$29.10 (inclusive of G&A)
Beach and Esrum Orebodies – Underground Mining
Cut-off grade is based on a Net Smelter Return (NSR), taking into account the net revenue from recovered Zn, Pb and thecost of mining, processing and G&A. The NSR calculation relied upon the processing recoveries shown below:

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

12

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1•••

Zn Recovery: 84%
Pb Recovery: 50%
Costs:

Item

Cost (US$)

Processing Costs

18.00/tonne of ore

G&A Costs

7.00/tonne of ore

Mining Costs

38.00/tonne of ore

Other

4.10/tonne of ore

The Citronen project is a multi-material and recovery project. Thus, it is not possible to set the cut-off value based on thecontained metal. To overcome this limitation, an NSR value calculation was undertaken, taking into consideration therecoveries and smelter terms for Zn and Pb. With the NSR value, a ZnEq grade was back calculated and resulted in theapproximate value of 3.57% ZnEq.
The formula for the ZnEq calculation is as stated below:
ZnEq=Zn+0.58×Pb

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

13

Criteria

Explanation

Mining Factors orAssumptions

The method andassumptions used asreported in the PreFeasibility or
Feasibility Study toconvert the Mineral
Resource to an Ore
Reserve (i.e. either byapplication of
appropriate factors by
optimisation or by
preliminary or detailed
design)Summary Comments for JORC Table 1
Discovery Orebody – Surface Mining•

The Open Pit Ore Reserve has been reported within a pit design based on pit shells from the Whittle optimisations
and with appropriate design parameters applied. These have included geotechnical and other operationalparameters.

Beach and Esrum Orebodies – Underground Mining•••

The mining method is cut and fill with primary and secondary panels.
No planned overbreak was included in the design.
The mine recovery was considered to be 98% as cut and fill is a high recovery low dilution mining method. Regionalpillars are considered to be partially extracted at the end of the mine life with a recovery factor of 50%. Access pillars
were also assessed and factorized as 7% on top of the mine recovery.

Beach and Esrum Orebodies – Method Independent•••
The choice, nature andappropriateness of theselected mining
method (s) and othermining parameters
including associateddesign issues such as
pre-strip, access, etc.

The Ore Reserve estimate is based on the Mineral Resource released in 2012, by Ravensgate, with the competentperson being Ravengate’s Stephen Hyland.
All mining parameters are based on geotechnical recommendations.
Zn and Pb recoveries of respectively 84% and 50%.

Discovery Orebody – Surface Mining•

The mining method is conventional truck and excavator open pit mining.

Beach and Esrum Orebodies – Underground Mining

DEFINE••The current mining method (cut and fill) is an optimisation of the previously selected method (room and pillar).
Furthermore, it takes into consideration the current geotechnical parameters and mining practicalities.
The key driver of the mining method selection was to maximise the recovery under the geotechnical assumptionthat all panels need to have the top (backs) supported. The presumption excludes options for longhole drilling

|

PLAN

|

OPERATE

14

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1•

The assumptions
made regarding
geotechnicalparameters (e.g. pit
slopes, stope sizes,etc.), grade control
and pre-production
drilling

methods, as the height of the production areas is relatively small (average of 6m), which excludes the possibility ofdeveloping a bottom drive for a panel.
The mining method was optimised to follow the contours of the orebody mineralisation increasing recovery andreducing dilution. The new design will also help with mining productivity, as it reduces development issues andmakes the backfill process easier.

Discovery Orebody – Surface Mining
The indicative slope configuration for the Discovery open pit design were provided by the 2009 geotechnical assessments
produced for Ironbark, these assessments included batter angles of between 60o and 80o for fresh rock and 34o to 40o for theoverlying sediments, with safety berms between 5m and 6m for each 10m vertical depth.
Beach and Esrum Orebodies – Underground Mining
Geotechnical parameters and advice were supplied by the TMG’s review:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Recommended drive dimensions
Local pillar sizes
Regional pillar sizes
Mining method
Panel sequence
Recommended ground support standards
Risk of surface subsidence in shallow mine areas

The information was used to generate the mine design.

