PHOENIX,
March 30, 2022 /CNW/ -
Excelsior Mining Corp. (TSX: MIN) (PFSE: 3XS) (OTCQX: EXMGF)
("Excelsior" or the "Company") is pleased to announce the
results of its Prefeasibility Study Update ("PFS" or "Report") on
the North Star Deposit of the Gunnison Copper Project and
Preliminary Economic Assessment ("PEA") on the Johnson Camp Mine
Heap Leach, both located in Cochise
County, southeastern Arizona. The Gunnison Project is designed as a
copper in-situ recovery ("ISR") mine using solvent
extraction-electrowinning ("SX-EW") to produce copper cathode and
the Johnson Camp mine is a heap leach operation. Results of the PFS
and PEA disclosed in this press release are in United States dollars.
GUNNISON PROJECT PREFEASIBILITY STUDY
Highlights of the PFS (United
States dollars)
- Net Present Value ("NPV") of $1,348.5
million after-tax
-
- at 7.5% discount rate using a life of mine ("LOM") average
copper price of $3.93/lb;
- Internal Rate of Return ("IRR") of 44.9% after-tax;
- Pre-production capital costs of $45.1
million
-
- includes 15% contingency, EPCM, freight, mobile equipment,
owner's costs and capital spares;
- Payback period for pre-production capital of 4.8 years
after-tax;
- Average life of mine operating costs of $0.91/lb;
- Total Operating Cash Cost (including royalties, non-income
taxes, salvage, reclamation and closure) of $1.21/lb
- All-In Cost (LOM capital costs plus operating costs) of
$1.70/lb;
- Life of Mine: 2,153 million pounds of commercial production
over 24 years;
- Staged production profile: initial production rate of 25
million pounds of copper cathode per annum, followed by an
intermediate expansion stage to 75 million pounds per annum and
final expansion stage to full production of 125 million pounds per
annum (includes the construction of an acid plant at full
production). The staged production profile makes possible the
funding of future expansions out of cash flow;
- Approximately 15 months of wellfield pre-conditioning
(additional operations) to dissolve and remove calcite, along with
the addition of a raffinate neutralization plant to assist with the
flushing and removal of accumulated CO2 gas;
- Requirement for some additional work to reduce risk and
optimize process and production.
A detailed sensitivity analysis to copper price, including a
comparison to the results of the 2016 Feasibility Study, is set out
below under the heading "Financial Analysis". In addition, the
risks and opportunities associated with the Gunnison Project are
discussed below.
Commenting on this Report, President & CEO, Dr. Stephen Twyerould said, "Excelsior is committed
to innovative and environmentally sustainable copper production
through our flagship asset, the Gunnison Copper Project.
Production challenges have highlighted the need to re-engineer
wellfield ramp-up, including the introduction of a long period of
pre-production CO2 flushing and calcite removal. Capital
costs, operating costs and the production schedule have been
re-estimated to account for wellfield pre-conditioning and flushing
using neutralized raffinate. These changes have been incorporated
in the new PFS, which highlights the value of our Gunnison Project
along with the need for additional time and work before commercial
production is achieved. The Company looks forward to undertaking
the recommendations of the PFS and getting back-on-track."
The PFS was completed by M3 Engineering & Technology
Corporation ("M3") of Tucson, AZ
and is effective as of March 11,
2022. The Technical Report (the "Report") summarizing the
results of the PFS, and prepared in accordance with National
Instrument ("NI") 43-101, will be filed on SEDAR today.
Financial Analysis
The PFS base case generates an after-tax NPV of approximately
$1,348.5 million (at a cash flow
discount of 7.5%) and an IRR of 44.9%. This financial analysis is
based on a number of assumptions which will be fully set out in the
Report.
The base case uses the following parameters over the 24-years of
production:
- Copper selling price of:
-
- Years 1 thru 5: $4.25/lb
- Years 6 thru 15: $4.00/lb
- Years 16 and beyond: $3.75/lb
- Total copper recovery of approximately 48% (based on a
combination of metallurgical recovery and estimated sweep
efficiency);
- Average of approximately 9.5 pounds of acid consumed for every
pound of copper produced;
- Acid plant construction in year 7 with the price of sulfuric
acid prior to that of approximately $120/ton and the price of sulfur of $120 per ton delivered after that:
- Combined state and federal tax rate of 32.9%;
- Staged production commencing at 25 million pounds per annum,
ramping up to 75 million pounds in year 4, and then to 125 million
pounds per annum in Year 7.
