Integra Resources Corp. (“Integra” or the “Company”)
(TSX-V: ITR; NYSE American: ITRG) is pleased to announce
the results of the Pre-feasibility Study (“PFS”) and Mineral
Resource and Reserve Statement on its 100% owned DeLamar Project
completed by Mine Development Associates, a division of RESPEC of
Reno, Nevada, supported by M3 Engineering & Technology
Corporation of Chandler, Arizona, McClelland Laboratories, Welsh
Hagen Associates, and EM Strategies, a WestLand Resources, Inc,
Company, all of Reno, Nevada, Warm Springs Consulting, LLC of
Boise, Idaho, and Elbow Creek Engineering of Billings, Montana, for
the DeLamar Project (“DeLamar” or the “Project”) located in
southwestern Idaho.
George Salamis, Integra Resources President and
CEO reports: “The completion of the DeLamar Pre-feasibility study
is a crowning achievement for the Company, representing the
culmination of two years of work by the Integra team and its
various consultants. Following on from the success of the 2019
preliminary economic assessment, this PFS is a materially different
and larger scale Project, both in Heap Leaching and Milling,
relative to the PEA. Despite inflationary pressure currently
overhanging the mining industry from a capital and operating cost
perspective, the Project continues to demonstrate strong positive
economics and a high degree of optionality in terms of the scale,
mining/processing scope and capital cost of gold/silver mines to be
built at the Project. The two-stage Project contemplates a larger
scale open pit mining scenario that combines Heap Leaching and
Milling to achieve an average production level of 163,000 AuEq ozs
per annum for the first 8 years, a mine life of 16 years, life of
mine site level AISC of $955/oz (co-product basis) and with a clear
path to future Non-Oxide processing enhancements and resource
growth upside.” Mr. Salamis continues, “the staged approach to
development also means that the Company starts production with Heap
Leach only that can be developed with far lower capital and
operating cost requirements, capable of producing an average of
136,000 AuEq ozs per annum at a site level AISC $813/oz (co-product
basis). We believe that in an inflationary environment, such as the
one that our shareholders and stakeholders are currently
experiencing, having a multi-phase development stage is critically
important, and demonstrates maximum flexibility and transparency.
This study also outlines the potential for significant upside
opportunities at the DeLamar Project, including increased gold and
silver recoveries in the Non-Oxide ore through the use of Albion
processing methods, a process that has much lower capital costs
than traditional Oxidation plants and has yielded promising results
in recent test work. Additionally, this study does not incorporate
any of the high-grade gold-silver potential below the Florida
Mountain resource envelope.”
Integra will host a call on February 10, 2022,
at 8am PST/11am EST. To register for the webinar, click on the
following link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_VUvizkuaSlykvDQGzaSWaQ
1. DeLamar
Project Global (DeLamar + Florida Mountain) Gold and Silver
Reserves
Mineral Resources
Table 1 shows the updated Mineral Resource estimate included in
the PFS.
Table 1: Mineral Resource
Estimate
Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oxide |
Mixed |
Non-Oxide |
Florida Mountain |
Measured |
Indicated |
Meas+ Ind |
Inferred |
Measured |
Indicated |
Meas+ Ind |
Inferred |
Measured |
Indicated |
Meas+ Ind |
Inferred |
K Tonnes |
1,361 |
14,302 |
15,663 |
4,516 |
5,498 |
34,098 |
39,596 |
5,292 |
2,119 |
16,009 |
18,128 |
4,663 |
g Au/t |
0.39 |
0.36 |
0.36 |
0.25 |
0.47 |
0.39 |
0.40 |
0.28 |
0.40 |
0.44 |
0.43 |
0.32 |
K Ozs Au |
17 |
164 |
181 |
37 |
82 |
425 |
507 |
48 |
27 |
225 |
252 |
48 |
g Ag/t |
13.7 |
9.7 |
10.1 |
6.6 |
14.6 |
10.1 |
10.7 |
6.6 |
10.9 |
10.5 |
10.5 |
9.0 |
K Ozs Ag |
599 |
4,467 |
5,066 |
958 |
2,584 |
11,064 |
13,648 |
1,126 |
741 |
5,399 |
6,140 |
1,343 |
DeLamar Deposit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K Tonnes |
2,846 |
25,939 |
28,785 |
5,163 |
3,490 |
27,556 |
31,046 |
2,631 |
13,729 |
53,301 |
67,030 |
18,350 |
g Au/t |
0.34 |
0.31 |
0.32 |
0.26 |
0.42 |
0.33 |
0.34 |
0.29 |
0.53 |
0.46 |
0.48 |
0.42 |
K Ozs Au |
31 |
262 |
293 |
44 |
47 |
290 |
337 |
25 |
234 |
793 |
1,027 |
250 |
g Ag/t |
17.7 |
17.0 |
17.1 |
11.1 |
37.3 |
23.0 |
24.6 |
11.4 |
37.2 |
26.5 |
28.7 |
17.2 |
K Ozs Ag |
1,616 |
14,170 |
15,786 |
1,838 |
4,181 |
20,337 |
24,518 |
967 |
16,407 |
45,403 |
61,810 |
10,126 |
Total DeLamar Deposit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K Tonnes |
4,207 |
40,241 |
44,448 |
9,679 |
8,988 |
61,654 |
70,642 |
7,923 |
15,848 |
69,310 |
85,158 |
23,013 |
g Au/t |
0.36 |
0.33 |
0.33 |
0.26 |
0.45 |
0.36 |
0.37 |
0.28 |
0.51 |
0.46 |
0.47 |
0.40 |
K Ozs Au |
48 |
426 |
474 |
81 |
129 |
715 |
844 |
73 |
261 |
1,018 |
1,279 |
298 |
g Ag/t |
16.4 |
14.4 |
14.6 |
9.0 |
23.4 |
15.8 |
16.8 |
8.2 |
33.7 |
22.8 |
24.8 |
15.5 |
K Ozs Ag |
2,215 |
18,637 |
20,852 |
2,796 |
6,765 |
31,401 |
38,166 |
2,093 |
17,148 |
50,802 |
67,950 |
11,469 |
Notes:
(1) All estimates of Mineral Resources
have been prepared in accordance with NI 43-101.(2) Mineral
Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated
economic viability.(3) Mineral Resources are reported
inclusive of Mineral Reserves.(4) Michael Gustin, MDA a
division of RESPEC of Reno, Nevada, is a Qualified Person as
defined in NI 43-101, is responsible for reporting Mineral
Resources for the DeLamar Project. Mr. Gustin is independent of the
Company.(5) The DeLamar and Florida Mountain Deposit Mineral
Resources have been constrained to lie within optimized pit shells
created using metal prices of US$1,800/ounce of gold and US
$21/ounce of silver.(6) Oxidize and Mixed Mineral Resources
are reported at a 0.17 g AuEq/t cut-off in consideration of
potential open-pit mining and Heap Leach processing. Non-Oxide
Mineral Resources are reported at a 0.3 g AuEq/t cut-off at DeLamar
in consideration of potential open pit mining and grinding,
flotation, ultra-fine regrind of concentrates, and Albion
cyanide-leach processing of the reground concentrates. Non-Oxide
Mineral Resources at Florida Mountain are reported at a 0.2 g
AuEq/t cut-off in consideration of potential open pit mining and
grinding, flotation, ultra-fine regrind of concentrates, and
agitated cyanide-leaching for the Non-Oxide materials. (7)
Additional inputs for the pit-optimizations include: Mining -
US$2.20/tonne mined; Heap Leaching - US$2.75/t for Oxide materials,
US$3.75/t for Mixed materials at DeLamar and US$3.50/t at Florida
Mountain; Non-Oxide Processing - US$15.65/t at DeLamar and
US$9.45/t at Florida Mountain; G&A - US$0.40/t processed by
Heap Leaching and $0.50/t for processing of Non-Oxide materials;
Heap Leach Gold Recoveries – 85% / 45% for Au / Ag Oxide and 80% /
40% for Mixed at DeLamar, 90% / 65% for Au / Ag Oxide and 85% / 55%
for Mixed at Florida Mountain; and Non Oxide Recoveries - 78% / 78%
for Au / Ag at Glen Silver area of DeLamar, 87% / 87% for all other
DeLamar areas, and 95% / 92% for Au / Ag at Florida Mountain.(8)
Gold equivalent grades are calculated using the formula g/t AuEq =
g/t Au + (g/t Ag/Factor), with the factor reflecting the metal
recoveries by oxidation and metal prices provided above. The gold
equivalent grades were used solely in the application of the
resource cut-offs. (9) The effective date of the Mineral
Resource estimate is March 1, 2021.(10) Rounding as required by
reporting guidelines may result in apparent discrepancies between
tonnes, grades, and contained metal
content.(11) The estimate of Mineral Resources may
be materially affected by geology, environment, permitting, legal,
title, taxation, sociopolitical, marketing, or other relevant
issues.