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

15

Criteria

Explanation
The major
assumptions madeand the Mineral
Resource model used
for pit and stope
optimisation (ifappropriate)
The mining dilution
factors used
The mining recovery
factors used
Any mining widths
used
The manner in which
Inferred Mineral
Resources are utilisedin mining studies andthe sensitivity of theoutcome to their
inclusion
The infrastructure
requirements of theselected mining
methods

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1
Not Applicable

Discovery Orebody – Surface Mining•

SMU modelling estimated a dilution of 9% and an ore loss of 8%

Beach and Esrum Orebodies – Underground Mining•

Mining Recovery Factors
o Development, 100%o Stopes, 90%• Mining Dilution – 0%
The mining method planned for the extraction of the underground resource is highly selective and it is reasonable to expectthat the ore can be extracted cleanly with no dilution.
There is a portion of the Citronen Inferred Mineral Resource that is included in the life of mine mill feed but is not part of theOre Reserves. The material represents 25% of the overall life of mine mill feed and was removed from the economics of the
project. The project is highly sensitive to variations in recovered zinc metal.
Sufficient infrastructure will be established by the mining contractor for the mine to operate, including, but not limited to,surface access roads, waste storage facilities, surface explosive magazine, declines, ventilation fans and return airways,
sumps and pump stations.

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

16

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

Metallurgical Factors
or Assumptions

The metallurgicalprocess proposed andthe appropriateness ofthat process to thestyle of themineralisation

Ore processing will incorporate the following stages: primary secondary and tertiary crushing, dense media separation,
grinding and classification, flotation and concentrate thickening and filtration. The process method chosen is considered
standard for the commodity and style of mineralisation. Zinc flotation recoveries of 85% have been achieved in test work.
Further information on metallurgical and process test work can be found in the Ironbark Feasibility Report released 29 April
2013.

Whether the
metallurgical process
is well-tested
technology or novel innatureThe metallurgical process is well-tested in the industry.

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

17

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

The nature, amountandrepresentativeness ofmetallurgical test work
undertaken, thenature of themetallurgicaldomaining applied andthe corresponding
metallurgical recovery
factors applied

Samples were prepared for mineralogical test work in ALS Ammtec and then sent for Qualitative Optical Mineralogical
Examination via Roger Townend and Associates.
For the test programme, ALS Ammtec was supplied with three spiral separation test work tail samples from the Ironbark
Citronen Project in Greenland:•

Sample # 1: Spiral Cut 6 Product: 3285•

Sample # 2: Spiral Cut 7 Product: 3286•

Sample # 3: Spiral Cut 8 Product: 3287

Final results can be seen in the mineralogical exam result table below:

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

18

Criteria

Environmental

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

Any assumptions or
allowances made fordeleterious elements

No deleterious elements have been identified through the sampling and assaying of the mineralisation.

The existence of any
bulk sample or pilot
scale test work andthe degree to whichsuch samples are
considered
representative of theorebody as a whole

Metallurgical testing has been carried out on Citronen drill core after the 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 drilling campaigns.
Composite samples were created for each of the three deposits – Beach, Esrum and Discovery. The test work has been
conducted by Burnie Laboratories in Tasmania (now part of ALS Global).

For minerals that are
defined by the
specification, has theore reserve estimation
been based on theappropriate
mineralogy to meetthe specifications?

Not Applicable

The status of studies
of potential
environmental
impacts of the mining
and processing
operation. Details ofwaste rockcharacterisation andthe consideration ofpotential sites, status
of design options

An Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed and submitted to the Government of Greenland. Environmental
factors and management solutions are outlined in the Feasibility Study Report for Citronen released to the ASX on 29 April
2013.
Tailings from the mine will be used as backfill underground or stored in an on-ground tailings storage facility. Waste rock will
be stored in a waste-dump on surface. Waste Rock and Dense media separation (DMS) rejects are non acid forming.
Potentially acid forming tailings will be stored and managed using appropriately designed tailings storage facilities.
Environmental studies concluded that mine wastes will not significantly increase the levels of metals in the aquatic or
terrestrial environment of the area.

