Updated National Instrument 43 101 Report

2026
www.rscmme.com
CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE
PROJECT
Technical Report on the Chatham Rise Phosphorite Project, New Zealand – Report for NI 43-101

Report prepared for: CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Level 1, 93 The Terrace
Wellington
New Zealand

Report authors and
Qualified Person: René Sterk, MSc, FAusIMM (CPGeo), MAIG (RPGeo), MSEG

Effective date: 29 April 2026

Date & Signature
Report issued by
RSC Consulting Ltd
245 Stuart Street, Dunedin, 9016, New Zealand
Postal Address: PO Box 5647, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand
Report prepared for
Client name CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Project name Chatham Rise Project
Contact name Chris Castle
Contact title Chief Executive Officer
Contact address Level 1, 93 The Terrace, Wellington, New Zealand
Report Information
File name 260421 RSC Chatham Rock Technical Report
Effective date 29 April 2026
Report status FINAL
Date & Signature
Contributing author (QP) Signature Date
René Sterk, MSc, FAusIMM (CPGeo), MAIG
(RPGeo), MSEG
/s/ René Sterk 29 April 2026

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 1 of 147
Contents
Date & Signature ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................. 9
1. Summary .................................................................................................................................................................... 11
1.1 Property Description & Ownership ..................................................................................................................... 11
1.2 Geology & Mineralisation ................................................................................................................................... 11
1.3 Exploration ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
1.4 Mineral Resource Estimate ................................................................................................................................ 12
1.5 Conclusions & Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 13
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 15
2.1 Purpose of the Report ........................................................................................................................................ 15
2.2 Sources of Information ....................................................................................................................................... 15
2.3 Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.4 Qualified Person ................................................................................................................................................ 16
2.5 Personal Inspection (Site Visit) .......................................................................................................................... 16
3. Reliance on Other Experts ......................................................................................................................................... 18
4. Property Description & Location ................................................................................................................................. 19
4.1 Location ............................................................................................................................................................. 19
4.2 Mineral Tenure ................................................................................................................................................... 19
4.2.1 Mineral Rights ............................................................................................................................................... 19
4.2.1.1 Prospecting Permits.............................................................................................................................. 20
4.2.1.2 Exploration Permits............................................................................................................................... 21
4.2.1.3 Mining Permits ...................................................................................................................................... 21
4.2.1.4 Revocation of Permits ........................................................................................................................... 22
4.2.2 Permit Status ................................................................................................................................................. 22
4.2.2.1 Work Programmes ................................................................................................................................ 24
4.3 Royalties & Encumbrances ................................................................................................................................ 25
4.3.1 Crown Royalties ............................................................................................................................................ 25

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 2 of 147
4.4 Environmental Liabilities & Permits.................................................................................................................... 25
4.5 Other Significant Factors & Risks ...................................................................................................................... 26
5. Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure & Physiography .................................................................... 28
5.1 Accessibility ....................................................................................................................................................... 28
5.2 Climate............................................................................................................................................................... 28
5.3 Local Resources & Infrastructure....................................................................................................................... 28
5.4 Bathymetry ......................................................................................................................................................... 30
6. History ........................................................................................................................................................................ 31
6.1 Tenure & Operating History ............................................................................................................................... 31
6.2 Exploration History ............................................................................................................................................. 31
6.2.1 RRS Discovery II (1952) ................................................................................................................................ 31
6.2.2 MV Moray Rose & MV Taranui (1967–1968)................................................................................................. 31
6.2.2.1 Sampling Method .................................................................................................................................. 32
6.2.2.2 Sample Preparation & Analysis ............................................................................................................ 33
6.2.2.3 Density & Moisture Content .................................................................................................................. 33
6.2.2.4 Quality Assurance................................................................................................................................. 33
6.2.2.5 Logging ................................................................................................................................................. 34
6.2.2.6 Estimation of Phosphorite Grade in Samples ....................................................................................... 34
6.2.3 JBL Exploration NZ Ltd (1971–1975) ............................................................................................................ 34
6.2.4 RV Tangaroa (1975–1978) ............................................................................................................................ 35
6.2.5 RV Valdivia (1978) ........................................................................................................................................ 37
6.2.5.1 Sample Locations ................................................................................................................................. 37
6.2.5.2 Sampling Methods ................................................................................................................................ 37
6.2.5.3 Sample Preparation & Analysis ............................................................................................................ 39
6.2.5.4 Density & Moisture Content .................................................................................................................. 40
6.2.5.5 Data Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 41
6.2.5.6 Logging ................................................................................................................................................. 41
6.2.5.7 Estimation of Phosphorite Grades in Samples ..................................................................................... 41
6.2.6 RV Sonne (1981) ........................................................................................................................................... 45
6.2.6.1 Sample Locations ................................................................................................................................. 45
6.2.6.2 Sampling Methods ................................................................................................................................ 46
6.2.6.3 Sample Preparation & Analysis ............................................................................................................ 49
6.2.6.4 Sediment Density & Moisture Content .................................................................................................. 51
6.2.6.5 Phosphorite Nodule Density & Moisture Content .................................................................................. 51

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 3 of 147
6.2.6.6 Data Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 52
6.2.6.7 Logging ................................................................................................................................................. 52
6.2.6.8 Estimation of Phosphorite Grades in Samples ..................................................................................... 53
6.3 Production History ............................................................................................................................................. 59
6.4 Historical Mineral Resource Estimates .............................................................................................................. 59
7. Geological Setting & Mineralisation ............................................................................................................................ 60
7.2 Local & Property Geology .................................................................................................................................. 62
7.2.1 Seismic Facies .............................................................................................................................................. 63
7.2.2 Post-Depositional Modifications .................................................................................................................... 65
8. Deposit Types ............................................................................................................................................................ 69
9. Exploration ................................................................................................................................................................. 71
9.1 MV Tranquil Image (2011) ................................................................................................................................. 71
9.1.1 Sample Locations .......................................................................................................................................... 71
9.1.2 Sampling Method .......................................................................................................................................... 71
9.1.3 Logging .......................................................................................................................................................... 72
9.1.4 Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 72
9.2 RV Dorado Discovery (2011–2012) ................................................................................................................... 73
9.2.1 Sample Locations .......................................................................................................................................... 74
9.2.2 Sampling Method .......................................................................................................................................... 74
9.2.3 Logging .......................................................................................................................................................... 77
9.2.4 Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 78
9.3 Exploration Target — Potential Range of Quantities & Grades ......................................................................... 81
10. Drilling .................................................................................................................................................................... 84
11. Sample Preparation, Analyses & Security .............................................................................................................. 85
11.1 Sample Preparation & Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 85
11.1.1 MV Tranquil Image Cruise ........................................................................................................................ 85
11.1.2 RV Dorado Discovery Cruises .................................................................................................................. 85
11.2 Density & Moisture Content ............................................................................................................................... 87
11.2.1 MV Tranquil Image Cruise ........................................................................................................................ 87
11.2.2 RV Dorado Discovery Cruises .................................................................................................................. 88
11.3 Security .............................................................................................................................................................. 88

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 4 of 147
11.3.1 MV Tranquil Image Cruise ........................................................................................................................ 88
11.3.2 RV Dorado Discovery Cruises .................................................................................................................. 88
11.4 Data Quality ....................................................................................................................................................... 88
11.4.1 MV Tranquil Image Cruise ........................................................................................................................ 89
11.4.2 RV Dorado Discovery Cruises .................................................................................................................. 90
11.4.3 Quality Acceptance Testing ...................................................................................................................... 91
11.5 Sample Data Quality Ranking ............................................................................................................................ 92
11.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 94
12. Data Verification ..................................................................................................................................................... 96
12.1 Data Verification Procedures ............................................................................................................................. 96
12.2 Visual Verification of Nodules ............................................................................................................................ 98
12.3 CPT Depth Data vs Sample Depth .................................................................................................................. 100
13. Mineral Processing & Metallurgical Testing ......................................................................................................... 102
13.1 Beneficiation .................................................................................................................................................... 102
13.2 Grain Size Separation ...................................................................................................................................... 102
13.3 Major Element Geochemistry........................................................................................................................... 103
13.4 Trace Elements ................................................................................................................................................ 106
13.5 Recovery.......................................................................................................................................................... 107
14. Mineral Resource Estimates ................................................................................................................................ 109
14.1.1 Data Handling ......................................................................................................................................... 109
14.2.4 Alternative Interpretations ....................................................................................................................... 110
14.2.5 Coding & Definition of Domains .............................................................................................................. 110
14.2.6 Sample Support ...................................................................................................................................... 110
14.4 Grade Capping ................................................................................................................................................ 112
14.5 Spatial Analysis & Variography ........................................................................................................................ 112
14.6 Block Model ..................................................................................................................................................... 113
14.7 Search Neighbourhood Parameters ................................................................................................................ 114
14.8 Estimation ........................................................................................................................................................ 114
14.9 Validation ......................................................................................................................................................... 115
14.10 Sensitivity Testing ....................................................................................................................................... 118
14.11 Depletion ..................................................................................................................................................... 118

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 5 of 147
14.12 Classification ............................................................................................................................................... 119
14.12.1 Classification ........................................................................................................................................... 119
14.12.2 Cut-Off Grade ......................................................................................................................................... 121
14.12.3 RPEEE .................................................................................................................................................... 121
14.12.4 Markets ................................................................................................................................................... 126
14.12.4.1 Fertiliser Trials ................................................................................................................................ 126
14.12.4.2 Phosphate Future Market Expectations ......................................................................................... 127
14.12.5 Economic Considerations ....................................................................................................................... 129
14.12.6 Environmental Considerations ................................................................................................................ 131
23. Adjacent Properties .............................................................................................................................................. 133
24. Other Relevant Data & Information ...................................................................................................................... 134
25. Interpretation and Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 135
26. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................... 137
26.1 Work Programme ............................................................................................................................................. 137
26.2 Seafloor Sampling ........................................................................................................................................... 138
26.3 Data Quality ..................................................................................................................................................... 138
27. Certificate of Qualified Person: <<Name of Author>> .......................................................................................... 140
28. References ........................................................................................................................................................... 141

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 6 of 147
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Statement of Mineral Resources (phosphorite) for MP 55549, Chatham Rise ................................................... 13
Table 1-2: Proposed work programme and cost. ................................................................................................................ 14
Table 2-1: Phosphate mineral nomenclature used in the Report. ....................................................................................... 16
Table 2-2: Site visits conducted by third-party experts and QP. .......................................................................................... 17
Table 4-1: CRP licence holdings. ........................................................................................................................................ 22
Table 5-1: Potential ports for offloading bulk phosphorite. .................................................................................................. 29
Table 6-1: Sampling conducted aboard the RV Valdivia. .................................................................................................... 38
Table 6-2: RV Sonne sediment sampling ............................................................................................................................ 48
Table 6-3: RV Sonne density and moisture content ............................................................................................................ 51
Table 6-4: Wet densities of phosphorite nodules ................................................................................................................ 52
Table 6-5: Conversion table for penetration depth to true depth of sediment for RV Sonne samples. ................................ 55
Table 6-6: Average phosphorite content calculated for true sand depth ranges ................................................................. 57
Table 9-1: MV Tranquil Image cruise activity. ..................................................................................................................... 71
Table 9-2: RV Dorado Discovery cruise activity. ................................................................................................................. 75
Table 9-3: Exploration target and potential range of volumes, grades, and tonnes for phosphorite.................................... 82
Table 11-1: Bulk sediment and bulk nodule densities determined from RV Dorado Discovery samples. ........................... 88
Table 11-2: Description of Sample Quality Ranking assignment. ....................................................................................... 93
Table 13-1: Average chemical composition (wt%) bulk sample and 1(2)–8 mm and >8 mm size fractions ...................... 104
Table 14-1: Basic statistics for sample data for each domain (capped at SQR of 4). ....................................................... 111
Table 14-2: Block model description. ................................................................................................................................ 114
Table 14-3: Statement of Mineral Resources (Phosphorite) for MP 55549, Chatham Rise .............................................. 119
Table 26-1: Proposed work programme and cost. ............................................................................................................ 137

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 7 of 147
List of Figures
Figure 4-1: Location of the Project. ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4-2: Extent of MP 55549, Chatham Rise. ................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 5-1: Project location and New Zealand ports that could potentially be used. ........................................................... 29
Figure 5-2: Bathymetry of the Project area. ........................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 6-1: Global Marine’s sample locations within the previous MPL 50270 area ........................................................... 32
Figure 6-2: RV Tangaroa sample locations and reported penetration depths. .................................................................... 35
Figure 6-3: RV Tangaroa sample locations and updated phosphorite grades. ................................................................... 36
Figure 6-4: Large (left) and small (right) Van Veen grab samplers ..................................................................................... 38
Figure 6-5: Van Veen-style sampling method. .................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 6-6: Reported penetration depth of sediment vs reported volume of sediment ........................................................ 40
Figure 6-7: RV Valdivia sample locations and updated phosphorite grade. ........................................................................ 43
Figure 6-8: RV Valdivia true depth sample map. ................................................................................................................. 43
Figure 6-9: RV Valdivia sample volume vs calculated grade (all samples). ........................................................................ 44
Figure 6-10: RV Valdivia sample penetration vs calculated grade. ..................................................................................... 44
Figure 6-11: RV Sonne pneumatic grab sampler, hopper, and separation plant................................................................. 47
Figure 6-12: Interpretation of sampling process using the RV Sonne pneumatic grab sampler .......................................... 48
Figure 6-13: Stylised section illustrating sediment in the pneumatic grab sampler. ............................................................ 49
Figure 6-14: Processing of grab samples aboard the RV Sonne ........................................................................................ 50
Figure 6-15: 3D model of the RV Sonne pneumatic grab sampler volume ......................................................................... 54
Figure 6-16: RV Sonne sample locations and updated phosphorite grade. ........................................................................ 55
Figure 6-17: RV Sonne sample sand true thicknesses ....................................................................................................... 57
Figure 6-18: RV Sonne sample penetration depth vs calculated grade. ............................................................................. 58
Figure 7-1: Sectional interpretation of the development of the Chatham Rise .................................................................... 61
Figure 7-2: Schematic illustration of morphological controls on phosphatisation ................................................................ 62
Figure 7-3: Schematic cross-section of phosphorite-bearing sand zone ............................................................................. 64
Figure 7-4: Seismic facies map ........................................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 7-5: Interpreted iceberg furrows observed in bathymetry imagery. .......................................................................... 66
Figure 7-6: Evolution of the Chatham Rise phosphorite deposit and associated sediment ................................................. 67
Figure 7-7: Formation of a Chatham Rise phosphorite nodule. ........................................................................................... 68
Figure 8-1: Phosphate cycle (adapted from Paytan & McLaughlin, 2007). ......................................................................... 70
Figure 9-1: Sampling method for NIWA’s Van Veen grab sampler. .................................................................................... 72
Figure 9-2: MV Tranquil Image sample locations and updated phosphorite grade. ............................................................ 73
Figure 9-3: RV Dorado Discovery clamshell grab sampling process. ................................................................................. 75
Figure 9-4: Clamshell grab sampler used on the RV Dorado Discovery. ............................................................................ 76
Figure 9-5: RV Dorado Discovery grab sampler retrieval. ................................................................................................... 76

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 8 of 147
Figure 9-6: RV Dorado Discovery box core sampling. ........................................................................................................ 77
Figure 9-7: Relationship between sieved fractions of phosphorite contents in RV Dorado Discovery grab samples. ......... 79
Figure 9-8: RV Dorado Discovery sampling methods, sample locations, and estimated grades. ....................................... 80
Figure 9-9: RV Dorado Discovery sampling methods, sample locations and penetration depths. ...................................... 80
Figure 9-10: Exploration potential and extent of the Inferred Mineral Resource in the Chatham Rise. ............................... 82
Figure 11-1: RV Dorado Discovery clamshell grab sample processing. ............................................................................. 86
Figure 11-2: Sample location and Sample Quality Ranking values. .................................................................................... 92
Figure 12-1: Grab sample site for DD016 (193 Ph kg/m
3
). .................................................................................................. 99
Figure 12-2: Grab sample site for DD025 (695 Ph kg/m
3
). .................................................................................................. 99
Figure 12-3: CPT sample areas (black dots). .................................................................................................................... 100
Figure 12-4: Histogram of CPT depth data. ...................................................................................................................... 101
Figure 12-5: Schematic sand and chalk profile with potential tonnages below the sampled depth. .................................. 101
Figure 13-1: Separation scenarios. ................................................................................................................................... 103
Figure 13-2: Average P
2
O
5
, CaO, K
2
O, Fe
2
O
3
, and Al
2
O
3
contents................................................................................... 105
Figure 13-3: P
2
O
5
, CaO, SiO
2
, and Fe
2
O
3
contents of sieved RV Dorado Discovery samples ......................................... 106
Figure 13-4: Separation process proposed by Boskalis for the Queen of the Netherlands ............................................... 108
Figure 14-1: Sample overlap (green) between RV Sonne (red circles) and RV Valdivia (blue triangles) cruises. ............ 112
Figure 14-2: Omni-directional variogram for the entire dataset ......................................................................................... 113
Figure 14-3: Correlation between depth (m) and grade (Ph kg/m
3
) for domain 4 (482 points) .......................................... 115
Figure 14-4: Visual validation of block grades vs sample grades. ..................................................................................... 116
Figure 14-5: Estimation results illustrating block grades. .................................................................................................. 116
Figure 14-6: Estimation results illustrating true depths. ..................................................................................................... 117
Figure 14-7: Trend analysis demonstrating validation of block grades vs the input samples ............................................ 117
Figure 14-8: Sensitivity analysis comparing estimation quality. ........................................................................................ 118
Figure 14-9: Relationship between cut-off grade (horizontal axis) and contained phosphorite (left axis).......................... 120
Figure 14-10: Queen of the Netherlands, an example of a Boskalis vessel ...................................................................... 122
Figure 14-11: Mining system concept (Boskalis, 2013). .................................................................................................... 123
Figure 14-12: Conventional drag-head concept. ............................................................................................................... 124
Figure 14-13: Seabed mining trajectory concept (CRP, 2012). ......................................................................................... 125
Figure 14-14: Twenty-year price range ............................................................................................................................. 129

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 9 of 147
Acronyms and Abbreviations
% per cent
AIM Alternative Investments Market
ATNAV acoustic transponder navigation
BGR German Federal Institute for
Geosciences and Natural Resources
Boskalis Boskalis Offshore Subsea Contracting
B.V.
°C degrees Celsius
CRP Chatham Rock Phosphate Ltd
cm centimetres
CM Act Crown Minerals Act
CMA ACT Crown Minerals Amendment Bill
CPT Cone penetration test
CRL CRL Energy Ltd
CSA Continental Shelf Act
DMC Decision Making Committee (of the
EPA)
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EPA Environmental Protection Authority
DD RV Dorado Discovery
DSIR New Zealand Department of Scientific
and Industrial Research
GM Global Marine
Golder Golder Associates Ltd
JBL JBL Exploration NZ Ltd
Kenex Kenex Knowledge Systems Ltd
kg kilograms
kg/m
2
kilograms per square metre
kg/m
3
kilograms per cubic metre
km kilometres
kt kilotonnes
L litres
MPa megapascals
m metres
Ma million years
mm millimetres
Mt million tonnes
NIWA National Institute of Water and
Atmospheric Research (New Zealand)
NZD New Zealand Dollar
NZIER New Zealand Institute of Economic
Research
NZOI New Zealand Oceanographic Institute
NZPM New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals
NZX New Zealand Stock Exchange
SATNAV satellite navigation
SO RV Sonne
t tonnes
TI MV Tranquil Image
TSX.V Toronto Venture Stock Exchange
PEA Preliminary Economic Assessment
ROV Remotely operated underwater vehicle
RSC RSC Mining and Mineral Exploration
USD United States of America dollar
VA RV Valdivia
XRF X-ray fluorescence

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 10 of 147
Major Chemical Elements
Al
2
O
3
Aluminium oxide
CaO Calcium oxide
F Fluorine
Fe
2
O
3
Iron oxide
K
2
O Potassium oxide
MgO Magnesium oxide
Na
2
O Sodium oxide
P
2
O
5
Phosphate pentoxide
SiO
2
Silica dioxide
SO
3
Sulphur trioxide

TiO
2
Titanium oxide

Trace elements
As Arsenic
Ba Barium
Cd Cadmium
Ce Cerium
Co Cobalt
Cu Copper
Mo Molybdenum
Ni Nickel
Pb Lead
Rb Rubidium
Sr Strontium
Th Thorium
U Uranium
V Vanadium
Y Yttrium
Zn Zinc
Zr Zircon

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 11 of 147
1. Summary
Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited (CRP) commissioned RSC Consulting Ltd (RSC) to prepare an independent technical
report (the Report) in compliance with National Instrument 43-101: Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101)
and Form 43-101F1, in respect of the Chatham Rise Phosphorite Project (the Project) within New Zealand’s Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Pacific Ocean, ~450 km southeast of Wellington, New Zealand. The Project comprises one
mining permit (MP) 55549, which is wholly owned by CRP. This Report documents material data and data collection
procedures for the Project, has an effective date of 29 April 2026, and reports a Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) for the
Project.
1.1 Property Description & Ownership
The Project is located in the Pacific Ocean, ~450 km southeast of Wellington, within New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic
Zone, on New Zealand’s Continental Shelf. The Project comprises MP 55549, which covers an area of 820 km
2
where
seabed phosphorite nodules are present on the seafloor at a depth of ~350–450 m.
MP 55549 was granted on 6 December 2013 for a period of 20 years. In 2014, CRP lodged an application for a marine
consent from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) that would allow CRP to mine phosphorite nodules. The
application was rejected in February 2015, and no mining operations have commenced at the Project.
CRP previously held a prospecting licence (MPL 50270) covering the area adjacent to MP 55549. This licence was granted
on 25 February 2010 and covered an initial area of 3,905 km
2
, which included the area now held under MP 55549.
A four-year extension was granted in 2014, covering a reduced area of 2,887 km
2
. MPL 50270 was surrendered on 29
August 2019.
1.2 Geology & Mineralisation
The Project is located on the Permian–Triassic (300–200 Ma) Chatham Rise, which comprises a thick sequence of turbiditic
sediments that were deposited in a subsiding trough on the Pacific margin of Gondwana. The phosphorite deposit occurs
as a thin, surficial layer of phosphorite-bearing glauconitic sand with thicknesses typically ranging from 0–1 m on the seafloor
at depths of ~350–450 m. The layer consists of typically of silt and sand-sized sediment, with phosphatised chalk nodules
up to 15 cm in diameter. The Chatham Rise phosphorite comprises phosphorite nodules that are loosely distributed within
a layer of Neogene glauconitic sand that typically measures ~20 cm thick but locally exceeds 1 m. The sand is a pelagic lag
deposit comprising 20–40% silt and 30–60% fine-grained to very fine-grained sand, and the concentration of phosphorite
nodules varies both vertically and laterally.
1.3 Exploration
Phosphorite nodules were first discovered on the Chatham Rise in the 1950s by a New Zealand Government survey. During
the 1960s to 1980s several private and government sponsored cruises explored the Chatham Rise and surrounding seafloor