Mineral Reserves
Table 3 shows the proven and probable reserves
for both Heap Leach and Mill ore by deposit. The reserves were
estimated using block value calculated based on metal price and
recoveries by area and oxidation. The cost to process the material
was then used as a cut-off grade. The metal prices used to
calculate the block values were $1,600 per ounce gold and $21.00
per ounce silver, though the final cash-flow model used $1,700 per
ounce gold and $21.50 per ounce silver. The block value calculation
equation is shown in Equation 1 in the footnotes. The block value
was calculated for both gold and silver and then each was added
together to provide an overall value for each block.
Recoveries used for the block value calculations
are shown in Table 2 and were provided by Jack McPartland a member
of MMSA, with a special expertise in metallurgy/processing, of
McClelland Laboratories of Reno, Nevada. The recoveries for Florida
Mountain Non-Oxide material used grade dependent equations shown in
Equations 2 and 3 in the footnotes for gold and silver
respectively.
Table 2 – Reserve Gold and Silver
Recoveries
|
Oxide |
Mixed |
Non-Oxide |
Recoveries by Area |
Au |
Ag |
Au |
Ag |
Au |
Ag |
Florida Mountain |
89% |
49% |
72% |
47% |
Eq. 2 |
Eq. 3 |
Sullivan Gulch |
86% |
20% |
61% |
39% |
38% |
73% |
DeLamar |
78% |
11% |
61% |
42% |
39% |
87% |
Sommerset |
87% |
15% |
58% |
44% |
39% |
87% |
Glen Silver |
70% |
18% |
63% |
30% |
28% |
64% |
South Wahl |
77% |
37% |
50% |
74% |
39% |
87% |
Milestone |
75% |
18% |
45% |
18% |
39% |
87% |
Table 3: Mineral Reserves
|
Leach |
Mill |
Total |
Florida Mountain |
Proven |
Probable |
P&P |
Proven |
Probable |
P&P |
Proven |
Probable |
P&P |
K Tonnes |
|
5,789 |
|
39,919 |
|
45,708 |
|
1,306 |
|
9,249 |
|
10,555 |
7,095 |
49,168 |
|
56,263 |
g Au/t |
|
0.50 |
|
0.42 |
|
0.43 |
|
0.48 |
|
0.54 |
|
0.53 |
0.50 |
0.44 |
|
0.45 |
K Ozs Au |
|
94 |
|
541 |
|
635 |
|
20 |
|
160 |
|
180 |
114 |
701 |
|
815 |
g Ag/t |
|
16.02 |
|
10.73 |
|
11.40 |
|
12.24 |
|
12.27 |
|
12.26 |
15.32 |
11.02 |
|
11.56 |
K Ozs Ag |
|
2,981 |
|
13,768 |
|
16,749 |
|
514 |
|
3,648 |
|
4,162 |
3,495 |
17,417 |
|
20,911 |
Block Value |
$ |
24.75 |
$ |
20.18 |
$ |
20.76 |
$ |
26.72 |
$ |
29.37 |
$ |
29.04 |
25.12 |
21.91 |
$ |
22.31 |
DeLamar Deposit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K Tonnes |
|
5,247 |
|
41,285 |
|
46,533 |
|
6,016 |
|
14,672 |
|
20,688 |
11,263 |
55,958 |
|
67,221 |
g Au/t |
|
0.41 |
|
0.35 |
|
0.36 |
|
0.69 |
|
0.63 |
|
0.65 |
0.56 |
0.43 |
|
0.45 |
K Ozs Au |
|
69 |
|
471 |
|
540 |
|
133 |
|
299 |
|
432 |
202 |
770 |
|
972 |
g Ag/t |
|
31.24 |
|
22.07 |
|
23.10 |
|
62.03 |
|
52.86 |
|
55.52 |
47.69 |
30.14 |
|
33.08 |
K Ozs Ag |
|
5,270 |
|
29,290 |
|
34,560 |
|
11,998 |
|
24,934 |
|
36,931 |
17,268 |
54,223 |
|
71,491 |
Block Value |
$ |
19.83 |
$ |
16.19 |
$ |
16.60 |
$ |
42.07 |
$ |
36.62 |
$ |
38.20 |
31.71 |
21.54 |
$ |
23.25 |
Total DeLamar Project |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K Tonnes |
|
11,036 |
|
81,205 |
|
92,241 |
|
7,321 |
|
23,921 |
|
31,243 |
18,358 |
105,126 |
|
123,483 |
g Au/t |
|
0.46 |
|
0.39 |
|
0.40 |
|
0.65 |
|
0.60 |
|
0.61 |
0.54 |
0.44 |
|
0.45 |
K Ozs Au |
|
163 |
|
1,012 |
|
1,175 |
|
153 |
|
459 |
|
612 |
316 |
1,471 |
|
1,787 |
g Ag/t |
|
23.25 |
|
16.49 |
|
17.30 |
|
53.15 |
|
37.16 |
|
40.91 |
35.18 |
21.20 |
|
23.27 |
K Ozs Ag |
|
8,251 |
|
43,058 |
|
51,310 |
|
12,511 |
|
28,582 |
|
41,093 |
20,763 |
71,640 |
|
92,403 |
Block Value |
|
22.41 |
|
18.15 |
$ |
18.66 |
|
39.33 |
|
33.81 |
$ |
35.11 |
29.16 |
21.71 |
$ |
22.82 |
Notes:
(1) All estimates of Mineral Reserves have
been prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43 - 101 –
Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI
43-101”).(2) Thomas L. Dyer, PE, MDA a division of RESPEC of
Reno, Nevada, is a Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101, is
responsible for reporting Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves for
the DeLamar Project. Mr. Dyer is independent of the
Company.(3) Mineral Reserves are based on prices of $1,650
per ounce Au and $21.00 per ounce Ag. The reserves were defined
based on pit designs that were created to follow optimized pit
shells created in Whittle. Pit designs followed pit slow
recommendations provided by RESPEC.(4) Reserves
are reported using block value cut-off grades representing the cost
of processing:
Florida Mountain Oxide Leach cut-off grade of used is $3.55/t.
