• Hole CO11-26 assayed 29.8% Fe over 32.2m, including 35.4% over 12.0m;
• Hole CO11-53, the only hole drilled on Haig South, assayed 29.3% Fe over 46.3m, including 34.0% Fe over 14.0m;
• The company remains on track to release an initial NI 43-101 compliant resource estimate during Q1/2012.
In this set of assays, the thickness of the iron formation ranges from 32.2m to 59.6m and averages 47.9m, while average grades over these intervals range from 27.0% Fe to 29.8% Fe and average 28.8% Fe.
A table of intercepts and average grades is included below. All drill holes were oriented vertically and all core intervals represent true widths.
| Hole ID | Section Line | From (m) | To (m) | Width of Zone (m) | Average Intercept Fe% Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO11-24 | E | 68.8 | 114.4 | 45.6 | 28.3% |
| including | 68.8 | 84.0 | 15.2 | 32.3% | |
| CO11-25 | E | 83.3 | 127.3 | 44.1 | 28.9% |
| including | 83.3 | 97.3 | 14.0 | 34.7% | |
| CO11-26 | E | 101.8 | 134.0 | 32.2 | 29.8% |
| including | 101.8 | 113.8 | 12.0 | 35.4% | |
| CO11-28 | CD | 67.8 | 117.8 | 50.0 | 29.3% |
| including | 67.8 | 83.8 | 16.0 | 34.8% | |
| CO11-44 | AB | 57.3 | 103.3 | 46.0 | 29.6% |
| including | 57.3 | 75.3 | 18.0 | 33.9% | |
| CO11-45 | AB | 60.8 | 110.5 | 49.7 | 29.2% |
| including | 60.8 | 77.9 | 17.1 | 34.3% | |
| CO11-46 | BC | 66.3 | 113.0 | 46.7 | 29.6% |
| including | 66.3 | 82.3 | 16.0 | 35.3% | |
| CO11-49 | BC | 51.4 | 101.2 | 49.8 | 28.7% |
| including | 51.4 | 69.4 | 18.0 | 32.9% | |
| CO11-52 | G | 196.0 | 242.4 | 46.4 | 28.0% |
| including | 196.0 | 210.0 | 14.0 | 32.3% | |
| CO11-53 | Haig South | 118.9 | 165.2 | 46.3 | 29.3% |
| including | 118.9 | 132.9 | 14.0 | 34.0% | |
| CO11-54 | F | 135.8 | 184.9 | 49.1 | 28.5% |
| including | 135.8 | 151.8 | 16.0 | 33.3% | |
| CO11-55 | F | 193.8 | 246.2 | 52.4 | 29.0% |
| including | 193.8 | 209.8 | 16.0 | 34.9% | |
| CO11-58 | EF | 100.9 | 148.1 | 47.2 | 28.3% |
| including | 100.9 | 113.2 | 12.3 | 34.5% | |
| CO11-59A | EF | 108.8 | 156.2 | 47.4 | 29.4% |
| including | 108.8 | 120.8 | 12.0 | 36.2% | |
| CO11-60 | E | 44.8 | 90.6 | 45.9 | 29.1% |
| including | 44.8 | 60.8 | 16.0 | 33.4% | |
| CO11-61 | D | 84.5 | 130.5 | 46.0 | 28.4% |
| including | 84.5 | 96.5 | 12.0 | 33.4% | |
| CO11-62 | E | 100.2 | 159.0 | 58.8 | 28.3% |
| including | 100.2 | 116.0 | 15.8 | 33.6% | |
| CO11-63 | CD | 54.0 | 113.6 | 59.6 | 27.0% |
| including | 54.0 | 69.1 | 15.1 | 34.0% | |
| *Average | 47.9 | 28.8% | |||
| *Minimum | 32.2 | 27.0% | |||
| *Maximum | 59.6 | 29.8% |
Complete assay results, a drill plan map and drill collar coordinates are available on the Canadian Orebodies website at:
http://www.canadianorebodies.com/s/HaigInletIronOre.asp
About the Property
The Haig Inlet Iron Ore Project covers over 15,204 hectares on Flaherty Island in Nunavut. A significant amount of exploration work, including numerous widely-spaced diamond drill holes, was carried out on the property during the 1950's by Belcher Mining Corporation Ltd. ("BMC"). BMC's exploration programs targeted the Kipalu Formation of iron-bearing rocks, which is an iron formation of the Superior type. The Haig Inlet project is host to a significant unclassified historical resource estimate of 907 million tonnes grading 27% iron as defined in the government publication, "Northern Mineral Policy Series; NM1: Mines and Important Mineral Deposits of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, 1982* ".
*The mineral resource outlined here is a non-compliant NI 43-101 Mineral Resource since it is historical in nature and should not be relied upon. There is no direct evidence that these numbers or any portion thereof will ever be achieved at any time with further exploration work. These are historical resource estimates that do not comply with the current Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Resources (CIM) Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves as required by National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) "Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects." Historical BMC exploration results were studied by a qualified person and compared with other non-BMC exploration programs carried out on the Belcher Islands. Although conclusions support the presence of a large area of iron mineralization, the historical results are not considered reliable given an incomplete database of diamond drill hole logs and the lack of accurate collar surveying related to the BMC historical exploration programs. In addition, the unknown level of quality assurance/quality control implemented during the historic BMC programs, which is currently required to be carried out under the supervision of a qualified person as defined by NI 43-101 policy, questions the reliability and confidence in the historic estimate.
Quality Assurance, Quality Control and Qualified Person
All drilling samples have been prepared and analyzed by SGS Minerals Services ("SGS"), which is independent of Orebodies. Sample preparation and analyses were performed at the SGS laboratories based in Garson, Ontario and Lakefield, Ontario respectively. The samples were analyzed by XRF.
A thorough QA/QC program is in place which includes the submission by Orebodies of systematic standards samples within every sample batch submitted to SGS. In addition, SGS inserts its own duplicate samples. The results from these control samples indicate acceptable consistency of analysis.
This press release has been prepared under the supervision of Mr. Henry Hutteri (P.Geo.), who is an independent consultant to the Company and a "qualified person" (as such term is defined in National Instrument 43-101). Mr. Hutteri has verified the technical data disclosed in this press release.
For more information please contact:
Gordon McKinnon, President & CEO
Canadian Orebodies Inc.
(705) 268-9000
www.canadianorebodies.com
Forward Looking Information:
This press release contains certain "forward-looking statements". All statements, other than statements of historical fact, that address activities, events or developments that the Company believes, expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future (including, without limitation, statements relating to mineral resources, potential mineralization, exploration results and the Company's plans with respect to the exploration and development of the Properties) are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements reflect the current expectations or beliefs of the Company based on information currently available to the Company. Forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that may cause the actual results of the Company to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements, and even if such actual results are realized or substantially realized, there can be no assurance that they will have the expected consequences to, or effects on the Company. Factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, changes in commodity prices, changes in equity markets, failure to establish mineral resources, changes to regulations affecting the Company's activities, delays in obtaining or failures to obtain required regulatory approvals, uncertainties relating to the availability and costs of financing needed in the future, the uncertainties involved in interpreting drilling results and other ecological data, and the other risks involved in the mineral exploration and development industry. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made and, except as may be required by applicable securities laws, the Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise. Although the Company believes that the assumptions inherent in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and accordingly undue reliance should not be put on such statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein.