1st Sampling Results from Mohave Project Mine Shaft & 100ft Level Drift: Kingman Samples 252 g/t Au & 341 g/t Ag on 100ft Level of Rosebud Mine over Interval Of 0.46m
Vancouver, B.C. (May 14, 2020) Kingman Minerals Ltd. (TSX-V:KGS)(FSE:47A1) (“Kingman” or the “Company”) is pleased to report on the first underground sampling results from the Rosebud Mine shaft and 100ft drift.
The Mohave Project (the “Project”) is located in the Music Mountains in Mohave County, Arizona and is comprised of 20 lode claims which are inclusive of the past producing Rosebud Mine (the “Rosebud”). High grade gold and silver veins were discovered in the area in the 1880’s and were mined mainly in the late 20’s and 30’s. Underground development on the Rosebud property included a 400-foot shaft and approximately 2,500 feet of drifts, raises and crosscuts.
In early spring 2020, Burgex Mining Consultants (“Burgex”) were contracted to determine the accessibility, if any, of the main production shaft at the Rosebud Mine. Burgex used ropes and ladders to assess the safety and stability of the shaft and were able to lower themselves down to the 100-foot level of the abandoned mine. The conditions were not optimal for spending long periods of time in the mine, but they were able to collect 17 rock samples from the 100-foot level. Below the 100ft level the shaft was blocked by debris and garbage, so no attempt was made to access the lower portions of the mine during this reconnaissance program. Video and photo tours available on company website at https://kingmanminerals.com/projects/mohave-project/first-underground-program/
The samples that Burgex collected were sent to ALS Laboratories in Reno, Nevada and were analyzed using the ALS method ME-GRA21 for gold and silver. This method is a fire assay method for optimal precious metal recovery.
| Kingman Minerals Sampling Results (Burgex, 2020) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample No. | Sample Type | Interval (m) | Au (g/t) | Ag (g/t) |
| RB100-1 | Grab | - | 0.13 | 12 |
| RB100-2 | Grab | - | 0.47 | 18 |
| RB100-3 | Chip | 0.38 | 4.85 | 116 |
| RB100-4 | Chip | 0.46 | 252 | 341 |
| RB100-5 | Chip | 0.46 | 0.07 | 11 |
| RB100-6 | Chip | 0.2 | 5.57 | 230 |
| RB100-7 | Chip | 0.2 | 1.52 | 18 |
| RB100-8 | Chip | 0.15 | 0.17 | 6 |
| RB100-9 | Chip | 0.3 | 0.50 | <5 |
| RB100-10 | Chip | 0.2 | 0.32 | 30 |
| RB100-11 | Grab | - | 0.10 | 6 |
| RB100-12 | Chip | 0.3 | 0.23 | 17 |
| RB100-13 | Chip | 0.61 | 0.43 | 18 |
| RB100-14 | Chip | 0.46 | 0.53 | 26 |
| RB100-15 | Chip | 0.31 | 0.27 | 10 |
| RB100-16 | Chip | 0.31 | 0.26 | 13 |
| RB100-17 | Chip | 0.31 | 5.43 | 43 |
| Average | 16.05 | 57.2 | ||
Table 1 – Results from 1st Underground Sampling Program on Rosebud Mine Shaft and 100ft Drift. Sampling completed by Burgex Mining Consultants on behalf of Kingman Minerals Ltd.
Contrary to CIM Exploration Best Practice Guidelines, no QA/QC procedures were used for this initial round of underground sampling. Grab samples are selected samples and are not representative of the mineralization hosted on the property.
As per Kingman’s releases dated May 5 and May 12, 2020, previous companies have sampled the 100-foot level of the mine and have reported gold and silver values from those exploration efforts. The two most recent historical underground sampling episodes on the 100-level were in 1984 for Stellar Resources in a report by L. A. Bayrock (Bayrock Surficial Geology Ltd.) and in 2005 for Kent Exploration Inc. in a report by Edward Harrington (Reliance Geological Services Inc.). Both reports are historical in nature and the reports by Bayrock were not completed to NI 43-101 standards, but the sampling appears to have been performed to industry standards at their respective times.