Florida Mountain Mixed Leach cut-off grade of used is
$4.20/t.Florida Mountain Non-Oxide Mill cut-off grade of used is
$10.35/t.DeLamar Oxide Leach cut-off grade of used is
$3.65/tDeLamar Mixed Leach cut-off grade of used is $4.65/t.DeLamar
Non-Oxide Mill cut-off grade of used is $15.00/t.
(5) The Mineral Reserves point
of reference is the point where is material is fed into the
crusher.(6) The effective date of the Mineral
Reserves estimate is January 24, 2022.(7) All
ounces reported herein represent troy ounces; “g Au/t” represents
grams of gold per tonne and “g Ag/t” represents grams of silver per
tonne.(8) Columns may not sum due to
rounding.(9) The estimate of Mineral Reserves may
be materially affected by geology, environment, permitting, legal,
title, taxation, sociopolitical, marketing, or other relevant
issues(10) Energy prices of US$2.50 per gallon of
diesel and US$0.065 per kWh were
used.(11) Additional supporting details regarding
the information in this news release will be provided in the
pre-feasibility study to be available on SEDAR within 45 days of
this news release.(12) Additional supporting
details regarding the information in this news release will be
provided in the pre-feasibility study to be available on SEDAR
within 45 days of this news release.(13) Equation
1: Block value
calculation: https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/3603faa0-1d71-4349-83ac-a2616ce90212(14) Equation
2: Florida Mountain Non-Oxide Gold Recovery (Where the maximum gold
recovery =
87%) https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/40219cdd-0979-4728-b8a0-9fcd8fabf1da(15) Equation
3: Florida Mountain Non-Oxide Silver Recovery (Where the maximum
silver recovery =
77%) https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/807975f8-2cb7-44c5-a486-008df235cf47
The resources are supported by 258,318 meters of drilling,
131,271 meters at the DeLamar Deposit and 127,047 meters at the
Florida Mountain Deposit. This drilling is a combination of
historical drilling and drilling completed by Integra
Resources.
2. Stage
1 and 2 Development: PFS Overview - Heap Leach and MillThe
PFS contemplates an open pit mine with on-site treatment of Oxide
and Mixed ores via a 35,000 mtpd Heap Leach facility at 80% passing
12.7 mm (0.5 inch), and treatment of a portion of the Non-Oxide
mineralization through a 6,000 mtpd Mill utilizing conventional
grind, flotation, re-grinding and cyanidation of the concentrate.
In year 1, Heap Leaching of Florida Mountain ore will commence,
with Mill construction beginning in year 1 and production starting
in year 3. In year 2, Oxide and Mixed ore from the DeLamar Deposit
will be mined with the Non-Oxide ore being accessed from the
DeLamar and Florida Mountain Deposits starting in year 3. In total,
the Project will process 123,483,000 tonnes of ore over a 16-year
mine life producing 1,154,431 oz Au and 49,995,640 oz Ag (1,786,729
oz AuEq). The strip ratio over LOM, waste-to-ore, is 2.21.
The PFS is derived from the Company’s
pit-constrained Mineral Reserve estimate with an effective date of
January 24, 2022 and does not include results from drilling
completed in 2021. The effective date of the PFS is January 24,
2022 and a technical report will be filed on the Company’s website
and SEDAR within 45 days of this news release.
DeLamar Project Heap Leach and Mill PFS
Highlights:
- Year 1 to Year 8
average annual production of 121,000 0 oz Au and 3.3 million oz Ag
(163,000 oz AuEq).
- LOM (Year 1 to Year
16) average annual production of 71,000 oz Au and 3.1 million oz Ag
(110,000 oz AuEq).
- After-tax IRR of
27%.
- After-tax NPV (5%)
of US$412 million.
- US$695 million
after-tax LOM cumulative cash flow.
- 35,000 mtpd open
pit/Heap Leach production rate with an initial mine life of 16
years, sourcing Oxide and Mixed ore from both the Florida Mountain
and DeLamar Deposits.
- 6,000 mtpd Mill,
commencing in Year 3, primarily sourcing Non-Oxide ore from the
Florida Mountain Deposit and then from the DeLamar Deposit over a
15-year period.
- LOM site level AISC
of US$547/oz net of silver by-product or US$955/oz on an Au Eq
co-product basis.
- LOM strip ratio of
2.21 (Waste: Ore).
- Low pre-production
Capex of US$282 million (excluding working capital/bonding;
assuming mobile equipment financing).
- LOM capital
expenditures (pre-production + expansion/sustaining capital) of
US$576 million
- After-tax payback
period of 3.3 years.
- Mill expansion
capital expected to be financed with internal cash flows.
Table 4: DeLamar Project Heap Leach and Mill PFS
Detailed Assumptions:
Contained Metals |
Contained Gold ounces (000's oz) |
1,787 |
Contained Silver ounces (000's oz) |
92,403 |
Contained AuEq ounces (000's oz) |
2,955 |
Mining |
Mine Life |
16 years |
Strip Ratio (Waste: Ore) |
2.21 |
Total Tonnage Mined (000's mt) |
396,701 |
Total Ore Mined (000's mt) |
123,483 |
Processing |
Processing Throughput: Heap-Leaching/Milling |
35,000 mtpd / 6,000 mtpd |
Average Diluted Gold Grade (g/t) - HL |
0.40 |
Average Diluted Silver Grade (g/t) - HL |
17.30 |
Average Diluted AuEq Grade (g/t) - HL |
0.62 |
Average Diluted Gold Grade (g/t) - Milling |
0.61 |
Average Diluted Silver Grade (g/t) - Milling |
40.91 |
Average Diluted AuEq Grade (g/t) - Milling |
1.13 |
Production |
Heap Leach Recovery |
Florida Heap Leach Recovery (%) - Gold |
76% |
DeLamar Heap Leach Recovery (%) - Gold |
66% |
Florida Heap Leach Recovery (%) - Silver |
47% |
DeLamar Heap Leach Recovery (%) - Silver |
32% |
Mill Recovery |
Florida Mill Recovery (%) - Gold |
83% |
DeLamar Mill Recovery (%) - Gold |
37% |
Florida Mill Recovery (%) - Silver |
72% |
DeLamar Mill Recovery (%) - Silver |
75% |
Payable Metals |
LOM Payable Gold ounces (000's oz) |
1,149 |
LOM Payable Silver ounces (000's oz) |
49,746 |
LOM Payable AuEq ounces (000's oz) |
1,778 |
Years 1-8 Avg Annual Production - Gold (000's oz) |
121 |
Years 1-8 Avg Annual Production - Silver (000's oz) |
3,312 |
Years 1-8 Avg Annual Production - AuEq (000's oz) |
163 |
Years 1-16 Avg. Annual Production - Gold (000's oz) |
71 |
Years 1-16 Avg. Annual Production - Silver (000's oz) |
3,085 |
Years 1-16 Avg. Annual Production - AuEq (000's oz) |
110 |
Costs per Tonne |
Mining Costs ($/t mined) |
$1.89 |
Mining Costs ($/t processed) |
$6.08 |
Processing Costs ($/t heap leached) – HL |
$3.74 |
Processing Costs ($/t milled) – Milling |
$12.57 |
Processing Costs ($/t processed) – Combined |
$5.99 |
G&A Costs ($/t processed) |
$0.86 |
Total Site Operating Cost ($/t processed) |
$12.92 |
Cash Costs1 |
LOM Cash Cost ($/oz) Au, net-of-silver by-product |
$497 |
LOM Cash Cost ($/oz) AuEq, co-product |
$923 |
LOM Site Level AISC ($/oz) Au, net-of-silver by-product |
$547 |
LOM Site Level AISC ($/oz) AuEq, co-product |
$955 |
Capital Expenditures |
Initial Capital Expenditures ($ MM)2 |
$281.9 |
Working Capital / Reclamation Bond ($ MM)3 |
$25.6 |
Non-Ox Mill (Plant & Tailing LOM) ($ MM) |
$194.6 |
Other Sustaining Capex / Equipment Financing Pmts ($ MM) |
$99.9 |
Reclamation Cost ($ MM) |
$30.8 |
Salvage Value ($ MM) |
($23.7) |
Economic Assumptions |
Gold Price |
$1,700 |
Silver Price |
$21.50 |
Exchange Rate (US$/C$) |
1.25 |
Economics4 |
After-Tax IRR |
27% |
NPV (5%) (US$ million) |
$412.3 |
NPV (5%) (C$ million) |
$515.4 |
Payback period |
3.33 |
Average Annual net free cash flow (US$ million) |
$60.2 |
LOM net after-tax free cash flow (US$ million) |
$695.0 |
Notes: (1) Cash
costs and AISC are non-GAAP measures. See reference below regarding
non-GAAP measures.