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 12 of 147
area. The most extensive surveys were conducted by an agreement between the New Zealand Department of Scientific
and Industrial Research (DSIR) and the West Germany Government on cruises by the German research vessels RV Valdivia
in 1978 and RV Sonne in 1981.
The 1978 RV Valdivia cruise was the first intensive sampling and research campaign to be conducted over the Chatham
Rise; a total of 655 samples from 689 attempts were collected over a 300 km
2
area in the west of the Project area. Most of
the samples were collected using a large Van Veen grab sampler of 0.12 m
3
volume, weighing ~400 kg.
The 1981 RV Sonne cruise was the most comprehensive exploration effort to assess the Chatham Rise phosphorite deposit.
In addition to oceanographic, meteorological and geophysical data, the cruise collected 19 hours of video recordings of the
seafloor as well as 519 sediment samples taken by a pneumatic grab sampler. The seafloor sediment samples collected
during this cruise are the most representative sample data collected on the Chatham Rise and the data are considered to
be of sufficient quality to be included in an MRE.
Since acquiring the licence in 2010, CRP has conducted six cruises in two programmes in the Project area. The key task of
the cruises was to validate the previous work conducted on the Chatham Rise and collect further geological, geotechnical,
geophysical and environmental data. For phosphorite grade estimation purposes, the MV Tranquil Image cruise collected
55 samples using a Van Veen grab sampler. The RV Dorado Discovery conducted four cruises to the Project area and
collected 206 box core and grab samples.
Sample quality and quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) measures varied considerably between the cruises and
within each cruise. A critical part of the assessment of the data collected in the Project area was to determine the quality
thresholds to use to allow or disallow data to enter the MRE process. As part of the data verification process, the relative
and absolute quality of the data was assessed by the Qualified Person (QP) in as much detail as practicable. The best
samples were typically those that were collected using the pneumatic grab sampler, sampled the full sand horizon, had a
small survey error and had no other apparent data biases. Samples collected from the RV Sonne are considered by the QP
to represent the best quality samples collected in the Project area, followed by some of the RV Valdivia samples, and then
the box core samples from the RV Dorado Discovery. Samples not included in the MRE are samples that suffered a technical
failure during their collection, samples collected but which have no data recorded, samples with no location coordinates,
non-validated data and samples documented as washed or otherwise biased.
1.4 Mineral Resource Estimate
Definition of the domains used for modelling was based on seismic facies delineated during the RV Sonne cruise. A two-
dimensional (2D) block model was constructed, based on 1 km × 1 km blocks, that covers the sampled area based on the
average data spacing in the main sample areas. A maximum search radius of 3,000 m was used, based on variogram
modelling.
Estimation was performed in each domain using ordinary kriging, using the accumulation method on the parameters
Ph kg/m
2
(phosphorite grade), depth (phosphorite thickness), and sample quality ranking (SQR). The grade (Ph kg/m
3
) was
then calculated by dividing Ph kg/m
2
by the estimated depth for each block.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 13 of 147
A total of 71 million cubic metres (m
3
) at an average grade of 295 kg/m
3
Ph is classified as an Inferred Mineral Resource at
a cut-off grade of 100 kg/m
3
Ph (Table 1-1). There are no Mineral Resources that are classified in the Indicated or Measured
categories. As the Chatham Rise phosphorite resource is classified entirely as Inferred, it does not constitute a Mineral
Reserve and therefore does not have demonstrated economic viability. The specification of the phosphorite (i.e. the
phosphate content) has been studied by various operators, including CRP, and determined to be ~18–19% P
2
O
5
of screened
material. The average thickness of the Mineral Resource is 0.20 m.
Table 1-1: Statement of Mineral Resources (phosphorite) for MP 55549, Chatham Rise, with an effective date of 29 April
2026. Estimates are rounded to reflect the level of confidence in these resources.
Classification Volume (m
3
) Thickness (cm) Grade (Ph kg/m
3
)
Inferred 71,000,000 20 295
Notes:
1. The Mineral Resource is reported in accordance with CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and
Mineral Reserves (May 2014).
2. The MRE has an effective date of 29 April 2026.
3. The Mineral Resource is contained within MP 55549.
4. . Estimates are rounded to reflect the level of confidence in these resources at the present time. All
resources have been rounded to the nearest 0.1 million tonnes
5. Grade (Ph kg/m
3
) is the weight of phosphorite per cubic metre.
6. Contained Ph Mt is contained weight of phosphorite per million tonnes.
7. The specification of the phosphorite (i.e. the phosphate content) has been studied by various operators,
including CRP, and determined to be ~18–19% P2O5 of screened material.
8. The Mineral Resource is reported at 100 kg/m
3
phosphorite cut-off grade, calculated using a phosphate rock
price of USD 150 per tonne based on prices from 2024 to 2026.
9. The Mineral Resource is classified entirely as Inferred. It does not constitute a Mineral Reserve and
therefore does not have demonstrated economic viability.
The QP has assessed reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction (RPEEE) in accordance with CIM Definition
Standards and CIM best-practice guidelines. This assessment is conceptual in nature and is based on the observed lateral
continuity of nodule abundance and grade, together with assumed seabed collection and riser-lift mining concepts and
established processing approaches for polymetallic nodules. Conceptual economic, environmental, and regulatory
considerations appropriate to an early-stage project have been applied, and no significant factors have been identified that
would preclude eventual economic extraction once the appropriate consents are in place. The Inferred Mineral Resource is
subject to significant geological, technical, environmental, and regulatory uncertainty, and the QP cannot guarantee that
further exploration or evaluation work will result in the delineation of Mineral Resources in higher confidence categories or
the definition of Mineral Reserves.
1.5 Conclusions & Recommendations
In addition to the Inferred Mineral Resource in Table 1-1, in the QP's opinion, there is significant exploration potential to
extend the mineral resources within MP 55549. Based on existing sampling data (which were not included in the resource
because of lower density of sampling or lower SQR values), the exploration target would be in the order of 15,000,000 to
20,000,000 m
3
at grades of 200 to 300 Ph kg/m
3
. The potential quantity and grade of this exploration target is conceptual in
nature. As of the effective date of the Report, there has been insufficient exploration to define a Mineral Resource for this
exploration target, and it is uncertain whether further exploration will result in the exploration target being delineated as a
Mineral Resource.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 14 of 147
The QP recommends that further seafloor sampling be undertaken to both increase the confidence of the classification of
the MRE as well as to extend the boundaries of the resource, predominantly towards the west where currently low-quality
RV Valdivia data indicate additional phosphorite potential. Increasing the confidence in the current MRE by additional
sampling will give CRP the grade and geological confidence in the phosphorite deposit to undertake further development of
mining plans and economic studies.
The QP suggests a two-staged work programme.
A first stage (Phase 1) would focus on further integrating all existing geological and environmental data to increase the
confidence in both the mineral resource estimate and environmental models.
The current MRE is based on historical data and classified as an Inferred Mineral Resource because of its relatively low
confidence. Contingent on the results of Phase 1, the QP recommends that for the second stage in the work programme
(Phase 2), further seafloor sampling be undertaken to both increase the confidence in the established MRE and to extend
the boundaries of the resource, predominantly towards the west where currently low-quality RV Valdivia data indicate an
exploration target of 3 to 4 Mt phosphorite at potential grades of 200 to 300 Ph kg/m
3
. Increasing the confidence in the
current MRE by additional properly located and documented sampling will give CRP and Boskalis the grade and geological
confidence in the phosphorite deposit to allow them to further develop mining plans and economic studies.
The QP recommends that further exploration includes, but is not limited to:
 400 × 400 m seafloor sampling using a large-sized pneumatic grab sampler;
 a thorough QA/QC programme for future sampling campaigns;
 logging of data indicating depth of mineralised sand layer;
 ROV transects of sample sites to confirm sample quality and depth of sample; and
 detailed bathymetric survey of mining blocks to delineate barren zones from outcrop, icebergs furrows and pits.
Approximate costs of this programme are illustrated in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2: Proposed work programme and cost.
Phase Description Cost (USD)
Phase 1: Data modelling Further data integration and modelling 0.3M
Phase 2: Seafloor sampling Sampling and resource update 4.7M

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 15 of 147
2. Introduction
2.1 Purpose of the Report
Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited (CRP) commissioned RSC Consulting Ltd (RSC) to prepare an independent technical
report (the Report) in compliance with National Instrument 43-101: Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101)
and Form 43-101F1, in respect of the Chatham Rise Phosphorite Project (the Project) within New Zealand’s Exclusive
Economic Zone in the Pacific Ocean, ~450 km southeast of Wellington, New Zealand. The Project comprises one mining
permit, MP 55549, which is wholly owned by CRP. The Report documents all data and data collection procedures for the
Project, up to and including the effective date of 29 April 2026, and reports a Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) for the
Project.
2.2 Sources of Information
The information in this technical report is based on data supplied by CRP and Kenex Knowledge Systems (Kenex). Kenex
was involved with data management at the start of the Project and supplied the QP with a Microsoft Access database of all
sample data available for the Project. Scanned copies of the original raw data sheets for all 689 samples collected aboard
the RV Valdivia and for all 500 samples collected aboard the RV Sonne were made available to the QP. In addition, the QP
obtained a scanned copy of a printout of a historical database compiled at the time of sampling on the RV Valdivia from the
archives of the German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR). The QP, and staff under the QP’s
supervision, used the scans of original and historically recorded data to validate the sample data in the Kenex digital
database.
The QP obtained information on how samples were collected and processed from cruise documentation as well as first-
hand accounts by experts who were present aboard each cruise at the time of sampling. Information relating to property
ownership, property titles, legal, environmental, or engineering matters was similarly sourced from third-party experts (see
Section 3), as well as government publications.
A list of the sources of information, data, and reports reviewed as part of this technical report is presented in Section 28.
The QP takes responsibility for the content of the Report and considers the data review to be accurate and complete in all
material aspects.
2.3 Definitions
The Report contains a number of terms, denominations, and calculation methods that are specific to this style of
mineralisation (Table 2-1). The deposit was assessed using measurements and estimations of the weight of phosphorite
nodules relative to sample volumes collected from the seafloor. These measurements are presented as either phosphorite
grade, expressed as weight per volume (kg/m
3
), or phosphorite nodule abundance, expressed as weight per area (kg/m
2
).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 16 of 147
The determination of phosphorite grade and phosphorite nodule abundance was carried out using conventional methods
(weighing and simple measurements of volume) and did not involve extensive laboratory analysis to determine P
2
O
5
grade
for each sample. Therefore, typical industry sample quality control measures, such as inserting certified reference materials
(i.e. standards and blanks) were not used. This is because the intended product is saleable per kg of ‘phosphorite rock’,
which, by definition (see Table 2-1) already has sufficient concentrations of phosphorus pentoxide.
Table 2-1: Phosphate mineral nomenclature used in the Report.
Definition Grade Description
P %
The element phosphorus. It is a non-metallic chemical element and occurs in
phosphate minerals in phosphatic rocks.
P
2
O
5
% Phosphorus pentoxide (chemical compound).
Phosphorite
Synonym: ‘rock phosphate’. Non-detrital sedimentary rocks or nodules that
contain high amounts of phosphate-bearing minerals.
Rock phosphate
A general term that refers to a rock with high concentrations of phosphate
minerals.
Phosphate minerals
The phosphate class of minerals is a large and diverse group; however, only a
few species are relatively common.
Phosphorite grade Ph kg/m
3
The weight of phosphorite nodules per cubic metre.
Phosphorite nodule
abundance
Ph kg/m
2
The weight of phosphorite nodules per square metre of seafloor.
Penetration depth m The thickness of the mineralised sediment component in a sampling bucket.
True depth m The true depth of the mineralised sediment.
2.4 Qualified Person
This Report was completed by the following Qualified Person (QP):
René Sterk is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM) and a Chartered Professional
Geologist (CP Geo) with the AusIMM. René is the Qualified Person responsible for all sections of the Report. René holds
an MSc in Structural Geology and Tectonics from the Vrije University Amsterdam (2002) and is a full-time employee and
Managing Director of RSC, an independent international consulting group. His experience includes assessment and
evaluation of seabed nodule deposits near New Zealand, Cook Islands, and in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ). René
has been the principal author of technical papers concerning seabed sampling techniques, and documentation of seabed
resources prepared according to industry codes. He has presented at professional seabed mining industry conferences,
facilitated resource estimation training workshops for the seabed mineral industry, and has also been involved with expert
working groups addressing seabed mining policy. René is responsible for all sections of the Report.
2.5 Personal Inspection (Site Visit)
The QP has not visited the Project, as the mineralisation is 400 m below the sea surface and cannot be visited. For site-
specific information, has relied on the experience of experts who were directly involved with sampling and estimating
phosphorite nodule abundance (Dr Falconer, Dr Kudrass, Dr Nielsen; Table 2-2). The QP visited CRP’s subsampling site
in Wellington on 16 January 2014.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 17 of 147
The QP is of the opinion that the personal inspections by Dr Falconer and Dr Kudrass from 1978–1981 are current, as there
has been no material change to the property. Nodule formation is measured on the scale of millions of years, and
sedimentation rates on the scale of thousands of years. No significant surface disturbance to the area has occurred since
the sampling by CRP.
Table 2-2: Site visits conducted by third-party experts and QP.
Name/organisation Site visits Expertise
Dr Robin Falconer, Director, CRP
RV Sonne leg 1 (March–April
1981) and leg 3 (May 1981)
RV Sonne sampling methodology, geophysical
techniques, seismic facies
Dr Hermann Kudrass, former
Director, German Federal Institute
for Geosciences and Natural
Resources (BGR)
RV Valdivia, October–November
1978
RV Sonne, leg 2 (April–May
1981)
RV Valdivia and RV Sonne sampling methodology;
geology and geochemistry; historical resource
estimations
Dr Simon Nielsen, former Senior
Geologist, Kenex Knowledge
Systems Ltd (Kenex)
RV Dorado Discovery cruise 2
(February 2012), cruise 3 (March
2012), cruise 4 (April 2012)
RV Dorado Discovery sediment sampling, remotely
operated underwater vehicle (ROV), cone
penetration testing (CPT)
René Sterk, Qualified Person Author
CRP subsampling site in
Wellington, NZ (XX January
2014)
Qualified Person on seafloor nodules and
phosphorites in Pacific Ocean and New Zealand

The QP confirms that no material work has been conducted on the Chatham Rise Project between the January 2014 visit
to the subsampling site and the effective date of this Report. The QP has monitored public announcements made by CRP
during this period and spoken with CRP management and its technical team, and has confirmed that no new exploration
activities have occurred or been reported since the January 2014 site visit. Based on the data assessment and verification
methods used, the QP is of the opinion that another site visit is not required at this time for the Project.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 18 of 147
3. Reliance on Other Experts
The QP has not independently verified the legal status of CRP’s mineral permits, and has not investigated the legality of
any of the underlying agreements that exist concerning the Project discussed in Section 4 of this Report.
The QP has reviewed CRP’s permit status information on the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) —
New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals (NZP&M) website. The QP relied on the NZP&M website and the permit certificate
issued under the Crown Minerals Act (1991) (certificate dated 6 December 2013), which states CRP’s legal status and title
of prospecting, exploration, and mining. However, the QP is not qualified to give a legal opinion with respect to the property
titles and discussed in Section 4 of this Report.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 19 of 147
4. Property Description & Location
4.1 Location
The Chatham Rise Project is located in the Pacific Ocean ~450 km southeast of Wellington, New Zealand, within New
Zealand’s EEZ, on New Zealand’s Continental Shelf (Figure 4-1). The centre of the Project area is at latitude 43° 30’ S and
longitude 179° 30’ E (WGS84 datum and coordinate system) at a water depth of 350–450 m and is fully within New Zealand’s
jurisdiction according to international law.

Figure 4-1: Location of the Project.
4.2 Mineral Tenure
4.2.1 Mineral Rights
Within New Zealand, the allocation of rights to prospect, explore, and mine for minerals owned by the Crown is carried out
by the granting of prospecting, exploration, and mining permits under the Crown Minerals Act (CMA) (1991). The Minister
of Resources is responsible for the CMA, and the administration of the CMA has been delegated to the Ministry of Business,
Innovation & Employment (MBIE), through the brand name NZP&M — the government regulator responsible for managing
New Zealand’s Crown mineral estate.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 20 of 147
Under the CMA, all petroleum, gold (Au), silver (Ag), and uranium (U) in its natural state is deemed to be owned by the
Crown, and pounamu (greenstone) is owned by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. The granting of a prospecting, exploration, or
mining permit provides the permit holder the right to prospect, explore, or mine the minerals specified in the permit.
Applications for U and thorium (Th) will ordinarily be declined.
Permits under the CMA are classified as Tier 1, 2, or 3 depending on the minerals they relate to, the activities to be
undertaken, expected work programme expenditure, estimated production or royalty, and where the activities take place.
All prospecting permits are classified as Tier 2. Exploration permits for Au, Ag, metallic minerals, and platinum group metals
(PGMs) are classified as Tier 1 unless the expected total work programme expenditure for the final five years of its life is
<NZD 1,250,000. Mining permits for Au, Ag, and PGMs are classified as Tier 1 if, in any one permit year in the next five
years of its life, the annual royalty will be equal to or more than NZD 50,000. Mining permits for any other metallic mineral
are classified as Tier 1 if, in any one permit year in the next five years of its life, the annual production will be equal to or
more than 500 kt of metallic minerals ore. All exploration or mining permits for underground operations or operations that
are (wholly or partially) 50 metres or more beyond the sea‐ward side of the mean high-water mark are classified as Tier 1.
4.2.1.1 Prospecting Permits
Prospecting is any activity undertaken for the purpose of identifying land likely to contain mineral deposits or occurrences.
A prospecting permit gives the permit holder the exclusive right (although non-exclusive permits are also available) to
prospect for the minerals referred to in the permit, in the land covered by the permit, and in accordance with the permit’s
conditions.
The permit conditions are subject to the following.
1. The rights under a prospecting permit apply to the relevant minerals whether they are Crown or privately owned.
However, any extraction of privately owned minerals, beyond that incidental to prospecting, requires negotiation
and agreement with the mineral owners.
2. The holder of a prospecting permit has a prima facie right to be granted a subsequent exploration permit in respect
of the land and Crown-owned minerals to which the prospecting permit relates, if the prospecting is successful.
A prospecting permit is granted for a period of two years, with the possibility of extension for a further two years. There are
no rights of renewal beyond four years. When a prospecting permit for minerals is renewed, the Minister typically requires
relinquishment of half of the permit area.
Ordinarily, the maximum size of an offshore prospecting permit granted by NZP&M is 5,000 km
2
, with the expectation that
the size of any subsequent exploration permit will be smaller than the original prospecting permit.
A minimum annual fee for prospecting permits is payable to the Crown. For offshore prospecting (i.e. >12 nm), the fee is
NZD 3.58 per km
2
or part thereof, or NZD 1,610, whichever is greater
CRP does not currently hold any prospecting permits.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 21 of 147
4.2.1.2 Exploration Permits
Exploration is any activity undertaken for the purpose of identifying mineral deposits or occurrences and evaluating the
feasibility of mining.
An exploration permit gives the permit holder the same rights as a prospecting permit, plus the exclusive right to explore for
the Crown-owned minerals referred to in the permit, in the land covered by the permit and in accordance with the permit’s
conditions. An exploration permit cannot authorise exploration for privately owned minerals (noting, however, that all
petroleum, Au, Ag and U, existing in its natural state is deemed to be owned by the Crown under the CMA).
The Crown typically owns all minerals in the territorial sea (up to 12 nm) and has vested rights in minerals in the exclusive
economic zone (EEZ; i.e. from 12–200 nm off the coast of New Zealand) and the continental shelf beyond (to a maximum
of 350 nm offshore).
Subject to the permit conditions, the holder of an exploration permit has a prima facie right to be granted a subsequent
mining permit, in respect of the land and Crown-owned minerals to which the exploration permit relates, if the exploration is
successful.
An exploration permit (for minerals other than petroleum) is typically granted for a period of five years, with the possibility of
an extension for an additional five years. There are no rights of renewal beyond ten years, except for appraisal purposes.
Appraisal extensions may extend the duration of an exploration permit by up to eight years. When an exploration permit for
minerals is renewed, the Minister typically requires relinquishment of half of the permit area.
NZP&M does not specify a maximum size for an exploration permit but does dictate that an exploration permit must not be
smaller than 150 hectares.
There is a minimum annual fee for exploration permits that are payable to the Crown. For offshore exploration, the fee is
NZD 10.73 per km
2
, or part thereof, or NZD 1,610, whichever is greater.
CRP does not currently hold any exploration permits.
4.2.1.3 Mining Permits
Mining is taking, winning, or extracting, by any means, a mineral existing in its natural state.
A mining permit gives the permit holder the same rights as an exploration permit, plus the exclusive right to mine for the
specified Crown-owned minerals referred to in the permit, in the area covered by the permit, and in accordance with the
permit’s conditions. A mining permit cannot authorise exploration or mining for privately owned minerals (noting, however,
that all petroleum, Au, Ag and U, existing in its natural state is deemed to be owned by the Crown under the CMA (1991)).
The Crown typically owns all minerals in the territorial sea (up to 12 nm) and has vested rights in minerals in the exclusive
economic zone (EEZ; i.e. from 12–200 nm off the coast of New Zealand) and the continental shelf beyond (to a maximum
of 350 nm offshore).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 22 of 147
A mining permit remains in force for a maximum period of 40 years. The duration of a mining permit may be extended if the
discovery to which the permit relates cannot be economically depleted before the date of expiration.
There is a minimum annual fee for exploration permits that is payable to the Crown. For offshore exploration, the fee is
NZD 10.73 per km
2
, or part thereof, or NZD 1,610, whichever is greater.
CRP currently holds one mining permit, MP 55549.
4.2.1.4 Revocation of Permits
The Minister may revoke a permit if:
1. the permit holder contravenes a condition of the permit, the CMA, or regulations made under the CMA;
2. the permit is a Tier 1 permit, the permit holder is the permit operator, and the permit holder undergoes a change
of control without the Minister’s consent; or
3. the permit holder undergoes a change of control without notifying the Minister, or the Minister is not satisfied the
permit holder, following the change of control, has the financial capability to meet its obligations under the permit.
The conditions for CRP’s mining permit are in Schedules 1–3 of the permit certificate.
4.2.2 Permit Status
CRP holds 100% of MP 55549 (820 km
2
) (Table 4-1). Boskalis previously provided significant technical services to CRP in
respect of the Project and held a 7.6% shareholding of CRP as of 1 May 2014. Boskalis no longer holds any shares of CRP
(as at the effective date of the Report).
Table 4-1: CRP licence holdings.
Permit No. Permit Type
Area
(km
2
)
Ownership Grant Date Expiry Date
MP 55549 Mining Permit 820 CRP 100% 6 December 2013 5 December 2033

Mining Permit 55549
The Minister of Economic Development granted MP 55549 to CRP for the extraction of rock phosphate on the Chatham
Rise on 6 December 2013 (Figure 4-2). The permit was granted for 20 years and is due to expire on 5 December 2033. As
part of the permit conditions, a Marine Consent must be obtained from the EPA before mining can commence. Figure 4-1
and Figure 4-2 illustrate the extent of MP 55549.
Prospecting Licence 50270
MPL 50270 was originally granted to Widespread Energy Ltd (90%) and Widespread Portfolios Ltd (10%) on 25 February
2010, covering an area of 4,726 km
2
. Widespread Portfolios Ltd sold its 10% holding in the joint venture to Widespread
Energy Ltd (31 March 2011), after which Widespread Energy Ltd changed its name to Chatham Rock Phosphate Ltd (April
2011).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 23 of 147
MPL 50270 was granted by the Minister of Economic Development under the Continental Shelf Act 1964 (the CSA). At the
time the licence was granted, the CSA provided the legislative framework for the allocation of mineral rights for prospecting,
exploration, and mining activities on New Zealand’s continental shelf, including areas beyond the territorial sea (12 nm).
MPL 50270 was granted subject to licence conditions, including environmental conditions that required the licence holder
to undertake environmental baseline studies and to monitor and report on the environmental effects of exploration activities.
These conditions also required compliance with internationally recognised environmental management guidelines relevant
to marine mineral exploration.
The subsequent Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (the EEZ Act)
established a comprehensive environmental management regime for activities undertaken within New Zealand’s EEZ and
continental shelf beyond the territorial sea, addressing a previous regulatory gap. The enactment of the Crown Minerals
Amendment Act 2013 transferred responsibility for the allocation and management of mineral resources in the EEZ and on
the continental shelf from the CSA to the CMA. As a result, prospecting, exploration, and mining for minerals in offshore
areas beyond the territorial sea (12 nm) are now regulated under the same minerals permitting framework as onshore
activities, while environmental effects are regulated separately under the EEZ Act.
The original term of the MPL 50270 licence expired on 25 February 2014, and an application to extend the term for a further
four years was submitted to NZP&M on 20 December 2013. The application was approved in August 2016 through to
February 2020 over a reduced area of 2,887 km
2
. MPL 50270 was surrendered on 29 August 2019.

Figure 4-2: Extent of MP 55549, Chatham Rise.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 24 of 147
4.2.2.1 Work Programmes
An applicant for a permit under the CMA must propose a minimum work programme for the proposed permit. The Minister
will not grant the permit unless the Minister is satisfied the work programme is consistent with the CMA, the purpose of the
permit, and good industry practice, and that the applicant is likely to comply with and give proper effect to the work
programme. In addition, the work programme for a subsequent permit or permit extension of duration must be approved by
the Minister. A permit holder may apply to the Minister to change the work programme for the permit.
Mining Permit 55549
The key requirements of the minimum work programme that was approved by the Minister outlined in Schedule 3 of
MP 55549 requires CRP to (among other things):
 complete an updated resource optimisation and schedule study for the permit area;
 commence mining at a minimum rate of 800kt of phosphorite per annum (landed to port); and
 spend a minimum of NZD 2.0 million per annum for the first five years of production in carrying out these and other
activities detailed in the work programme.
During 2018, CRP identified environmental and engineering parameters influential to the optimisation of the resource
extraction (MR5599). CRP’s consolidation of all benthic ecology data from previous environmental surveying was
complemented by new data from NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (New Zealand)). CRP
initiated the running of alternative mine planning/scheduling scenarios to include some environmental parameters
(i.e. removal of some areas of the resource due to presence of corals) to understand the impact this has on mine planning,
scheduling, and economics. The scenarios involved removing parts of the resource from the schedule made up of 500-m
or 1,000-m buffers around areas noted as containing potentially significant concentrations of corals. Modelling of the
scenarios indicated only minimal impact on the project economics.
In March 2026, CRP issued a letter of commitment to NZP&M with respect to the ‘commit or surrender’ requirements of
Condition 6 of the work programme, which states the following:
 Within 145 months of the commencement date of the permit, the permit holder shall (to the satisfaction of the chief
executive) either:
o make a commitment by notice in writing to the chief executive to complete paragraphs 7 and 8 of the work
programme and continue production at a minimum rate of 800 kt of phosphate per annum; or
o surrender the permit.
Following receipt of the letter, NZP&M considers CRP to be “late, but compliant” with that obligation, while noting that
ongoing production at 800 kt per year could not be met. As at the effective date of this Report, NZP&M does not intend to
take any enforcement action or revocation with respect to the permit pending the outcome of subsequent change of control
and/or change of conditions applications, provided the applications are submitted in a timely manner, comply with the
requirements of the CMA (1991) and relevant regulations, and all other applicable obligations under the CMA (1991) are
complied with during that time, including the requirement to pay annual fees and submit reports in accordance with the

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 25 of 147
regulations and permit conditions. NZP&M further notes CRP has committed to lodge full marine consent applications by
30 November 2027, whether that is under the Fast Track Approvals Act (2024) or the Exclusive Economic Zone and
Continental Shelf Act (2012).
4.3 Royalties & Encumbrances
4.3.1 Crown Royalties
One of the purposes of the CMA is to provide a fair financial return to the Crown for its minerals, which is achieved through
a system of mandatory Crown royalties.
The Crown Minerals (Royalties for Minerals Other than Petroleum) Regulations 2013 (Royalty Regulations) set out rates
and provisions for the payment of Crown royalties on non-petroleum mineral production. The Royalty Regulations provide
for the payment of royalties on exploration and mining permits, to the extent minerals are produced from the permits.
Subject to certain thresholds (notably, a net sales revenue threshold of NZD 200,000 per annum), the royalty regime under
the Royalty Regulations for Tier 1 permits, for metallic minerals, is:
 for Au and net sales revenue from Au, of not more than NZD 2 million per annum, an ad valorem royalty of 2% of
net sales revenue; otherwise
 the higher of an ad valorem royalty of 2% of net sales revenue or an accounting profits royalty of 10% of accounting
profits.
For Tier 2 permits, the royalty regime under the Royalty Regulations for metallic minerals is an ad valorem royalty of 1% of
the net sales revenue(s) of the minerals obtained under the permit.
For Tier 3 permits, the royalty regime under the Royalty Regulations for Au is an ad valorem royalty of 1% of the net sales
revenue(s) of the minerals obtained under the permit.
CRP’s mining permit (MP 55549) is a more than 50 m offshore, so is therefore Tier 1.
4.4 Environmental Liabilities & Permits
As the Project is located offshore within New Zealand’s EEZ, it is subject to different conditions from those applying to
onshore mineral exploration and production activities. In addition to the standard permit requirements under the CMA (1991)
and the EEZ Act (2012), along with regulations administered by NZP&M, the Project must comply with offshore-specific
requirements set by the Environmental Protection Authority. Development of the Project is contingent upon obtaining
appropriate minerals permits and marine consents addressing environmental effects on the seabed and water column.
The Project may be eligible for consideration under New Zealand’s Fast-Track Approvals Act (2024), which provides an
alternative consenting pathway for certain projects and establishes a permanent, fast-track approvals regime for projects of
national and regional significance. It is administered by the Ministry for the Environment, with other agencies responsible
for specific Acts related to project approvals, including DOC, MBIE, the Ministry for Primary Industries, Heritage New

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 26 of 147
Zealand Pouhere Taonga, and the Environmental Protection Authority. The system is intended to provide a ‘one-stop shop’
for resource consents, notices of requirement, certificates of compliance under the RMA, and approvals required under
several other acts, including the CMA, the Conservation Act 1987, and the Wildlife Act 1953. The Fast-track Approvals Act
2024 received royal assent on 23 December 2024. Eligibility, processes, and outcomes under the new legislation are
discretionary; therefore, they cannot be assured.
As at the effective date of this Report, no production consents or approvals had been granted to CRP under the Fast Track
Approvals Act, and any future mining activities would remain subject to detailed environmental assessment and ongoing
compliance obligations under the applicable EEZ regulations. However, CRP has committed to lodging full marine consent
applications by 30 November 2027, either under the Fast Track Approvals Act or the EEZ Act.
CRP submitted a Marine Consent application and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to the EPA on 14 May 2014 and
subsequently submitted an updated EIA on 12 November 2014. CRP consulted with ‘existing interests’ (as required by the
EEZ Act), indigenous peoples, the Chatham Islands community and other stakeholders. Parties with existing interests in
the area mainly consist of the commercial fishing industry, including the indigenous fishing industry. The nature of this
consultation and the issues raised during consultation were included in the EIA, which consisted of an analysis of CRP’s
proposed activities, the potential effects of those activities, and how any adverse impacts arising from the Project could be
managed (see Section 4.2.2.1).
On 10 February 2015, a Decision-making Committee (DMC) appointed by the EPA refused CRP’s Marine Consent
application, based on concerns over the destructive impact of the drag-head on the seabed and on benthic fauna and the
potential adverse effects of the return of waste material on the benthic habitat in and around the Project area. The DMC
noted that the impacts could not be avoided, remedied, or mitigated, and that mining would be occurring mainly within the
Mid Chatham Rise Benthic Protection Area. The DMC further noted that the effects would include the destruction of
communities dominated by protected stony corals that are potentially unique to the Chatham Rise and are thus considered
rare and vulnerable ecosystems, and raised concerns that the habitat could not be restored to its present form and would
instead be transformed wholly into a soft-sediment habitat. While the decision was a setback, CRP may pursue a re-
submission of its Marine Consent application. CRP intends to continue to work with the EPA to seek clarity on the
interpretation of the EEZ legislation and the EPA’s policies and procedures for managing the consent process.
The decision to decline the Marine Consent had a direct influence on progressing work on MPL 50270 with respect to raising
the necessary capital to undertake the prospecting work programme. Accordingly, MPL 50270 was subsequently
surrendered in 2019.
4.5 Other Significant Factors & Risks
Mining in New Zealand is a sensitive and political subject and, as in many other countries, there are active anti-mining
groups.
Exploration and mining projects within New Zealand can be the subject of negative campaigns by emboldened local and
online anti-mining groups. In 2025, Trans-Tasman Resources (TTR) sought approval under the Fast-Track Approvals Act

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 27 of 147
to mine iron sands from the seabed of the South Taranaki Bight, off the west coast of New Zealand’s North Island, proposing
to extract up to 50 Mt of seabed material annually for a period of 20–30 years
1
. TTR promoted the project as a source of
critical minerals, including vanadium, and reported plans to deliver substantial economic benefits on regional and national
scales. However, various anti-mining groups, iwi, fishing interests, and environmental organisations viewed TTR’s decision
to apply through the Fast-Track Approvals process as an attempt to bypass the intense scrutiny and sustained opposition
that the project had faced in previous EPA and court proceedings over more than a decade. Concerns raised by the various
opposing bodies were echoed by the Expert Panel’s draft decision on TTR’s application, released on 4 February 2026,
which proposed that the application should be declined. Shortly after the draft decision was released, TTR withdrew its
application before a final decision could be made. Anti-mining advocates interpreted the withdrawal as confirmation that the
proposal could not meet the necessary environmental thresholds, reinforcing calls for a broader policy shift away from
seabed mining and towards stronger marine protection across the EEZ
2
.
The current New Zealand Government, which is a National-led coalition with New Zealand First and Act parties, strongly
supports mining and has discussed plans to double mining earnings over the next decade. This has created a very positive
authorising environment for mineral exploration, and the potential to fast-track permitting processes in the event of a
discovery through the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024.


1
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/586083/fast-track-panel-declines-taranaki-seabed-mining-over-risk-to-marine-life
2
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/02/19/besieged-mining-firm-withdraws-fast-track-bid-to-plough-taranaki-seabed/

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 28 of 147
5. Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure & Physiography
5.1 Accessibility
The deposit lies on the crest of the Chatham Rise ~450 km southeast of Wellington, New Zealand (Figure 4-1). Water depths
in the area of main interest vary from 350–450 m.
Exploration operations are conducted by ocean-going vessel and there are no restrictions of access to the site. The site is
outside major shipping lanes; however, public notices to mariners would have to be filed for any deployment of equipment,
moorings, or operations that could affect shipping.
5.2 Climate
The site is located at 43‒44° south and subject to the climate and weather patterns of the southern Pacific Ocean, but these
are not anticipated to be extreme. Sea conditions were considered in the mining design studies that have been undertaken
to date.
The Chatham Rise lies at the boundary between warm, saline subtropical waters to the north and cooler, less saline sub-
Antarctic water to the south. The boundary is known as the Subtropical Convergence or Subtropical Front. Although the
surface sea conditions can be harsh, these do not influence water movement at the water depths in the proposed Mining
Permit area. Measurements of ocean currents in the Mining Permit area indicate that seabed currents are highly variable.
Sea temperatures typically range from 8–15°C. Therefore, vessel icing or sea ice is not expected to be a significant factor
in the mining operation. Icebergs have been observed historically in the Project area; however, they are rare, as they
originate in Antarctica over 2,000 km to the south. It is not anticipated that icebergs would represent a threat to mining
operations.
5.3 Local Resources & Infrastructure
Boskalis outlined the port requirements for the type of vessel proposed for the mining and transportation of phosphorite at
the Project. A key requirement is the ability to handle dry bulk goods and having a draft capability of 11 m (including access
channels). Major ports for logistical support and potential future offloading sites are located throughout the country
(Figure 5-1, Table 5-1). Many of these ports already handle bulk fertilisers. Ship-to-ship transfers could also be conducted
in the sheltered areas of the Marlborough Sounds, near Picton.
All exploration and mining operations will have to be undertaken from vessels. The mining vessel will supply its own power
requirements. Seawater will be used for mining and processing (washing and sieving). Fine material (tailings) would be
returned to the seafloor via a return pipe, and the retained phosphorite would be stored within the ship’s holds. It is
anticipated that mining will be undertaken from a specialised deep-water dredging/mining vessel. Material transport to shore
will be via the mining vessel or by transport vessels loaded at the mining site.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 29 of 147

Figure 5-1: Project location and New Zealand ports that could potentially be used.

Table 5-1: Potential ports for offloading bulk phosphorite.
Port
Distance
(km)
Maximum draught
(m)
Dredging required? Dry bulk handling facilities?
Napier 556 12.4 Yes Yes
Wellington 592 11.4 Yes Yes
Picton 682 13.5 No Yes
Lyttelton 660 13.3 Yes Yes
Timaru 780 10.6 Yes Yes

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 30 of 147
5.4 Bathymetry
The Project area is elongated east to west along the crest of the Chatham Rise (Figure 5-2).

Figure 5-2: Bathymetry of the Project area.
Within the Project area, water depths increase from 300 m in the centre to over 600 m in the south and north. The area of
primary interest is on the crest of the rise in water depths of 350–450 m, with a saddle depth of 390 m. Sub-areas of
pronounced micro relief – up to 5 m in height and roughly 50 m in horizontal extent – are superimposed on broader
topographic variations of 20 m relief and 0.5–1 km extent. Maximum seabed slopes seldom exceed 10°, but some steeper
scarps may be present.
The surface sediments of the Chatham Rise predominantly comprise an unconsolidated mixture of greenish-grey muddy
sands and sandy muds containing spatially variable amounts of phosphorite grains and nodules. The nodules formed at
~5 Ma, and the surrounding sediment is derived from 20–10 Ma limestones and chalks and overlies Oligocene chalk. In
shallower parts of the Chatham Rise, away from the proposed mining area, outcrops of hard igneous or metamorphic
basement rock occur.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 31 of 147
6. History
6.1 Tenure & Operating History
Various programmes have been undertaken by private and government-funded organisations in the Project area since the
1950s. Initial reconnaissance surveys were conducted by the New Zealand Geological Survey in 1952 and Global Marine
Inc. (Global Marine) in 1967–68. The reconnaissance surveys carried out dredge sampling over much of the Chatham Rise,
noting the presence/absence of phosphorite nodules, in an attempt to prioritise areas for future expeditions.
Global Marine held the first mineral prospecting licence (MPL) over an area of 100,000 km
2
across the Chatham Rise. From
1971, JBL Exploration NZ Ltd (JBL) held a prospecting licence covering a portion of the MPL previously held by Global
Marine.
From 1975‒1978, the New Zealand Oceanographic Institute (NZOI) conducted a localised survey to determine the
distribution and thickness of phosphorite-bearing sediments over part of the area now covered by MP 55549. After this
campaign, a collaboration between the West German Government and the New Zealand Department of Scientific and
Industrial Research (DSIR) launched two extensive sampling surveys, one in 1978 using the RV Valdivia, and the second
in 1981 using the RV Sonne. Together, the two campaigns collected over 1,100 sediment samples, the vast majority from
within the area previously held by CRP under MPL 50270.
The New Zealand company, Fletcher Challenge Ltd, was involved in the 1981 work and was granted a prospecting licence
for further investigation of the phosphorite deposits, but no further data collection surveys were undertaken, and the licence
was allowed to lapse in 1984.
No further mineral permits were issued over the Chatham Rise until MPL 50270 was granted to CRP in 2010.
6.2 Exploration History
6.2.1 RRS Discovery II (1952)
Officers of the New Zealand Geological Survey first discovered marine phosphorite deposits in sediments on the Chatham
Rise in 1952 when mineralised material was dredged by the RRS Discovery II ~130 km west of the Chatham Islands.
No data from this cruise were available for review as at the effective date of the Report.
6.2.2 MV Moray Rose & MV Taranui (1967–1968)
Global Marine conducted an extensive exploration programme including reconnaissance sampling over much of the
Chatham Rise in February–March 1967, followed by a detailed sampling survey of the area between 178°48’ E and
177°50’ W in February–March 1968 (Figure 6-1). In total, 337 samples were collected, with phosphorite nodules recovered
in 137 samples, from an area of ~18,500 km
2
(Ross, 1967; Global Marine Inc., 1968). The primary purpose of the
investigation was to identify the extent of phosphorite on the Chatham Rise and to determine its origin (Pasho, 1976).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 32 of 147
The MV Moray Rose conducted the first phase of sampling, while the larger MV Taranui was used during the second stage.
Both ships used celestial navigation to position themselves on pre-determined sample locations (Global Marine Inc., 1968).

Figure 6-1: Global Marine’s sample locations within the previous MPL 50270 area and updated phosphorite grade from
Global Marine’s unvalidated phosphorite Ph kg/m
3
data.
6.2.2.1 Sampling Method
Sampling was conducted using a custom-built pipe dredge with a diameter of 45 cm. The length of the pipe was not recorded;
but, based on faded photographs of sampling aboard the MV Taranui (Global Marine Inc., 1968), the pipe is likely to have
been ~1.5 m long. Upon reaching a sampling station, the ship’s engines were stopped and the pipe dredge lowered to the
bottom at a moderate rate to prevent fouling of the 1.27-cm (½-inch) gauge wire line. The pipe dredge was then towed
behind the slow-moving MV Moray Rose or dragged behind the drifting MV Taranui; this change in procedure was due to
the increased level of work involved in stopping and starting the larger vessel (MV Taranui). In both cases, the pipe dredge
was dragged along the bottom until it was full (as indicated by increased strain on the line), at which point it was retrieved
(Global Marine Inc., 1968). Once on board, the pipe was upended and its contents dumped on the deck of the ship. A
subsample was taken (method not disclosed), and the remainder of the material was washed overboard using a fire hose
(Global Marine Inc., 1968).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 33 of 147
Sample collection occurred at regular 4-mile (6.44-km) intervals along north-trending lines spaced 5 miles (8.05 km) apart.
Celestial navigation was used to position each ship at the predetermined sample locations (Global Marine Inc., 1968).
The accuracy of this method of navigation depends entirely on the skill of the navigator and the quality of the instruments
used and, at best, it has an accuracy of 3–4 nm (5.5–7.4 km) (Wood et al., 2003). However, despite the limited accuracy of
the results, the sample collection process was an important first step in identifying phosphorite potential on the Chatham
Rise, and the results were critical in guiding later surveys.
6.2.2.2 Sample Preparation & Analysis
Raw data for the Global Marine samples are presented in Ross (1967). All 331 samples were briefly geologically described
at the time of collection. A total of 41 samples were sieved into three size fractions (<0.152 mm, 0.152–2.38 mm, and
>2.38 mm) and the main constituents of each fraction were noted. A further six samples were sieved into 12 size fractions
(<0.152 mm, 0.152–0.211 mm, 0.211–0.297 mm, 0.297–0.599 mm, 0.599–1.20 mm, 1.20–2.38 mm, 2.38–4.763 mm,
4.763–9.525 mm, 9.525–19.05 mm, 19.05–38.1 mm, 38.1–76.2 mm, and >76.2 mm). All size fractions from the samples
were analysed for P
2
O
5
, CaCO
3
, and K concentrations. Analysis methods were not recorded for the samples, but analyses
were conducted at Smith-Emery Laboratory, Los Angeles, and an unknown laboratory in New Zealand. In addition, 35 bulk-
sediment samples were analysed for P
2
O
5
using x-ray fluorescence (XRF) at Raymond G Osborne Laboratories, Los
Angeles. A discrepancy between laboratory analyses is reported by Ross (1967); however, it is not clear whether this was
resolved, as the author only indicates that the discrepancy meant that some analyses may have been higher than reported.
In addition to the Global Marine analyses, phosphorite nodules from the Global Marine cruises were investigated by Pasho
(1976). Pasho analysed nodules from 51 samples for their P
2
O
5
grades using splits of crushed whole-nodule cross-sections
or from a specific region of a nodule interior. The analytical samples were ground to -0.125 mm and oven dried for 24 hours
at 110°C, then fused with La
2
O
3
and Li
2
B
4
O
7
and pressed into sample wafers. Analyses were performed on a Norelco
XRF unit (Pasho, 1976).
Pasho (1976) also used modal analysis of 43 thin sections from 40 nodules to determine the composition and abundance
of the nodule constituents. An unspecified number of polished sections were etched with formic acid to distinguish
phosphatic material from carbonate. Finally, the mineralogy of the contained clastics in the nodules was determined by
performing a grain count on the residue of an unspecified number of nodules digested in hydrochloric acid (HCl). Grain size
distributions were determined by point counting grains within sieve intervals (sieve sizes not reported) (Pasho, 1976).
6.2.2.3 Density & Moisture Content
No density or moisture content data were reported by Global Marine. Pasho (1976) reported that phosphorite nodule
densities varied from 2.4–3.0 g/cm
3
, with a negative correlation between nodule size and density.
6.2.2.4 Quality Assurance
At the effective date of the Report, no information was available on any quality assurance procedures being implemented
during collection of the Global Marine samples, and no information was available with respect to the technique used to

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 34 of 147
subsample the pipe dredge samples or how representative the sampling was. The deck of the ship used for processing
sample material is described as having been washed down with a fire hose between sampling batches (Global Marine Inc.,
1968), which ought to have minimised cross-contamination between samples. No field duplicates were available; sample
46A is reportedly the same as sample 46 according to the sample description, but the latitudes recorded for each sample
indicate the samples were not collected at the same location (Ross, 1967). Pasho (1976) describes how ‘duplicates of all
samples’ were provided by Global Marine for assessment purposes, but there is no record of when, where, or how these
were collected or separated out from the original sample material. Pasho (1976) does not indicate whether certified
reference materials were used for laboratory analyses.
6.2.2.5 Logging
A geological description of each sample was recorded at the time of collection. Though not reported in detail, these
descriptions included observations of the presence/absence of phosphorite nodules, lithological affinity (i.e. indurated
limestone), texture (borings, encrustations), grain shape, size, and colour. Brief descriptions and grain size ranges are
reported in the literature (Global Marine Inc., 1968).
6.2.2.6 Estimation of Phosphorite Grade in Samples
The QP estimated the phosphorite grade of the samples by multiplying the reported volume percentages of phosphorite for
each sample by an assumed average wet density of phosphorite nodules of 2.72 g/cm
3
(based on the most recent density
data collected by CRP, Section 11.2). This yielded phosphorite grades up to 2,720 Ph kg/m
3
(100% phosphorite) with an
average grade of 210.0 Ph kg/m
3
.
The average P
2
O
5
grade of the 35 bulk sediment samples submitted to Raymond G Osborne Laboratories, Los Angeles,
was 4.7% (Ross, 1967). Subsequent analysis of phosphorite nodules isolated from 51 Global Marine sediment samples
yielded an average P
2
O
5
grade of 20.5% (Pasho, 1976).
Due to the nature of the pipe dredge sampling apparatus and technique, representative phosphorite grade estimations
cannot be made from the Global Marine sampling data. While Pasho (1976) states that the pipe dredge was of sufficient
diameter to prevent grain size bias during sample collection, accurate constraints on sampling area cannot be applied, as
the pipe was retrieved only when full, regardless of the time or distance required for this to occur, and the time/distance data
were not recorded. Global Marine and subsequent operators inferred that the pipe dredge was only capable of sampling the
top ‘few inches’ of sediment (Ross, 1967), and the QP considers this insufficient penetration to be representative of a
resource that is vertically variable and has an average thickness of ~22 cm. Global Marine analysed numerous samples for
phosphorite grade and used the data to prioritise areas for subsequent exploration. The QP does not consider these data
to be of sufficient quality to be included in phosphorite resource grade calculations.
6.2.3 JBL Exploration NZ Ltd (1971–1975)
From 1971, JBL Exploration NZ Ltd (JBL) held a prospecting licence covering a portion of the MPL previously held by Global
Marine and proposed to undertake a detailed exploration programme. Over the next few years, JBL produced reports

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 35 of 147
outlining resource estimates, economic potential, and mining feasibility studies but did not complete any further sampling
surveys over its licence area. All work was completed prior to introduction of formal international reporting codes, and the
QP does not consider these data to be suitable for the estimation of resources.
6.2.4 RV Tangaroa (1975–1978)
From 1975–1978, the New Zealand Oceanographic Institute (NZOI) carried out four major site investigation cruises with
RV Tangaroa. The cruises predominantly undertook seabed photography and seabed sampling across the Chatham Rise.
Results of the cruises were reported by Cullen (1978). In an attempt to trace the extent of the sub-surface phosphorite-
bearing sediments and to gauge the thickness of the deposit, cores were collected from 53 stations on the central Chatham
Rise and comprised 21 piston cores, 4 gravity cores, and 28 box cores. Piston cores were collected initially using a 5.5-m-
long, 76-mm-diameter barrel, with 340 kg of lead weights, then a 1.8-m-long barrel with 681 kg of lead weight to penetrate
phosphorite-bearing sediments. The penetration depth of the piston cores ranged from 0.32–4.67 m. The gravity corer, with
a 0.6-m-long barrel and internal diameter of 76 mm, was weighted with 91 kg of lead but never exceeded 0.25-m penetration
depth. Box cores were collected using a Friedrich Leutert corer with internal dimensions of 0.225 m (width) × 0.295 m
(length) × 0.47 m (height) and an effective height of 0.3 m. The maximum penetration obtained was 0.22 m, and reported
phosphorite weight per cent data from the box cores ranged from 0.9%–69.9%, with an average of 19.6% (Figure 6-2)
(Cullen, 1978).

Figure 6-2: RV Tangaroa sample locations and reported penetration depths.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 36 of 147
The RV Tangaroa sample locations were determined using satellite navigation. The estimated accuracy of this method as
applied in the 1970s is ~0.25–0.5 nm (0.5–0.9 km) (Wood et al., 2003). The data presented in Cullen (1978) indicate that
piston cores were geologically logged using standard logging sheets and include brief geological descriptions accompanied
by percentage estimates and/or graphic logs of sand occurrence and the presence/absence of component minerals. Box
core samples were analysed for their grain size distributions and phosphorite grade. No information is provided on how the
phosphorite estimation was conducted. No information detailing sampling procedures or the raw data collected were
available. Multiplying the reported weight percentages of phosphorite for the RV Tangaroa samples by the average wet
density of phosphorite nodules (taken as 2.72 g/cm
3
based on the most recent density data collected by CRP, Section 11.2)
yields phosphorite grades up to 1,901 Ph kg/m
3
and averaging 532.4 Ph kg/m
3
(Figure 6-3). The QP does not consider
these grades to be representative, as insufficient data are available to reliably calculate phosphorite grade and the sample
data cannot be verified; the QP has reduced the SQR ranking on data collected from the RV Tangaroa to a level outside
the ranking levels included in the resource estimation.

Figure 6-3: RV Tangaroa sample locations and updated phosphorite grades.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 37 of 147
6.2.5 RV Valdivia (1978)
Through a government agreement between New Zealand and Germany on scientific and technological cooperation, the
New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) and the West Germany Government collaborated on
cruises by the German research vessels, RV Valdivia in 1978 and RV Sonne, in 1981.
The 1978 RV Valdivia cruise was the first intensive sampling and research campaign to be conducted over the Chatham
Rise. The campaign was conducted in two stages in October–November 1978. Results from previous were used to select
the most promising area for this survey, i.e. between 179°00’ E and 179°40’ E on the crest of the Chatham Rise. In total,
655 samples from 689 attempts were collected over an area of 300 km
2
.
6.2.5.1 Sample Locations
During the cruise, sample locations were determined using a combination of satellite navigation (SATNAV) with an
integrated Doppler sonar system, and a network of underwater acoustic transponder navigation (ATNAV). Eight
transponders were deployed in the east of the sampling area, and three transponders were deployed in the west.
The ATNAV system was used to determine the location of 647 samples, with the location of the remaining samples
determined solely using SATNAV (Kudrass & Cullen, 1982). As the transponders were located using SATNAV, the overall
accuracy of sample locations was estimated to be within 0.25–0.5 nm (0.5–0.9 km) (Stewart & Black, 2013; Wood et al.,
2003); however, the precision of applicable sample locations relative to each other is increased by the use of the transponder
network, reducing the error associated with relative sample locations to ~5–10 m (Kudrass & Cullen, 1982).
Most grab samples were taken while the ship was drifting, which resulted in an irregular pattern of sampling but allowed
more samples to be collected. Wire lengths to the grab samplers were less than 10 m longer than the water depths, so the
positions of the samples are approximately equivalent to the ship’s position.
Even though best practice positioning available at that time was used, the QP notes the relative inaccuracy of the sample
positions. Sampling from a drifting boat resulted in the sample spacing being somewhat erratic and caused data clustering
issues. The sample spacing was typically 250–500 m, but locally up to 1–2 km.
6.2.5.2 Sampling Methods
The samples were typically collected using a large Van Veen grab sampler of 0.12 m
3
volume, weighing ~400 kg, and having
a sampling area of ~66 cm × 66 cm (Figure 6-4). Other methods of sample collection were trialled, including a smaller Van
Veen grab sampler with a sampling area of ~45 cm × 45 cm, a box corer, a 3 m piston corer equipped with a pilot corer, a
box core sampler, and a chain bag dredge (Table 6-1). The main issues with these methods were poor sample penetration
and sample recovery. The large Van Veen grab sampler had its shortcomings, including lower penetration power into
nodule-rich sediment and insufficient jaw closing power, resulting in large nodules occasionally becoming caught between
the jaws, preventing complete closure of the grab sampler and causing sediment loss. However, despite these issues, it
was the best of the sampling systems available on the market at the time (Hermann Kudrass, pers. comm.) and was used
up until it was lost overboard when trying to collect sample 578, after which the smaller Van Veen grab sampler was used.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 38 of 147

Figure 6-4: Large (left) and small (right) Van Veen grab samplers used to collect sediment samples aboard the RV
Valdivia.

Table 6-1: Sampling conducted aboard the RV Valdivia.
Sampling Method Attempts Successful Empty Washed Out Failed
Large Van Veen grab sampler 561 495 8 32 26
Small Van Veen grab sampler 110 105 - 4 1
Box grab sampler 8 8 - - -
Box corer 2 - - - 2
Piston corer 6 3 - - 3
Chain bag dredge 2 - - - 2
TOTAL 689 611 8 36 34
Note: ‘Empty’ samples were those that came up empty despite no apparent equipment malfunction (assigned a phosphorite grade
of 0 Ph kg/m
3
).

Sampling using the large and small Van Veen grab sampler involved lowering the sampler to the seafloor where, on contact
with the sediment, the slackening of the cable disengaged the mechanism, holding the grab sampler jaws open. Recalling
the cable would raise the outer arms of the jaws, pulling them closed before retrieving the grab sampler to the ship (Figure
6-5). This process relies on the weight of the grab sampler both to penetrate the sediment and to force the jaws to close.
Weights were added to the grab sampler during the programme to improve penetration of the sand (Hermann Kudrass,
pers. comm.); however, it is unclear when the weights were added during the sampling programme and which samples
were affected. Flaps at the top of the large grab sampler prevented the development of a bow wave as the grab sampler
was lowered and protected the sample from being washed out while retrieval was in progress.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 39 of 147

Figure 6-5: Van Veen-style sampling method.
The QP notes that most of the sampling attempts were unable to penetrate the full depth of the sand and therefore do not
provide a representative sample of the entire mineralised profile. It is unclear whether the samples underwent any lateral
compression during closure of the grab sampler. The QP has not made any adjustments to penetration data and has
assumed that the recorded thickness of sand in the grab sampler reflects the true thickness of sediment that was sampled.
However, the sampling is likely to have been slightly biased towards the collection of surface sediments due to the semi-
circular cross-section of sediment a Van Veen grab sampler collects. The QP has taken these and other issues into
consideration when assigning SQR values to the RV Valdivia samples.
6.2.5.3 Sample Preparation & Analysis
Upon reaching the deck, the grab samples were briefly described by the deck crew. The penetration depth was measured
for all successful samples by accessing the samples through the top of the grab sampler and using a ruler to measure the
distance from the top of the sediment to the top of the grab sampler and subtracting this from the height of the grab sampler.
The volume of samples was measured by transferring them into calibrated bins. Samples were typically sieved in their
entirety; however, 37 grab samples had only large (20–80 L) subsamples of their sediment sieved. No information is
available on how these subsamples were extracted from the grab samples.
Sampled sediment was washed through a 1-mm screen. The volume of the >1-mm fraction was measured using the water
displacement method in graduated cylinders (Hermann Kudrass, pers. comm.), and its phosphorite concentration estimated
as a phosphorite volume per cent (Kudrass & Cullen, 1982). These values are reported to have been measured; however,
there is some error in the relationship between penetration thickness and volume (Figure 6-6). The spread of the data
suggests that one or other of the parameters may have been estimated in a number of samples, although volume estimates
below the general trend of the curve may indicate sediment loss during sample handling and recovery from the grab sampler.
Water-rich sediments may have been washed out while they were being retrieved from the grab sampler for measuring,
resulting in a decrease in volume. Conversely, disturbance of tightly packed sediments during measuring would have
resulted in an increase in volume due to loosening of the sediment causing an increase in the spacing between grains.
The limited information recorded on the raw data sheets makes it difficult to determine the cause for the variation in the

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 40 of 147
sample measurements, but the QP notes it as a factor impacting on the SQR ranking of the sample, with large variance
resulting in a lower rank.