It is interesting to note that the recent sampling by Burgex compares favorably with the earlier exploration efforts as shown in Table 1, below:
| Kingman Minerals Sampling (Burgex, 2020) | Kent Exploration Sampling (Harrington, 2005) | Stellar Resources Sampling (Bayrock, 1984) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample No. | Au (g/t) | Ag (g/t) | Sample No. | Au (g/t) | Ag (g/t) | Sample No. | Au (g/t) | Ag (g/t) |
| RB100-1 | 0.13 | 12 | B373601 | 0.016 | 5.7 | AC+50 | 1.71 | 1.37 |
| RB100-2 | 0.47 | 18 | B373602 | 8.500 | 88.7 | E+0 | 3.91 | 66.51 |
| RB100-3 | 4.85 | 116 | B373603 | 0.032 | 2.1 | E+10 | 7.85 | 68.91 |
| RB100-4 | 252 | 341 | B373604 | 0.026 | 0.8 | E+19 | 3.94 | 32.23 |
| RB100-5 | 0.07 | 11 | B373605 | 3.850 | 113.0 | E+30W | 4.66 | 33.94 |
| RB100-6 | 5.57 | 230 | B373606 | 170.5 | 217.0 | E+30E | 0.62 | 7.89 |
| RB100-7 | 1.52 | 18 | B373607 | 10.70 | 352.0 | E+40W | 2.61 | 106.97 |
| RB100-8 | 0.17 | 6 | B373608 | 2.570 | 80.7 | E+40E | 2.40 | 19.20 |
| RB100-9 | 0.50 | <5 | B373609 | 0.579 | 13.6 | E+50W | 3.46 | 36.00 |
| RB100-10 | 0.32 | 30 | B373610 | 1.885 | 87.3 | E+50E | 3.57 | 4.11 |
| RB100-11 | 0.10 | 6 | B373611 | 9.000 | 133.0 | E+70 | 2.23 | 52.46 |
| RB100-12 | 0.23 | 17 | B373612 | 4.830 | 168.0 | E+80 | 1.78 | 45.60 |
| RB100-13 | 0.43 | 18 | B373613 | 0.283 | 16.3 | E+90 | 0.14 | 3.77 |
| RB100-14 | 0.53 | 26 | B373614 | 2.580 | 16.1 | F+0 | 0.58 | 21.94 |
| RB100-15 | 0.27 | 10 | B373616 | 0.842 | 95.0 | F+20 | 14.54 | 78.86 |
| RB100-16 | 0.26 | 13 | B373651 | 1.810 | 24.7 | F+60 | 1.23 | 7.54 |
| RB100-17 | 5.43 | 43 | B373652 | 0.115 | 44.6 | GH+10 | 0.21 | 0.00 |
| Average | 16.05 | 57.2 | B373653 | 2.26 | 18.3 | M+20 | 11.21 | 28.11 |
| B373618 | 0.42 | 10.25 | M+40 | 32.30 | 31.54 | |||
| B373619 | 0.48 | 18.9 | M+50 | 1.06 | 23.66 | |||
| B373620 | 2.01 | 114.0 | M+60 | 8.74 | 29.14 | |||
| Average | 10.63 | 77.15 | ZQ+3 | 42.21 | 51.077 | |||
| ZR+6 | 121.99 | 451.88 | ||||||
| LM+12 | 3.43 | 15.09 | ||||||
| LM+20 | 1.78 | 8.23 | ||||||
| LM+50 | 2.61 | 28.11 | ||||||
| LM+62 | 1.41 | 25.03 | ||||||
| 1K+10 | 6.03 | 23.66 | ||||||
| 1K+20A | 1.23 | 70.97 | ||||||
| 1K+20B | 4.66 | 20.91 | ||||||
| 1K+50A | 6.99 | 33.60 | ||||||
| 1K+50B | 0.21 | 4.11 | ||||||
| 1K+50C | 12.99 | 68.23 | ||||||
| Average | 9.52 | 45.47 | ||||||
Table 2 – Rosebud Mine 100ft-Level Assay Comparison of sampling results from Kingman Minerals (2020), Kent Exploration (2005) and Stellar Resources (1984). (All values in grams per tonne).
Note: The Kent Exploration samples were only collected in the drift southeast of the main shaft, while the Kingman and Stellar Resources samples were collected in both the northwest and southeast directions from the main shaft. Au and Ag values for Stellar Resources were converted from Oz/Ton by multiplying troy ounces/short ton by 34.28 to arrive at g/tonne.
“Kingman could not be more pleased with the outcome of this first phase of underground exploration. The main production shaft and 100ft drift are in good condition and this enabled us to conduct this initial verification work. With the extensive amount of historical data available, we intend to confirm the validity of the data and use this to determine a current resource estimate if applicable. With the strength of the gold market, the Company intends to enhance shareholder value by capitalizing on this strong commodity cycle in order to explore and expand upon the potential of the Mohave Project” stated Sandy MacDougall, Chairman.
The technical information contained in this news release has been reviewed and approved by Bradley C. Peek, MSc. and Certified Professional Geologist who is a Qualified Person with respect to Kingman’s Mohave Project as defined under National Instrument 43-101.
About Kingman
Kingman Minerals Ltd. is currently engaged in the business of precious metal mineral exploration for the purpose of acquiring and advancing non grass roots mineral properties located in mining friendly jurisdictions of North America.
For further information please contact:
Sandy MacDougall, Chairman & Director
(604) 685-7720
moc.liamg@llaguodcamjydnas
www.kingmanminerals.com
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. This news release may contain forward-looking information which is not comprised of historical facts. Forward-looking information involves risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events, results, performance, prospects and opportunities to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information. Forward-looking information in this news release includes statements regarding, among other things, the completion transactions completed in the Agreement. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking information include, but are not limited to, regulatory approval processes. Although Kingman believes that the assumptions used in preparing the forward-looking information in this news release are reasonable, including that all necessary regulatory approvals will be obtained in a timely manner, undue reliance should not be placed on such information, which only applies as of the date of this news release, and no assurance can be given that such events will occur in the disclosed time frames or at all. Kingman disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, other than as required by applicable securities laws.