Pre-Feasibility Study Completed for Optimized
Project Configuration
VANCOUVER, Sept. 8, 2016 /CNW/ - International Tower Hill
Mines Ltd. ("ITH" or the "Company") (TSX: ITH; NYSE-MKT: THM) today
announced the results of a Pre-Feasibility Study (the "PFS") on an
optimized configuration for its Livengood Gold Project (the
"Project") located near Fairbanks,
Alaska. The engineering optimization studies
incorporated in the PFS evaluated several scenarios, ultimately
selecting a project that will process 52,600 tons per day and
produce 6.8 million ounces of gold over 23 years. This
improved configuration has reduced the capital costs ("CAPEX") by
34% or $950 million to $1.84 billion,
the process operating cost ("process OPEX") by 28% or $2.97 per ton to $7.48 per ton, and the all-in sustaining costs by
16% or $242 to $1,263 per ounce, all
as compared to the 100,000 tons per day project evaluated in the
September 2013 Feasibility Study (the
"FS"). All dollar figures in this news release are stated in
US Dollars.
"We are pleased that our Optimization Study has resulted in
lower CAPEX and OPEX costs projected over a 23 year mine life.
Livengood's fundamentals are compelling, with a substantial
gold resource, favorable jurisdiction, proximity to infrastructure
and great leverage to the gold price. We are committed to
advancing our basic engineering and metallurgical work to further
de-risk the project and prepare for future permitting" said
Tom Irwin, CEO.
Pre-Feasibility Study Overview
The Project configuration evaluated in the PFS remains a
conventional, owner-operated surface mine that will utilize
large-scale mining equipment in a blast/load/haul operation.
Mill feed would be processed in a 52,600 tons per day comminution
circuit consisting of primary and secondary crushing, wet grinding
in a single semi-autogenous (SAG) mill and single ball mill
followed by a gravity gold circuit and a conventional carbon in
leach (CIL) circuit.
Lower CAPEX was achieved by a reduction in tonnage from 100,000
to 52,600 tons per day, elimination of two previously planned fresh
water supply reservoirs due to the inclusion of a fresh water
supply from a local aquifer, elimination of a permanent
accommodations camp as a result of the planned daily transport of
workers to the mine site during operations, changes in project
execution strategy for the placement of large development
earthworks using mine pre-production material by owner instead of
contractor and design changes to focus on bulk fills instead of
cut/fills during construction.
Lower OPEX was achieved through mining, process, and G&A
optimization as described below.
Mine design changes that lowered costs include a more direct
haul route to the primary crusher and steeper pit slopes in the
early phases. Changes that increased costs were higher drill
and blast costs for enhanced blast fragmentation to optimize mill
throughput.
Mill configuration changes that contributed to overall reduction
in CAPEX and OPEX include the addition of secondary crushing ahead
of the SAG mill for more efficient use of power, inclusion of a
single line SAG/ball mill configuration, and simplification of the
mill foundation and pebble re-grind circuit. Metallurgical
studies completed since 2013 support process OPEX reduction through
a combination of increasing grind size from p80 90 micron to p80
180 micron, reducing leach circuit retention time from 32 to 24
hours, and reducing reagent consumption per ton. Lower power
and reagent costs, based on updated data, also contributed to a
reduction in OPEX.
Total G&A costs went down due to reduced corporate overhead
estimates based on current data, but went up on a unit basis due to
lower throughput.
Next Steps and Opportunities
Results to date indicate that further work is warranted in order
to continue to optimize the Project, such as improved resource
modeling that could potentially enhance head grades and improvement
to the mine plan to reduce CAPEX and OPEX.
The metallurgical tests completed to date indicate that there
are further opportunities to improve overall gold recovery.
Subject to available financing, work will continue to optimize
flowsheet and reagent consumption to maximize recovery, confirm the
grind/recovery relationships, refine the process OPEX, and thereby
further de-risk the Project.
The Company will also continue to advance environmental baseline
work in support of future permitting in order to better position
the Project for a construction decision when warranted by market
conditions.