Figure 6-6: Reported penetration depth of sediment vs reported volume of sediment in RV Valdivia grab samples
compared to modelled theoretical bucket volume-depth relationship (dotted lines).
Dried nodules from 330 of the grab samples were sieved into six fractions: <2 mm, 2–4 mm, 4–8 mm, 8–16 mm, 16–32 mm,
and >32 mm. For three bulk samples, the fractions were also split, crushed, and sent for bulk chemical analysis by XRF
(Kudrass & Cullen, 1982). The method used to split the samples is not recorded.
6.2.5.4 Density & Moisture Content
Density and moisture contents were determined for the total sediment as well as for the phosphorite concentrate.
Density tests on the sediment were conducted on five subsamples of bulk sediment from the RV Valdivia cruise. The bulk
sediment samples ranged from 1.2–2.8 kg (wet weight), yielding a range in wet density of 1.62–2.06 g/cm
3
and an average
density of 1.92 g/cm
3
. Two of the samples were further measured for their dry weight, yielding dry densities of 1.45 g/cm
3
and 1.53 g/cm
3
. Moisture content ranged from 25–29% for the bulk-sediment samples.
Density tests on the phosphorite concentrate were carried out on six grab samples and one chain bag dredge sample that
were subsampled for nodules representing a range of different grain sizes. Volume and wet weights were measured to
calculate their wet density. Four of the samples were further measured for their dry weight, and their dry density was
calculated. The nodule samples ranged from 0.76–37.9 kg (wet weight), with a wet density range of 2.53–2.81 g/cm
3
and
an average wet density of 2.67 g/cm
3
. The four samples processed for dry density had a range of 2.52–2.73 g/cm
3
and an
average dry density of 2.64 g/cm
3
. Moisture content ranged from 1.8–5.9% for the phosphorite nodules.
The QP is unable to verify the density sampling procedure, the depth of samples within the sediment column, or the volume
and weight measurement methods used to determine the above densities and moisture contents. The limited number of
samples also makes it impossible to draw reliable conclusions about the uniformity/variability of the density of the Chatham

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 41 of 147
Rise phosphorite resource. Overall, sand density is strongly affected by phosphorite content, so in future sampling
expeditions, the QP recommends collection of a range of samples to understand the variability of the sand density.
6.2.5.5 Data Quality
No known QC measures were applied during the RV Valdivia sampling, and sampling procedures are documented in
research papers in summary format. After investigation of the various available reports and comments, the QP concludes
that sampling procedures are likely to have been adjusted as new information came to the attention of the sampling crews.
Some noted procedures include:
 sample data were recorded on standard logs and signed off;
 samples were classified as unsuccessful if equipment failed or if significant sample loss was noted during logging
of the sample (by observation); and
 geological descriptions were recorded using a prescribed set of logging codes.
6.2.5.6 Logging
Upon retrieval, samples were briefly described using a prescribed set of logging codes, then grab sampler and box core
samples had their volume and/or penetration depths measured. Penetration depth and/or core length were recorded for
piston cores.
6.2.5.7 Estimation of Phosphorite Grades in Samples
Available data for the RV Valdivia cruise include sieved sample volumes. For 37 of the samples, a sub-split was processed;
therefore, for those samples, the sieved sample volume is not the same as total sample volume. For all other samples, the
entire sample was sieved; therefore, the sieved sample volume is the same as the total sample volume. Available data also
include the volume of the >1 mm fraction and the visually estimated percentage of phosphorite within the >1 mm fraction
(these concentrates could still contain large shell fragments, etc.). This applies to all successful grab sampler and box core
samples.
Phosphorite volume per cent was calculated by first multiplying the estimated percentage of phosphorite within the >1 mm
fraction by the volume of this fraction which yielded the volume of phosphorite in the >1 mm fraction (i.e. excluding shell
fragments, etc.). This volume was then divided by the sieved sample volume to give phosphorite volume per cent for the
sieved sample. Phosphorite grade was then determined by multiplying the calculated phosphorite volume per cent by the
average wet density of phosphorite nodules (taken as 2.72 g/cm
3
based on the most recent density data collected by CRP,
Section 11.2).
Phosphorite grade could be determined for 623 of the 689 attempted RV Valdivia samples for which sediment was
recovered. Calculated grades vary up to 2,380 Ph kg/m
3
, with an average of 367.0 Ph kg/m
3
(Figure 6-7). Phosphorite
nodule abundance can then be determined by multiplying grade by the thickness of sand in the sample (this is equal to the
penetration depth for most of the samples); however, where geological descriptions included sand thicknesses, the sand
thickness values were used. For the purpose of the calculations, the penetration thickness and/or sand thickness recorded

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 42 of 147
for each sample is assumed to be equal to the true sample/sand depth of the samples, as it is unknown whether grab
samples underwent any lateral compression during closure of the grab sampler. Sand thickness in the RV Valdivia samples
varied from 2–33 cm for samples collected by grab samplers and from 12–37 cm for box core samples. Combined, these
yield an average sampled sand thickness of 18 cm (Figure 6-8). Using this parameter, the RV Valdivia samples have a
maximum nodule abundance of 285.6 Ph kg/m
2
, with an average nodule abundance of 54.4 Ph kg/m
2
.
In summary, the QP notes a number of concerns with the sampling process and grade estimations used on the RV Valdivia
due to the sampling system used and measurement assumptions, in particular:
 large positional error due to SATNAV survey methods available at the time and no physical reference points in the
ocean;
 sampling while drifting has created a non-uniform clustered dataset;
 the Van Veen grab sampler was mechanically controlled and lacked the ability to penetrate nodule-rich sediment;
 weights were added on the grab sampler to assist with penetration, but information was not recorded on the sample
sheets, i.e. when the weight was added or how much additional weight was used;
 nodules could become caught in the Van Veen grab sampler jaws, resulting in the sample being partially or
completely washed out, leading to sample bias;
 the Van Veen grab sampler size (in terms of sampled area and volume) is small for the thickness and style of
deposit being sampled;
 penetration depths were taken as an observed measurement of the distance between the top of the sediment and
the top of the grab sampler and are prone to human error and inconsistency between people taking the
measurements for different samples;
 the precise dimensions of the grab samplers used are not known; the QP has estimated dimensions based on
reported grab sampling area and photographs of the grab samplers used, as well as known volumetric capacity in
the case of the large grab sampler;
 thirty-seven samples were split before being washed through the sieve, and the method of subsampling in these
instances is not documented in the literature or noted clearly on the sample sheets;
 the methods of sample processing including measuring volume, subsampling and sieving are not recorded on the
available data sheets; and
 the QP has assumed that the Van Veen grab samplers did not compress samples as their jaws closed and that
the penetration depth recorded from the grab sampler is equal to the true sample depth.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 43 of 147

Figure 6-7: RV Valdivia sample locations and updated phosphorite grade.

Figure 6-8: RV Valdivia true depth sample map.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 44 of 147
In addition, historical analysis of the RV Valdivia phosphorite volume percentages indicated a trend towards smaller-volume
samples having higher phosphorite content, and this is reflected in the calculated phosphorite grades (Figure 6-9 and
Figure 6-10). This was determined at the time to reflect the poor penetration power of the grab samplers in phosphorite-rich
sediment, highlighting a bias in the sampling method.

Figure 6-9: RV Valdivia sample volume vs calculated grade (all samples).

Figure 6-10: RV Valdivia sample penetration vs calculated grade.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 45 of 147
6.2.6 RV Sonne (1981)
The 1981 RV Sonne Cruise SO-17 was the most comprehensive exploration effort to assess the Chatham Rise phosphorite
nodules. It was carried out under the auspices of the Germany-New Zealand Agreement on Scientific and Technological
Cooperation and of a special agreement between DSIR and BGR.
The cruise included a detailed investigation of four study areas, each 50–80 km² in area, as well as reconnaissance mapping
of larger areas (~14,000 km²), to obtain an overview of the structure and phosphorite prospectivity of larger areas between
178°E and 178°W.
The areas selected for study were chosen on the basis of seafloor roughness (micro relief) determined from interpretation
of seismic data (Falconer et al., 1984). A positive correlation was recognised between phosphorite nodule abundance and
seafloor roughness, and the seafloor was divided into ‘seismic facies’, which denoted variations in roughness. The study
areas were those in which the seafloor roughness was most pronounced.
In addition to oceanographic, meteorological, and geophysical data, 19 hours of video recordings of the seafloor were
collected during the cruise, as well as 530 sediment samples, the vast majority taken by a pneumatic grab sampler.
The maximum penetration depth of the pneumatic grab sampler was 70 cm; however, ~100% sample recovery could only
be obtained down to a depth of 38 cm due to the volume capacity of the grab sampler. This was typically sufficient to
penetrate the phosphorite-bearing sand as well as the top of the underlying chalk and to produce relatively undisturbed
samples. The maximum sample size was 1.3 t.
The New Zealand company, Fletcher Challenge Ltd, was involved in the RV Sonne work and in 1981 formed a partnership
with the German industrial parties. It was subsequently granted a prospecting licence for further investigation of the
phosphorite deposits. Several reports were produced, detailing feasibility studies and resource estimates, but no further
data collection surveys were undertaken, and the licence was allowed to lapse in 1984.
6.2.6.1 Sample Locations
The RV Sonne was equipped with a MAGNAVOX satellite navigation system coupled to a Doppler sonar to determine its
geographic position (von Rad, 1984). Using this system a position accuracy of 200‒500 m was achieved. To increase the
location accuracy of samples an underwater ATNAV system consisting of 6–8 transponders was laid at a spacing of 3,000–
4,000 m on the seafloor. Under favourable conditions, the system had an accuracy of 30–50 m in the central parts of the
grid and 100 m near the edges. Geographical coordinates were determined by ATNAV positions and satellites fixes. With
ten satellite fixes available, the accuracy of latitude and longitude estimates within the ATNAV areas was 180 m. A total of
four ATNAV areas were used for the RV Sonne grab sampling, each using 5–8 transponders (Kudrass, 1984).
Sample positions for the RV Sonne and RV Valdivia cruises recorded in the supplied database were sourced from original
hard-copy maps, digitised, and registered by NIWA. A handful of samples that did not have location data in this database
were digitised using the latitudes and longitudes recorded on the raw data sheets; some samples with valid phosphorite
data only had a record of local grid coordinates on the raw data sheets, and it is not known how these translate to a standard
regional datum, so their sample location cannot be determined.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 46 of 147
CRP contracted GNS Science (Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited) to try and improve sample location
accuracy using measured seafloor depths recorded at the RV Sonne and RV Valdivia sample locations, with modern
bathymetry data collected on the four cruises conducted by the RV Dorado Discovery. Results from the work (Stewart &
Black, 2013) indicate that for the RV Sonne, the survey position for areas 1 and 2 could not be improved, whereas RV
Sonne 3 and 4 samples demonstrate a better correlation to bathymetry if the samples are moved 280 m northwest and 230
m southeast, respectively. The QP has not validated this work or made any related positional adjustments.
6.2.6.2 Sampling Methods
The RV Sonne cruise was carried out in three stages from March–May 1981. Its main objectives were to investigate the
regional distribution and conduct a quantitative assessment of the phosphorite potential on the Chatham Rise, focusing on
four main areas eastward of the RV Valdivia sampling area. A multi-method approach was used to investigate the near-
surface geological structure and stratigraphy, and the facies-association, age, and genesis of phosphorite nodules and
related sediments. This was done by combining continuous methods such as underwater television and photography, side-
scan sonar, a 3.5 kHz sub-bottom profiler, and Huntec high-resolution deep tow boomer systems with narrow-spaced, well-
positioned sediment samples. Current meters and wave riders were also employed. In 53 days, more than 2,600 km of
seismic lines were traversed in four areas between 179°50’ E and 178°05’ W, and 550 bottom samples were obtained
(von Rad, 1984). In total, 527 samples were collected over an area of ~700 km
2
.
Most of the RV Sonne samples were collected using a 0.8 m
3
pneumatic grab sampler that was specifically designed for
the RV Sonne cruise (Figure 6-11). The grab sampler was built by Preussag AG and Peiner AG and weighed 1.8 t. The
heavy weight of the grab sampler allowed the grab sampler to penetrate deeper into the nodule-bearing sands than grab
samplers used on previous surveys. The coarse nature of the phosphorite deposits means that lighter grab samplers have
difficultly penetrating past the larger nodules and consequently have reduced sample penetration and recovery; the weight
and additional pneumatic closing power of 1.5 t of the RV Sonne grab sampler meant that many samples could be collected
over the full depth of the phosphorite-bearing sand horizon and into the top of the chalk unit. However, the data indicate that
even the pneumatic grab sampler experienced a reduction in penetration depth where the percentage of phosphorite
nodules in the sediment was >30%, though this effect was less pronounced than with the RV Valdivia grab sampler (von
Rad, 1984). The closing power of the RV Sonne eliminated the problem of large nodules wedging the jaws of the grab
sampler open and causing sediment loss, as had been encountered with the RV Valdivia grab samples.
The nuggety nature of this type of seafloor phosphorite nodule deposit means that the larger the sample, the lower the
sample variability caused by the coarse-grained nodules. The open pneumatic grab sampler sampled an area of 1.9 m ×
1.06 m of the seafloor surface (2 m
2
). The sample collected was relatively undisturbed; however, observations of the
samples in the bucket (Hermann Kudrass, pers. comm.) and the known reduction of the bucket length from 1.9 m (open) to
1.6 m (closed) indicates that samples must have been compressed during closure of the jaws. This resulted in the sediment
thicknesses observed in the bucket being greater than the true in situ thickness of the sediment. The QP has used the
known dimensions of the grab sampler to develop a relationship between sample penetration and volume that determines
the true sediment thickness for each sample (Section 6.2.6.8).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 47 of 147

Figure 6-11: RV Sonne pneumatic grab sampler, hopper, and separation plant.

Once the pneumatic grab sampler was closed, the sample was fully enclosed and not exposed to water movement as it was
retrieved from the seafloor and onto the deck of the boat. The QP does not consider sediment loss at the retrieval stage to
be a significant issue; therefore, recovery in the grab sampler is likely to have been 100%, except where the bucket was
completely full of sediment. In these instances, it is possible the bucket penetrated the sediment to a depth up to 70 cm, but
due to its 0.8 m
3
volume capacity, it could not have collected all sediment contained within its sampling area beyond a depth
of 38 cm as the volume of in situ sediment exceeded the volume of the bucket. Consequently, it is inferred that all full bucket
samples have an unknown sediment recovery of <100% (Figure 6-12). In addition, Kudrass (1984) notes that with increasing
penetration depth, the grab sampler’s own closing force caused it to lift by up to 30 cm during closure. For these reasons, it
is impossible to determine true penetration depth and sample recovery for full grab samples.
While the large pneumatic grab sampler was the primary sampling tool used on the RV Sonne, other sampling systems
used included a small Van Veen grab sampler; a 1,200 kg Kastenlot box corer (KAL) measuring 25 cm × 25 cm, with 6.5 m
or 3 m long tubes; a Kiel Hammer vibrocorer (vibrating coring system; this was lost on its second deployment and could not
be recovered); a 5 m long piston corer; and a chain bag dredge (Table 6-2).
With the exception of the pneumatic grab sampler, the sampling systems were unsuccessful at retrieving quality samples
and further sampling attempts using the equipment were abandoned. The Kastenlot box corer was used with limited
success, but there were difficulties getting the core catcher mechanism to operate properly. Several initial attempts failed to
retain core. Modifications to the closing mechanism were made with limited success, and the Kastenlot sampling tool was
not used further.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 48 of 147

Figure 6-12: Interpretation of sampling process using the RV Sonne pneumatic grab sampler illustrating A) ~100%
recovery where sand thickness <0.38 m, and B) where >0.38 m sand would result in the bucket becoming full before it had
completely closed, resulting in sediment loss from the sample.
Table 6-2: RV Sonne sediment sampling (compiled from RV Sonne raw data).
Sampling Method Attempts Successful Empty Washed Out Failed
Pneumatic grab sampler 525 515 3 2 5
Small Van Veen grab sampler 2 - - - 2?
Kiel vibracorer 2 - - - 2
Heavy Kastenlot/box corer 14 6 2 2 4
Piston corer 3 3 - - -
Chain bag dredge 3 2 - - 1
TOTAL 549 526 5 4 14
Note:
1. ‘Empty’ samples were those that came up empty despite no apparent equipment malfunction (assigned a phosphorite grade of 0 Ph
kg/m
3
).
The QP regards the pneumatic grab sampling system used on the RV Sonne as a robust sampling system for wide-spaced
sampling of seafloor phosphorite nodules. For the smaller grab, box core, and vibracore samples, there would be increased
variance between samples, and other issues, including poor penetration power into nodule-rich sediment, resulting in a
sampling bias towards phosphorite-poor sediment, are likely to be encountered.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 49 of 147
6.2.6.3 Sample Preparation & Analysis
Samples collected on the cruises were processed on board the ship. Upon retrieval of the pneumatic grab sampler, the
contents of the bucket were described and the thickness of the total sediment (penetration thickness) in the bucket and
thickness of the glauconitic sand component were measured (Figure 6-13). Sediment was slightly compressed by the closing
of the grab sampler, and chalk was often observed to be collected in the corners of the bucket in larger samples.
Consequently, penetration depth and sand thickness were recorded as the average for each parameter. Penetration depth
was initially measured but later it was visually estimated based on the height of the sample within the grab sampler. This
change in procedure is not documented.

Figure 6-13: Stylised section illustrating sediment in the pneumatic grab sampler.
The bulk sample weight was initially determined using the shipboard crane by subtracting the weight of the grab sampler
apparatus (1,800 kg) to determine the net sample weight; however, this proved difficult to conduct accurately due to the
constant motion of the ship. Consequently, the sample processing procedure was adapted during the first cruise so that the
net sample weight was estimated from the volume of sediment in the bucket. The dimensions of the bucket were measured
and the volume of the bucket calculated to determine its volume in 5 cm depth increments. The penetration depths and
thicknesses of the sediment, sand, and chalk (if present) were then used to determine the volume of each lithology in the
sample. These volumes were multiplied by an average density for each lithology, as measured on the RV Valdivia
(1.91 g/cm
3
and 1.79 g/cm
3
for sand and chalk, respectively), to estimate the weights of each component in the bucket.
These weights were then summed to estimate the net weight of the grab sample (Hermann Kudrass, pers. comm.). From
the raw data sheets, this transition in standard procedure appears to have taken place after sample SO069, as grab sample
gross weights were no longer routinely recorded after this sample. The QP notes that this undocumented change in
procedure reduces the level of confidence in the RV Sonne data and introduces a number of assumptions into the sample
processing procedure (see section 6.2.6.6).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 50 of 147
Small subsamples for onshore analyses were taken using a shovel, leaving the bulk of the sample for processing. Once
logging was completed, the entire contents of nodule-bearing grab samples were dumped into a hopper. The hopper
funnelled the sediment onto a custom-built vibrating sieve device containing an 8 mm screen and a 1 mm screen. Any
material observed not to have phosphorite was discarded overboard without being sieved and the sample was recorded as
not containing phosphorite. Samples were washed through the sieve and the >8 mm and 1–8 mm fractions retained; the
<1 mm fraction was washed overboard (Figure 6-14).
Each retained fraction was then weighed, initially using spring weights but again this proved difficult to do accurately due to
the constant motion of the ship. The procedure was again adapted, and volume-calibrated bins were used to determine the
weight of the >8 mm and 1–8 mm fractions. It is not clear when this change in procedure was adopted. Trials were run to
determine the graduated weight of different volumes of the separate fractions in bins and thereafter the >8 mm and 1–8 mm
fractions were placed in the bins and their weight assigned based on their volume (Hermann Kudrass, pers. comm.). Unlike
the calculation for net sediment weight, this process does not use a numeric assumed density; it assumes that the density
of the >8 mm and 1–8 mm fractions was approximately the same.

Figure 6-14: Processing of grab samples aboard the RV Sonne (adapted from Kudrass & Cullen, 1984).

The QP notes that most of the sieved samples had estimated phosphorite percentages in excess of 90% for both fractions,
but that some were significantly lower. Fractions with less (or no) phosphorite may have had their weights overestimated
unless multiple calibrated bins were used and chosen depending on the estimated phosphorite percentage of each fraction.
This cannot be assessed because the process was not documented in sufficient detail.
The weight per cent of each fraction relative to the estimated total weight of the sand was calculated from the volume-
calibrated kilograms of the >8 mm and 1–8 mm sieved fractions. To calculate the amount of phosphorite (kg) in each fraction,

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 51 of 147
the percentage of contained phosphorite in each fraction was estimated visually and multiplied by the weight of the fraction.
These weights were summed to determine the total amount of phosphorite (kg) in each sample.
The QP notes that a visually estimated phosphorite percentage is equivalent to a volume per cent, and therefore cannot be
used to calculate contained kilograms of phosphorite from a sample or sieved fraction weight, without assuming that the
density of all the constituents is similar.
While these values were recorded for each sample that was sieved, the volume of the >8 mm and 1–8 mm fractions was
not always recorded. Consequently, contained phosphorite for each fraction cannot be recalculated if and when detailed
density data are obtained in the future for sand with varying proportions of contained phosphorite. Therefore, the weight of
each sieved fraction was accepted as is by the QP and forms the basis of all subsequent grade estimates (Section 6.2.6.8).
6.2.6.4 Sediment Density & Moisture Content
Density and moisture content testwork was completed on 0.1 m
3
samples taken from the grab sample (Table 6-3). The
weight was assessed as the triple beam soil test balance, and the volume by means of water displacement in measures
(Meyer & Toan, 1984). For moisture content, Meyer and Toan (1984) state that sediment samples were dried over 24 hours
at 100°C.
Table 6-3: RV Sonne density and moisture content (Meyer & Toan, 1984).
Sediment Sample
Wet density (t/m
3
) Dry density (t/m
3
) Moisture (%)
From–to Average From–to Average From–to Average
Silt/sand, upper 10cm 33 1.51–1.77 1.64 0.85–1.28 0.98 50–82 68
Sand from 10–50 cm 24 1.59–1.99 1.72 0.91–1.45 1.15 32–74 51
Ooze 13 1.69–1.92 1.81 1.16–1.4 1.27 35–54 43
6.2.6.5 Phosphorite Nodule Density & Moisture Content
The density of phosphorite nodules was tested from different size fractions. Meyer and Toan (1984) do not explicitly state
whether the nodules were treated in the same manner as sediment samples. The wet density of phosphorite nodules ranges
from 2.55–2.96 g/cm
3
, with an average of 2.76 g/cm
3
. The density increases with increasing nodule diameter due to larger
nodules having lower P
2
O
5
and higher CaCO
3
contents (von Rad & Rösch, 1984). Moisture contents vary from 2–7%, being
higher in larger nodules.
For the purpose of grade estimations calculated during the sampling process on the ship, Kudrass used the RV Valdivia
wet density of 2.65 g/cm
3
for phosphorite nodules, 1.91 g/cm
3
for the glauconitic sand (containing phosphorite), and
1.79 g/cm
3
for the chalk. The QP notes that due to the significant difference in densities between the sands and phosphorite
nodules in the recovered samples, true density would vary considerably depending on the proportions of each fraction. This
is likely to cause an underestimation of phosphorite grade as the phosphorite content increases.
Table 6-4 lists the nodule size range and wet density for 11 values (nine stations, two have two size ranges) and a value for
each of Areas A, B, C, and D. It is not clear whether the area results are averages. It is also not clear whether reporting a

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 52 of 147
size range for each station implies that the single density value is an average of several samples or just a single nodule with
a shape variation measured.
Table 6-4: Wet densities of phosphorite nodules (Meyer & Toan, 1984).
Point/Survey Area Size (mm) Wet Density (t/m
3
)
149 7–53 2.83
153 1–8 2.61
153 >8 2.69
156 13–37 2.83
212 30–40 2.65
216 >8 2.80
351 70 2.59
354 9–37 2.96
387 32 2.55
388 6–20 2.77
388 9–26 2.76
Area A 7–19 2.90
Area B 2–19 2.86
Area B 7–19 2.82
Area C 19–37 2.79
Area D 26–53 2.71
6.2.6.6 Data Quality
The work carried out on the RV Sonne was the most controlled of all cruises, with a number of forms, procedures, and
methodologies described in personal notebooks, reports, and scientific literature. The number of operating procedures is
also evident from the log sheets. Adjustments were made during the sampling programme, and the majority of these were
documented. Quality was controlled through these procedures, and the accuracy and bias of estimates were largely
controlled through the various systems in place. Duplicate sample information was not collected; therefore, the QP cannot
comment on the precision of the sampling process.
6.2.6.7 Logging
When the grab sampler was lowered onto the deck, the sample was initially inspected by opening lids on top of the grab
sampler. From here, the surface of the sample could be observed, the penetration depth of sediment in the grab sampler
measured, and biota noted. The presence and position of nodules was determined and recorded in a simple graphic log
and the geology of each sample briefly described. The vertical thickness of sand and chalk was estimated either by digging
into the sample, or by observing the cross-section of coherent samples upon opening of the bucket, which could be paused
at any time using the pneumatic controls (von Rad, 1984). Soft samples made estimates of sediment thickness less reliable.
Initially, these measurements were conducted using tape measures; however, as the sampling campaign continued, the
depth estimates were estimated from observations.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 53 of 147
The QP notes that the depth measurement process was not optimally controlled and could have been prone to errors. These
measurements have some influence on the sample volume estimates and eventual estimation of the samples’ true
thickness.
From sample SO103 onward, shear vane measurements were conducted through the lids on top of the grab sampler, but
the QP is of the opinion that these measurements may not be reliable due to the observed and/or inferred compaction of
the sediments as they were collected by the closing of the grab sampler.
6.2.6.8 Estimation of Phosphorite Grades in Samples
Phosphorite nodule abundance was expressed on the original logging sheets as phosphorite kilograms per square metre
(Ph kg/m
2
). As described above, the phosphorite content was estimated from 1–8 mm and >8 mm grain size fractions
separated from the whole grab sample. These sieved fractions were either weighed or had their weight estimated from the
volume measurements taken from a calibrated container. The phosphorite per cent was then estimated for each retained
sieved fraction and used to calculate the contained kilograms of phosphorite in each sample. This value, though not recorded
on the shipboard analysis raw data sheets, was divided by the assumed sampling area of the grab sampler in order to
calculate phosphorite nodule abundance.
The open grab sampler has a sample area of 1.90 m × 1.06 m (2 m
2
). According to Kudrass (1984), the grab area was
reduced for large volume samples due to the inferred sediment loss during collection of full grab samples (Figure 6-12).
When the volume of recovered sediment was less than 0.4 m
3
(half grab sampler volume), the sample area for grade
calculation was reportedly kept at 2 m
2
but reduced to a minimum of 1.6 m
2
for samples up to 0.8 m
3
volume (a full grab
sampler volume). After thoroughly reviewing the entire RV Sonne dataset, the QP notes that this calculation had not actually
been applied on the log sheets or in the database, with almost all grade calculations using the internal area of the closed
grab sampler, 1.58 m
2
, irrespective of sample volume.
The QP reviewed the grade calculations and re-estimated the RV Sonne grades using a volume-penetration relationship
based on the volume of the grab sampler and penetration depth of the sediment. Based on the grab sampler specifications,
a detailed 3D model of the closed grab sampler was generated and the volume calculated in 1 cm vertical increments
(Figure 6-15). These were compared to the recorded penetration depths of total sediment and thickness of sand for each
sample in order to calculate the volume of sand in each sample. As previously described, the amount of phosphorite (kg) in
each sample was calculated from the estimated percentage of phosphorite and volume-calibrated weight of the 1–8 mm
and >8 mm sieved fractions. The QP calculated the phosphorite grade (kg/m
3
) by dividing the total calculated phosphorite
(kg) by the calculated volume of sand (m
3
) in each sample. This yielded grade ranges up to 2,680 Ph kg/m
3
, with an average
of 236.4 Ph kg/m
3
. As with the RV Valdivia data, higher grades are often in close proximity to lower grade samples,
highlighting the short-range variability of phosphorite grade (Figure 6-16).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 54 of 147

Figure 6-15: 3D model of the RV Sonne pneumatic grab sampler volume used to estimate bulk sample and sand volume
from recorded penetration depths and sand thicknesses.
The QP has concerns about the accuracy of grades calculated using the RV Sonne data due to the assumption that all the
samples have the same density that is inherent in using volume-calibrated bins to estimate the weight of the 1–8 mm and
>8 mm sieved fractions. Due to the contrast in the average density (wet) of glauconitic sand (1.91 g/cm
3
) and phosphorite
nodules (2.72 g/cm
3
), the density of samples would be expected to vary between these values depending on phosphorite
content.
The QP notes that penetration depths are based on the average thickness of sediment in the bucket, but that sediment
thickness varied across the cross-section of the bucket due in part to natural variation in the sediment morphology and also
as a result of compression of the sampled sediments as the grab sampler closed. Consequently, volume calculations based
on penetration depth, while considered to be a good approximation, are not considered optimal. The QP also notes that
grades based on this calculation are only valid for samples that did not completely fill the grab sampler. In instances where
samples did fill the grab sampler (taken as any penetration depths recorded as >60 cm or >70 cm or more), the point during
bucket closure at which the bucket became full and how much sediment from the original 2 m
2
sampling area was left behind
are not known. While penetration depth can still be used to calculate the volume of these samples, it must be noted that
such samples potentially have recoveries that are significantly less than 100%, and that samples will also be biased towards
collecting near-surface sediment. Consequently, samples representing a full grab sampler have been given a lower SQR
for the purposes of resource modelling.
To calculate phosphorite nodule abundance from the RV Sonne samples, the QP had to determine the true thickness of the
sampled sand. Due to the compression of the sampled sediment during bucket closure, this cannot be taken as the
penetration depth. The QP calculated the depth based on the assumption that the grab sampler was able to sample 100%
of the sediment contained within the 2 m
2
area of its open jaws down to a depth of 38 cm. Beyond this depth, the volume of
in situ sediment within the open area of the grab sampler would exceed the capacity of the bucket and result in increasing
sediment loss with greater sampling depth. By comparing the volume of in situ sediment in 1 cm increments with the 1 cm
incremental cumulative volumes previously determined for the grab, it was possible to generate a conversion table for
penetration depth to true depth of sediment for the RV Sonne grab sampler (Table 6-5). Using this conversion, the true

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 55 of 147
thickness for all successful RV Sonne samples averages 23 cm (Figure 6-17). However, due to the volume capacity of the
grab sampler, true thickness >38 cm cannot be determined because of the necessity of sediment loss during sample
collection; therefore, true thickness for full buckets has been capped at 38 cm.