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

19

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

considered and, whereapplicable, the statusof approvals forprocess residue
storage and waste
dumps should bereported.
Infrastructure

Costs

•

The existence ofappropriate
infrastructure:
availability of land forplant development,
power, water,transportation(particularly for bulk
commodities), labour,
accommodation; orthe ease with which
the infrastructure canbe provided oraccessed.
The derivation of, orassumptions made,regarding projected
capital costs in the
study

•

The Citronen Zinc Project is located in north-eastern Greenland approximately 2,100 km north of the capital ofGreenland, Nuuk. It is located at 83°05′N, 28°16′W.
There is no existing infrastructure at the site and consequently all infrastructure and ancillary facilities need to be
developed as part of the project. The facilities and infrastructure to be developed are based on the original 2010
studies.

Capital costs were derived on the following basis:
•
•

•
•

The overall plant layout and equipment sizing estimation sourced from the 2017 Citronen Feasibility Study Update.
The cost model was set up to have a mining contractor develop the declines, level accesses and ore drives andextract the ore. The mining contractor costs for equipment provision and maintenance, labour provision andmobilization/demobilisation are based on the current experience of Mining Plus (MP) with similar sized and locatedprojects.
Mining capital estimates have been made using, wherever possible, pricing obtained from the Citronen 2017 study
or the Mining Plus knowledge base by benchmarking of similar cut and fill/ room and pillar operations.
Mining capital costs include:o Mine establishment activities

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

20

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

The methodology used
to estimate operating
costs

•

Contingency has been applied to account for the accuracy of the estimate.

•

The contractors' development equipment includes jumbos, loaders, charge-up units, ITs and a service truck. The
operating hours of the development equipment have been determined from first principles based on mobile
equipment productivity rates provided by MP (based on experience with similar-sized projects).
Personnel requirements were sourced in three ways:
o Principal management and technical staff positions numbers were sourced from the 2017 Citronen FS
update.
o Services positions were based on MPs experience and the requirements calculated to achieve the mine
plan.
o Operations personnel were linked to equipment requirements and determined from the equipment
schedule.
The consumables costs were calculated from first principles and the quantities determined using the physicals
schedule, mine profiles and input assumptions. The unit costs were sourced from the input assumptions worksheet.
A freight cost of 3% was applied to the consumable costs.
Service costs calculated for ventilation and pumping services based on BCM project database. The secondary
ventilation and mobile pumping were assumed to be provided by the mining contractor. A monthly ownership cost
was calculated from first principles and was applied in the Auxiliary Equipment worksheet in the cost model.
The mobilisation cost assumptions were based on MPs experience with similar projects.
Contractor mark-up has been applied to contractor personnel, equipment, consumables and mobilisation anddemobilisation costs. Contractor mark-up is applied at 10% with a further corporate mark-up of 3%. These rates are
based on MPs experience with similar projects and Australian rates.
An allowance was made within the cost model for the following miscellaneous works;o Raise boring

•

•

•

•
•

•

DEFINE

Primary ventilation fans
fixed plant
Mine air compressor
High voltage electrical distribution network
Water tanks for mine water supply
Radio Communication system
Pumping system
Survey equipment
Mine rescue equipment

|

PLAN

|

OPERATE

21

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1•••

o Box cut excavationo Surface truckingo Shaft sinking
General and administration costs sourced from the 2017 Citronen Feasibility Study Update
Processing plant operating costs sourced from the 2017 Citronen Feasibility Study Update
Open pit operating costs sourced from the 2017 Citronen Feasibility Study Update

Allowances made forthe content ofdeleterious elements

No allowances were made for deleterious elements

The source of
exchange rates used in
the study

The cost model provides a first principles estimate, in USD.