Pre-Feasibility Study Summary
The PFS was prepared by independent third party consultants and
provides information on the optimized Project with lower
throughput, updated resource estimate, and capital and operating
cost estimates as compared to the project evaluated in the
FS. The final version of the NI 43-101 technical report
containing the PFS will be filed on SEDAR within the next 45 days
and investors are urged to review this report in its
entirety. As a result of the changes to the Project as
evaluated in the PFS, including differences in the economic
parameters applied to the geologic block model that resulted in a
change in resources (gold price, recovery, CAPEX, and OPEX), the
original project as evaluated in the FS is no longer considered
current and the FS should therefore no longer be relied upon by
investors.
The Company cautions that the PFS is preliminary in nature, and
is based on technical and economic assumptions which would be
further refined and evaluated in a full feasibility study.
The PFS is based on an updated Project resource estimate effective
as of August 26, 2016 using the same
resource model as used in the FS.
The following is a summary of the material aspects and
assumptions of the PFS. Investors are urged to review the
complete NI 43-101 report following its filing on SEDAR for all
details of the PFS.
The engineering design to estimate capital costs used in the PFS
are within a -20%/+25% accuracy.
Project Location
The Project is connected by an existing paved highway to the
city of Fairbanks, 70 miles to the
southwest in central Alaska.
The Project is located in an active mining district that has
been mined for gold since 1914. The State of Alaska land use plan designates mining as the
primary surface land use for the area in which the Project is
located.
Infrastructure
The Project would include a lined tailings management facility,
an administration office/shop/warehouse complex, and would also
include construction of a 50-mile 230kV electrical transmission
line to the mine site from the existing grid power near
Fairbanks, Alaska. The total
power demand is estimated to be 55MW.
Environmental and Community Relations
Eight continuous years of baseline environmental work continues
to indicate that all aspects of the Project can be successfully and
safely managed. The design of the tailings facility
incorporates best practices including a lined rock fill structure
with a lined tailings basin. The Project development team has
had considerable experience working with Alaska's large mine permitting process and has
a proven and respected track record of developing mining projects
safely and in an environmentally sound manner. The Project
has already and will continue to provide local economic
opportunities with local access to a highly skilled and available
work force. The Company is also working within Fairbanks and the nearby community of
Minto to seek early input on the
Project and to explore ways to maximize economic benefits to the
local communities.
Summary of Results of the 52,600 Tons Per Day PFS and
Comparison to 2013 FS
OPERATING
METRICS
|
2016
PFS
|
2013 FS
|
|
Mill
Throughput
|
52,600
|
100,000
|
tons/day
|
Head Grade –
LOM
|
0.71
|
0.69
|
g/tonne
|
Head Grade – Year
1-5
|
0.88
|
0.83
|
g/tonne
|
Gold Recovery –
LOM
|
75.3
|
78.4
|
%
|
Mine Life
|
23
|
14
|
years
|
Total Ounces
Produced
|
6,763,900
|
7,893,800
|
Troy
ounces
|
Average Annual
Production – LOM
|
294,100
|
563,800
|
Troy
ounces
|
Average Annual
Production – Year 1-5
|
378,300
|
681,700
|
Troy
ounces
|
Total Ore
Processed
|
432
|
501
|
Million
tons
|
Total
Waste
|
468
|
720
|
Million
tons
|
Annual Mining
Rate
|
54
|
95
|
Million
tons
|
Waste Rock to Mill
Ore (tonnes) Ratio – LOM
|
1.3:1
|
1.4:1
|
Waste to
Ore
|
Low Grade Stockpile
Maximum Size
|
145
|
93
|
Million
tons
|
FINANCIAL
METRICS
|
2016
PFS
|
2013 FS
|
|
CAPEX –
Initial
|
1.84
|
2.79
|
$Billion
|
CAPEX –
Sustaining
|
665
|
667
|
$Million
|
Reclamation &
Closure
|
342
|
353
|
$Million
|
OPEX –
Mining
|
1.73
|
1.67
|
$/ton
material
|
OPEX –
Processing
|
7.48
|
10.45
|
$/ton ore
|
OPEX – General
&Administrative (G&A)
|
1.28
|
0.89
|
$/ton ore
|
OPEX - Operating Cost
– LOM
|
877
|
1,054
|
$/Ounce
|
OPEX - Operating Cost
– Year 1-5
|
782
|
906
|
$/Ounce
|
All-In Sustaining
Cost of Production – Pre-Tax (CAPEX+OPEX) – LOM
|
1,247
|
1,481
|
$/Ounce
|
|
|
|
|
All-In Sustaining
Cost of Production – After-Tax (CAPEX+OPEX) – LOM
|
1,263
|
1,505
|
$/Ounce
|
Gold Price Sensitivity Analysis
The following table shows the after-tax economics at various
gold prices.
