The higher grade Empress Cu-Au-Ag replacement Deposit and surrounding deposit targets, located 6 km N of the IKE Deposit, form the sizable 35 km2 Greater Empress subarea within the IKE District.
Empress Deposit Highlights
- Historical drilling indicates a significant body of good grade Cu-Au-Ag mineralization, which remains open to expansion
- Common higher-grade drill intercepts and relatively good vertical and lateral grade continuity suggest strong potential for discovery of extensions with good Cu-Au-Ag grades
- Interpretation from a limited number of historical drill holes suggests the nearby, underexplored and shallowly concealed Granite porphyry Cu-Au-Ag-Mo deposit target is a probable source of Empress replacement mineralizing fluids: few holes have been drilled into the Granite porphyry an example intercept is 91-49 returned 102.1 m of 0.26% CuEQ (0.17 g/t Au, 0.15% Cu and 0.3 g/t Ag) from 189 m (May 14, 2025 release)
- In 2024, Amarc completed a program of relogging and re-assaying of historical holes and new drilling at Empress. Re-assay work on 23 holes showed a majority of the historical assays have strong positive correlations with the 2024 re-assay data; hence, the historical database can be used in modelling and resource estimation moving forward. New drilling in nine holes at Empress and Empress East Deposit Target intersected significant mineralization, supporting the historical results and confirming high potential for expansion of the Empress Deposit. Significant assays include:
- 181 m at 0.46% CuEQ (0.31 g/t Au, 0.29% Cu and 0.8 g/t Ag) from 30 m and 60 m at 0.90% CuEQ (0.60 g/t Au, 0.56% Cu and 1.3 g/t Ag) from 123 m in hole EM24074
- 68 m at 0.56% CuEQ (0.30 g/t Au, 0.38% Cu and 1.0 g/t Ag) from 123 m, incl. 29 m at 0.73% CuEQ (0.46 g/t Au, 0.47% Cu and 1.3 g/t Ag) in hole EM24075
EMPRESS DEPOSIT
Assay Results from Amarc's 2024 Drill Program
| Drill Hole | Incl. | From (m) |
To (m) |
Int.1,2,3 (m) |
Au (g/t) |
Cu (%) |
Ag (g/t) |
CuEQ4 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EM24074 | 6.00 | 24.00 | 18.00 | 0.14 | 0.15 | 0.6 | 0.23 | |
| 30.00 | 210.50 | 180.50 | 0.31 | 0.29 | 0.8 | 0.46 | ||
| Incl. | 72.00 | 210.50 | 138.50 | 0.37 | 0.34 | 0.9 | 0.55 | |
| and | 111.00 | 189.00 | 78.00 | 0.54 | 0.47 | 1.1 | 0.78 | |
| and | 123.00 | 183.00 | 60.00 | 0.60 | 0.56 | 1.3 | 0.90 | |
| EM24075 | 123.00 | 191.28 | 68.28 | 0.30 | 0.38 | 1.0 | 0.56 | |
| Incl. | 153.00 | 182.00 | 29.00 | 0.46 | 0.47 | 1.3 | 0.73 | |
| EM24076 | 5.60 | 19.90 | 14.30 | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.4 | 0.22 | |
| 41.00 | 95.00 | 54.00 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.5 | 0.19 | ||
| 132.00 | 150.00 | 18.00 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.4 | 0.31 | ||
| 162.42 | 191.85 | 29.43 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.8 | 0.50 | ||
| EM24077 | 146.50 | 150.00 | 3.50 | 0.26 | 0.22 | 1.1 | 0.37 | |
| EM24078 | 72.00 | 104.00 | 32.00 | 0.70 | 0.43 | 2.7 | 0.83 | |
| 130.00 | 202.00 | 72.00 | 0.20 | 0.28 | 0.8 | 0.40 | ||
| Incl. | 143.75 | 177.68 | 33.93 | 0.28 | 0.41 | 0.9 | 0.58 | |
| EM24079 | 90.00 | 180.00 | 90.00 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.6 | 0.20 | |
| EM24080 | 3.00 | 17.00 | 14.00 | 0.21 | 0.25 | 1.0 | 0.37 | |
| 65.00 | 69.00 | 4.00 | 0.46 | 0.22 | 1.7 | 0.49 | ||
| 99.00 | 186.00 | 87.00 | 0.22 | 0.23 | 1.0 | 0.36 | ||
| Incl. | 99.00 | 140.00 | 41.00 | 0.36 | 0.31 | 1.3 | 0.52 | |
| Incl. | 162.75 | 186.00 | 23.25 | 0.11 | 0.20 | 0.8 | 0.27 | |
| EM24081 | No Significant Intersection | |||||||
Notes to Table
- Widths reported are drill widths, such that true thicknesses are unknown.
- All assay intervals represent length-weighted averages.
- Some figures may not sum exactly due to rounding.
- Copper equivalent (CuEQ) calculations use metal prices of: Cu US$4.00/lb, Au US$1800/oz., and Ag US$24/oz. and conceptual recoveries of: Cu 90%, Au 72% and 67% Ag. Conversion of metals to an equivalent copper grade based on these metal prices is relative to the copper price per unit mass factored by conceptual recoveries for those metals normalized to the conceptualized copper recovery. The metal equivalencies for each metal are added to the copper grade. The general formula for this is: CuEQ% = Cu% + ((Au g/t * (Au recovery / Cu recovery) * (Au $ per oz./31.1034768 / Cu $ per lb. * 22.04623)) + ((Ag g/t * (Ag recovery / Cu recovery) * (Ag $ per oz./ 31.1034768 / Cu $ per lb. * 22.04623)).