Derivation of transportcharges

Two solutions were considered for the transport of concentrate from Citronen Fjord: An icebreaking tug with barge versus
two ice-class bulk carriers. The solution with the ice-class bulk carriers was chosen due to the greater load capacity, resulting
in fewer required trips per year, ease of operation and greater economic benefit.
Shipping to and from Citronen will utilise two high ice class mine re-supply vessels.
•

One Polar Class 3 (PC3), 65,000 Deadweight Cargo Capacity (DWCC) vessel designed to carry zinc and leadconcentrates, arctic diesel and TEUs (Class & Non-Class) without ice breaker escort.

•

One Polar Class 4 (PC4), 55,000 DWCC vessel designed to carry zinc and lead concentrates, arctic diesel and TEUs
(Class & Non-Class) without ice breaker escort.

Concentrate production will be approximately 300,000 tonnes per annum (peaking at 320,000). Based on the selected ships
capacity, this corresponds to a requirement for approximately 3 return trips per year.

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

22

Criteria

Revenue Factors

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

The basis forforecasting or sourceof treatment andrefining charges,
penalties for failure tomeet specification,
etc.

Not Applicable

The allowances madefor royalties payable,both Government andprivateThe Citronen deposits are located wholly within Exploitation Licence 2016/30 which is held in the name of Ironbark A/S awholly owned subsidiary of Ironbark Zinc Limited. EL2016/30 lies within the Northeast Greenland National Park. A 2.5%
royalty is payable to vendors.

The derivation of, orassumptions maderegarding revenue
factors including headgrade, metal orcommodity price(s)exchange rates,transportation andtreatment charges,
penalties, net smelter
returns etc.

•
•
•

•

Head grade is determined as a result of initial strategic planning in Mine shape optimisation (MSO) and then further
detailed mine scheduling using Enhanced Production Scheduler (EPS) with mine physical data then provided to
calculate revenue, etc. in models.

The derivation ofassumptions made ofmetal or commodity
price(s), for the
principal metals,
minerals and coproducts.

•••

Metal prices derived from long term averages
Currency exchange rates
Royalties

DEFINE•Zn price - US$ 2,867/t
Pb price - US$ 2,094/t
Smelting losses
o 0.25%
Maximum payable prices:o Zn – 85%
o Pb – 85%

|

PLAN

|

OPERATE

23

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

Market Assessment

The demand, supply
and stock situation forthe particularcommodity,
consumption trends
and factors likely toaffect supply anddemand into the
future.

The Zinc market is mature and highly liquid, with the metal freely traded on several exchanges, including the LME.

A customer andcompetitor analysis
along with theidentification of likely
market windows forthe product

The Citronen Project has pre-committed 70% of its metal production on binding take or pay agreements with the two largest
base metal trading groups in the world, Glencore and Trafigura. It is anticipated that the balance of production (30%) will
also be pre-sold prior to the commencement of mining.

Price and volume
forecasts and the basis
for these forecasts

It is anticipated that the Zinc price will move moderately higher in the coming years as demand continues to exceed available
supply. This is based on an analysis of a range of freely available 3rd party market forecasts.

For industrial minerals
the customer
specification, testing
and acceptancerequirements prior toa supply contract

A rising price trend seen over the last ~12 months is indicative of a tightening supply-demand dynamic with several short tomedium term catalysts likely to provide further support. These include supply constraints at some operating zinc mines,
combined with an expected upswing in demand due to broad based stimulus measures being implemented by a number ofmacroeconomic actors globally.

Not Applicable

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

24

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

Economic

The inputs to theeconomic analysis to
produce the netpresent value (NPV),the source andconfidence of these
economic inputs
estimated inflation,
discount rate, etc.