Gold Price
($/Oz)
|
NPV 5%
($M)
|
IRR
(%)
|
Payback
(Years)
|
$1000
|
(1,429)
|
-13.1
|
N/A
|
$1100
|
(1,064)
|
-5.1
|
N/A
|
$1200
|
(708)
|
-0.9
|
N/A
|
$1250
|
(552)
|
0.5
|
22.07
|
$1300
|
(404)
|
1.8
|
14.91
|
$1400
|
(116)
|
4.1
|
12.10
|
$1500
|
165
|
6.2
|
10.70
|
Capital Costs
Key capital expenditures for initial and sustaining capital
requirements are identified in the following table.
|
$Million
|
|
Initial
|
Sustaining
|
Process
Facilities
|
$
732
|
$
24
|
Infrastructure
Facilities
|
168
|
442
|
Power
Supply
|
79
|
-
|
Mine
Equipment
|
173
|
123
|
Mine
Development
|
146
|
-
|
Owners
Costs
|
307
|
-
|
Contingency
|
213
|
76
|
Subtotal Before
Reclamation
|
1,818
|
665
|
Funding of
Reclamation Trust Fund (1)
|
18
|
201
|
Total
|
$
1,836
|
$
866
|
Rounding of some figures may lead to minor discrepancies in
totals.
(1) Includes initial funding, total $342 Million estimated costs.
All-in Sustaining Costs of Production
The table below highlights the all-in operating cost of
production over the life of the Project:
All-in Sustaining
Cost of Production
|
$/Ounce
|
LOM
($Million)
|
On-Site Mine
Operating Costs
|
$
782
|
$
5,286
|
Royalties
|
37
|
252
|
Third-Party Smelting,
Refining and Transport Costs
|
8
|
54
|
Sub-Total
|
827
|
5,592
|
Reclamation &
Remediation
|
50
|
342
|
Sub-Total
Production Cost Before Capital
|
877
|
5,934
|
Capital Expenditures
(initial and sustaining) (1)
|
370
|
2,501
|
All-In Sustaining
Costs of Production – Pre-Tax
|
1,247
|
8,435
|
Mining and Income
Taxes
|
16
|
104
|
All-In Sustaining
Costs of Production – After-Tax
|
$
1,263
|
$
8,539
|
Rounding of some figures may lead to minor discrepancies in
totals.
(1) Excludes $18M
upfront funding included in reclamation and remediation above
and $37M of recoverable initial
stores inventory.
Annual Gold Production
The chart below highlights the anticipated production schedule.
Total life-of-mine production is anticipated to be 6,763,900
ounces. Mill feed will consist of reclaimed ore from the
stockpile for Years 17 through 23.
Year
|
Mill Feed Grade
(g/tonne)
|
Ounces Produced
(000)
|
1
|
0.99
|
368.5
|
2
|
0.96
|
404.2
|
3
|
0.92
|
407.9
|
4
|
0.60
|
288.8
|
5
|
0.97
|
422.2
|
6
|
0.81
|
340.9
|
7
|
0.92
|
372.0
|
8
|
0.78
|
364.5
|
9
|
0.88
|
374.6
|
10
|
0.80
|
317.0
|
11
|
0.65
|
284.6
|
12
|
0.81
|
335.9
|
13
|
0.82
|
337.3
|
14
|
0.79
|
311.7
|
15
|
0.89
|
335.7
|
16
|
0.55
|
249.0
|
17
|
0.46
|
201.4
|
18
|
0.46
|
190.5
|
19
|
0.44
|
195.8
|
20
|
0.41
|
206.8
|
21
|
0.48
|
166.5
|
22
|
0.50
|
171.7
|
23
|
0.50
|
116.4
|
LOM
|
0.71
|
6,763.9
|
Rounding of some figures may lead to minor discrepancies in
totals.