- The introduction of an additional year of pre-production
calcite removal and neutralized raffinate flushing for every well
to address CO2 flow restrictions.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
|
|
Pre-Tax
|
Post-Tax
|
IRR
|
50.3%
|
44.9%
|
Pre-Production Capital
Payback (years)
|
4.4
|
4.8
|
NPV (million $)
@7.5%
|
1,777.5
|
1,348.5
|
Ratio of New Capital of
NPV7.5
|
0.025
|
0.033
|
COST
METRICS
|
|
|
Cost/lb
Copper
|
Direct Operating
Costs
|
|
0.91
|
Royalties, Taxes, Recl.
& Salvage
|
|
0.30
|
Total Cash
Cost
|
|
1.21
|
Total initial (pre-breakthrough) capital expenditures (including
15% contingency, EPCM, capital spares, owner's costs, mobile
equipment and freight) are estimated at $45.1 million. The production wellfield is
estimated at $6.1 million for
drilling and wellfield infrastructure and $29.7 million is estimated for the water
treatment plant. Capitalized pre-production costs for the wellfield
and water treatment plant total $9.3
million. Initial production of copper cathode is estimated
to be 25 million pounds per annum. Total sustaining capital costs
over the life of the mine are $1,026.6
million, which includes production wellfield expansion,
SX-EW expansion, acid plant construction and water treatment
facilities. The average life of mine Direct Operating Cash
Cost is $0.91/lb and the average life
of mine Total Operating Cash Cost (including royalties, non-income
taxes, salvage, reclamation and closure) is $1.21/lb.
The Company has also evaluated an Alternate case without an Acid
Plant. This case generated a pre-tax NPV@7.5% of $1,585.7 million and an IRR of 51.9% (after-tax:
NPV@7.5% of $1,218.6 million and IRR
of 46.6%). Total initial capital expenditures remain the same as
the "Acid Plant" scenario. Total sustaining capital costs over the
life of the mine are $873.1 million,
which includes production well-field expansion, SX-EW expansion and
water treatment facilities. Average life of mine Operating
Direct Cash Costs are estimated at $1.24/lb for the "No-Acid Plant" option with an
average life of mine Total Operating Cash Cost of $1.53 per pound.
Sensitivity analysis on copper price is shown in the table
below.
Sensitivity Analysis
(After-Tax)
|
Sensitivity
|
Base Case (Acid
Plant)
|
|
-20%
|
-10%
|
0
|
+10%
|
+20%
|
Cu
Price
|
$3.15
|
$3.54
|
$3.93
|
$4.33
|
$4.72
|
IRR
|
30.3%
|
37.6%
|
44.9%
|
52.1%
|
59.5%
|
NPV*
|
$821
|
$1,086
|
$1,348
|
$1,609
|
$1,870
|
|
Alternate Case
(Non-Acid Plant)
|
|
-20%
|
-10%
|
0
|
+10%
|
+20%
|
Cu
Price
|
$3.15
|
$3.54
|
$3.93
|
$4.33
|
$4.72
|
IRR
|
31.1%
|
39.1%
|
46.6%
|
54.0%
|
61.5%
|
NPV*
|
$691
|
$957
|
$1.219
|
$1,480
|
$1,741
|
*million $ at 7.5%
discount rate
|
The impact of the changes compared to the 2016 Feasibility Study
can be estimated by comparing the 2022 PFS Base Case at a copper
price of $2.75/lb to the Acid Plant
case from the 2016 FS at $2.75/lb
copper price (see table below).