The Financial model combined inputs from the 2017 and the cost model generated on the 2021 Citronen Underground
Mining Study. The portion of costs estimated as part of the Citronen optimization Study have an accuracy of ±25%.
A summary of the costs is stated below:
Capital Costs:•

Mining US$ 81.4M•

Process and infrastructureoSurface Capital Infrastructure US$ 411.6M

oSurface Sustaining Capital US$ 65.1M

Operating costs:•

Underground Mining US$ 36.25/t of ore•

Open Pit Mining US$ 7.5/t of ore•

Processing US$ 14.9/t of ore•

G&A US$ 6.1/t of ore

The financial model is based on the following key criteria:•

Discount rate of 8%•

No allowance for inflation

The Open Pit costs, tonnes and grade were sourced from the 2021 Citronen Underground Study Update.
NPV ranges andsensitivity tovariations in thesignificant
assumptions andinputsA sensitivity analyses was conducted within the financial model to identify the impact of the metal price on the forecasted
project returns.
The analysis showed that the project is very sensitive to metal price variations.
The project also showed to be highly sensitive to the addition of the Discovery open pit to the end of the mine life.

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

25

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

SocialThe status ofagreements with key
stakeholders andmatters leading tosocial licence tooperate.

Relationships with stakeholders are in good standing and there are no known social impediments to the project. A full Social
Impact Assessment has been submitted to, and accepted by, the Government of Greenland.

Other

To the extent relevant,the impacts of thefollowing on the
project and/or on theestimation andclassification of theOre reserves:

Mining Plus identified risks associated with assumptions made in the current study and recommends further analysis aroundthe following items:•

Mining on the Permafrost Zone
• The following up to date data should be gathered before mining commencement:• Daily and mean monthly air temperatures.
• The amplitude of ground temperature variation in the active layer (layer of rock or soil above
the permafrost zone).
• Stable permafrost temperature distribution at depth.
• Snow cover and precipitation measurements.

•

Hydrogeological studyo In regions of continuous permafrost, the frost table location can have a large impact on the water regime. Intact
permafrost is an impenetrable water boundary.
o The Citronen site is in an area of continuous permafrost where the ground stays frozen all year to an ultimate
depth of 400m, as projected by literature using measured geothermal gradient.
o Citronen is considered to be a dry mine based on the above mentioned and experience from drilling on site.
However, an underground hydrogeological study to pre-feasibility level needs to be undertaken to assess thepotential (if existing) sources of underground water inflow and risks associated with it.
oFrozen backfill
o The understanding of the properties and behaviours of the frozen backfill is fundamental for a successful
application of the studied mining method.

Any identified material
naturally occurring
risks.

•

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

26

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1o

The status of material
legal agreements andmarketingarrangements

Further tests should be conducted around the processing plant slurry for a better understanding of its
behaviour when frozen and exposed to heat. This will be the environment that the frozen backfill will be
subjected to in studied mining method.

•

Production rateo Mining Plus recommends a production rate optimization investigation in light of the potential reserves outlinedin the study. A lower production rate could reduce costs and improve the financials of the project.

•

Geotechnical Numeric Modellingo A geotechnical analysis and modelling should be undertaken in the next phases of the study around pillar sizes
and ground support. The recommended work to be carried out is outlined below:o Re-log Core data - Logging of RQD at least for 20m into the HW of each ore intersection.
o Underground stress analysis using 3DEC (Hangingwall) – the stress analysis will produce information about
deformations around the seams hanging wall. The model will generate reliable information that will back up a
3d stress analysis.
o 3D stress strain analysis (Map3D modelling) – the 3D stress-strain analysis will test ground support, pillar sizes,
spans, regional pillars, subsidence of the frozen sedimentary rock when exposed.

Not Applicable

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

27

Criteria

Classification

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

The status ofgovernmental
agreements andapprovals critical tothe viability of the
project, such as
mineral tenement
status, andgovernment andstatutory approvals.
There must be
reasonable grounds toexpect that allnecessary government
regulations will bereceived within thetimeframes
anticipated in the Prefeasibility or Feasibility
study. Highlight anddiscuss the materialityof any unresolved
matter that isdependent on a third
party on which
extraction of thereserve is contingent.

The Citronen Project lies within a granted Exploitation Licence which is owned 100% by Ironbark.

The basis for theclassification of theOre Reserves into
varying confidence
categories.