(2) Assumes
equipment financing for primary equipment only (10% cash
deposit) (3) Working
capital and reclamation bonding returned in year 17. Reclamation
bond assumes 20% cash
collateral. (4) Free
cash flow is a non-GAAP measure. See references below regarding
non-GAAP measures.
Gold Equivalent Production Profile (breakdown by
processing method):
A chart accompanying this announcement is available at
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/8c1bcb43-e347-45c1-a45a-30d0edf18b9b
Gold Equivalent Production Profile (breakdown by
metals):
A photo accompanying this announcement is available at
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/a255774f-d8ed-4bab-9c6f-2553ba7863a3
Sensitivities to Gold and Silver
Prices:
The table below illustrates a range of metal
pricing scenarios on an after-tax basis to evaluate the economics
of the Project. As shown, the Project remains very viable in the
downside commodity price scenario and as well, is extremely robust
in the upside case.
Table 5: Metal Price Sensitivities
$/oz Au |
$/oz Ag |
NPV (5%) |
NPV (8%) |
NPV (10%) |
IRR |
Payback |
$ |
1,500 |
$ |
18.97 |
$203.4 |
$127.4 |
$87.9 |
16% |
4.26 |
$ |
1,550 |
$ |
19.60 |
$255.8 |
$171.2 |
$127.1 |
19% |
3.92 |
$ |
1,600 |
$ |
20.24 |
$308.5 |
$215.1 |
$166.3 |
22% |
3.69 |
$ |
1,650 |
$ |
20.87 |
$360.3 |
$258.1 |
$204.7 |
25% |
3.50 |
$ |
1,700 |
$ |
21.50 |
$412.3 |
$301.5 |
$243.4 |
27% |
3.33 |
$ |
1,750 |
$ |
22.13 |
$464.0 |
$344.5 |
$281.8 |
30% |
3.17 |
$ |
1,800 |
$ |
22.76 |
$514.9 |
$386.7 |
$319.5 |
32% |
3.03 |
$ |
1,850 |
$ |
23.40 |
$565.6 |
$428.9 |
$357.0 |
34% |
2.92 |
$ |
1,900 |
$ |
24.03 |
$616.4 |
$471.1 |
$394.7 |
37% |
2.82 |
$ |
1,950 |
$ |
24.66 |
$667.3 |
$513.4 |
$432.4 |
39% |
2.72 |
$ |
2,000 |
$ |
25.29 |
$718.2 |
$555.8 |
$470.3 |
41% |
2.63 |
OperationsOver 300 mining,
processing, maintenance, and general administrative people will be
employed directly by the Project in peak years making it a
significant contributor to the economy of Owyhee County, located in
southwest Idaho. The PFS does not contemplate the need for an
expanded mining camp facility during development and operation as
it is expected that a significant portion of the employee base will
be hired from Owyhee County and Malheur County, Oregon.
MiningThe Company expects to
finance the mining equipment for the operation. The primary fleet
consists of two 23 m3 hydraulic shovels, sixteen 136 tonne haul
trucks, five production drills and ancillary support equipment. In
addition, the Railveyor system will provide the majority of ore
hauling from pit to processing, replacing approximately 5 haul
trucks.
MetallurgyThe process
flowsheets for both the Heap Leach and Milling circuits have been
designed around historical test work from the 2019 PEA and
metallurgical studies completed in 2020 and 2021.
The most recent program was designed to confirm
and optimize the 2019 PEA flowsheets and incorporate the DeLamar
Non-Oxide mineralization. The work was completed by McClelland
Laboratories, Inc. (MLI) in Sparks, Nevada.
The Florida Mountain and DeLamar Deposits are
distinctly different metallurgically, both in the Heap Leach ores
(Oxide and Mixed) and the Mill ore (Non-Oxide). Separate mirrored
metallurgical test programs were run for Heap and Mill feeds from
both ore bodies.
Heap Leach Test WorkThe Florida Mountain Heap
Leach testing comprised of 47 variability Bottle Roll Tests
("BRTs”) plus 7 additional BRTs on Non-Oxidized material, while 38
composites were created for DeLamar. These composites were selected
to cover the deposit spatially, by depth, by grade, and by
lithology. In general, six meter (20 ft) intervals were used to
mimic the expected bench height. These tests showed little
variability for the Florida Mountain Heap Leach feed; while the
DeLamar Heap Leach ores showed significant variability by zone.
This Column Leach Test (“CLT”) program included
11 composites for Florida Mountain and 12 for DeLamar selected
based on results from the BRT variability program. Kinetic BRTs
were performed on each composite. Multiple composites from each
deposit were run at both 50mm (2 inches) and 12.7mm (0.5 inch), and
a Florida Mountain Mixed master composite was crushed to 9.5mm
(0.375 inch) using a single pass through a high-pressure grinding
rolls (HPGR), and column leached for size sensitivity analysis.
Economic analysis of the results from these
programs, in conjunction with the PEA metallurgical testing,
yielded a 12.7mm (0.5 inch) crush size selection. This is down from
50mm (2 inches) for Florida Mountain in the PEA, but confirmed the
PEA crush size for DeLamar. Load-permeability testing on 12.7mm
(0.5 inch) column residues resulted in no agglomeration
requirements for Florida Mountain and agglomeration for 45% of
DeLamar ore.
Milling Test WorkMill testing was completed on
seven composites from Florida Mountain and twelve composites from
DeLamar. Kinetic mill/cyanidation whole ore leach BRT’s were
completed on each Florida Mountain composite at 1.7mm (10 Mesh (M))
and 75µm (200M). DeLamar and Florida Mountain composites were also
used for flotation variability testing.
Florida Mountain master composites were created
for whole ore flotation versus gravity concentration with flotation
of the gravity tailing comparison at various grind sizes. Flotation
tailing leach tests were also completed on these composites.
Rougher flotation at a P80 of 150µm gave equivalent results to
gravity concentration with flotation of the tailing. Finer grind
sizes yielded no appreciable flotation recovery improvements for
either ore body. Leaching of the flotation tailing proved
uneconomic due largely to the very high flotation recoveries of
gold and silver to the concentrate. Flotation optimization on
DeLamar master composites confirmed the grind size selection of
150µm.
Overall master composites were created for bulk
flotation to produce concentrate for leach testing and
optimization, primarily regrind size. A regrind target P80 of 20µm
was selected for both deposits. Solid liquid separation testing was
completed on the Florida Mountain flotation tailing and is planned
for the concentrate leach tailing, and both flotation tailing and
concentrate leach tailing from DeLamar. Cyanide Detox testing is
also planned for the concentrate leach tailing streams.