Project Mineral Reserves
The table below provides a new Mineral Reserve estimate for the
Project (effective as of August 26,
2016) utilizing a gold price of $1,250 per ounce. These Proven and Probable
Mineral Reserves formed the basis of the economic evaluation of the
Project. The economic assumptions and parameters used for the
calculation of reserves are the same as those used for the PFS
financial model.
Livengood Gold Project Mineral Reserve
Estimate
Classification
|
Tonnes
(Mt)
|
Au
(g/t)
|
Contained Au
(000's)
|
Proven
|
377.65
|
0.71
|
8,620.43
|
Probable
|
14.01
|
0.72
|
352.86
|
Total P &
P
|
391.66
|
0.71
|
8,973.29
|
(1)
|
Canadian Institute of
Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum standards were followed in the
estimation of the Mineral Reserves.
|
(2)
|
Mineral Reserves are
estimated using a gold price of $1,250 per ounce, 3% royalty and
average metallurgical recoveries of 81.8% for Rocktype 4, 84.7% for
Rocktype 5, 75.6% for Rocktype 6, and weighted average of 62.4% for
Rocktype 7 and 69.6% for Rocktypes 8 and 9 (when applied to the 15
x 15 x 10m block model).
|
(3)
|
Mineral Reserves are
based on a cut-off grade of 0.306 g/t for Rocktype 4, 0.303 g/t for
Rocktype 5, 0.345 g/t for Rocktype 6, 0.431 g/t for Rocktype 7 and
0.393 g/t for Rocktypes 8 and 9.
|
(4)
|
Totals may not add
due to rounding
|
(5)
|
The foregoing mineral
reserves based upon and are included within the current mineral
resource estimate for the Project.
|
Project Mineral Resources
The current resource estimate for the Project (effective as of
August 26, 2016) is based on the
statistical analysis of data from 783 drill holes totaling 717,435
feet (218,674 m) and 14 trenches totaling 1,678 feet (516 m) within
a model area covering 3.1 square miles (7.9 sq. km). The three
dimensional geology was modelled and the structural/stratigraphic
units have been used to constrain the resource model.
Multiple Indicator Kriging (MIK) was used to calculate the gold
grades for the blocks (15 x 15 x 10 meters) in the model using the
assay data composited to 10 meter lengths. Statistical
analysis indicated a significant relationship between the tenor of
mineralization and the individual structural/stratigraphic units,
consequently the resource interpolation for each individual
geologic unit was restricted to: 1) the composite data within that
unit, 2) contained within a 0.10 g/t gold grade shell, and 3) where
data were available from a minimum of two octants and from two
separate drill holes. Spatial statistics indicate that the
mineralization shows very reasonable continuity within the range of
anticipated operational cutoff grades. Bulk density for blocks
within each of the structural stratigraphic units was assigned the
mean value for density measurements of core and RC samples from
that unit (total of 98 measurements for all the units). The
resource model (15 x 15 x 10 meter blocks) was estimated using nine
indicator thresholds, then a change-of-support correction was
imposed on the model based on the assumption of 7.5 x 7.5 x 10
meter selectable mining units. Resource classification into
measured, indicated, and inferred categories was based on
estimation variance.
To determine the quantities of materials with "reasonable
prospects for eventual economic extraction" by open pit methods,
pit constraining limits were developed using the
Lerchs-Grossman© economic algorithm which constructs
lists of related blocks that could or could not be mined. The
final list defines a surface pit shell that has the highest
possible total value, while honoring the required surface mine
slope and economic parameters. The following table indicates
the input parameters at a $1,230 per
ounce gold price – the three year trailing average gold price at
August 26, 2016.
Pit Constraining Parameters Used For the
Livengood Gold Project Resource Estimation
Parameter
|
Unit
|
Rocktype
4
|
Rocktype
5
|
Rocktype
6
|
Rocktype
7
|
Rocktype
8
|
Rocktype
9
|
Mining
Costs
|
$/total
tonne
|
1.77
|
1.77
|
1.77
|
1.77
|
1.77
|
1.77
|
Au Cut-Off
|
g/tonne
|
0.33
|
0.32
|
0.35
|
0.40-0.851
|
0.38
|
0.38
|
Processing
Cost
|
$/process
tonne
|
9.03
|
9.55
|
9.42
|
9.25
|
9.87
|
9.87
|
Au
Recovery
|
%
|
80.4
|
86.5
|
78.3
|
64.01
|
75.4
|
75.4
|
Administrative
Cost
|
$/process
tonne
|
1.07
|
1.07
|
1.07
|
1.07
|
1.07
|
1.07
|
Royalty
|
%
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
Au Selling
Price
|
$/oz
|
1,230
|
1,230
|
1,230
|
1,230
|
1,230
|
1,230
|
Overall Slope
Angle
|
Degrees
|
40
|
40
|
40
|
40
|
40
|
40
|
1- Variable cutoff
grade related to geological characteristics unique to Rocktype 7
quartz stibnite+jamesonite ratios.