Figure 6-16: RV Sonne sample locations and updated phosphorite grade.

Table 6-5: Conversion table for penetration depth to true depth of sediment for RV Sonne samples.
Penetration
Depth (cm)
True Thickness
(cm)
Penetration
Depth (cm)
True Thickness
(cm)
Penetration
Depth (cm)
True Thickness
(cm)
0 0 26 15 52 33
1 0 27 16 53 33
2 0 28 17 54 34
3 1 29 17 55 34
4 1 30 18 56 34
5 2 31 19 57 35
6 2 32 20 58 35
7 2 33 21 59 35
8 3 34 22 60 36
9 4 35 22 61 36

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 56 of 147
Penetration
Depth (cm)
True Thickness
(cm)
Penetration
Depth (cm)
True Thickness
(cm)
Penetration
Depth (cm)
True Thickness
(cm)
10 4 36 23 62 36
11 5 37 24 63 36
12 5 38 25 64 37
13 6 39 25 65 37
14 6 40 26 66 37
15 7 41 27 67 37
16 8 42 27 68 37
17 8 43 28 69 37
18 9 44 29 70 38
19 10 45 29 71 38
20 11 46 30 72 38
21 11 47 30 73 38
22 12 48 31 74 38
23 13 49 31 75 38
24 13 50 32

25 14 51 32
The QP notes that the assumption of 100% recovery for samples down to a depth of 38 cm within the grab sampling area
of 2 m
2
may not be accurate due to the slightly curved nature of the grab sampler jaws (Figure 6-12). The determination of
true depth from the penetration depth of samples similarly assumes that, though the sediments are compressed, they do
not undergo a net change in volume during sample collection as the thickness of the sample in the grab sampler increases
vertically to accommodate the horizontal compression.
The phosphorite nodule abundance can be determined by multiplying true depths by the grade of the RV Sonne samples.
The nodule abundances range up to 252.9 Ph kg/m
2
and average Ph 34.6 kg/m
2
.
In addition to determining true thickness of sand for the RV Sonne samples, the QP attempted to gauge the vertical variation
in phosphorite content by assessing the graphic logs recorded for the grab samples. The logs simplify the sediment
contained in the grab sampler into horizons, graphically code them according to whether the sediment comprises chalk,
sand containing no visible phosphorite, sand with dispersed phosphorite, or sand with concentrated phosphorite nodules
(Robin Falconer, pers. comm.) and record the depth to the top and base of the horizons in the grab sampler. The QP
digitised the graphic logs for the grab samples and adjusted the depths to horizons using the same conversion table as that
used for determining the true depth of samples (Table 6-5). The total contained phosphorite (kg) for each sample was then
divided by the total thickness of phosphorite-bearing sand in the samples, as determined from the graphic logs, to determine
the average phosphorite content of the horizons in 1 cm increments. These were summed as appropriate to determine the
contained phosphorite in the sand over 5 cm depth ranges, using the calculated true depth and thickness of the phosphorite-
bearing horizons as a reference. The average calculated contained phosphorite (kg) across all RV Sonne samples is
presented in Table 6-6. While the graphic logs indicate that the phosphorite distribution is vertically variable within the

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 57 of 147
phosphorite-bearing sands, this analysis further suggests that phosphorite is most concentrated in the upper parts of the
sediments. The QP notes that this analysis assumes that the phosphorite is evenly distributed within the graphically logged
phosphorite-bearing horizons, and is also susceptible to the surficial sediment sampling bias exhibited by other sampling
equipment (Section 6.2.5.7). However the 1.5-t closing power and resultant greater penetration power of the pneumatic
grab sampler means it is less susceptible to this bias, as indicated by the lack of an obvious strong inverse relationship
between sample penetration depth and calculated grade (Figure 6-18). This suggests the pattern of phosphorite distribution
indicated by the graphic log data, though imprecise, is valid.

Figure 6-17: RV Sonne sample sand true thicknesses calculated from the recorded penetration depth and sand thickness
of samples and the modelled internal volumes of the pneumatic grab sampler.


Table 6-6: Average phosphorite content calculated for true sand depth ranges from RV Sonne graphic logs.
Depth range 0–5 cm 5–10 cm 10–15 cm 5–20 cm 20–25 cm 25–30 cm 30–35 cm
Average phosphorite
content (kg)
20.5 11.6 9 6.6 5.24 3.9 2.7

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 58 of 147

Figure 6-18: RV Sonne sample penetration depth vs calculated grade.
For the purposes of assigning an SQR to the RV Sonne samples, the presence of chalk at the base of the sediment in the
bucket is taken as an indication that the grab sampler has sampled the full thickness of the nodule-bearing glauconitic sand.
Where no chalk is seen, it is unknown whether the full sand profile has been sampled. Where the grab sampler was full of
sediment (0.8 m
3
), it is inferred to have sampled depths ≥0.38 m and assumed that sediment recovery was <100%. For
these reasons, it is impossible to determine true penetration depth and sample recovery for full grab samples.
Overall, the QP considers the pneumatic grab sample data from the RV Sonne to be largely representative for the purpose
of resource estimation, based on:
 the ability to collect a large sample volume (up to six times larger than the Van Veen-style sampler used on the RV
Valdivia), and the ability to collect relatively undisturbed samples, as this decreases the volume-variance issue;
 pneumatic jaws mean that large nodules do not prevent the grab sampler from closing completely, avoiding sample
loss experienced by grab samplers with less closing power;
 pneumatic jaws allow the grab sampler to dig into the sand under its own weight and penetrate up to 70 cm depth,
and can theoretically achieve 100% recovery down to 38 cm depth, therefore sampling the entire sand profile in
most cases;
 sample penetration, sample weights, sieved weights, and phosphorite per cent of sieved fractions are well
documented on sample sheets; and
 sampling procedure is documented.
However, THE QP notes the following concerns for potential sources of sample bias and errors for the RV Sonne grab
sampler data:

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 59 of 147
 potential for positional error due to survey methods available at the time (SATNAV) and no physical reference
points in the ocean (however, sample positions relative to each other are acceptable in the case of ATNAV-located
samples);
 penetration depths and sand thickness were taken as observed measurements determining the distance between
the sediment and the top of the grab sampler;
 densities used in the RV Sonne sand/chalk grab sampler volume calculations are based on results from the RV
Valdivia and may not be representative;
 sieve weights were estimated using a calibrated volume that was determined by estimating the number of samples
at the beginning of the survey for both weights and volumes and applying that relationship to all subsequent
samples; and
 phosphorite per cent is taken as an observed measurement and open to variability between assessors.
The QP has made the following assumptions when recalculating phosphorite grades from the RV Sonne data.
 The QP has estimated the volume of the grab based on design configurations documented in ship notes from Dr
Hermann Kudrass and Dr Robin Falconer.
 The QP has assumed that the volume cut into the seafloor with the sampling method is a vertical-sided cut, equal
depth across the sample, and no curved edges or central ridge are left behind where the jaws close.
 The QP has assumed 100% sample recovery for samples coded as ‘successful’, partial recovery for samples coded
as ‘washed out’, and 0% recovery for samples recorded as ‘failed’.
6.3 Production History
At the effective date of the Report, there had been no commercial production of nodules from the Project area.
6.4 Historical Mineral Resource Estimates
The QP is not aware of any historical estimates for the Project classified in accordance with NI 43-101 and the CIM, or any
other formal international reporting code.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 60 of 147
7. Geological Setting & Mineralisation
7.1 Regional Geology
The geological history of the Chatham Rise dates to the Permian–Triassic (300–200 Ma), when a thick turbiditic sequence
was deposited in a subsiding trough on the Pacific margin of Gondwana (Sporli, 1980). These rocks were later involved in
the second episode of the Rangitata Orogeny in the Early Cretaceous (Wood et al., 1989), which resulted in an east–west
structural grain defined by half-graben development in response to rifting in the Bounty Trough to the south (Figure 7-1),
with en echelon stepping of the associated faults. Minor movement occurred on the same faults during the Cenozoic.
Movement along similar-aged north-striking sinistral transcurrent faults resulted in the current geometry of the Chatham
Rise (Wood et al., 1989).
A major unconformity overlying the Late Cretaceous to Early Palaeogene graben fill can be observed in most seismic profiles
from the RV Sonne (Figure 7-1) (Falconer et al., 1984). This unconformity represents a period of erosion, non-deposition
and slow subsidence, before the nano oozes and chert layers accumulated during the Eocene–Oligocene (Figure 7-2,
Kudrass & von Rad, 1984). Sedimentation from pelagic material formed nano oozes until rapid ocean cooling during the
Mid Oligocene, which resulted in changes in the foraminiferal and nanoplankton associations (Burns, 1982). On the crest of
the rise, late Cretaceous sediments are typically <300 m thick, suggesting accumulation rates of <5 m/Myr (Burns, 1984).
Seismic profiles indicate intense block faulting (with throws up to 65 m) and by the end of the Cretaceous, 1,000–2,500 m
of sediments were deposited in newly formed half-grabens, with the thickest accumulations to the west (Wood et al., 1989).
After a depositional hiatus and erosion during the Late Oligocene, deposition of foraminiferal ooze resumed in the Early
Miocene, with increasing thickness towards the flanks of the Chatham Rise (Kudrass & von Rad, 1984).
In the mid-Cretaceous (100 Ma), the first phase of Gondwanan break-up resulted in the regional formation of isolated
lacustrine depositional centres that formed in east-striking half-grabens. Initial terrigenous graben fill was followed by the
deposition of shallow-marine sediments. Subduction occurred along the northern margin of the Chatham Rise until its
collision with the Hikurangi Plateau. The Bounty Trough, which represents a failed extension of the New Caledonia and
deep-water Taranaki basins, forms what is now the southern margin of the Chatham Rise (Falconer et al., 1984).
Following the cessation of faulting by the Late Cretaceous (66 Ma), a period of terrestrial subsidence and shallow-marine
deposition during the Palaeocene (65–55 Ma) was punctuated with shallow-marine volcanism. Igneous activity persisted
throughout the Cenozoic on the Chatham Islands, and igneous features of Cretaceous and Cenozoic age can be identified
in seismic profiles (Figure 7-2, Falconer et al., 1984).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 61 of 147

Figure 7-1: Sectional interpretation of the development of the Chatham Rise and associated phosphorite deposition
(adapted from Falconer et al., 1984).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 62 of 147

Figure 7-2: Schematic illustration of morphological controls on phosphatisation with repeated cycles of partial burial,
phosphatisation, erosion, and hard-ground formation (adapted from Kudrass & von Rad, 1984).
7.2 Local & Property Geology
Local reactivation of faults during the Eocene (55–33 Ma) resulted in the development of depositional centres and regional
subsidence on the flanks of the Chatham Rise. Pelagic nano-ooze sedimentation continued until a period of erosion and

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 63 of 147
phosphatisation in the Late Miocene that coincides with regional cooling of the oceans, the evolution of upwelling currents,
and an increase in radiolarians (Kudrass & von Rad, 1984).
Geochemical results indicate that the sizes and shapes of phosphorite nodules on the Chatham Rise are likely related to
the original disintegration of Miocene chalks prior to phosphatisation, as almost all of the geochemical parameters of the
nodules are size dependent (Kudrass & Cullen, 1982). Evidence presented by Kudrass and von Rad (1984) suggests the
surface chalk pebbles were phosphatised during several phases of submarine erosion and hard-ground formation during
the Miocene (Figure 7-2). While Frontin-Rollet et al. (2022) noted that nodules can form around shells, foraminifera and
other fossils, such as sharks teeth. Small elevations on the seafloor in the central part of the rise that formed in response to
Late Oligocene faulting may have provided sufficient relief for erosion and phosphorite formation (Kudrass & von Rad,
1984). In deeper areas, phosphatisation was limited due to slower rates of erosion and limited exposure of the nodules.
During the cyclical development of new phosphorite nodules, pebbles were phosphatised up to size-dependent saturation
levels of 17–21% P
2
O
5
. Less-phosphatised nodules were typically eroded during subsequent phases of erosion. These
processes resulted in fairly uniform P
2
O
5
concentrations in the nodules, irrespective of their provenance from phosphorite-
rich or phosphorite-poor areas (Kudrass & von Rad, 1984).
Studies by Zachos et al. (2001) and Haywood et al. (2004) on the palaeoceanographic history of the Pacific Ocean and
areas east of New Zealand have further detailed ocean current models and sea chemistry changes since the Miocene.
Some of these findings have implications for the development and timing of phosphorite nodules on the Chatham Rise,
suggesting later phases of phosphatisation and phosphorite deposits forming over shorter timespans.
The phosphorite deposit occurs as a thin layer of phosphorite-bearing glauconitic sand with an average thickness of 0.2 m,
and locally >0.5 m (Figure 7-3). The sand layer consists of mainly silt and sand-sized sediments, with phosphatised chalk
pebbles measuring up to 15 cm in diameter. Nodule layers were initially stratified, representing periods of erosion and
phosphatisation; however, post-depositional modifications have resulted in these layers becoming disrupted. The underlying
chalk layer occurs as a white ooze at the base of the deposit. The upper 20–30 cm of this zone can be mixed due to
bioturbation and includes burrows filled with the overlying sand. The ooze also contains weathered chalk, an important
constituent for phosphorite nodule formation. At depth, the ooze grades into an indurated chalk layer.
7.2.1 Seismic Facies
Mapping of the seafloor sediment units was undertaken on the RV Sonne using a Huntec high-resolution seismic system.
The seismic facies are based on seabed morphology, amplitude of bottom reflection, distinct sub-bottom reflectors, and
seismic stratigraphy of the sub-bottom geology (Falconer et al., 1984). There is a wide variety of seismic character, even
over short (100 m) distances, with boundaries having both abrupt and subtle changes. The boundaries of the ten mapped
facies are illustrated in Figure 7-4. Minor modifications were made to the boundaries by Kenex (2014), based on structural
analysis and updated bathymetric data.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 64 of 147

Figure 7-3: Schematic cross-section of phosphorite-bearing sand zone (adapted from CRP, 2012).

Figure 7-4: Seismic facies map (updated from Falconer et al., 1984).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 65 of 147
Based on the seismic work, Falconer et al. (1984) suggested that the distribution of phosphorite was not directly related to
structure or the thickness of major sedimentary units. However, the authors made correlations between the seismic facies
and increased concentrations of phosphorite. For example, in the central part of the survey area, the highest phosphorite
grade occurs in the Early–Middle Oligocene Unit 4, which overlies Unit 3. Prospectivity modelling by Kenex (2014) also
indicated the most prospective targets with the highest relative nodule abundance occur in areas of Oligocene and Miocene
chalk in the central saddle region, near local topographic highs and faults. The largest and highest-ranked deposits occur
mainly within seismic facies 3, 4, 5, and 9.
7.2.2 Post-Depositional Modifications
Glacio-tectonic processes have had a significant influence on the morphology of the phosphorite resource and Chatham
Rise. Kudrass and Cullen (1982) first suggested the idea that gouging icebergs have a significant influence on the
redistribution of the phosphorite and may partially explain the high variability in short-range grade. Furrows caused by the
movement of grounded icebergs and pits produced by rotating icebergs are the most significant structural elements, and
range in scale from a few metres to hundreds of metres. These impacts shaped the morphology of the Project area by
excavating the chalk to a depth of 15 m along furrows and in the pits. The excavated chalk, together with the top layer of
phosphorite sand, was displaced along the rims of the furrows and pits (Kudrass & Cullen, 1982). This process was probably
repeated during each of the five main Pleistocene glacial periods. In the long interglacial periods, the sea level was lower,
and the seafloor was smoothed by winnowing of the silt and sand, filling of the depressions, bioturbation and dissolution of
the exposed chalk. Some previously buried phosphorite nodules were thus exposed and available for further phosphorite
enrichment at the seafloor-water interface (Kudrass & Cullen, 1982).
Furrows are the most prominent seafloor features in the multibeam swath bathymetry images from the Project area and are
visible at all scales of observation, with widths that range from 1–240 m. The largest furrow has excavated 30 m of chalk.
Most of the larger furrows can be traced over a few kilometres, with the longest extending for >25 km (Figure 7-5). Large
furrows predominantly trend northwest and northeast, with the orientations of smaller furrows being highly variable. Larger
furrows typically have elevated rims measuring a few metres, where chalk is either exposed or covered by a thin layer of
glauconite-phosphorite sand. Many furrows are interpreted to have been partly filled by silt and sand. Preferential filling from
one side, indicative of a preferred direction of sediment transport, was not observed (Kudrass & Cullen, 1982).
Pit marks with diameters of a few metres are visible on ROV multibeam data; the larger ones visible on regional bathymetric
maps have a maximum diameter of 700 m. Smaller pits are typically round (up 50-m diameter), and larger pits (up 300-m
diameter) are either triangular or lenticular in shape with smooth, well-defined rims, or sub-rounded with highly irregular
rims. Medium-sized pits have depths of ~10 m. Pits occur in almost all water depths in the Project area. While Kudrass and
Cullen (1982) suggest the pits were made by grounded icebergs, Davy et al. (2010) suggest that the pock marks on the
Chatham Rise were formed as a result of gas release from dissociating hydrates during glacial-interglacial cycles. These
pock marks, observed in water depths of 500–700 m, may have formed during glacial periods in response to the movement
of the seafloor out of the gas hydrate stability zone with falling sea levels and/or warming of bottom water.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 66 of 147
In the modern environment, the phosphorite layer continues to be modified through bioturbation and reworking, and locally
by slow deposition (Kudrass & von Rad, 1984). Bioturbation holes and furrows can be up to 20 cm deep and 70 cm wide.

Figure 7-5: Interpreted iceberg furrows observed in bathymetry imagery.
7.3 Mineralisation
Phosphorite nodules in the Project area are loosely distributed within a layer of Neogene glauconitic sand that typically
measures ~20 cm thick, but locally it is >1 m. The sand is a pelagic lag deposit that comprises 20–40% silt and 30–60%
fine-grained to very fine-grained sand. The concentration of phosphorite nodules varies both vertically and laterally.
Kudrass and von Rad (1984) suggested two possible modes of phosphatisation resulting from diagenetic processes.
1. The replacement of CaO in pore water of organic-rich anoxic sediments, with phosphorus released through
bacterial activity (Figure 7-6). This process typically occurs on the upper continental slopes and outer shelf areas
with upwelling nutrient-rich water.
2. The replacement of CaO by direct uptake of phosphorus dissolved in seawater (Figure 7-6) The absorption of
phosphorite by the organic coating of the chalk may enhance this process, which is limited to areas with
phosphorus-rich seawater.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 67 of 147
Frontin-Rollet et al. (2022) suggested that the typical continental margin upwelling environment is most favourable for
phosphatisation, with periods of strong current winnowing and low organic matter deposition for phosphogenesis within the
sediment profile (Figure 7-7).

Figure 7-6: Evolution of the Chatham Rise phosphorite deposit and associated sediment, with alternative models for the
phosphatisation process (adapted from Kudrass & von Rad, 1984).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 68 of 147

Figure 7-7: Formation of a Chatham Rise phosphorite nodule. Figure sourced from Frontin-Rollet et al. (2022), with redox
horizons and chemical reactions adapted from Froelich et al. (1988) and Jarvis et al. (1994).
Climate optima for phosphatisation can be created by the alternation of conditions encouraging high primary productivity at
the ocean surface and current winnowing events (such as ice sheet growth or bottom-current strengthening; Hein et al.,
1993; Benninger & Hein, 2000). The differences in redox states of the depositional environment control the mineralogical
and compositional variations (Frontin-Rollet et al., 2022).
Frontin-Rollet et al. (2022) outlined that trace-element concentrations (such as cadmium, Cd) are linked to the depositional
environment, formation processes, and associated mineral phases (von Rad & Rösch 1984; Froelich et al., 1988; Glenn &
Arthur, 1988; O’Brien et al., 1990; Mar & Okazaki, 2012). Continental margin phosphorites favour the breakdown of glaucony
into goethite (Frontin-Rollet et al., 2022). Negative cerium (Ce) anomalies may represent oxic seawater and/or sediment
pore water during phosphogenesis (Jarvis et al., 1994; Shields & Stille, 2001; Pattan et al., 2005). The suboxic to anoxic
environment on the Chatham Rise continental margin during the Miocene was sufficient to enrich and concentrate U, but
not Cd (Frontin-Rollet et al., 2022). Uranium enrichment by reduction to U
4+
by adsorption into organic matter (Bone et al.,
2017) and subsequent release by bacterial breakdown to insoluble uranite occurs during anoxic conditions (Klinkhammer &
Palmer, 1991). Continental margin phosphorites (such as those on the Chatham Rise) are also enriched in vanadium
(Frontin-Rollet et al., 2022).
Phosphatisation was followed by glauconitisation and silicification of the nodules. Sand and mineral-filled fractures and
borings on the surface of nodules were subsequently cemented by later-stage diagenetic processes (Figure 7-6). The
modern composition of the phosphorite nodules developed during the late Miocene due to diagenetic replacement of the
chalk pebbles (Figure 7-6) (Kudrass & von Rad, 1984). Apatite-based cement replaced pre-existing glauconite, suggesting
that the main Late Miocene phosphatisation event was followed by minor authigenic phosphatisation, which mainly
cemented fractures and bore holes (Kudrass & von Rad, 1984).
Later-stage mineral input during phosphatisation was derived from volcanic ash, which added rhyolite glass and pumice to
the phosphorite-glauconite sand. The source of this material is thought to be eruptions at North Island volcanic centres over
the last 40 kyr (Kudrass & von Rad, 1984). Subsequent modification by icebergs (see Section 7.2.2) resulted in the reworking
of phosphorite material and a highly irregular distribution. It is possible that the gouging icebergs removed the phosphorite
in the furrows and created higher-grade phosphorite accumulations along parallel ridges beside the furrows (Figure 7-6).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 69 of 147
8. Deposit Types
Phosphorites are classified as sediments that include significant portions of authigenic and biogenic phosphorite minerals,
mainly the calcium-fluorapatite mineral francolite ((Ca, Mg, Sr, Na)
10
(PO
4
CO
3
)F
2-3
). A lower threshold of 18% P
2
O
5
is
commonly used for the definition of phosphorite (Paytan & McLaughlin, 2007). Phosphorite deposits are known in ocean
basins around the globe and have formed during numerous time intervals throughout geological history as the result of
intensive phosphorus accumulation and subsequent authigenic francolite formation. Many phosphorite deposits were
formed during the Miocene ~23–5 Ma.
Input of phosphorus into the oceans is by fluvial transport of organic and inorganic phosphorus compounds (usually carried
by Fe oxyhydroxide) from the weathering of sedimentary and igneous rocks. Phosphorus is eventually transferred into the
deep ocean where most of it is reintroduced into the photic zone by upwelling. A small fraction (~5%) is removed from the
water column predominantly by primary production as organic phosphate, and partially as inorganic phosphate through
adsorption to Fe and Mg oxyhydroxides, or authigenic phosphate mineralisation (Figure 8-1, Paytan & McLaughlin, 2007).
Diverse theories regarding the genesis of phosphorites have been published (e.g. Bentor, 1980; Cook, 1984). In these
studies, the association of extensive phosphorite deposits with the fringes of oxygen minimum zones and reducing
sediments has led to the conclusion that the dissolution of phosphorus is initiated by the oxidation of organic matter during
sulphate reduction (Berner, 1980; Colman & Holland, 2000). When saturation of dissolved phosphorus in the interstitial
water is reached, phosphorite can precipitate in an inorganic form through physical-biochemical processes. Modern marine
phosphorite deposits are restricted to the continental margins off South Africa, the Gulf of California, South America, Eastern
Australia, and New Zealand (Burnett & Riggs, 1990; Birch et al., 1983; Kudrass et al., 2017). A number of these regions
(Chile-Peru, California, offshore South Africa and New Zealand) are almost exclusively associated with the upwelling of cold
nutrient-rich waters onto continental shelves, organic-rich diatomaceous sediments, low net sediment-accumulation rates
and low oxygen availability at the sediment-water interface. Upwelling provides a continual supply of nutrients to the surface
waters, and results in high primary productivities (Burnett & Riggs, 1980).
Phosphorite forms diagenetically within anoxic sediments due to the microbial decay of organic matter, which enriches
interstitial water in dissolved inorganic phosphorite (Berner, 1980). These areas are also characterised by current-dominated
sedimentary regimes that are responsible for cycles of sediment reworking and subsequent phosphorite lithification (Burnett
& Riggs, 1990). However, phosphorite deposits in some of these regions, in particular western South Africa and Eastern
Australia, have demonstrated that decaying organic matter does not seem to supply the majority of dissolved inorganic
phosphorite that sustains francolite growth; other sedimentary processes, such as Fe-redox cycling or fish-bone dissolution,
might contribute much of the dissolved inorganic phosphorus required for the formation of phosphorite (e.g. Glenn et al.,
1994). On the Chatham Rise, historical sampling has documented phosphorite nodules occurring over several thousand
square kilometres of seafloor. The nodules typically occur in the upper <1 m of unconsolidated seafloor sediment, in a
concentrated phosphorite-bearing horizon averaging ~0.3 m thick. Nodules are <15 cm in diameter. Rarely, larger fragments
of phosphatised chalk have been recovered (e.g. Cullen, 1987; Kudrass, et al.; 2017).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 70 of 147
The shallow depth of nodules beneath the seafloor, unconsolidated nature of the deposits and range in the diameter and
concentration of phosphorite nodules means they are most suited to large volume, shallow seafloor penetration sampling
techniques (see Section 26; Sterk & Stein, 2015).