All Florida Mountain composites and two DeLamar
composites underwent Bond Ball Mill Work Index and Abrasion Index
testing. Crusher Work Index testing was completed on various
composites.
Two composite flotation concentrate samples from
DeLamar were sent for scoping level Albion Process testing at SGS
Lakefield. The proprietary Albion Process employs ultra-fine
grinding + atmospheric oxidation followed by agitated cyanidation.
Results showed significant gold and silver recovery improvements
from the concentrates compared to ultra-fine regrind-cyanide leach.
Flotation with Albion processing of the flotation concentrate
indicated over 80% total recovery for both gold and silver from
Sullivan Gulch material and over 70% total recovery for both gold
and silver from the Glen Silver material. Future test work is
planned for further investigation into the Albion Process.
MinerologyHead splits of certain composites were
submitted to Vidence, Inc. (“Vidence”) in Burnaby, British
Columbia, for mineralogical and textural characterization. Vidence
uses QEMSCAN technology for modal mineralogy and texture. More
detailed gold and silver deportment QEMSCAN type mineralogical
analyses and diagnostic lech tests were conducted on select (5)
DeLamar Non-Oxide composites by BV Minerals, in Richmond, British
Columbia.
Process Design
Heap Leaching ProcessDespite the differences
between the 2 deposits, the most economic processing of each
requires essentially the same flowsheets.
Crushing will be done in three stages with a
primary gyratory crusher, one secondary crusher in open circuit fed
from the Heap Leach Coarse Ore stockpile via three reclaim feeders,
and two closed circuit tertiary cone crushers to a nominal P80 of
12.7mm (0.5 inch). The primary crusher is sized to handle both Heap
Leach and Mill throughputs.
Ore will be placed on the pads primarily by
overland conveying, grasshopper conveyors, and a radial stacker. An
agglomeration drum will be added to the process for year 2
production when DeLamar ores are introduced. There are three phases
of pad construction, starting on the Jacob’s Ridge Pad, then
building out 2 phases of the Valley Pad. Each will have dedicated
pregnant solution collection ponds and event storage.
Recovery of gold and silver will be via
Merrill-Crowe, and an onsite laboratory will support Heap Leach and
Milling operations.
Milling ProcessThe Mill circuit will utilize the
same primary crusher as the Heap Leach circuit. Crushed ore from
the Non-Oxide Coarse Ore Stockpile with be delivered via two
reclaim feeders to a 6.7m x 4.6m (22ft x 15ft) 2985 kW (4000 HP)
SAG Mill with pebble recycle. SAG screen undersize will report to a
4.6m x 9.1m (15ft x 30ft) 2985 kW (4000 HP) Ball Mill in closed
circuit with cyclones to produce a P80 of 150µm for rougher
flotation. Concentrate will be reground to a P80 of 20µm via a 1120
kW (1500 HP) IsaMill.
Concentrate will be leached in 6 agitated tanks
utilizing gravity flow with a residence time of 24 hours. Leached
slurry will then report to a tank and cyclone CCD circuit for
pregnant solution separation, which will report to the Heap Leach
Merrill-Crowe circuit.
Non-cyanide contacted flotation tailing will be
stored in a separate facility from the leached concentrate. After
detoxification, concentrate leach tailing will be blended at a 1:1
ratio with coarser flotation tailing to aid in settling. The
concentrate leach tailing storage facility will also act as
emergency heap leach solution storage.
To view the Heap Leach Flow Sheet, click on the
following
link:https://integraresources.com/site/assets/files/2572/heap_leach_fs_pfs.pdf
To view the Mill Flow Sheet, click on the
following
link:https://integraresources.com/site/assets/files/2572/mill_fs_pfs.pdf
To view a Project site map, click on the
following
link:https://integraresources.com/site/assets/files/2572/site_map_pfs.pdf
3.
Stage 1 Heap Leach
- Average annual
production of 136,000 oz Au Eq over a 7-year mine life.
- LOM total payable
production of 749,000 oz Au and 16.2 million oz Ag (954,000 oz
AuEq).
- US$459 million
after-tax LOM cumulative cash flow and average after-tax annual
cash flow of US$102 million.
- 35,000 mtpd open
pit, sourcing Oxide and Mixed ore from DeLamar and Florida Mountain
Deposits.
- LOM site level AISC
of US$813/oz on an AuEq co-product basis.
- A low LOM strip
ratio of 1.35 (waste:ore).
- Low pre-production
Capex of US$273 million (excluding working capital/bonding)
Table 6: Heap Leach Detailed Assumptions:
Contained Metals |
Contained Gold ounces (000's oz) |
1,040 |
Contained Silver ounces (000's oz) |
43,965 |
Contained AuEq ounces (000's oz) |
1,596 |
Mining |
Mine Life |
7 years |
Strip Ratio (Waste: Ore) |
1.35 |
Total Tonnage Mined (000's mt) |
190,621 |
Total Ore Mined (000's mt) |
81,126 |
Processing |
Processing Throughput: Heap Leaching |
35,000 mtpd |
Average Diluted Gold Grade (g/t) - HL |
0.40 |
Average Diluted Silver Grade (g/t) - HL |
16.86 |
Average Diluted AuEq Grade (g/t) - HL |
0.61 |
Production |
Heap Leach Recovery |
Florida Heap Leach Recovery (%) - Gold |
76% |
DeLamar Heap Leach Recovery (%) - Gold |
67% |
Florida Heap Leach Recovery (%) - Silver |
47% |
DeLamar Heap Leach Recovery (%) - Silver |
32% |
Payable Metals |
LOM Payable Gold ounces (000's oz) |
749 |
LOM Payable Silver ounces (000's oz) |
16,207 |
LOM Payable AuEq ounces (000's oz) |
954 |
Years 1-7 Avg Annual Production - Gold (000's oz) |
107 |
Years 1-7 Avg Annual Production - Silver (000's oz) |
2,297 |
Years 1-7 Avg Annual Production - AuEq (000's oz) |
136 |
Costs per Tonne |
Mining Costs ($/t mined) |
$1.85 |
Mining Costs ($/t processed) |
$4.34 |
Processing Costs ($/t processed) |
$3.80 |
G&A Costs ($/t processed) |
$0.60 |
Total Site Operating Cost ($/t processed) |
$8.74 |
Cash Costs1 |
LOM Cash Cost ($/oz) Au, net-of-silver by-product |
$510 |
LOM Cash Cost ($/oz) AuEq, co-product |
$765 |
LOM Site Level AISC ($/oz) Au, net-of-silver by-product |
$570 |
LOM Site Level AISC ($/oz) AuEq, co-product |
$813 |
Capital Expenditures |
Initial Capital Expenditures ($ MM)2 |
$273.1 |
Working Capital / Reclamation Bond ($ MM)3 |
$23.3 |
Sustaining Capex / Equipment Financing Pmts ($ MM) |
$78.1 |
Reclamation Cost ($ MM) |
$24.8 |
Salvage Value ($ MM) |
($24.0) |
Notes: (1) Cash
costs and AISC are non-GAAP measures. See reference below regarding
non-GAAP measures.
(2) Assumes
equipment financing for primary equipment only (10% cash
deposit) (3) Working
capital and reclamation bonding returned in year 8. Reclamation
bond assumes 20% cash collateral.
Gold Equivalent Production Profile (breakdown by
metals):
A chart accompanying this announcement is available at
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/62a8bd98-510e-40ce-9c4c-2502d7a05e7e
4. Detailed
Capital and Operating CostsThe breakdown of open pit
pre-production, capital equipment, and expansion and sustaining
capital costs are summarized in the tables below.