The parameters listed in the table above define a realistic
basis to estimate the Mineral Resources for the Project and are
representative of similar mining operations throughout North
America. The Mineral Resource has been limited to mineralized
material that occurs within the pit shells and which could be
scheduled to be processed based on the defined cut-off grade.
All other material within the defined pit shells was reported as
non-mineralized material.
Mineral Resource Statement – Livengood Gold Project
The table below lists the current mineral resource estimate for
the Project.
Livengood Gold Project Mineral Resource
Estimate
Classification
|
Tonnes
(Mt)
|
Au
(g/t)
|
Contained Au
(000's)
|
Measured
|
497.34
|
0.68
|
10,840.84
|
Indicated
|
28.04
|
0.69
|
620.33
|
Total M &
I
|
525.38
|
0.68
|
11,461.17
|
Inferred
|
52.80
|
0.66
|
1,127.21
|
*Effective Date: August 26,
2016
**The Measured and Indicated Mineral
Resources are inclusive of those Mineral Resources modified to
produce the Mineral Reserves for the project.
Sensitivity of Mineralization to Gold Price
The sensitivity of mineralization defined by the evaluation of
the mineralization inventory at different gold prices was performed
for gold prices of $984 per ounce
(-20%), $1,230 per ounce (resource
base case) and $1,476 per ounce
(+20%). The input parameters defined above were used in the
analysis. The table below lists the amount of the
mineralization contained within the pit shells that could be
scheduled to process.
Sensitivity of Mineralization Inventory
Contained In Pit Shells Defined By Whittle Analyses
at Different Gold Prices within Pit
Shells
WhittleTM Pit Gold Price
|
Classification
|
Tonnes
(Mt)
|
Au
(g/t)
|
Contained
Au (000's)
|
$984
|
Measured
|
322.75
|
0.79
|
8,166.23
|
Indicated
|
15.06
|
0.83
|
399.36
|
Total M &
I
|
337.81
|
0.79
|
8,565.59
|
Inferred
|
19.77
|
0.79
|
504.68
|
$1,230
|
Measured
|
497.34
|
0.68
|
10,840.84
|
Indicated
|
28.04
|
0.69
|
620.33
|
Total M &
I
|
525.38
|
0.68
|
11,461.17
|
Inferred
|
52.80
|
0.66
|
1,127.21
|
$1,476
|
Measured
|
663.11
|
0.61
|
13,004.65
|
Indicated
|
46.76
|
0.60
|
899.03
|
Total M &
I
|
709.88
|
0.61
|
13,903.68
|
Inferred
|
115.01
|
0.56
|
2,070.62
|
Rounding of some figures may lead to minor
discrepancies in totals.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have
demonstrated economic viability. Mineral resource estimates
do not account for mineability, selectivity, mining loss and
dilution. These mineral resource estimates include inferred
mineral resources that are normally considered too speculative
geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that
would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves.
There is also no certainty that these inferred mineral
resources will be converted to measured and indicated categories
through further drilling, or into mineral reserves, once economic
considerations are applied.
Exploration Target
Exploration work at the Project since 2006 has identified an
exploration target of between 490 and 965 million tonnes at a gold
grade between 0.36 and 0.48 g/t (between 7.5 million and 11.0
million ounces of gold), which lies outside of (and therefore does
not include) the estimated Project resource stated above.
Identification of this exploration target is based upon 455 drill
holes with aggregate footage outside the shell exceeding 182,000
feet (55,470 m), which was drilled on a similar grid spacing as the
drill holes defining the current estimated Project resource.
Investors should be aware that the potential quantity and grade
of the exploration target noted above is conceptual in nature, that
there has been insufficient exploration to define a mineral
resource and that it is uncertain if further exploration will
result in the noted exploration target ever being delineated as a
mineral resource.