Figure 8-1: Phosphate cycle (adapted from Paytan & McLaughlin, 2007).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 71 of 147
9. Exploration
CRP conducted two exploration programmes from 2010–2012 with a total of six cruises. The purpose of the cruises was to
collect a variety of data, including samples for phosphorite abundance estimation, geochemical analysis, geotechnical
samples, geophysical surveys and environmental baseline data.
9.1 MV Tranquil Image (2011)
The two campaigns of seafloor sampling that were carried out by CRP in early 2011 were done under contract by IXSurvey
Australia Pty Ltd (IXSurvey 2010, 2011). The vessel used for both cruises was the MV Tranquil Image owned and operated
by Western Work Boats Ltd of Tauranga, New Zealand.
9.1.1 Sample Locations
During the two cruises, sample locations were determined by GPS. The approximate location was established by the
navigation equipment installed on the vessel and the actual sample location was recorded using a hand-held GPS at the
time the sample was taken on board. GPS is a satellite-based navigation system with precision of 5 m. Penetration depths
were not recorded for the MV Tranquil Image grab samples, so the depth of sampled sediment is unknown. However, the
dimensions of the grab sampler mean maximum sample depth is ~30 cm.
9.1.2 Sampling Method
Sediment samples were collected at predetermined locations. The samples were collected using a Van Veen grab sampler
provided by NIWA. The Van Veen grab sampler used for this programme was small and had a surface area of 0.25 m
2
(Figure 9-1). The range of total sample weights varied from 2–40 kg. Due to the Van Veen grab sampler’s limited weight
and non-powered jaws, it had a maximum sample depth of 30 cm. As with the RV Valdivia, the grab sampler also
encountered problems with stones and nodules being caught in the jaws and allowing sample loss. Sample volumes have
not been evaluated by the QP, as penetration depths for the samples were not recorded. The shallow depth of the sample
penetration and lack of chalk or ooze in samples indicate that the Van Veen grab sampler typically failed to test the full
thickness of the glauconitic sand layer.
Sampling activity undertaken during the MV Tranquil Image cruises is summarised in Table 9-1.
Table 9-1: MV Tranquil Image cruise activity.
Cruise No. Date Activity Amount
1 May 2011
Van Veen sampling
Deployment of current meter mooring
CTD casts
23
1
4
2 May 2011
Van Veen sampling
Deployment of turbidity monitors
32
2
Note: CTD - conductivity, temperature, and depth

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 72 of 147

Figure 9-1: Sampling method for NIWA’s Van Veen grab sampler.
9.1.3 Logging
For each grab sample, the grab number, date, time (GMT), latitude, longitude, and water depth were recorded along with a
geological description of the grab sampler contents. A photograph of each sample was also taken. Data were entered
directly into a spreadsheet on board the vessel.
9.1.4 Results
The QP reviewed laboratory test results for the 45 successful MV Tranquil Image grab samples that record sample wet
weight and the dry weight per cent of the >2 mm fraction of the sediment. However, the sample weight was not recorded
for four of these samples. There is insufficient information to reliably calculate the phosphorite grade of the samples, and
the QP has several concerns with the sampling process used on the MV Tranquil Image (Section 11.5).
Phosphorite nodule abundance was estimated from the available data by assuming that the >2 mm fraction of sieved
sediment was 100% phosphorite and multiplying the dry weight per cent of this fraction by the wet bulk sample weight to
estimate the contained kilograms of phosphorite in the sample. The weight was divided by the sample area of the grab
sampler (0.25 m, based on information provided by NIWA) to calculate phosphorite nodule abundance for the samples. This
estimated nodule abundance ranges up to 45.0 Ph kg/m
2
and averages 9.6 Ph kg/m
2
. The QP is of the opinion that the
assumption that the entirety of the >2 mm fraction of the sampled sediment comprises phosphorite is not valid (see Section
11.5), and that the use of a weight per cent determined from dry material proportioned against a wet sample weight will lead
to an overestimation of grade, as moisture content is not taken into account. The practice of removing subsamples for
various onshore tests resulted in the original sample being reduced in size in a manner that is likely to add further error and
possibly introduce bias to the calculated phosphorite grade.
The QP estimated phosphorite grade for the samples by multiplying the dry phosphorite weight percentages (assumed to
be equivalent to the >2 mm dry weight %) of the samples by the average dry density of phosphate nodules (2.65 g/cm
3
; see
Section 11.2). This yielded unreasonably high grades up to 2,246.8 Ph kg/m
3
and averaging 677.4 Ph kg/m
3
(Figure 9-2).
The QP considers that data for the MV Tranquil Image samples are insufficient to reliably calculate phosphorite grade; none
of the samples were therefore included in the resource model (see Section 11.5 and Section 12).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 73 of 147

Figure 9-2: MV Tranquil Image sample locations and updated phosphorite grade.
9.2 RV Dorado Discovery (2011–2012)
CRP chartered the RV Dorado Discovery, a 100-m-long, fully equipped research vessel, from Odyssey Marine Exploration
for work on four consecutive cruises.
Cruise 1: In December 2011, the RV Dorado Discovery completed a 12-day voyage mapping the seafloor and collected
715 km
2
of multi-beam swath bathymetry data, 199 km
2
of side-scan sonar data, and 263 km of sub-bottom seismic reflection
and magnetic data. The main objectives of the cruise were to improve knowledge of the distribution of phosphorite on the
Chatham Rise, to provide information that will support the development of suitable mining technology and strategy, and to
establish target areas for a follow-up geotechnical cruise. Four areas in the western part of MPL 50270 were identified as
primary survey targets, with another four areas identified as possible targets. The two oceanographic moorings previously
deployed by IXSurvey were also retrieved during this cruise, and the current and turbidity data were downloaded for
processing and analysis (Wood, 2012).
Cruise 2: From 31 January to 10 February 2012, the RV Dorado Discovery was used to collect additional multi-beam swath
bathymetry and to test a large clamshell grab sampler for sediment sampling. The grab sampler weighed ~2 t and had a
cross-sectional sampling area of 1.42 m (width) × 2.03 m (length). Remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) dives were
undertaken to view the seabed before and after grab sampling to assess the size and shape of the ‘scar’ left by the grab

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 74 of 147
sampler. Although it was planned as a test run, all 50 of the potential sites were sampled, recovering more than 32 t of
sediment. Sample sizes ranged from ~300 kg to almost 2,000 kg. A total of 43 push cores (30 cm long) were taken from
suitable grab samples. In addition to the cores, 172 subsamples totalling more than 500 kg were taken from the grab
samplers, and the remaining material was collected in bulka bags (Nielsen & Berthelsen, 2012).
Cruise 3: During March 2012, the bottom-dwelling pelagic and benthic ecology of the Chatham Rise was investigated, with
a view to examining the potential impact of mining on seabed ecology. A team of ecologists and geologists from NIWA,
GNS Science, Golder Associates (Golder), and Kenex conducted the data collection and sampling, using an ROV to conduct
photographic traverses to document the seafloor (totalling 17,003 still photographs and 143 hours of video footage) and a
20 cm × 30 cm × 45 cm box corer to collect 130 sediment samples. Three attempts to collect sediment using a small Van
Veen grab sampler were unsuccessful, and one grab sample was collected using the large clamshell grab sampler
previously used during Cruise 2. Additional multi-beam swath bathymetry data were also collected during the cruise (Nielsen
et al., 2012a).
Cruise 4: During April 2012, the geotechnical properties of the seabed were determined by performing in-situ tests and
collecting sediment samples with the aim of optimising the design of the dredging equipment proposed by Boskalis for
mining the Chatham Rise phosphorite deposits. Sediment sampling was conducted using a 400-kg vibracorer equipped with
interchangeable 3-m barrels (80 mm and 150 mm diameters), and a 1,200-kg box corer measuring 50 cm × 50 cm × 50 cm
with dual closing shovels that could have an additional 600 kg of weight added. Cone penetration tests (CPTs) were
conducted using a 2-cm
2
cone and 1,000-kg thrust capacity capped at 25 MPa, and ROV jetting tests were conducted to
establish the jetting strengths needed to mobilise the target sediment. When weather did not permit safe operations on deck,
multi-beam swath bathymetry data were collected to expand the existing mapped area (Nielsen et al., 2012b).
Sampling activity undertaken during the RV Dorado Discovery cruises is summarised in Table 9-2.
9.2.1 Sample Locations
Sample locations were determined using a Hemisphere GPS receiver, which accessed Fugro’s Veripos service for position
augmentation, recording geographical coordinates and height on the WGS84 datum. Although Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) coordinates were required, for ease of post-processing, all positioning data were recorded in latitude and
longitude coordinates (Wood, 2012).
9.2.2 Sampling Method
Seafloor sampling was conducted using the large clamshell grab sampler and box corer. Despite its size and weight, the
large clamshell grab sampler had poor penetration power, especially in nodule-rich sediment. It was lowered to the seafloor
and closed by recalling the cable, causing the hinge of the bucket to rise and the jaws to close under their own weight
(Figure 9-3).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 75 of 147
Table 9-2: RV Dorado Discovery cruise activity.
Cruise No Date Activity Amount
1 Dec 2011
Multi-beam swath bathymetry
Magnetometer
Sub-bottom profiler
Side-scan sonar
715 line km
217 line km
271 line km
197 line km
2
Jan to Feb
2012
ROV dives and seabed descriptions
Multi-beam bathymetry
Grab samples
Push cores
Subsamples
Vane shear tests
3

50 attempts
43
172
29
3 Mar 2012
ROV dives
ROV lines
Multi-beam bathymetry
Box cores
Van Veen grab samples
Grab samples
Push cores
14
42

130 attempts
3 attempts
1
81
4 Apr 2012
ROV jetting tests
Multi-beam bathymetry
Vibracores
Box cores
CPT tests
Bulk density determination
Vane shear tests
3
426 km
2

21 attempts
8 attempts
134
10
24

Figure 9-3: RV Dorado Discovery clamshell grab sampling process.

The grab sampler had previously been used as a junk yard excavator and was not specifically designed for undersea
sampling. In addition to poor penetration power relative to its size, the main drawback of the clamshell grab sampler as a
sampling tool is that it was not enclosed, resulting in washing of the contained sediment when the grab sampler was
retrieved, particularly at the sea surface where it was exposed to wave action (Figure 9-4 and Figure 9-5). Most samples

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 76 of 147
were noted as having undergone some degree of washing, and this was more pronounced when the grab sampler contained
smaller volume samples (Simon Nielsen, pers. comm.). The amount of material lost to washing is unknown. In addition, the
geometry of the grab sampler (2.03 m × 1.42 m when open and ~1.4 m × 1.42 m when closed) indicates that the sampled
sediment in the clamshell grab sampler undergoes compression as the bucket closes (in a similar way to the sediment in
the RV Sonne grab sampler, as discussed in Section 6.2.6), which has implications for determination of the true sample
depth of the grab samples.

Figure 9-4: Clamshell grab sampler used on the RV Dorado Discovery. As it was not enclosed (left), sediment was washed
from the bucket during retrieval, as indicated by the discolouration of the water surrounding the grab sampler (right).

Figure 9-5: RV Dorado Discovery grab sampler retrieval.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 77 of 147
In addition to the large grab samples, 138 box cores were attempted during Cruises 2 and 3 of the RV Dorado Discovery.
The first 130 samples were attempted using a 20 cm × 30 cm × 45 cm box corer (Figure 9-6), and the remaining eight cores
were collected using a 50 cm × 50 cm × 50 cm box corer with dual closing shovels. A total of 119 bulk samples were
collected using the box corers. Problems were encountered with the dual-shovel closing mechanism not operating correctly,
and several attempts to adjust the apparatus were unsuccessful. Sampling with the box corer was discontinued during
Cruise 4.

Figure 9-6: RV Dorado Discovery box core sampling.

During Cruise 4 of the RV Dorado Discovery, 14 vibracore samples (from 21 attempts) were collected using a 400 -kg, 3.5-
m long vibracorer equipped with a 3-m long, 80-mm-diameter barrel. In addition, 134 CPTs were conducted using a Neptune
3000 Miniature Coiled Rod CPT system with 2-cm
2
rods and a 1,000-kg thrust capacity. For safety, the applied pressure
was capped at 25 MPa.
9.2.3 Logging
Upon retrieval of the large clamshell grab sampler, the geologist on deck assessed the sample by viewing it through
openings in the top of the closed grab sampler. For a full grab sample, the sample surface was easily reached but with
limited overview of the surface. For a very small sample, the surface was not within safe reach, but was easily viewed
through ports in the grab sampler. The surface composition and condition of the sample were described by the geologist,
and biota and signs of disturbance were noted. The completeness of fill (penetration depth) of sediment in the grab sampler
was estimated, and photographs were taken to visually record the sample surface.
The sample was emptied into a collection hopper, and a description of the bulk sediment was made; this emphasised
sediment type and texture and abundance of black sand and nodules, and recorded any layering and difference in sediment
types in heterogeneous samples. The presence/absence of glauconitic sand, phosphorite nodules, clays, and chalk was
noted. The size and frequency of nodules were estimated, as well as overall sediment firmness. Infauna or other biota not

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 78 of 147
seen or unreachable from the top of the closed grab sampler were logged and sampled. Photographs were taken of the
bulk sediment in the hopper.
Upon retrieval of the box core samples, the surface composition of the samples was described prior to the corer being
opened and the thickness of sediment in the box estimated. Descriptions used standard sedimentary descriptors, with
emphasis on the presence/absence of black sand and phosphorite nodules (including descriptions of their size and
frequency). Visible biota was described and sampled if possible, and photographs were taken of the sediment surface.
After the core sample was dumped into a collection bucket, a bulk description was recorded, with emphasis on sediment
type and texture, the abundance of black sand and nodules, and any layering or difference in sediment types that was
apparent in the samples. Photographs were also taken of each bulk sample in the collection bucket.
9.2.4 Results
Grade estimation for the RV Dorado Discovery data was completed for the large clamshell grab sampler and box core data.
Grades needed to be calculated differently for each dataset due to the differences in data collection and recorded
parameters for the different sampling methods and analyses.
The QP notes that the grab sampler used for sampling was not fully enclosed, resulting in documented washing of the
samples and sediment loss. This washing is likely to have preferentially removed fines from the grab samples, which would
result in concentration of the coarser denser phosphorite in the samples. This effect may have been mitigated to some
extent by the size of most of the grab samples in that the proportion of sediment loss through washing may be overall
smaller, but without detailed observations/estimates of the degree of washing that has occurred for each sample, all samples
must be treated as having been washed out. The QP notes that the quality of samples and sample data is significantly
reduced by the unconstrained recovery losses associated with sampling using a non-enclosed grab sampler.
CRP initially calculated the nodule abundance for the grab sampler data by summing the weights of the >8 mm and 0.8–8
mm sieved sediment fractions and dividing these by the sample area of the open grab sampler (2.8 m
2
), yielding a range in
nodule abundance up to 92.3 Ph kg/m
2
and averaging 22.8 Ph kg/m
2
. The QP calculated grades for the RV Dorado
Discovery grab samples using the available data, but notes that the calculation relies on a number of assumptions that
introduce error into the calculations, meaning that the resulting sample grades are unreliable (see Section 11.5).
The detailed work conducted on the >8 mm sieved fractions of subsamples of the grab samples (Berthelsen et al., 2012;
see Section 11.1.2) yields the total contained kilograms of phosphorite in that fraction, which can be expressed as a
percentage of the bulk sieved sample weight. This is a necessary step to remove the error caused by calculating phosphorite
content in kilograms from sieved samples that are only a subsample of the original bulk grab sediment sample; however, it
relies on the assumption that the sieved samples were representative of the bulk grab sample.
Volume percentages of phosphorite were determined for the 0.8–8 mm fractions of 12 grab samples by Nielsen (2012).
The weight per cent of phosphorite measured in the >8 mm sieved fractions was plotted against the volume per cent of
phosphorite observed in the equivalent sample’s 0.8–8 mm fractions (excluding outliers), and this relationship was used to

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 79 of 147
estimate the volume of phosphorite in the 0.8–8 mm fractions of samples for which that fraction had not been assessed
(Figure 9-7).

Figure 9-7: Relationship between sieved fractions of phosphorite contents in RV Dorado Discovery grab samples.

Assuming comparable density of all constituents in the >8 mm fractions, the phosphorite percentage for material >0.8 mm
contained in the grab samples can be estimated. This percentage multiplied by the average density of wet phosphorite
nodules (2.72 g/cm
3
) yields grades ranging up to 1,464 Ph kg/m
3
and averaging 392.6 Ph kg/m
3
. The QP has concerns
regarding this method of calculation, as it is based on a number of flawed assumptions that make the calculated grades
unreliable (see Section 11.5).
True depths of the grab samples were calculated in an equivalent manner to the RV Sonne data. The clamshell grab sampler
was modelled in 3D, and its cumulative volume calculated in 1-cm increments. These volumes were compared to the
calculated volume of sediment sampled by the 2.03 m × 1.42 m open grab sampler in 1-cm increments to generate a
conversion table of penetration depth to true depth for the clamshell grab sampler. This assumes that the observed
penetration depth of sediment in the grab sampler reflects the penetration depth of sediment as it was originally sampled
on the seafloor and has not been altered by washing. Since the grab sampler was not enclosed and all samples are therefore
considered washed, it is likely that true sample thickness for the RV Dorado Discovery grab samples has been
underestimated (Figure 9-8 and Figure 9-9).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 80 of 147

Figure 9-8: RV Dorado Discovery sampling methods, sample locations, and estimated grades.

Figure 9-9: RV Dorado Discovery sampling methods, sample locations and penetration depths.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 81 of 147
Multiplying the calculated grade of the grab samples by their calculated true depth yields nodule abundances up to 209 Ph
kg/m
2
and averaging 51.7 Ph kg/m
2
. However, the QP notes that although the original nodule abundances calculated for
the RV Dorado Discovery grab samples were considered likely to be underestimated, these nodule abundances are likely
to be overestimated due to the use of a weight percentage in the grade calculation, assumptions of comparable density of
sample constituents, and an underestimation of true sediment thickness due to losses during sample recovery (see Section
11.5). Due to the number of assumptions required to calculate grade from the grab sample data, the QP has assigned a low
SQR to the samples and excluded them from resource estimations.
In addition to grab samples, 117 box-core samples were collected during the RV Dorado Discovery sampling campaign, of
which 21 were sieved into >8 mm, 2–8 mm, and <2 mm fractions. The supplied data contain the calculated dry weight
percentages of these fractions as well as the original sample wet and dry weights for the samples. As data from the RV
Dorado Discovery grab samples indicate that >1 mm sieved fractions contain significant constituents other than phosphorite,
the QP has factored the dry weight percentages of the >8 mm and 2–8 mm box core fractions down to account for non-
phosphorite material in these fractions, using the grab sample sieve data for reference. For the >8 mm fraction of the grab
samples, the weight per cent of phosphorite averaged 91% of the fraction weight, and for the 12 measured 0.8–8 mm grab
sample fractions, the phosphorite volume per cent averaged 74% (excluding outliers). The box core >8 mm and 2–8 mm
sieved fractions were multiplied by these percentages, respectively. The QP notes that this calculation relies on a number
of flawed assumptions that give cause for concern in the reliability of the RV Dorado Discovery box-core grade calculations.
Consequently, the data have been assigned low SQR values and excluded from the resource estimate (see Section 11.5).
Summing the factored weight percentages of the sieved fractions and multiplying by the dry weight of the sieved sample
provides an estimation of the contained kilograms of phosphorite in each bulk sample. Dividing this weight of contained
phosphorite by the volume of each bulk sample (estimated from the box area, 0.2 m × 0.3 m, multiplied by the thickness of
the sediment in the box) yields the sample grade. Using this method, phosphorite grades are up to 707 Ph kg/m
3
and
average 186.6 Ph kg/m
3
for the 21 analysed box cores. Excluding the sediment thickness from the equation allows
calculation of the nodule abundance of the samples; this is up to 64 Ph kg/m
2
and averages 17.9 Ph kg/m
2
.
For the remaining 96 box cores that were not sieved, visually estimated phosphorite percentages recorded for 82 of the
samples were the only available data recorded with respect to phosphorite content. Multiplying these values by the average
wet density of phosphorite nodules (2.72 g/cm
3
) yields grade estimates up to 2,720 Ph kg/m
3
and average 438.5 Ph kg/m
3

for the 82 cores (Figure 9-9). Multiplying grade by the thickness of sediment in the box for each sample yields phosphorite
nodule abundances up to 204.0 Ph kg/m
2
and average 28.5 Ph kg/m
2
. The QP notes that due to the lack of precise measured
data for these cores, their calculated grades are of insufficient quality to be included in resource estimations (see Section
11.5).
9.3 Exploration Target — Potential Range of Quantities & Grades
The QP considers the potential to locate additional areas of phosphorite-bearing sand to be significant. In areas immediately
adjacent to the Inferred Mineral Resource (refer to Section 14), sampling indicates exploration targets of 15,000,000–

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 82 of 147
20,000,000 m
3
, with a phosphorite grade of 200–300 Ph kg/m
3
and contained phosphorite target of 3–4 Mt (refer to the area
between the solid white and dotted white lines in Figure 9-10) (Table 9-3).
The potential quantity and grade of this global exploration target is conceptual in nature. There has been insufficient
exploration to define a Mineral Resource, and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being delineated as
a Mineral Resource. The QP notes that the existing sampling in these areas is not of good enough quality or high enough
density, and therefore recommends follow-up sampling be carried out if CRP intends to confirm this potential.

Figure 9-10: Exploration potential and extent of the Inferred Mineral Resource in the Chatham Rise.

Table 9-3: Exploration target and potential range of volumes, grades, and tonnes for phosphorite within CRP tenement MP
55549.

Potential Range of
Volumes (m
3
)
Potential Range of
Grades (Ph kg/m
3
)
Potential Range of
Contained Ph (Mt)
Exploration Target
15,000,000 to
20,000,000
200 to 300 3 to 4
Notes:
1. The potential quantity and grade of this exploration target is conceptual in nature. There has been insufficient
exploration to define a Mineral Resource, and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in exploration target
being delineated as a Mineral Resource.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 83 of 147
A prospectivity study by Kenex (2014) aimed to identify the areas of exploration potential in MP 55549 and the wider area.
Kenex used the ‘mineral system concept’ in its study to develop 28 weights of evidence and eight fuzzy logic predictive
maps for use in exploration and to assess the prospectivity of the central Chatham Rise for deposition of nodular
phosphorite. The fuzzy logic prospectivity modelling was completed to produce targets based largely on derivatives of
bathymetry and geology. The model identified low slope angles, entrainment in the saddle regions, and shallow bathymetry
with southeast facing slopes as important parameters for nodule deposition on the Chatham Rise. The most prospective
regions are likely to be found in the vicinity of major faults and within the very prospective Early Oligocene chalk facies (see
Section 7.2).
The model also identified areas where high-grade nodules are least likely to be encountered, i.e. areas containing outcrops
of basement and areas with thick covers of Late Neogene, especially Pleistocene, sandy sediments. Prospectivity is also
likely to decrease with advancement north or south away from the central crest of the Chatham Rise, where slope angles
are steeper, young sediment drapes are thicker, and water depths are likely to have been too deep to allow extensive
phosphatisation in the past. The Kenex prospectivity model indicates that the overall mineral endowment may extend further
along the Chatham Rise and could be used to inform future exploration efforts.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 84 of 147
10. Drilling
As the effective date of the Report, no drilling had been conducted by CRP in the Project area. Phosphorite deposits are
essentially two dimensional, with the mineralised material occurring within the top 50 cm of the sea floor. Under normal
circumstances, standard grab samplers or box corers sample the entire vertical extent of the mineralisation, negating the
need for conventional drilling techniques.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 85 of 147
11. Sample Preparation, Analyses & Security
11.1 Sample Preparation & Analysis
11.1.1 MV Tranquil Image Cruise
When the Van Veen sampler was retrieved, water was drained from the closed shell to minimise water in the sample
material. The shell was then opened and the sample material collected in a plastic tub. Material that did not fall freely from
the sampler was scraped into the tub. Two subsamples were taken from the bulk sample using a shovel. Provided that
sufficient material was retrieved, samples from the Van Veen sampler were normally divided into three portions. Two
samples of ~5 kg each were placed into sealed plastic bags; one was frozen within several hours of collection and the
second was refrigerated. Any remaining sample material was placed in a large, open-topped plastic bag and stored on deck.
From the 55 sampling attempts, 45 samples were collected. On the second cruise, the sampling process and the taking of
subsamples were witnessed by a consultant geologist on behalf of CRP.
On return to Tauranga (first cruise) and Napier (second cruise), the samples were freighted to the GNS Science facility in
Lower Hutt where they were weighed and visually examined. Subsamples were submitted to Waikato University and CRL
Energy’s Gracefield Laboratory (CRL) for analysis. The Waikato University and CRL facilities are independent of CRP, and
both have ISO 17025 accreditation.
Subsamples from 10 grab samples were submitted to Waikato University for analysis. Samples were wet sieved into gravel
(>2 mm), sand (2–0.063 mm), and mud (<0.063 mm) fractions. A small representative volume of the mud fraction was
analysed using a Malvern Mastersizer ‘S’ laser diffraction particle size analyser to determine the percentages of silt
(0.063–0.004 mm) and clay (<0.004 mm) in the mud fraction. Each fraction was then dried at 50–105°C and weighed to
determine the weight per cent of gravel, sand, and mud in each original sample. The sand fraction was then passed through
a Frantz magnetic separator three times, with the level of discrimination between magnetic and non-magnetic material
increased each time to separate the sand into glauconite-rich and glauconite-poor fractions. These fractions, along with two
bulk sediment samples, were weighed and analysed using a Spectro X-Lab 2000 fully automated XRF spectrometer to
determine their major and trace element compositions.
Subsamples from 45 of the grab samples were sent to CRL for analysis of grain size distribution. After being washed through
a 4-mm screen, the >4 mm fraction was dry sieved and the <4 mm fraction wet sieved, separating the samples into a total
of 21 size fractions ranging from <0.063 mm to 100 mm. CRL analysed 73 subsamples of the fractions for major element
oxides using XRF.
11.1.2 RV Dorado Discovery Cruises
Upon retrieval of the grab sampler to the ship, the grab sampler was guided into a custom-built cage to hold the grab sampler
steady while the sample was observed through openings in the top of the grab and push cores inserted. The grab sampler
was then slid into position over the hopper where the sample could be dumped and collected.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 86 of 147
The grab samples were observed and logged through openings in the top of the grab sampler. Geologists carried out shear
vane tests and then assessed the sample for its suitability for push coring. Grab samples containing concentrations of
nodules with little greensand matrix were difficult to core due to the core tube being stopped if the tube edge hit a large
nodule. To core, PVC tubes of ~20 cm length were capped in one end and marked with ‘up’ arrows. The open end was
slightly sharpened to give a cutting edge and pushed vertically into the sediment near the centre of the grab sampler, well
away from the often-washed-out edges. If necessary, the cores were pushed as far in as possible by standing on them until
they sank in fully.
Once preliminary observations and measurements were completed, the grab sampler was emptied over the collection
hopper. The bulk sediment was described by geologists, and the push cores were retrieved, capped, and sealed (Figure
11-1). Further subsampling was undertaken for lithological samples; two to four samples (~2 kg each) of the significant
lithologies in each grab sampler (including chalk/ooze if present) were collected in clear plastic bags, double bagged, and
labelled. Biota samples were collected if specimens were new, particularly well preserved, or exhibited interesting features.
All samples were stored on board at 4°C in a temperature-controlled container. Photographs were taken of the sediments
in the sample pan. The remaining sample was then scraped into large sample bags for storage. The weights of the bags
were recorded before being stored.