Table 7: DeLamar Pre-Production Cost
Estimates (US$ Million)
|
Heap Leach + Mill Stage1 |
Heap Leach Stage1 |
Mine |
|
|
Mining Equipment (2) |
$28.9 |
$28.6 |
Pre-Stripping |
$12.7 |
$6.5 |
Other Mine Capital |
$1.9 |
$1.9 |
Sub-Total Mine |
$43.5 |
$37.0 |
Processing |
|
|
Heap Leach Pad |
$42.3 |
$42.3 |
Oxide Plant (incl. Crushing and Stacking) |
$165.2 |
$165.2 |
Stormwater Impoundment |
$- |
$2.8 |
Tailing Facilities |
$3.8 |
$- |
Sub-Total Processing |
$211.3 |
$210.3 |
Infrastructure |
|
|
Power |
$3.5 |
$3.5 |
Water Treatment Plant and Access Road |
$15.1 |
$15.1 |
Other |
$1.6 |
$1.6 |
Sub-Total Infrastructure |
$20.1 |
$20.1 |
Owner’s Costs |
$7.0 |
$5.7 |
Sub-Total Pre-Production |
$281.9 |
$273.1 |
Other |
|
|
Working Capital (3) |
$19.5 |
$18.3 |
Cash Deposit for Reclamation Bonding (4) |
$6.2 |
$5.0 |
Total |
$307.5 |
$296.4 |
Notes:(1) Figures in the table include
contingency. 20% contingency for processing, tailing storage and
Heap Leach.(2) Includes cost of Railveyor. Assumes equipment
financing for primary mobile equipment only (10% cash deposit).(3)
Working capital returned in year 17 in Stage 1 and 2 and year 8 in
Stage 1 if the Company chooses not to build the Mill.(4) Cash
deposit = 20% of bonding requirement. Released once reclamation is
completed.
Table 8: DeLamar Expansion and
Sustaining Capital Cost Estimates (US$ Million)
|
Heap Leach + Mill Stage1 |
Heap Leach Stage1 |
Mine |
|
|
Mining Equipment (2) |
$82.6 |
$57.0 |
Other Mine Capital |
$0.2 |
$0.2 |
Sub-Total Mine |
$82.8 |
$57.3 |
Processing |
|
|
Heap Leach Pad |
$11.0 |
$11.0 |
Oxide Plant |
$8.8 |
$8.8 |
Non-Oxide Plant |
$132.0 |
$- |
Tailing Facilities |
$58.8 |
$- |
Sub-Total Processing |
$210.7 |
$19.9 |
Infrastructure |
|
|
Other |
$1.0 |
$1.0 |
Sub-Total Infrastructure |
$1.0 |
$1.0 |
Sub-Total Expansion/Sustaining |
$294.5 |
$78.1 |
Notes:(1) Figures in the table include
contingency. 20% contingency for processing, tailing storage and
Heap Leach.(2) Includes cost of Railveyor. Assumes equipment
financing for primary mobile equipment only (10% cash deposit /
five-year payment period)
Table 9: Operating Cost
Estimates (US$/t)
Item |
Heap Leach + Mill Stage |
Heap Leach Stage |
Mining ($/t mined) |
$1.89 |
$1.85 |
Mining ($/t processed) |
$6.08 |
$4.34 |
Processing Heap Leach ($/t Heap Leached) |
$3.74 |
$3.80 |
Processing Mill ($/t milled) |
$12.57 |
N/A |
Processing Combined ($/t processed) |
$5.99 |
$3.80 |
G&A ($/t processed) |
$0.86 |
$0.60 |
Total onsite operating costs ($/t processed) |
$12.92 |
$8.74 |
Table 10: Cash Cost and Site Level
All-In Sustaining Cost (US$/oz)1
|
Heap Leach + Mill |
Heap Leach Stage |
|
By-Product ($/oz Au) |
Co-Product ($/oz AuEq) |
By-Product ($/oz Au) |
Co-Product ($/oz AuEq) |
Mining |
$646 |
$418 |
$465 |
$365 |
Processing |
$640 |
$414 |
$409 |
$321 |
G&A |
$92 |
$59 |
$65 |
$51 |
Total Onsite Costs |
$1,378 |
$891 |
$939 |
$738 |
Refining, transport |
$27 |
$17 |
$16 |
$12 |
Total Cash Costs (Before Royalties) |
$1,405 |
$908 |
$955 |
$750 |
Royalties |
$23 |
$15 |
$20 |
$15 |
Total Cash Costs (Incl. Royalties) |
$1,428 |
$923 |
$975 |
$765 |
Silver By-Products |
($931) |
N/A |
($465) |
N/A |
Total Cash Costs Net of Silver By-Product |
$497 |
$923 |
$510 |
$765 |
Sustaining Capex |
$50 |
$32 |
$60 |
$47 |
Site Level All-In Sustaining Cost |
$547 |
$955 |
$570 |
$813 |
Notes:(1) Cash costs and AISC are non-GAAP
measures. See reference below regarding non-GAAP measures.
5. Sustainability-Driven
ConsiderationsFrom the outset of the PFS study process,
Integra has been closely engaged with ESG consultants to evaluate
alternatives to more traditional mining methods. The PFS includes
multiple ESG-driven initiatives to decrease the environmental
footprint of the Project. As part of the Project’s haulage system,
the operation will utilize Railveyor’s light rail system. Composed
of a light rail train cars propelled by stationary drive stations,
Railveyor is controlled and optimized by sophisticated automation
software. The system will be employed for the long-distance
portions of the haulage routes between various pits and the
processing location, replacing the equivalent of approximately 5
diesel haul trucks. Powered electrically, Railveyor will decrease
the Project’s diesel usage, and will decrease the associated direct
(Scope 1) greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to Railveyor, the
Company will continue to evaluate the feasibility of other electric
and low-emissions equipment.
The Company plans to power the Project through
an onsite microgrid consisting of a hybridized system of solar,
battery, and LNG generators. 12 MW of electricity will be delivered
by a solar array constructed on the historic tailing impoundment,
making beneficial use of the previously impacted portions of the
Project site. The solar array has been sized to fit an average of
11 MW of energy demand that is present for most of the life of
mine. During higher production years, when the mine demand jumps to
25 MW, an LNG power plant will supply the additional 13 MW not
supplied by solar. Fluctuations in demand or drops in solar
production will, in the short term, be handled by a bank of
batteries as the LNG generators adjust to the load. The LNG power
plant is sized to handle the maximum mine demand of 25 MW when
solar production is not available. This microgrid will be
constructed on site and leased from a third-party provider through
a long-term use-based equipment lease. Greenhouse gas emissions
from this energy mix will be an estimated 13 percent lower than the
current local utility grid mix, based on the local utility’s most
recently published GHG emissions intensity. The microgrid levelized
cost of energy (LCOE) is 63 percent lower than the local electric
utility. The LCOE comparison includes the capital infrastructure
cost differences between a large powerline upgrade and the
microgrid infrastructure. While solar will meet 19 percent of the
total energy consumed over LOM, The Company will continue to look
at how to affordably increase the percent of energy provided by
renewables while ensuring energy reliability.
These sustainability-driven initiatives are
deeply integrated into core aspects of the operation – the haulage
of ore, and the mine’s power supply. The incorporation of these
plans is not only crucial to lowering the Project’s environmental
footprint, but they also importantly drive stronger economics for
the Project, demonstrating how mining projects can benefit
economically from taking steps towards sustainability.