Metallurgy Recovery by Rock Type
The Company has completed extensive metallurgical test work on
the five rock types that comprise 98% of the current estimated
mineral resource. Recovery rates by rock type using
gravity and carbon-in-leach recovery of gravity tail are shown
in the table below:
Rock
Type
|
Gold Recovery
%
|
RT4
Cambrian
|
81.8
|
RT5 Sunshine Upper
Sediments
|
84.7
|
RT6 Upper
Sediments
|
75.6
|
RT7 Lower
Sediments
|
62.41
|
RT9
Volcanics
|
69.62
|
1- Weighted
average based on Au grade/recovery and quartz stibnite+jamesonite
mineralization.
2-
Weighted average based on Au grade/recovery when applied to the
15 x 15 x 10m block model.
Derivative Liability Risk
During 2011, the Company acquired certain mining claims and
related rights in the vicinity of the Project (the "Purchased
Claims") located near Fairbanks,
Alaska. The aggregate consideration for the Purchased Claims
was $13,500,000 in cash plus an
additional contingent payment based on the five-year average daily
gold price ("Average Gold Price") from the date of the
acquisition. The contingent payment will equal $23,148 for every dollar that the Average Gold
Price exceeds $720 per troy
ounce. If the Average Gold Price is less than $720, there will be no additional contingent
payment. As at June 30, 2016,
the Company's estimate of the amount of the contingent payment is
$14,700,000. This contingent
payment, which is due in January
2017, significantly exceeds the Company's available cash
resources, and therefore the Company will be required to secure
significant additional financing on or before January 2017 in order to be able to make this
payment. The obligation to make the contingent payment is
secured by a Deed of Trust over the rights of the Company in the
Purchased Claims in favor of the vendors. If the Company is
unsuccessful in raising the required capital to make the contingent
payment, the vendors of the Purchased Claims will have the right to
enforce their rights under the Deed of Trust, including the power
of sale thereunder, thereby resulting in the Company losing any
rights to the Purchased Claims. The vendors of the Purchased
Claims may also seek to obtain a judgment against the Company for
the amount of the contingent payment, including any portion of the
contingent payment remaining following a sale of the Purchased
Claims. Any such loss or judgment could materially and
adversely affect the ability of the Company to proceed with any
development of, or mining at, the Project and the loss of the
rights to the Purchased Claims could materially and adversely
affect the results of the PFS and any subsequent feasibility
study.
Detailed Report
An NI 43-101 Technical Report that summarizes the results of the
PFS will be filed on SEDAR at www.sedar.com within 45 days of this
news release and will be available on the Company's website
www.ithmines.com at that time.
Qualified Persons
The PFS was prepared by the following Qualified Persons under NI
43-101, each of whom is independent of the Company under NI 43-101,
who have reviewed, verified, and approved the scientific and
technical data for which they have responsibility contained in this
news release pertaining to the PFS.
Qualified
Person
|
Company
|
Scope of
Responsibility
|
Colin Hardie, P. Eng
(Ontario APEO No. 90512500)
|
BBA Inc.
|
Financial model,
Process Plant and Infrastructure CAPEX, Process Engineering,
G&A and Process OPEX, Environmental Studies and Permitting,
Overall NI 43-101 Integration
|
Ryan T. Baker.
(Nevada No. 11172)
|
NewFields Companies,
LLC
|
Geotechnical
Engineering, Waste Rock and Water Management, TMF CAPEX
|
Mike Levy, P.E.
(Colorado No. 40268)
|
SRK Consulting
(U.S.), Inc.
|
Mine Slope
Stability
|
Tim Carew, P.
Geo. Association of Professional Engineers and
Geoscientists of British Columbia (Professional Geoscientist
19706)
|
SRK Consulting
(Canada) Inc.
|
Geology, Drilling and
MIK Model
|
Scott Wilson, CPG
#10965
|
Metal Mining
Consultants Inc.
|
Resource
Estimation
|
Tim George, P.E.