Figure 11-1: RV Dorado Discovery clamshell grab sample processing.

The focus of the box core sampling on Cruise 3 was ecological assessment rather than resource assessment. Once box
core samples were retrieved, the surface characteristics of the sediment were recorded, and two push cores per box core
sample were collected for geotechnical and biological assessment. The samples were processed aboard the RV Dorado
Discovery, with the top 15 cm of sediment being washed through a 500-μm sieve and the underlying sediment through a
1,000-μm sieve. Biological specimens were collected, and the biological and sediment samples were both stored in
formaldehyde solution. Remaining sediment was bagged for geological analysis. Box cores from Cruise 4 were collected
for geotechnical assessment. During Cruise 4, the box corer used had a detachable box so that samples could be weighed
and have their bulk density determined prior to removal from the box. The sediment was described by a geologist and
sampled in 10-cm intervals by Boskalis’ geotechnical engineers.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 87 of 147
Vibracores were retrieved by core technicians. When removing the core catcher, any sediment recovered was tagged as
‘geo’ sample, bagged and labelled, and placed in cold storage. After determining the length of the recovered samples, the
cores were marked in 1-m intervals starting from the top and labelled in sequential order. The cores were laid out on a rack
for sectioning and cut into the marked lengths using a pipe cutter. After inspection of the exposed ends, the sections were
capped and moved to the refrigerated storage. The exceptions were any sections containing greensand and the transition
to the chalk; these sections were taken aside for further logging and sampling.
Grab samples from Cruises 2 and 3 were processed after the voyage for geotechnical purposes by GNS Science and
Kenex. Samples were separated into three size fractions: >8 mm, 0.8–8 mm, and <0.8 mm. Geological analysis of the
>8 mm and 0.8-8 mm fractions was carried out; the <0.8 mm fraction was not studied.
Forty-five >8 mm sample fractions were analysed in detail. The grain lithologies were separated and described, and
phosphorite nodules were further classified by size. Each sub-fraction was then weighed to establish their proportion of the
total >8 mm fraction weight. After analysis, samples were returned to storage; no special security measures were necessary,
and the possibility of contamination or alteration of the samples was deemed extremely unlikely.
The 0.8–8 mm fractions of 12 of the grab samples were submitted to GNS Science where they were air dried and a
subsample of the fraction spread out under a stereoscope and observed under ~50 × magnification. Grain types were
determined and classified using Power’s Roundness Scale and ASTM 2488-00 for grain shape; grains were picked at
random until a total of at least 200 grains were analysed per sample.
Samples from box cores collected during Cruise 3 were submitted to Boskalis for detailed analysis of grain size distribution.
Samples were dried, weighed and sieved into >8 mm, 2–8 mm, and <2 mm fractions. Sample material from the box cores
collected during Cruise 4 of the RV Dorado Discovery were assessed for geotechnical parameters by Boskalis.
11.2 Density & Moisture Content
11.2.1 MV Tranquil Image Cruise
Ten samples made up of composited material from 1–4 samples each were submitted to Boskalis Dolman Laboratory for
Environmental and Geotechnical Research to test nodule density and water absorption. Between one and six nodules from
each composite were tested, for a total of 36 analyses. Sample density was determined using the weight in water and weight
in air method. Samples were dried at 110ºC for an unspecified length of time to determine their dry density. The samples’
dry weights ranged from 1.9–69.8 g. After the exclusion of two outliers, the samples yielded an average dry density of
phosphorite nodules of 2.65 g/cm
3
, an average wet density of 2.72 g/cm
3
, and average water absorption of 2.8%.
Boskalis Dolman Laboratory for Environmental and Geotechnical Research is independent of CRP and is accredited under
ISO standards 9001, 14001, and 45001.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 88 of 147
11.2.2 RV Dorado Discovery Cruises
Push core samples collected from the grab samples yielded an in-situ sample of the phosphorite-bearing glauconitic sand,
which was analysed for density. The samples were sealed to retain the moisture content before analysis by Boskalis in the
Netherlands. Density tests were conducted using the New Zealand Standard for soil testing NZS 4402.5.1.3:1986 (Soil
density tests - Determination of the density of soil - Test 5.1.3 Sampling tube method for the determination of the in-situ
density). Due to higher concentrations of phosphorite nodules inhibiting core penetration into the sediment, the cores
retrieved are biased toward samples from fuller grab samplers containing less phosphorite.
Density analyses from the RV Dorado Discovery samples are summarised in Table 11-1. Analysis of the 44 push cores
yielded bulk densities that ranged from 1.26–2.15 g/cm
3
, with an average of 1.63 g/cm
3
. Bulk density (nodules plus void
space between nodules) analysis was also conducted on the >8 mm sieved fractions of seven grab samples and the 0.8–8
mm sieved fractions from five grab samples. Most of the fractions are described as being ‘clean nodules’, with three also
containing ‘few limestones’ or ‘some shells’. Excluding one coral-rich outlier, the >8 mm and 0.8–8 mm fractions had bulk
density ranges of 1.57–1.68 g/cm
3
and 1.54–1.77 g/cm
3
, respectively.
Table 11-1: Bulk sediment and bulk nodule densities determined from RV Dorado Discovery samples.
Sample type Average Wet Bulk Density (g/cm
3
) Number of Samples
Push core bulk sediment 1.63 44
Bulk phosphorite nodules >8 mm 1.57–1.68 5
Bulk phosphorite nodules 0.8–8 mm 1.54–1.77 5
11.3 Security
11.3.1 MV Tranquil Image Cruise
No special security measures were taken with respect to the collection and storage of samples from the MV Tranquil Image
Cruise as this was not necessary.
11.3.2 RV Dorado Discovery Cruises
No special security measures were taken, as the possibility of contamination or alteration of the samples was deemed
extremely unlikely.
11.4 Data Quality
Every data collection process implicitly comes with expectations for the accuracy and precision of the data being collected.
Data quality can only be discussed in the context of the objective for which the data are being collected. In the minerals
industry, the term ‘fit for purpose’ is typically used to convey the principle that data should suit the objective. In the context
of data quality objectives (DQOs), fit for purpose could be translated as ‘meeting the DQOs’.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 89 of 147
For CRP, the quality of the samples and associated data needs to be fit for the purposes of classifying Mineral Resources
in at least the Inferred category, in accordance with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM)
guidelines (CIM, 2019).
11.4.1 MV Tranquil Image Cruise
Only a basic description of the sampling process was available for review. The process described does not explain the steps
to be taken to prevent sample bias or to control the accuracy and precision of measurements and calculations. No
information was available on the method of subsampling prior to sieving; therefore, the procedures followed are unclear,
and the QP is unable to determine whether the processes were always in control. The QP notes that the practice of removing
subsamples for various onshore tests resulted in the original sample being reduced in size in a manner that is likely to add
further error and possibly introduce bias to calculated phosphorite grades.
The QP estimated grade for the samples by multiplying the dry phosphorite weight percentages (assumed to be equivalent
to the >2 mm dry weight percentage) of the samples by the average dry density of phosphate nodules. Although this
calculation may remove the error associated with calculating contained kilograms of phosphorite from a sample that has
previously had material removed, it assumes that the sieved portion of the grab sediment is composed entirely of
phosphorite and proportionally representative of the >2 mm fraction of the bulk sediment prior to subsampling. In addition,
using a dry weight percentage assumes that all the constituents of the bulk sediment have the same density, which is
demonstrably not the case, and will therefore yield calculated grades that are significant overestimates of true grade. As
grab samples were not processed in their entirety and data on the weight, volume and moisture content of the sieved
samples were not included in the supplied analysis data, reliable phosphorite grades cannot be determined for the MV
Tranquil Image samples.
The QP has a number of concerns with the RV Dorado Discovery grab sampler and box core sample processing data.
Previous calculations of the nodule abundance of the grab samples assumed all of the sediment in the >8 mm and 0.8–8
mm fractions was phosphorite. Although the data indicate that phosphorite is the dominant constituent in both fractions for
most of the samples, non-phosphorite sediment constituents (such as shells, erratics, and other lithics) are known to be
present in the samples but have not been accounted for. The QP attempted to limit the error introduced by this assumption
by using the available constituent data for the sieved fractions (Berthelsen et al., 2012; Nielsen, 2012c) to estimate the
actual phosphorite content of the sieved fractions. As some of the sediment in each grab sample was not sieved, the
calculated phosphorite content (kg) is likely to be an underestimate of the total amount of phosphorite at any given sample
location, which when divided by the sample area of the grab sampler will yield a nodule abundance lower than the actual
nodule abundance for that sample. Grades determined from these data assume that the material processed by sieving was
representative of the original bulk grab sample.
Due to the sieved fractions of the grab samples being processed in different ways (weight percentage data were collected
for the >8 mm fraction and constituent grain percentage for the 0.8–8 mm fraction, and not for every sample). The observed
relationship between the phosphorite content of the >8 mm fraction and the 0.8–8 mm fraction for which both fractions were
assessed was used to estimate the phosphorite content in the 0.8–8 mm fraction for samples without this data recorded.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 90 of 147
Determining the phosphorite content of the >0.8 mm fraction of grab samples subsequently assumes the density of all the
constituents, both phosphorite and non-phosphorite, are the same. As the phosphorite grade of the samples was calculated
by relying on a number of flawed assumptions and imprecise relationships between the sieved fraction data, the calculated
grades for the RV Dorado Discovery grab samples are unreliable. The QP has assigned a lower SQR to those data, allowing
them to be identified and restricted from being used in resource estimation.
With respect to the RV Dorado Discovery box core samples, the QP notes that applying a volume per cent to a weight per
cent in the case of the 2—8 mm sieved fraction assumes that the density of all constituents is the same, which is not the
case. The QP also notes that the difference between the sieved fraction ranges of 0.8—8 mm (grab sampler) and 2—8 mm
(box core samples) means that using the volume per cent of phosphorite from the grab samples to proportion the weight
per cent of phosphorite in the box core samples is likely to be inaccurate and lead to an underestimation in grade as it does
not take the removal of the 1–2 mm sand fraction (assumed to be comparatively phosphorite poor) from the box core sieved
fraction into account. This is in contrast to the overestimation in grade expected if no correction factors are applied.
The QP further notes that as push cores had already been collected from the box core samples prior to processing,
calculated contained kilograms of phosphorite may be less than the total amount of phosphorite that was in the original
sample. Similarly, dividing this value by the volume of the box corer sample rather than the volume of the sieved sample
means that the calculated grades for the 21 measured box-core samples would, in the absence of other errors, lead to an
underestimation of true grade. The errors and assumptions inherent in the calculation of the grades of these samples make
them unreliable and consequently they have been assigned low SQR and excluded from the resource estimation.
11.4.2 RV Dorado Discovery Cruises
Detailed descriptions were available of the sampling process itself; however, there were several flaws in the procedures
and equipment used. No duplicate samples were collected for quality control analysis; therefore, the QP cannot confirm
whether the processes were in control, and the accuracy and precision of the data cannot be assessed.
The QP has a number of concerns about the RV Dorado Discovery grab sampler and box-core sample processing data.
Previous calculations of the nodule abundance of the grab samples assumed all of the sediment in the >8 mm and 0.8–8
mm fractions was phosphorite. Although the data indicate that phosphorite is the dominant constituent in both fractions for
most of the samples, non-phosphorite sediment constituents (such as shells, erratics, and other lithics) are known to be
present in the samples but have not been accounted for. The QP attempted to limit the error introduced by this assumption
by using the available constituent data for the sieved fractions (Berthelsen et al., 2012; Nielsen, 2012c) to estimate the
actual phosphorite content of the sieved fractions. As some of the sediment in each grab sample was not sieved, the
calculated phosphorite content (kg) is likely to be an underestimate of the total amount of phosphorite at any given sample
location, which when divided by the sample area of the grab sampler will yield a nodule abundance lower than the actual
nodule abundance for that sample. Grades determined from these data assume that the material processed by sieving was
representative of the original bulk-grab sample.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 91 of 147
Due to the sieved fractions of the grab samples being processed in different ways (weight percentage data were collected
for the >8 mm fraction and constituent grain percentage for the 0.8–8 mm fraction, and not for every sample). The observed
relationship between the phosphorite content of the >8 mm fraction and the 0.8–8 mm fraction for which both fractions were
assessed was used to estimate the phosphorite content in the 0.8–8 mm fraction for samples without these data recorded.
Determining the phosphorite content of the >0.8 mm fraction of grab samples subsequently assumes the density of all the
constituents, both phosphorite and non-phosphorite, are the same. As the phosphorite grade of the samples was calculated
by relying on a number of flawed assumptions and imprecise relationships between the sieved fraction data, the calculated
grades for the RV Dorado Discovery grab samples are unreliable. The QP has assigned these data a lower SQR, allowing
them to be identified and restricted from being used in resource estimation.
With respect to the RV Dorado Discovery box core samples, the QP notes that applying a volume per cent to a weight per
cent in the case of the 2—8 mm sieved fraction assumes that the density of all constituents is the same, which is not the
case. The QP also notes that the difference between the sieved fraction ranges of 0.8—8 mm (grab sampler) and 2—8 mm
(box core samples) means that using the volume percent of phosphorite from the grab samples to proportion the weight per
cent of phosphorite in the box core samples is likely to be inaccurate and lead to an underestimation in grade as it does not
take the removal of the 1–2 mm sand fraction (which is typically comparatively phosphorite poor) from the box core sieved
fraction into account. This is in contrast to the overestimation in grade expected if no correction factors are applied.
The QP further notes that as push cores had already been collected from the box core samples prior to processing,
calculated contained kilograms of phosphorite may be less than the total amount of phosphorite that was in the original
sample. Similarly, dividing this value by the volume of the box corer sample rather than the volume of the sieved sample
means that the calculated grades for the 21 measured box-core samples would, in the absence of other errors, lead to an
underestimation of true grade. The errors and assumptions inherent in the calculation of the grades of these samples make
them unreliable and consequently they have been assigned low SQR and excluded from the resource estimation.
11.4.3 Quality Acceptance Testing
Quality acceptance testing (QAT) is where a final judgement of the data is made by assessing the accuracy and precision
of the data for those periods where the process was demonstrated to be in control, and separately for those periods where
the process was demonstrated to be not in control. Accuracy and precision are evaluated, and a final pass/fail assessment
is made based on the DQO.
No quantitative quality data were available for samples collected on either of the cruises; therefore, accepting the quality
(accuracy and precision) of the data based on statistically defined thresholds is not possible. In the absence of such data,
the QP has determined an SQR for all available datasets from the MV Tranquil Image and RV Dorado Discovery cruises as
a relative check to identify low-quality data for exclusion from the MRE, and remaining data are assumed fit for the purposes
of classifying an Inferred Mineral Resource in accordance with the CIM guidelines (CIM, 2019).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 92 of 147
11.5 Sample Data Quality Ranking
The overall quality of the data was assessed in as much detail as practicable. This is a critical part of the assessment of the
data, as it depicts the quality threshold to either allow or disallow data to be used in the estimation process. Across and
even within the various sampling campaigns, different sampling, subsampling, logging, volume and depth measurements,
grade calculations, and location measurements have occurred, and a matrix was constructed to rank the impact of all these
factors and assign each sample an SQR (Figure 11-2 and Table 11-2). Quality assurance and quality control measures
varied significantly between the various campaigns.

Figure 11-2: Sample location and Sample Quality Ranking values.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 93 of 147
Table 11-2: Description of Sample Quality Ranking assignment.
SQR CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
NUMBER OF SAMPLES
GLOBAL
MARINE
TANGAROA VALDIVIA SONNE
TRANQUIL
IMAGE
DORADO
DISCOVERY
1
SONNE only; grab samples, ATNAV, chalk
present (sampled full profile), not full bucket
(assume ~100% recovery)

208


2
SONNE: grab sample, ATNAV, no chalk (not
sampled full profile), not full bucket (assume
~100% recovery)

37 50


VALDIVIA: large grab sample, ATNAV, <5%
difference in volume from modelled, not
subsampled for sieving
3
SONNE: grab sample, ATNAV, full bucket
(possible sediment loss/sampling bias) or
minor data inconsistencies

67 118


VALDIVIA: large grab sample, <10%
difference in volume from modelled, not
subsampled for sieving; OR small grab
sample, ATNAV, <5% difference in volume
from modelled, not subsampled for sieving
4
SONNE: grab sample, SATNAV, chalk present
or absent, partial or full bucket

102 113


VALDIVIA: large or small grab sample, ATNAV
or SATNAV, <15% difference in volume from
modelled, subsampled for sieving or not
5
SONNE: grab sample, SATNAV, data
inconsistencies, calculated bulk sample
density <1 or >3 g/cm
3


278 19

22
VALDIVIA: large or small grab or box core
sample, ATNAV or SATNAV, >15% but <40%
difference in volume from modelled
DORADO DISCOVERY: box core sample,
GPS, average PH% factored fraction weight %
6
SONNE: any kind of sample, washed out
sample, ATNAV or SATNAV
320 18 136 4 45 124
VALDIVIA: large or small grab sample,
washed out sample or >40% difference in
volume from modelled, ATNAV or SATNAV
TRANQUIL IMAGE: grab sample, PH% >2mm
fraction recorded
DORADO DISCOVERY: box core sample,
visually estimated PH% only; OR grab sample
GLOBAL MARINE: dredge sample, non-
validated data, estimated PH%
TANGAROA: box core sample, non-validated
data, measured PH weight % or visually
estimated PH%
7
ALL: successful samples with non-usable data
(no PH% recorded, no location data); OR
samples that failed due to technical failure
17 35 69 37 10 67
TOTAL SAMPLES: 337 53 689 549 55 213

The best-quality samples were typically those that were collected using the pneumatic grab sampler, sampled the full sand
horizon, had high survey accuracy, and had no other apparent data ambiguities. These samples were large and
representative, with appropriate and consistent measurements. The QP considers samples collected during the RV Sonne
cruise to be of the highest quality, followed by some of the RV Valdivia samples and then the box core samples from the
RV Dorado Discovery cruise. The best-quality samples were assigned a ranking of 1, and the worst-quality samples were

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 94 of 147
assigned a rank of 7. Samples ranked 5–7 were not included in the resource estimation. Samples classified as 7 include
samples that failed due to technical failure, samples with no recovered sediment due to technical failure, samples collected
but no data recorded (phosphorite per cent, weights, or location), and samples with no location coordinates. Samples
classified as 6 include non-validated data, samples documented as washed out, or otherwise biased samples. Samples
classified as 5 include validated samples with acceptable location accuracy but with demonstrated unacceptable bias in the
grades due to suspected washing of the samples or errors in visual estimation of the grade.
The QP considers pneumatic grab sampling to be the best possible sampling mechanism for this deposit. This type of
sampling collects a large sample and therefore suitably deals with the high sample variance (within the boundaries of
practicalities). The pneumatic system provides a good control on the representativeness of the sample. Core drilling has
been considered and attempted for this deposit but would collect a much smaller sample and is impractical, as the underlying
ooze and chalk layers are difficult to core, resulting in lost core and lost equipment.
The QP considers sample data collected from the RV Valdivia and the RV Sonne that have been assigned an SQR of 1–4
(inclusive; see Figure 11-2) to be of sufficient quality for the classification of Inferred Mineral Resources.
11.6 Summary
The QP notes several concerns with the sampling process used on the MV Tranquil Image. Potential sample bias and
assumptions affecting the MV Tranquil Image samples include:
 the Van Veen sampler was not mechanically controlled and lacked the ability to sample the entire nodule-rich
sediment layer; no weights were used to facilitate greater penetration as was done with RV Valdivia sampling;
 nodules/erratics could get caught in the Van Veen jaws, resulting in the sample being washed out;
 the Van Veen grab sample volume is too small to reliably sample the thickness and style of deposit;
 penetration depths were not documented;
 some subsampling has taken place on the ship, but it is not known whether these subsamples are representative
of the samples;
 it is not clear from the sample data if the phosphorite weight percentages have been calculated from the whole
sample or a subsample, and moisture content has not been adjusted for in calculating these weight percentages,
 the phosphorite grade of the samples has been estimated using dry sieved weight percentages for sieved material
over 2 mm and proportioned against the wet weights, resulting in an over estimation of grade; and
 it has been assumed that all material >2 mm is phosphorite.
The QP also notes several concerns with the sampling process used on the RV Dorado Discovery. Potential sampling bias
and assumptions affecting the RV Dorado Discovery samples include:
 all grab samples have been exposed to some degree of washing, which results in loss of fines and overestimation
of phosphorite concentration; the samples are therefore likely biased to higher grades;
 phosphorite estimation for the grab samples is based on a weight per cent phosphorite in the >8 mm size fraction,
and assumes density is the same for all constituents in the fraction;

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 95 of 147
 phosphorite volume percentages for the 0.8–8 mm grab sample fractions were determined by point counting very
small subsamples of the total sediment fraction, and there is a risk the small samples were not representative of
the bulk sediment fraction;
 phosphorite volume percentages for the 0.8–8 mm grab sample fractions were only quantitatively determined for
12 of the 45 successful grab samples, and the remainder were estimated based on a poorly constrained
relationship between the amount of phosphorite in each sieved fraction;
 the QP has estimated the volume of the large grab based on dimensions provided by Simon Nielsen and images
of the grab sampler;
 the QP has assumed that the volume cut into the seafloor with the sampling method is a vertical-sided cut, with
equal depth across the sample, and no curved edges or central ridge of sediment left behind where the jaws close;
based on the sample volume of 1.31 m
3
, the maximum depth sampled can be 47 cm (assuming no sample loss);
 box core penetration depths have been visually estimated;
 grade estimations from the box core data assume that the constituents of the >8 mm sieved fractions have the
same density; and
 correction factors for phosphorite content in the box core sieved fractions assume that the grain size distribution of
sediment is comparable between samples collected by the different grab sampler and box core methods, and that
the sieved fractions are equivalent despite different mesh sizes (>8 mm and 0.8–8 mm for grab samples and >8 mm
and 2–8 mm for box core samples).
The QP has only partially validated the sample data from the MV Tranquil Image and RV Dorado Discovery cruises. For all
datasets, samples have been assigned SQR values, but due to the incomplete record of sample processing results, the
samples have been assigned low quality rankings and have not been included in the data used for the resource model
(Section 11.4).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 96 of 147
12. Data Verification
The QP confirms that at the effective date of the Report, no material work had been conducted on the Project since the
QP’s visit to CRP’s subsampling site in January 2014. To verify this, the QP discussed the Project’s progress with CRP,
and reviewed public announcements made by CRP.
12.1 Data Verification Procedures
A digital database was supplied to the QP by consultants from Kenex Knowledge Systems Ltd (Kenex) who had been
involved with the data management from the start of the Project and data collection for the RV Dorado Discovery cruises.
Compilation of the database was a collaborative effort by Kenex and NIWA. NIWA compiled the RV Valdivia and RV Sonne
data from hard-copy maps and scanned sample sheets. The Global Marine, MV Tranquil Image, and RV Dorado Discovery
data were later added by Kenex. No data were compiled from the RV Tangaroa cruise, and these have been sourced from
Cullen (1978). Kenex added calculation fields from the historical data to further analyse sample grade estimations and
prospectivity analyses.
The data were stored in Microsoft Access tables and exported by the QP into flat Microsoft Excel tables to facilitate
verification.
In addition to the Microsoft Access database, the following data were provided to the QP from each cruise.
RV Valdivia Cruise: 1978
Scanned copies of the raw data sheets for all 689 samples collected aboard the RV Valdivia were made available to the
QP. The information recorded on these sheets included sample number, sample apparatus, penetration depth and/or
sample volume, as well as a brief shorthand geological description using prescribed logging codes that included a rough
estimate of phosphorite content. A search of archived material at BGR by Dr Hermann Kudrass, scanned copies of hand-
written data tables detailing the sample number, presence/absence of ooze, volume of sample that was processed by
sieving, volume of >1 mm sieved fraction, estimated phosphorite content (%) of the >1 mm fraction, maximum phosphorite
nodule size, and calculated phosphorite volume percent for each sieved sample were located. This information was
duplicated on a printout of an old digital database found with the hand-written data tables, with a few historical corrections
having occurred between the sheets. It is not clear whether the hand-written data tables are the original field sheets on
which sieve data were recorded. These hand-written data sheets also record information on the grain size distribution of 65
samples sieved into >32 mm, 16–32 mm, 16–8 mm, 8–4 mm, 4–2 mm, and <2 mm fractions; however, the records of these
fractions are barely legible.
RV Sonne Cruise: 1981
Scanned copies of the raw data sheets for all 550 samples collected aboard the RV Sonne were available. The information
recorded on these sheets included the sample number, sample apparatus, penetration depth, sample weight, sand/chalk
thickness, sieved fraction weights, phosphorite percent, and shorthand geological description. The shipboard analyses

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 97 of 147
sheet included all of the above details plus phosphorite weight per cent, phosphorite nodule abundance (kg/m
2
), and simple
geological logs. The ship station sheet included all positioning recording and times used for the location of the samples.
MV Tranquil Image: 2011
Copies of the IXSurvey reports detailing the cruise activity and samples taken were provided. Data in these reports included
the sample number, sample location, depth to sample, sample method, a photograph, and a brief sample description.
Separation, density, and geochemical analyses were supplied as individual Microsoft Excel files.
RV Dorado Discovery: 2011–2012
Copies of the CRP RV Dorado Discovery cruise reports detailing cruise activity and collected samples were provided. Data
in these reports included the sample number, sample location, depth to sample, grab sampler fill per cent, bag weight,
glauconitic sand per cent, nodules per cent, nodules maximum size, a brief geological description, and shear strength.
Separation analyses were also received from CRL in the form of Microsoft Excel files.
The QP conducted a thorough validation of the RV Valdivia and RV Sonne data and a best-possible validation of the MV
Tranquil Image and RV Dorado Discovery data.
The review of the RV Valdivia data was limited to the available data presented on the raw sample sheets, and a tabulated
record dating from the time of the cruise recording the results of the shipboard processing. The raw data sheets for sieving
were unavailable. Combined, these data recorded sample penetration depth, sample volume, geological descriptions,
presence/absence of foraminiferal ooze, volume of samples/subsamples that were sieved, volume of >1 mm sieved fraction,
visually estimated phosphorite content of >1 mm sieved fraction, maximum phosphorite nodule diameter, and calculated
phosphorite volume per cent. The QP validated the recorded values for penetration depth, sample volume, sieved >1 mm
fraction volume, and estimated phosphorite per cent with values in the database.
The review of the RV Valdivia data revealed the following inconsistencies:
 transcription errors between the written sample sheets and the database;
 missing data;
 minor calculation errors between fields; and
 rounding errors.
All inconsistencies were either resolved or the ranking of the sample quality appropriately downgraded. The QP has not
validated other RV Valdivia data collected on the cruise.
The review of the RV Sonne data revealed of the following data inconsistencies:
 transcription errors between the written sample sheets and the database;
 missing data;
 minor calculation errors between fields;
 rounding errors; and
 grade calculations being inconsistent with documented methods.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 98 of 147
All inconsistencies were either resolved or the SQR appropriately downgraded. The QP has validated the RV Sonne data,
and these numbers have been used in updated grade calculations. The QP has not validated other geotechnical,
geochemical, and geophysical data collected during the RV Sonne cruise.
The QP validated 10% of the RV Dorado Discovery and MV Tranquil Image data and found no significant issues. Data from
the Global Marine and RV Tangaroa work have been accepted at face value, as original data were not available. None of
the Global Marine or RV Tangaroa data have been included in the resource estimation.
12.2 Visual Verification of Nodules
During Cruises 2, 3, and 4 on the RV Dorado Discovery, an ROV was deployed and images recorded from the seafloor in
a number of detailed transects with a rough station spacing of 1–20 m. Data collected included the occurrence of phosphorite
nodules on the surface of the seafloor. Where nodules were observed, they were described further with an average size
and overall abundance.
The QP attempted to determine whether there is a relationship between nodule abundance and the phosphorite grade of
the nearest samples with doubtful sample quality rankings. However, with the lack of suitably close samples, a positive
correlation between phosphorite grade and counted slides of phosphorite abundance could not be demonstrated. The ROV
images confirm the existence of phosphorite nodules at a few RV Dorado Discovery sample sites, as presented in Figure
12-1 and Figure 12-2. These images also demonstrate the visual differences between higher-grade and lower-grade sites.
Importantly, along the ROV sample line transects, the images and nodule counts also confirm the high short-range variability
of the sample grades.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 99 of 147

Figure 12-1: Grab sample site for DD016 (193 Ph kg/m
3
).