6. DeLamar:
Future Opportunities and Value Enhancements:The Albion
Process: Unlocking more value from the Non-Oxide material
The Project has a large Non-Oxide component at
the DeLamar Deposit, only some of which is included as Mineral
Reserves in this PFS. A significant amount of Non-Oxide gold and
silver bearing sulfide material could be amenable to the Albion
Process (“Albion”) for improving gold and silver recoveries. It was
developed in 1994 by Glencore and is patented worldwide.
Albion has a much lower capital cost than
traditional Oxidation plants, like pressure oxidation (POx). Since
the Albion Process operates at atmospheric pressure, it avoids
risks associated with POx plants.
Albion is a combination of ultrafine grinding
and oxidative leaching at atmospheric pressure. The feed to the
Albion Process is base or precious metal concentrates. The sulfides
in the feed are oxidized and valuable metals liberated, with the
economic metals recovered by conventional downstream
processing.
Albion could be considered as an expansion
circuit to the Mill once the DeLamar Deposit Non-Oxides are being
processed.
Florida Mountain High-Grade Exploration
The Company has intersected more than 100 drill
hits over 4.0 g/t AuEq with a minimum width of 1.52 meters at the
Florida Mountain Deposit. The majority of these drill intercepts
occur outside the existing Mineral Resource envelope at the Florida
Mountain Deposit and demonstrate the potential for a high-grade
deposit below the Florida Mountain Deposit that could be included
in future studies. Additional high-grade Non-Oxide material from
below Florida Mountain Deposit has the potential to improve the
already strong economics presented in this PFS.
7. Permitting
ConsiderationsThe Project is a closed/reclaimed mine with
existing permits for mine water discharge and surface disturbance
under previous agency approval and a previously approved
Environmental Assessment (“EA”) and Environmental Impact Statement
(“EIS”) for mining. The site has been in care and maintenance since
reclamation and closure activities ceased in 2013 and remains in
good standing. A historic environmental database of
information dating back 40 plus years has been retained at the site
if needed for future permitting efforts. To accommodate the
proposed mine design in the PFS, an EIS will be required with the
Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) (lead permitting agency on the
DeLamar Mine Project) as well as additional permitting with other
cooperating agencies.
Baseline surveys in support of the EIS mine
features were conducted for the following resources: Aquatic
Resources, Cultural Resources, Wildlife, Vegetation, Wetlands Seeps
and Springs, Soils, Surface and Groundwater Sampling studies have
been underway since early 2020. In addition to surveys
conducted, geochemical samples were selected to initiate
geochemical characterization of mine features as well as
installation of a PM 10 monitor to provide site-specific baseline
air conditions. Baseline Survey Reports have been submitted to the
agencies and are under review. These baseline reports will serve as
the basis for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”)
that will be developed subsequent to the submittal of the Mine Plan
of Operations (“MPO”) in H1 2023. Baseline studies for the
mine access corridor and any potential power alignment will be
conducted in 2022 with reports submitted to the agency in late 2022
early 2023. Integra completed the installation of the groundwater
monitoring well network in order to initiate collection of baseline
groundwater data to support the Point of Compliance necessary for
the operation of the mine.
Initial project coordination and integration has
occurred with the following agencies in 2021: BLM, Idaho Department
of Lands, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho
Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Department of Water Resources,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Idaho Office of Energy and
Mineral Resources (“OEMR”) and will continue for the duration of
the project. Coordination with Office of Species Conservation
(“OSC”) has initiated to begin early discussions on potential
concerns regarding Sage Grouse.
Integra has identified the following additional
studies to be initiated in 2022 in an effort to de-risk the DeLamar
Project include:
- Drilling Plan of Operations EA for
regional exploration drilling as well as site drilling for
Geotechnical, Geochemical, Condemnation, Metallurgical and
subsurface hydrogeology monitoring,
- Additional hydrological studies
focused on aquifer testing and characterization, groundwater
modeling, meteoric water balance and transport modeling for closure
activity planning,
- Geochemical waste rock studies for
site facilities, and;
- Reclamation closure planning.
8. Next
Steps:The Company will resume drilling at the Project in
late February. Drilling will begin at Sullivan Gulch in order to
further test the potential of this target and provide additional
material for further metallurgical test work. Sullivan Gulch is a
primarily Non-Oxide target where Albion could result in more
material being brought into future mine plans and higher overall
recoveries for material included in this PFS. Integra will continue
to advance the engineering for all aspects of the project,
including metallurgy, mine and plant design, geotechnical and
condemnation drilling parallel with all ongoing permitting
activities.
Sampling and QA/QC
Procedure
Thorough QA/QC protocols are followed on the
Project, including insertion of duplicate, blank and standard
samples in the assay stream for all drill holes. The samples are
submitted directly to American Assay Labs in Reno, Nevada for
preparation and analysis. Analysis of gold is performed using fire
assay method with atomic absorption (AA) finish on a 1 assay ton
aliquot. Gold results over 5 g/t are re-run using a
gravimetric finish. Silver analysis is performed using ICP for
results up to 100 g/t on a 5-acid digestion, with a fire
assay, gravimetric finish for results over 100 g/t silver.
Additional supporting details regarding the
information in this news release, will be provided in the PFS
technical report which will be available on SEDAR under the
Company’s profile within 45 days of this news release, including
all qualifications, assumptions and exclusions that relate to the
PFS. The PFS technical report is intended to be read as a whole,
and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context.
Qualified Person
Thomas L. Dyer, PE, Principal Engineer and
Michael Gustin, C.P.G., of Mine Development Associates, a division
of RESPEC of Reno, Nevada are independent Qualified Persons as
defined by NI43-101 and have reviewed and approved the contents of
this news release.
Matthew Sletten, PE, Project Manager of M3 Engineering &
Technology Corporation of Chandler, Arizona, is an independent
Qualified Person as defined by NI43-101 and has reviewed and
approved the contents of this news release.
Art Ibrado, PhD, PE, Consulting Metallurgist of
Fort Lowell Consulting PLLC of Tucson, Arizona, working with M3
Engineering & Technology Corporation, is an independent
Qualified Person as defined by NI43-101 and has reviewed and
approved the contents of this news release.
Jack McPartland, a member of MMSA, with a
special expertise in metallurgy/processing, of McClelland
Laboratories of Reno, Nevada is an independent Qualified Person as
defined by NI43-101 and has reviewed and approved the contents of
this news release.
John D. Welsh, P.E., President and Senior Principal of Welsh
Hagen Associates, Inc is an independent Qualified Person as defined
by NI43-101 and has reviewed and approved the contents of this news
release.
Richard DeLong, Qualified Person with the Mining
& Metallurgical Society of America of EM Strategies, a WestLand
Resources, Inc, Company of Reno, Nevada is an independent Qualified
Person as defined by NI43-101 and has reviewed and approved the
contents of this news release.
Dr. John Gardner, Ph.D., P.E., Senior Engineering Advisor, of
Warm Springs Consulting, LLC of Boise, Idaho, is an independent
Qualified Person as defined by NI43-101 and has reviewed and
approved the contents of this news release related to the microgrid
design and performance.
The scientific and technical information
contained in this news release has been reviewed and approved by E.
Max Baker Ph.D. (F.AusIMM), Integra’s Vice President Exploration,
and Timothy D. Arnold (PE, SME), Integra’s Chief Operating Officer,
both of Reno, Nevada. Each is a “Qualified Person” (“QP”) as
defined in NI43-101.