(Colorado No. 47109)
|
Wildcat and Badger,
LLC
|
Mine Engineering,
Mine CAPEX and OPEX, Reserve Estimation
|
Mr. Colin Hardie is a Senior
Process Engineer and the Director of Non-Ferrous Metal Markets at
BBA. He joined the BBA team in 2008 and has over 15 years of
experience as an operations metallurgist, engineering consultant
and in process research and development. He is a graduate of
the University of Toronto with a
Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Geological and Mineral
Engineering (1996). Mr. Hardie also has a Master of
Engineering degree in Metallurgy from McGill
University (1999) as well as a Master Degree in Business
Administration from HEC Montreal (2008). He is a registered
Professional Engineer in the province of Ontario, Canada. He has acted as a
Qualified Person and lead study integrator for numerous North
American gold projects.
Mr. Ryan T. Baker is a Principal
Engineer with NewFields Mining Design & Technical Services,
LLC, located in Lone Tree,
CO. He is a graduate of Colorado State
University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil
Engineering (1993) and a registered Professional Engineer in
Nevada (#13947), Alaska (#11172), Idaho (#10226), Colorado (#36988), Missouri (PE2008000049), and New Mexico (#22110). He is also a
Registered Member of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration (SME, #4204584) and the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE, #307827) with relevant experience pertaining to
heap leach, tailings and mine overburden storage facilities, and
mine surface infrastructure design and inspection since 1994.
Mr. Michael Levy is a Senior
Geotechnical Engineer with SRK Consulting, Inc. in Lakewood, CO. He is a graduate of the
University of Iowa with a Bachelor of
Science degree in Geology and a Master of Science degree in
Civil-Geotechnical Engineering. He is a registered
Professional Engineer with the states of Colorado (#40268) and California (#70578) and a registered
Professional Geologist with the state of Wyoming (#3550). He has practiced for 18
years and, during that period, has been involved in a variety of
geotechnical projects specializing in advanced analysis and design
of soil and rock slopes.
Mr. Tim Carew is a geologist with
SRK Consulting. He is a graduate of the University of
Rhodesia with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology, a
Professional Geoscientist (#19706), and a Professional Member of
the Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Materials (#46233).
He has practiced continuously for 38 years and, during that period,
has been involved in geologic work in similar lithotechtonic
terranes (Cassiar, northern British
Columbia) and resource estimation of vein and disseminated
type gold deposits in the U.S. (Florida Canyon, Nevada), South
America (Nassau, Suriname)
and Asia (Boroo, Mongolia).
Mr. Scott Wilson is currently
President of Metal Mining Consultants Inc. and has been employed as
a geologist or an engineer continuously for 28 years. His
experience includes resource estimation, mine planning, geological
modeling, geostatistical evaluations, project development, and
authorship of numerous technical reports and preliminary economic
assessments of various projects throughout North America, South
America, and Europe.
Mr. Tim George is a mining
engineer with 13 continuous years of experience in the mining
industry. He graduated from the University of Arizona with a Bachelor of Science
degree in Mining Engineering. He is a registered Professional
Engineer in the state of Colorado
(#47109). His experience includes mine design, scheduling and
costing in North America,
South America, Africa, and Australasia.
On behalf of
International Tower Hill Mines Ltd.
(signed) Thomas E.
Irwin
Chief Executive Officer
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking
Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements and
forward-looking information (collectively, "forward-looking
statements") within the meaning of applicable Canadian and US
securities legislation. All statements, other than statements
of historical fact, included herein, including statements with
respect to the mine plan, economic analysis (including CAPEX and
OPEX) and production and design details described in the
Pre-Feasibility Study; the potential to convert mineral resources
to mineral reserves; additional optimization and exploration
efforts and the results thereof; the ability of the Company to
satisfy the derivative liability and the consequences of any
failure to do so; the ability of the Company to potentially include
refined and updated results in a subsequent full feasibility study;
the ability of the Company to advance environmental baseline work
in support of future permitting; the ability of the Company to
advance the Livengood Project either as projected or at all; the
potential for the Company to make a construction decision, whether
when warranted by market conditions or at all; the potential for
market conditions to be such that they warrant the making of a
production decision; the potential development of any mine at the
Livengood Project; business and financing plans and business trends
are forward-looking statements. Information concerning
mineral reserve/resource estimates and the economic analysis
thereof contained in the Pre-Feasibility Study also may be deemed
to be forward-looking statements in that it reflects a prediction
of the mineralization that would be encountered, and the results of
mining it, if a mineral deposit were developed and mined.