Figure 12-2: Grab sample site for DD025 (695 Ph kg/m
3
).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 100 of 147
12.3 CPT Depth Data vs Sample Depth
CPTs were conducted in the Project area during the third RV Dorado Discovery cruise. In total, 125 tests were conducted
along 26 transects at a 50-m spacing (Figure 12-3). The QP assessed CPT results along each transect with respect to the
interpreted thickness of glauconitic sand and the variability of that thickness along each transect. The results indicated that
sand depths were often considerably thicker than the sample depths determined by seafloor sampling (average 0.23 m),
with an average sand depth of 0.47 m (maximum 2.27 m). However, the CPT data include several mixed populations, with
the main population ranging from 10–40 cm in thickness (Figure 12-4). When a full bucket was collected in the sampling
programmes, the thickness was set to the maximum penetration depth of the bucket, although the sediment could have
been much thicker, as demonstrated by the CPT data. This needs to be taken into consideration when comparing the
averages between the sample depths and CPT depths.
The CPT data indicate that the base of the sand is typically deeper than the depths obtained from sampling, suggesting
additional exploration potential. The MRE presented in section 14 is based on the thickness determined from the sampling,
which was limited to the top 40 cm. Although current mining concepts focus on resources in the top 30–40 cm of the sand
unit, additional resources could be developed at depths >40 cm if these zones are found to host economic phosphorite
grades (Figure 12-5). The quality of the CPT depth data has not been validated by the QP, and the data were not used in
the resource estimation.

Figure 12-3: CPT sample areas (black dots).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 101 of 147

Figure 12-4: Histogram of CPT depth data. Mixed populations indicate two or more areas with different thickness. The
dominant depth ranges from 10–40 cm, which is consistent with the sampling data.

Figure 12-5: Schematic sand and chalk profile with potential tonnages below the sampled depth.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 102 of 147
13. Mineral Processing & Metallurgical Testing
13.1 Beneficiation
The QP considers that the phosphorite material to eventually be mined from the Chatham Rise is a bulk product that will be
sold to customers in its recovered raw state. Recoveries of the phosphorite resource from the seafloor w be controlled by
the dredging (mining) process and all material received at the ship will be processed through a separation plant, with the
>2 mm fraction retained and stored in the ship’s hold.
The final product would be an unsorted >2 mm size fraction recovered from the seafloor and will include shell, chalk,
limestone and other rock fragments. These components will be a diluting factor for the final phosphorite grade. The RV
Sonne data indicate that the average visual estimation of non-phosphorite content in the >1 mm fraction is 15 volume
percent (samples with no phosphorite were not counted). It is noted that the density of the impurities is less than the
phosphorite nodules and therefore by weight percentage, this number is expected by the QP to be lower.
CRP has conducted several beneficiation tests. Grinding and flotation tests were carried out by Mintek in 2011 and results
indicated beneficiation of <1 wt% P
2
O
5
with an 88.6% recovery into a concentrate. The difference in P
2
O
5
content between
the concentrate and tailings is about 1 wt% P
2
O
5
, which Johnston (2013) suggests is because the conventional grinding
and flotation process is not suitable for beneficiating the P
2
O
5
levels in the Chatham Rise ore.
A laboratory-scale study by Johnston and Tate (2013) on one sample from the RV Dorado Discovery cruise (DD06)
demonstrated that the preferred beneficiation conditions for increasing the P
2
O
5
grade of the ground Chatham Rise ore by
calcination and ensuing acetic acid leaching are flash calcination of the Chatham Rise ore for ten minutes followed by
quenching before leaching with 0.1 M acetic acid at a ratio of 1:4 solid ore to acetic acid for a period of 30 minutes. This
should beneficiate the P
2
O
5
by ~6–7% to give a final P
2
O
5
grade of 27–28 wt%. However, this process is not being
considered due to the predicted high processing costs.
13.2 Grain Size Separation
Boskalis investigated the implications of minimum grain separation scenarios (Figure 13-1). As the cut-off size increases,
the percentage of material retained decreases, but the remaining grade of the concentrate increases. At the originally
intended separation system cut-off was 1 mm, the effective retention of phosphorite material brought onto the vessel would
be ~96%; only 4% would be lost and returned to the seabed. However, the product produced would contain 64% rock
phosphorite and 36% impurities (erratics, chalk, biological organisms). Separation at 2 mm would reduce the retention to
~92%, with 8% returned as tailings. However, the quality of the product improves, as ~73% of the retained material would
be rock phosphorite, with 27% impurities. It is not clear which samples this work was carried out on, and whether they are
representative of the mineral resource. The QP therefore does not consider the diluting percentages reported by Boskalis
to be comparable with the visual estimation of impurities from the RV Sonne data. Rather, they are the result of tests on a
single non-representative sample.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 103 of 147

Figure 13-1: Separation scenarios.
13.3 Major Element Geochemistry
Analyses were completed for major element chemistry and trace elements on both RV Valdivia and RV Sonne samples in
two size fractions >8 mm and 1–8 mm (Kudrass & Cullen, 1982; Kudrass, 1984). These demonstrated significant correlation
of chemistry with nodule size (Table 13-1). Larger nodules had lower P
2
O
5
and higher CaO contents than the smaller
nodules. In 78 analyses from 47 RV Sonne samples, the >8 mm nodules averaged 19.8% P
2
O
5
and the 1–8 mm nodules
averaged 21.6%. In 63 RV Valdivia screened samples >1 mm derived from respective bulk samples, the P
2
O
5
average was
22.0%. The large nodules have higher CaO and lower K
2
O, SiO
2
and Fe
2
O
3
relative to the smaller nodules. The P
2
O
5

concentration is reduced in smaller nodules by the glauconite coating and in larger nodules by calcite in the core (Kudrass
& Cullen, 1982). The relatively high Fe
2
O
3
content of the outer layer of some nodules reflects the presence of goethite in
the coating. P
2
O
5
and U are slightly concentrated in the transition zone. The contribution of the outer layer to the total volume
of the nodules decreases with increasing nodule size. The positive correlation of median nodule diameter with, for example,
K
2
O concentration is also a reflection of the presence of the coating glauconite. A concentration of 7.54% K
2
O (which
corresponds to 100% glauconite) results in a theoretical median of 0.25–0.125 mm, which is consistent with the estimated
thickness of 0.11 mm for the glauconite coating. The highest P
2
O
5
concentrations occur in the 4–8 mm grain size fraction;
in the RV Tangaroa sample data (Pasho, 1976), this was found to be in the 5–10 mm fraction. The histograms for the
number of samples with a particular elemental oxide composition for the RV Sonne data are presented in Figure 13-2.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 104 of 147
Table 13-1: Average chemical composition (wt%) bulk sample and 1(2)–8 mm and >8 mm size fractions for Chatham Rise
phosphorite nodules (Johnston, 2013).
Sample SiO
2
TiO
2
Al
2
O
3
Fe
2
O
3
MgO CaO Na
2
O P
2
O
5
K
2
O SO
3
F LOI
Sonne Average 7.82 0.03 1.11 3.48 0.71 43.65 1 20.69 1.04 1.6 17.26
Sonne Avg. >8 mm 3.17 0.02 0.47 2.09 0.41 48.41 0.89 19.84 0.42 1.38 21.27
Sonne Avg. 1–8 mm 12.48 0.04 1.75 4.87 1 38.88 1.11 21.53 1.65 1.83 13.25
DD Average 8.36 0.97 4.45 1 43.86 0.51 19.81 0.83 1.38 2.54 15.89
DD Avg. >8 mm 4.96 0.66 3.2 0.72 47.28 0.44 19.23 0.19 1.35 2.56 18.97
DD Avg. 2–8 mm 11.73 1.29 5.68 1.29 40.47 0.59 20.31 1.46 1.42 2.52 12.92
TI Average 9.38 1.28 4.59 1.03 42.85 19.92 0.89 1.4 2.47 15.13
TI Avg. >8 mm 6.2 1 3.34 0.74 46.12 0.42 19.62 0.37 1.38 2.58 17.61
TI Avg. 2–8 mm 12.56 1.56 5.84 1.32 39.59 .55 20.22 1.42 1.43 2.36 12.64
Note:
1. The QP notes that the geochemical data discussed in this section are not necessarily representative of the mineral resource, and further
work is required to establish more accurate phosphate grades for the Chatham Rise deposit.
2. DD – RV Dorado Discovery; TI – MV Tranquil Image
CRP carried out a detailed particle size and chemical analysis on the suite of RV Dorado Discovery samples. The process
involved a sieve analysis to provide split fractions of the bulk RV Dorado Discovery samples into size ranges of 1.18–1.70
mm, 1.7–2.0 mm, 2.0–4.0 mm, 4.0–8.0 mm, 8.0–25.4 mm, and 25.4–80.0 mm. The chemical composition was determined
for each fraction by XRF analysis. Figure 13-3 provides a graphical representation of the P
2
O
5
, CaO, SiO
2
, and Fe
2
O
3

contents of the RV Dorado Discovery samples across the sieve size ranges and follows the trends seen in samples from
previous cruises. Johnston (2013) noted that if a particle size cut-off is to be invoked in the mining and processing operation,
then as far as P
2
O
5
is concerned, the particle size fraction smaller than ~2 mm should be separated and possibly discarded.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 105 of 147

Figure 13-2: Average P
2
O
5
, CaO, K
2
O, Fe
2
O
3
, and Al
2
O
3
contents for each of the respective composition ranges for the
2–8 mm and >8 mm size fractions for the RV Sonne samples (Johnston, 2013).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 106 of 147

Figure 13-3: P
2
O
5
, CaO, SiO
2
, and Fe
2
O
3
contents of sieved RV Dorado Discovery samples (Johnston, 2013).

13.4 Trace Elements
Trace element distributions are similar for larger and smaller nodules. Some elements, e.g. Cu, Mo, Ba, Co, and V, are
typically evenly distributed in nodules of all sizes, and are thought to be original constituents of the parent limestone. In
contrast, Sr, Th, and U occur in higher proportions in nodules measuring 8–64 mm and are presumed to have been
introduced during phosphatisation. In nodules <8 mm, the dominant constituents are As, Ni, Pb, Rb, Y, Zn, and Zr, and their
introduction may be associated with impregnation by glauconite. Uranium concentrations are elevated, with an average

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 107 of 147
grade of 216 ppm in the RV Sonne samples, and may even attain ore grade with U being extractable during processing that
involves solution (Syer et al., 1986; Cullen, 1987). However, even if the phosphorite was used as an unprocessed, direct-
application fertiliser, studies suggest there is little risk of U contaminating livestock or building up in the soil (Cullen, 1987).
Tests by Syers et al. (1986) indicate that the phosphorite from the Chatham Rise is very low in Cd (2 mg/kg) and As (below
level of detection). This was also the case for the RV Dorado Discovery samples, where 13 samples analysed on both
coarse and fine fractions did not return Cd levels over the limit of detection (<2 ppm). Sayers also noted elevated Uat 100
mg/kg; however, the QP cannot confirm the source of the phosphorite sample used for this analysis. The analysis of
sediment presented in Golder Associates (2013) included the abundance of key environmental trace elements. Elements
such as As (about 6 mg/kg in sediment and <4 mg/kg in chalk) and Cd were low (0.2 mg/kg in surface sediment and 0.3
mg/kg in chalk), even though Cd is often associated with phosphorites. Mercury (Hg) abundances were low, at ~0.06 mg/kg
in surface sediments and ~0.04 mg/kg in chalk samples.
Further work is needed to assess metallurgical variations between geological facies. Deleterious elements are not
considered to be an issue; however, the QP recommends that any future testwork includes systematic analysis of As, Cd,
and U.
13.5 Recovery
Boskalis undertook studies for the provision of a separation plant on a ship similar to the Queen of the Netherlands. The
proposed processing plant would contain four parallel processing streams for the coarse fraction (>8 mm) separation and
two to four processing streams for the finer (2–8 mm) fraction separation. The separation concept is illustrated in Figure
13-4.
Most of the sampling data informing the MRE were from grain fractions of >1 mm, whereas the Boskalis’ conceptual
separation plant studies assumed a >2 mm fraction, with smaller fractions returned to the ocean floor. A small percentage
of phosphorite nodules in the 1–2 mm fraction would therefore not be recovered. Limited size fraction analysis (CRL, 2013)
suggests that this may account for only ~1% loss of recovery, with a low concentration of P
2
O
5
(Johnston, 2013).
The QP notes that the samples used for the mineral processing and metallurgical testing are not necessarily representative
of the various types and styles of mineralisation at the Project or the mineral deposit as a whole. However, the QP considers
the level of testwork conducted to assess the metallurgical properties of the Chatham Rise Phosphorite deposit to provide
sufficient confidence for the classification of an Inferred Mineral Resource.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 108 of 147

Figure 13-4: Separation process proposed by Boskalis for the Queen of the Netherlands (Boskalis, 2013).

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 109 of 147
14. Mineral Resource Estimates
14.1 Informing Data
14.1.1 Data Handling
The data on which the mineral resource estimate (MRE) is based are stored in a Microsoft Access database. Because of
the simplicity of the data structure (i.e. a single table with two-dimensional points and grade data and no related or inter-
dependent tables or other data sheets), the QP considers this data storage solution is adequate. Microsoft Access database
update extracts would be prefixed with a date tag to denote the date of the database (YYMMDD) to allow proper version
control, both throughout the CRP exploration programmes as well as the database validation and upgrade process as part
of the estimation process. The database was stored on a cloud-based storage system that allows full audit trail and stores
a back-up of each new version of the database. Data for estimation were extracted from this database into a single flat
Microsoft Excel table.
During the CRP exploration work, the database was managed and administrated by employees of Kenex Knowledge
Systems Ltd (GIS specialists).
A new Mineral Resource has been estimated as part of the Report using mostly historical data validated and verified by the
QP. Since the Mineral Resource is based predominantly on historical data, a process was set up to ensure only validated
and verified data were included in the mineral resource estimate. Any data that could not be validated or verified were
flagged or a comment added so that the data could be excluded (see Section 11.4 for a more comprehensive discussion).
It is important to note that even though many data issues were resolved through the validation process, several issues
remain which simply cannot be resolved. Several assumptions were required to calculate final phosphorite grades for some
samples and these samples have been appropriately flagged and downgraded in the database. This has been considered
in the estimation process where relevant, ad has been taken into account when classifying the resource.
14.2 Interpretation & Model Definition
14.2.1 Geological Domains
Wireframes were created for ten different seismic facies to sub-domain the sample data sensibly and create appropriate
domains for grade estimation. However, given the large overall size of the area covered by the sampling campaigns, and
the relatively low resolution of the geological data within these large areas, the domains can only be considered applicable
to the large-scale variability of the data. It is not possible to define smaller-scale features like individual iceberg furrows into
domains at this stage. Thus, even though geological understanding of the process is considered sound, the resolution of
the data does not allow optimum application of this knowledge. This has been considered when classifying the Mineral
Resource.
The specific geological controls on mineralisation are discussed in Section 7.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 110 of 147
14.2.2 Estimation Domains
Beyond the constraint by geological domains, the MRE was not constrained by estimation domains. Extrapolation of grades
into blocks was therefore simply controlled by the size of the search ellipse, which was kept at short dimensions, based on
spatial analysis of the sample data.
14.2.3 Extrapolation
Extrapolation of data into poorly sampled areas was minimised.
14.2.4 Alternative Interpretations
Given the low resolution of the available wireframes for geological domains, it is possible to generate alternative
interpretations for the geology. Given the level of confidence at which the MRE is classified (see Section 14.12), it is not
expected that alternative interpretations would have a major impact on either Mineral Resource classification or grade
estimation.
14.2.5 Coding & Definition of Domains
Using the seismic facies domains described above, the sample data were coded into the ten different domains defined
during the seismic mapping (Figure 7-4). The data were further coded with a sample quality ranking (SQR) to investigate
the effects of including lower-quality data into the resource. Details of the SQR have been discussed in Section 11.4. The
SQR attribute has a large impact on the final resource figures. There are many different categories and factors influencing
the quality of the sample. An SQR value of 4 was used as a cut-off for the estimation process to ensure that only suitable
samples were included in the analysis.
Several checks were carried out to make sure that samples were correctly coded and to determine whether any samples
were missed in the coding process.
14.2.6 Sample Support
Sample support varies between the various sampling cruises and is considered a weakness of the available sample data.
The sample taken on the RV Sonne cruise was about eight times larger than on the RV Valdivia and MV Tranquil Image
cruises. This means there is relatively large sample variance within the RV Valdivia and MV Tranquil Image datasets,
although this is somewhat moderated by the consistency of the mineralisation.
Some of the smaller samples have been allowed into the estimation process, but they are limited to an SQR of 3–4 and are
subsequently also downgraded at the classification stage based on a high required minimum amount of informing samples.
In essence, high variance can be offset by an increase in sample numbers to still produce a reasonable estimate.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 111 of 147
14.3 Summary Statistics & Data Preparation
Data for each of the ten sub-domains were statistically analysed (Figure 7-4). Main points assessed were the number of
data points, mean, variance, covariance, histogram, cumulative frequency, and mean/variance vs top-cut. This was done at
an SQR top cut of 4. The sample data statistics are summarised in Table 14-1.

Table 14-1: Basic statistics for sample data for each domain (capped at SQR of 4).

No. of
Samples
Mean Grade
(Ph kg/m
3
)
Grade CV
(Ph kg/m
3
)
Mean Depth
(m)
Mean SQR
Domain 1 1 13

0.38 4.0
Domain 2 0

Domain 3 30 197 1.4 0.21 3.3
Domain 4 482 289 1.0 0.21 2.5
Domain 5 12 375 1.4 0.21 3.2
Domain 6 14 50 1.7 0.28 4.0
Domain 7 23 57 1.4 0.29 4.0
Domain 8 6 208 2.1 0.25 4.0
Domain 9 121 239 1.6 0.23 2.2
Domain 10 6 125 0.7 0.14 1.8
Total (Mean) 695 172 1.4 0.24 3.2
CV – coefficient of variation


The sample points for the RV Valdivia and RV Sonne cruises overlap in the central area and this allows statistical
comparison between the datasets in this area. For each sample of the RV Valdivia dataset, any points within the RV Sonne
dataset that fell within a radius of 400 m were flagged. For each RV Valdivia point there could be more than one RV Sonne
point within the radius, and vice versa. The process was capped at a quality ranking of 4 to only allow relatively good
samples to be compared. This resulted in 13 RV Valdivia points and 23 RV Sonne points (green triangles and green circles,
respectively, in Figure 14-1) for comparison. The averages for the two datasets are 313 Ph kg/m
3
(RV Valdivia) and
298 Ph kg/m
3
(RV Sonne) data. These are considered reasonable results and a positive indication that the RV Valdivia data
can be used together with the RV Sonne data in the model.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 112 of 147

Figure 14-1: Sample overlap (green) between RV Sonne (red circles) and RV Valdivia (blue triangles) cruises.
14.4 Grade Capping
Investigation of cumulative frequency, histograms, and mean/variance vs top-cut plots indicated that top-cutting was
warranted for the distribution in domain 9. A grade cap of 150 Ph kg/m
2
was chosen which caps two outlier samples to this
value and lowers the mean of the domain from 35 Ph kg/m
2
to 32 Ph kg/m
2
. The depth was not capped as it was limited to
the depth of the sampling tool used.
14.5 Spatial Analysis & Variography
Geological knowledge is the best guide to define directions of grade continuity. However, for this analysis the grade
continuity cannot be determined. A simple visual thematic representation of the grades within each of the established
geological domains in plan view does not indicate any consistent or coherent trends or directions. Two-dimensional
directional variography confirms this, with several short-range directions of increased coherence, mixed within each of the
ten domains. This may indicate a lack of high-resolution geological control on the mineralisation and that further sub-
domaining is required. However, this is not currently possible. This result has been considered when classifying the Mineral
Resource.

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 113 of 147
For this reason, a isotropic search is adopted on each domain. An omni-directional normal scores variogram was
constructed on facies domains 4 and 9 as well as the entire dataset, and capped at an SQR of 4, to investigate the nugget
effect and the variogram ranges as input parameters for the 2D Ordinary Kriging estimation process. Nested spherical
structures were used in normal scores transform to deal with the skewed dataset. Data were declustered and top-cut before
processing for smoother results. The result is presented in Figure 14-2.

Figure 14-2: Omni-directional variogram for the entire dataset, capped at a quality ranking of 4 indicates a high nugget of
65%, a short-range structure at around 1,000 m and 80% of the variance, with an overall range of around 3,000 m (using a
lag of 85 m).
14.6 Block Model
A block model was constructed that covers the main sampled area. A block size of 1 km × 1 km × 1 m was chosen, based
on the average data spacing in the main sample areas, in an attempt to maintain a balance between the sparsely sampled
and densely sampled areas. The model was brought into two dimensions (only one block in the z-direction) and all the
samples given an elevation of 0.5 m RL.
Attributes were assigned for depth, grade, nodule abundance, Mineral Resource class and SQR.

05001000150020002500300035004000
Sample Separaon (m)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
00-->000
Ph kg/m3 NormalScores Omni-direconal Variogram
129
244
376
430
523
578
592
607
639
684
687
786
747
833
876
853
1016
1033
1083
1090
1133
1171
1234
1255
1266
1340
1399
1353
1390
1440
1499
1474
1525
1538
1533
1647
1705
1717
1726
1725
1753
1766
1855
1786
1798
1807
1836
1889
1922
1998
1827
N( 0.64 )
Sph( 0.14, 1000 )
Sph( 0.22, 3000 )
Lag
85

CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHORITE PROJECT
CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LTD
Page 114 of 147
Table 14-2: Block model description.
Parameter X Y Z
Parent Block Size (m) 1000 1000 1000
Base Point Coordinates (corner) 655000 5140000 1
Size (m) 128000 60000 1
Size (blocks) 128 60 1
Azimuth(°) 0

Dip(°) 0

Pitch (°) 0


14.7 Search Neighbourhood Parameters
A isotropic search was applied, with a maximum search distance of 3,000 m. The minimum number of samples was set at
2 to allow sparsely sampled areas to be estimated (to also estimate the exploration potential outside the main mineral
resource). The maximum number of samples was set at 30.
14.8 Estimation
Estimation was performed using 2D accumulation Ordinary Kriging on the parameters Ph kg/m
2
(i.e. grade × Depth), Depth
and SQR. The 2D accumulation estimation is considered appropriate because there is a negative correlation between
thickness and grade, and variability in the vertical direction is disregarded as selective mining is not possible (Figure 14-3).
Each of the domains was estimated in isolation, i.e. neighbouring data from other seismic facies domains were excluded
from the estimation process. Each block therefore ended up with estimated values for Ph kg/m
2
, Depth and SQR. The grade
(Ph kg/m
3
) was then calculated by dividing Ph kg/m
2
by the estimated Depth for each block.
Phosphorite wet density was measured from nodules collected during the RV Valdivia (1978) and RV Sonne (1981) cruises.
However, estimation of density was not required for the estimation of wet tonnages, which are obtained from the direct
estimation of nodule abundance (Ph kg/m
2
).