If you would like to book a meeting with
management to discuss further, please click on the following
link:https://vrify.com/meetings/book/8
About Integra Resources
Integra is a development-stage mining company
focused on the exploration and de-risking of the past producing
DeLamar Gold-Silver Project in Idaho, USA. Integra is led by the
management team from Integra Gold Corp. which successfully grew,
developed and sold the Lamaque Project, in Quebec, for C$600 M in
2017. Since acquiring the DeLamar Project, which includes the
adjacent DeLamar and Florida Mountain gold and silver Deposits, in
late 2017, the Company has demonstrated significant resource growth
and conversion while providing a robust economic study in its
maiden Preliminary Economic Assessment. The Company is currently
focused on resource growth through brownfield and greenfield
exploration and the delivery of a Pre-Feasibility Study. An
independent technical report for the PFS on the DeLamar Project
prepared in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101 will be
available under the Company’s SEDAR profile within 45 days of this
news release.
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORSGeorge
SalamisPresident, CEO and Director
CONTACT INFORMATIONCorporate Inquiries:
ir@integraresources.comCompany website:
www.integraresources.comOffice phone: 1 (604) 416-0576
Forward-Looking Statements
Certain information set forth in this news
release contains “forward‐looking statements” and “forward‐looking
information” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities
legislation (referred to herein as forward‐looking statements) and
applicable United States securities laws. Except for statements of
historical fact, certain information contained herein constitutes
forward‐looking statements which includes, but is not limited to,
statements with respect to: the future financial or operating
performance of the Company and the Project; results from work
performed to date; the estimation of mineral resources and
reserves; the realization of mineral resource and reserve
estimates; the development, operational and economic results of the
PFS for the DeLamar and Florida Mountain Deposits, including cash
flows, revenue potential, staged development, capital expenditures,
development costs and timing thereof, extraction rates, life of
mine projections and cost estimates; timing of completion of a
technical report summarizing the results of the PFS; magnitude or
quality of mineral deposits; anticipated advancement of the Project
mine plan; exploration expenditures, costs and timing of the
development of new deposits; underground exploration potential;
costs and timing of future exploration; the completion and timing
of future development studies; estimates of metallurgical recovery
rates, including prospective use of the Albion process; anticipated
advancement of the Project and future exploration prospects;
requirements for additional capital; the future price of metals;
government regulation of mining operations; environmental risks;
the timing and possible outcome of pending regulatory matters; the
realization of the expected economics of the Project; future growth
potential of the Project; and future development plans.
Forward-looking statements are often identified by the use of words
such as “may”, “will”, “could”, “would”, “anticipate”, ‘believe”,
expect”, “intend”, “potential”, “estimate”, “budget”, “scheduled”,
“plans”, “planned”, “forecasts”, “goals” and similar expressions.
Forward-looking statements are based on a number of factors and
assumptions made by management and considered reasonable at the
time such information is provided. Assumptions and factors include:
the Company’s ability to complete its planned exploration programs;
the absence of adverse conditions at the Project; no unforeseen
operational delays; no material delays in obtaining necessary
permits; the price of gold remaining at levels that render the
Project economic; the Company’s ability to continue raising
necessary capital to finance operations; and the ability to realize
on the mineral resource and reserve estimates. Forward‐looking
statements necessarily involve known and unknown risks and
uncertainties, which may cause actual performance and financial
results in future periods to differ materially from any projections
of future performance or result expressed or implied by such
forward‐looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include,
but are not limited to: general business, economic and competitive
uncertainties; the actual results of current and future exploration
activities; conclusions of economic evaluations; meeting various
expected cost estimates; benefits of certain technology usage;
changes in project parameters and/or economic assessments as plans
continue to be refined; future prices of metals; possible
variations of mineral grade or recovery rates; the risk that actual
costs may exceed estimated costs; geological, mining and
exploration technical problems; failure of plant, equipment or
processes to operate as anticipated; accidents, labour disputes and
other risks of the mining industry; delays in obtaining
governmental approvals or financing; the speculative nature of
mineral exploration and development (including the risks of
obtaining necessary licenses, permits and approvals from government
authorities); title to properties; the impact of COVID-19 on the
timing of exploration and development work and management’s ability
to anticipate and manage the foregoing factors and risks. Although
the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could
cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from
those described in the forward-looking statements, there may be
other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as
anticipated, estimated or intended. Readers are advised to study
and consider risk factors disclosed in the Company’s annual
information form dated March 12, 2021 for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2020 and the Company’s Form 40-F annual report for the
year ended December 31, 2020.
There can be no assurance that forward‐looking
statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future
events could differ materially from those anticipated in such
statements. The Company undertakes no obligation to update
forward‐looking statements if circumstances or management’s
estimates or opinions should change except as required by
applicable securities laws. The forward-looking statements
contained herein is presented for the purposes of assisting
investors in understanding the Company’s plan, objectives and goals
and may not be appropriate for other purposes. Forward-looking
statements are not guarantees of future performance and the reader
is cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward‐looking
statements. This news release also contains or references certain
market, industry and peer group data which is based upon
information from independent industry publications, market
research, analyst reports and surveys and other publicly available
sources. Although the Company believe these sources to be generally
reliable, such information is subject to interpretation and cannot
be verified with complete certainty due to limits on the
availability and reliability of raw data, the voluntary nature of
the data gathering process and other inherent limitations and
uncertainties. The Company has not independently verified any of
the data from third party sources referred to in this news release
and accordingly, the accuracy and completeness of such data is not
guaranteed.
Cautionary Note for U.S. Investors
Concerning Mineral Resources and Reserves
National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral
Projects ("NI 43-101") is a rule of the Canadian
Securities Administrators which establishes standards for all
public disclosure an issuer makes of scientific and technical
information concerning mineral projects. Technical disclosure
contained in this news release has been prepared in accordance with
NI 43-101 and the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and
Petroleum Classification System. These standards differ from
the requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(“SEC”) and resource information contained in this
press release may not be comparable to similar information
disclosed by domestic United States companies subject to the SEC's
reporting and disclosure requirements.
All references to “$” in this news release are
to U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated.
Cautionary Note Regarding Non-GAAP
Financial Measures
Alternative performance measures in this news
release such as “cash cost”, “AISC” “free cash flow” are furnished
to provide additional information. These non-GAAP performance
measures are included in this news release because these statistics
are used as key performance measures that management uses to
monitor and assess performance of the Project, and to plan and
assess the overall effectiveness and efficiency of mining
operations. These performance measures do not have a standard
meaning within International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”)
and, therefore, amounts presented may not be comparable to similar
data presented by other mining companies. These performance
measures should not be considered in isolation as a substitute for
measures of performance in accordance with IFRS.
Cash Costs
Cash costs include site operating costs (mining,
processing, site G&A), refinery costs and royalties, but
excludes head office G&A and exploration expenses. While there
is no standardized meaning of the measure across the industry, the
Company believes that this measure is useful to external users in
assessing operating performance.
All-In Sustaining Cost (“AISC”)
Site level AISC include cash costs and
sustaining capital, but excludes head office G&A and
exploration expenses. The Company believes that this measure is
useful to external users in assessing operating performance and the
Company’s ability to generate free cash flow from current
operations.
Free Cash Flow
Free cash flows are revenues net of operating
costs, royalties, capital expenditures and cash taxes. The Company
believes that this measure is useful to the external users in
assessing the Company’s ability to generate cash flows from the
Project.
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its
Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the
policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for
the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
Integra Resources (AMEX:ITRG)
Historical Stock Chart
From Mar 2024 to Apr 2024
Integra Resources (AMEX:ITRG)
Historical Stock Chart
From Apr 2023 to Apr 2024