Although the Company believes that such statements are reasonable,
it can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be
correct. Forward-looking statements are typically identified
by words such as: believe, expect, anticipate, intend, estimate,
postulate, proposed, planned, potential and similar expressions, or
are those, which, by their nature, refer to future events.
The Company cautions investors that any forward-looking statements
by the Company are not guarantees of future results or performance,
and that actual results may differ materially from those in forward
looking statements as a result of various factors, including, but
not limited to, variations in the nature, quality and quantity of
any mineral deposits that may be located, variations in the market
price of any mineral products the Company may produce or plan to
produce, the inability of the Company to obtain any necessary
permits, consents or authorizations required for its activities,
the inability of the Company to produce minerals from its
properties successfully or profitably, to continue its projected
growth, to raise the necessary capital (including, as required, to
satisfy the derivative liability) or to be fully able to implement
its business strategies, and other risks and uncertainties
disclosed in the Company's Annual Information Form filed with
certain securities commissions in Canada and the Company's annual report on Form
10-K filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC"), and other information released by the
Company and filed with the appropriate regulatory agencies.
All of the Company's Canadian public disclosure filings may be
accessed via www.sedar.com and its United
States public disclosure filings may be accessed via
www.sec.gov, and readers are urged to review these materials,
including the latest technical report filed with respect to the
Company's Livengood property.
Cautionary Note Regarding References to Resources and
Reserves
National Instrument 43 101 - Standards of Disclosure for
Mineral Projects ("NI 43-101") is a rule developed by the Canadian
Securities Administrators which establishes standards for all
public disclosure an issuer makes of scientific and technical
information concerning mineral projects. Unless otherwise
indicated, all resource and reserve estimates contained in or
incorporated by reference in this news release have been prepared
in accordance with NI 43-101 and the guidelines set out in the
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (the "CIM")
Standards on Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserves, adopted by the
CIM Council on May 10, 2014 (the "CIM
Standards") as they may be amended from time to time by the
CIM.
United States shareholders
are cautioned that the requirements and terminology of NI 43-101
and the CIM Standards differ significantly from the requirements
and terminology of the SEC set forth in the SEC's Industry Guide 7
("SEC Industry Guide 7"). Accordingly, the Company's disclosures
regarding mineralization may not be comparable to similar
information disclosed by companies subject to SEC Industry Guide
7. Without limiting the foregoing, while the terms "mineral
resources", "inferred mineral resources", "indicated mineral
resources" and "measured mineral resources" are recognized and
required by NI 43-101 and the CIM Standards, they are not
recognized by the SEC and are not permitted to be used in documents
filed with the SEC by companies subject to SEC Industry Guide
7.
Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not have
demonstrated economic viability, and investors are cautioned not to
assume that all or any part of a mineral resource will ever be
converted into reserves. The preliminary assessments on the
Livengood Project are preliminary in nature and include "inferred
mineral resources" that have a great amount of uncertainty as to
their existence, and are considered too speculative geologically to
have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them
to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is no certainty
that such inferred mineral resources at the Livengood Project will
ever be realized. Further, it cannot be assumed that all or any
part of the inferred resources will ever be upgraded to a higher
resource category. Under Canadian rules, estimates of inferred
mineral resources may not form the basis of a feasibility study or
prefeasibility study, except in rare cases. Investors are cautioned
not to assume that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource
exists or is economically or legally mineable.
The SEC normally only permits issuers to report
mineralization that does not constitute SEC Industry Guide 7
compliant "reserves" as in-place tonnage and grade without
reference to unit amounts. The term "contained ounces" is not
permitted under the rules of SEC Industry Guide 7. In
addition, the NI 43-101 and CIM Standards definition of a "reserve"
differs from the definition in SEC Industry Guide 7. In SEC
Industry Guide 7, a mineral reserve is defined as a part of a
mineral deposit which could be economically and legally extracted
or produced at the time the mineral reserve determination is made,
and a "final" or "bankable" feasibility study is required to report
reserves, the three-year historical price is used in any reserve or
cash flow analysis of designated reserves and the primary
environmental analysis or report must be filed with the appropriate
governmental authority.
This news release is not, and is not to be construed in any
way as, an offer to buy or sell securities in the United States.
SOURCE International Tower Hill Mines Ltd.