•••

DEFINEPart of the Measured and Indicated Resources has been classified as Proved and Probable Reserves.
The Ore Reserve consist of 50% Proved Reserve and 50% Probable Reserve.
The Competent Person, is satisfied that the stated Ore Reserves accurately reflect the outcome of mine planning andthe input of economic parameters into optimisation studies.

|

PLAN

|

OPERATE

28

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

Whether the result
appropriately reflects
the Competent
Person's view of thedeposit
The proportion of
Probable Ore Reserves
that have been
derived from
Measured Mineral
Resources (if any)
Audits or reviews

The results of any
audits or reviews of
Ore Reserve estimates

Mining Plus has undertaken an internal peer review of the Ore Reserve in accordance with its consulting guidelines

Discussion of relative
accuracy/confidence

Where appropriate astatement of therelative accuracy andconfidence level in the
Ore Reserve estimate
using and approach orprocedure deemed
appropriate by theCompetent Person.
For example, theapplication of
statistical or
geostatisticalprocedures to quantify
the relative accuracyof the reserve within•

The Mining component of the PFS has been completed with a relative accuracy of +/-25%.

••

All mining estimates are based on relevant costs in US$ or factored estimates from similar mining method and scale
projects.
Where practical and possible, current industry practices have been used to quantify estimations made.

•To mitigate risks associated with the project it is recommended that the following work be undertaken:

DEFINEooohydrogeological study
Frozen backfill analysis
Geotechnical Numeric Modelling

|

PLAN

|

OPERATE

29

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

stated confidence
limits, or, if such an
approach is notdeemed appropriate, aqualitative discussionof the factors which
could affect therelative accuracy andconfidence of theestimate
The statement should
specify whether it
relates to global or
local estimates, and if
local, state therelevant tonnages,
which should be
relevant to technicaland economic
evaluation.
Documentation should
include assumptions
made and theprocedures used

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

30

Criteria

Explanation

Summary Comments for JORC Table 1

Accuracy andconfidence discussions
should extend to
specific discussions of
any applied Modifying
factors that may havea material impact on
Ore Reserve viability,or for which there areremaining areas of
uncertainty at thecurrent study stage It
is recognised that thismay not be possible orappropriate in all
circumstances. Thesestatements of relative
accuracy andconfidence of theestimate should becompared withproduction data,
where available.
Overall economic
statement

The economics of the Citronen Project were evaluated based on earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation andamortisation (EBITDA) model. Production, revenues, operating costs, capital costs, and corporate income tax wereconsidered in the financial model. All dollar figures are presented in US dollars (‘US$’).
The main economic assumptions are a US$ 3,042/t zinc price, US$ 2,315/t lead price.

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE

31

Competent Person’s Consent Form
Pursuant to the requirements of ASX Listing Rules 5.6, 5.22 and 5.24 andClause 9 of the JORC Code 2012 Edition (Written Consent Statement)

Report Description•

2021 BFS Results Confirms Citronen as World Class Zinc Project•

Updated Reserves and Resources for Citronen Project(insert name or heading of report to be publicly released) (“Report”)

Ironbark Zinc Limited(insert name of company releasing the Report)

Ironbark Zinc Limited, Citronen Discovery, Esrum and Beach Deposits(insert name of the deposit to which the Report refers)
If there is insufficient space, complete the following sheet and sign it in the same manner as this original sheet.

19 July 2021
(Date of Report)

Statement

I, ……………………ANDREW GRANT GASMIER….……………………………………… confirm that:(insert full name)•I have read and understood the requirements of the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Codefor Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code, 2012
Edition).

•

I am a Competent Person as defined by the JORC Code, 2012 Edition, having five years
experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit described in
the Report, and to the activity for which I am accepting responsibility.

•

I am a Member or Fellow of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy or theAustralian Institute of Geoscientists or a ‘Recognised Overseas Professional Organisation’(“ROPO”) included in a list promulgated by ASX from time to time.

DEFINE|

PLAN|

OPERATE