|
2022 Base Case at
$2.75/lb Cu Price
|
2016 Acid Plant Case
at $2.75 Cu Price
|
Years of Commercial
Production
|
24
|
24
|
Total Copper Produced
(million lbs)
|
2,153
|
2,165
|
LOM Copper Price (avg
$/lb) *
|
$2.75
|
$2.75
|
Initial Capital Costs
(million $)
|
$45.1
|
$46.9
|
Sustaining Capital
Costs (million $)
|
$1,026.6
|
$742
|
Payback of Capital
(pre-tax/after-tax)
|
7.9/8.0
|
4.5 / 6.4
|
Internal Rate of Return
(pre-tax/after-tax)
|
25.8%/23.3%
|
48.4%/40.2%
|
Life of Mine Direct
Operating Cost ($/pound Cu Recovered)
|
$0.914
|
$0.65
|
Acid consumption
(lb/lb)
|
9.53
|
8.98
|
Pre-tax NPV at 7.5%
discount rate (million $)
|
$769
|
$1,173
|
After-Tax NPV at 7.5%
discount rate (million $)
|
$590
|
$808
|
Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves
Mineral Resource Estimate
The total mineral resource estimate for the North Star Deposit
is based on results from 122 drill holes totalling 158,785 feet and
is effective as of October 1, 2016
(unchanged from the original 2016 Feasibility Study on the Gunnison
Project). The estimate is classified as a measured, indicated or
inferred mineral resource, consistent with the CIM definitions
referred to in NI 43-101. Excelsior is not aware of any
environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political,
marketing or other issues which may materially affect its estimate
of mineral resources.
North Star Resources
(Oxide and Transition at 0.05% cut-off)
|
Category
|
Short Tons
(million)
|
Total Copper
(%)
|
Pounds of Cu
(million)
|
Measured
|
199
|
0.36
|
1,427
|
Indicated
|
674
|
0.27
|
3,567
|
Total
M&I
|
873
|
0.29
|
4,995
|
|
|
|
|
Inferred
|
187
|
0.17
|
630
|
Notes:
1. Mineral Resources are inclusive of Mineral Reserves.
2. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have
demonstrated economic viability.
3. Oxidized + Transitional Mineral Resources are reported at a
0.05% total-copper cut-off in consideration of potential mining by
in situ recovery.
|
The North Star mineral
resources were modeled to reflect the detailed lithologic,
structural, and oxidation modeling completed by
Excelsior. Copper mineral domains were interpreted on
east-west vertical cross sections on 100-foot spacing, which
encompass the 2.3-mile north-south and 1.3-mile east-west extents
of the deposit. These domains were then used to explicitly
constrain the estimation of copper grades into 50 x 100 x 25-foot
(x, y, z) model blocks using 20-foot composites and
inverse-distance interpolation. The grade estimation is further
controlled by the incorporation of search ellipses that reflect the
orientations of modeled structural zones, as well as those of
favorable stratigraphic units in areas unaffected by the
structures.
All samples were prepared from manually split half-core sections
on-site in Arizona. Split drill
core samples were then sent to Skyline Assayers & Laboratories
("Skyline") in Tucson, Arizona, an
independent laboratory, for Total Copper and Sequential Copper
analyses. Skyline is accredited with international standard ISO/IEC
17025:2005 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and
Calibration Laboratories. Analytical results for Total Copper, Acid
Soluble Copper, and Cyanide Soluble Copper were reported. Excelsior
has no relationship with Skyline Labs other than Skyline being a
service provider. Standards, blanks, and duplicate assays are
included at regular intervals in each sample batch submitted from
the field as part of an ongoing Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Program.
Mr. Jeffrey Bickel, C.P.G., with
the independent firm Mine Development Associates (MDA) of
Reno, Nevada, is a Qualified
Person as defined by NI 43-101 and is responsible for this mineral
resource estimate. He has verified, reviewed and approved the
technical disclosure contained in this section of the news release.
Mr. Bickel has verified the data underlying the results by
reviewing the drilling, sampling, assay, and quality assurance and
quality control data, as well as the geologic interpretations
completed by Excelsior. Mineral resources that are not mineral
reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Mineral Reserve Estimate
The PFS mineral reserve is based on an economic analysis of the
mineral resource using a copper price of $2.75/lb and key parameters developed from
prior test work. The economic optimization was performed on
Measured and Indicated Resources at a cut-off grade of 0.05% Total
Cu ("CuT"). EBIT (earnings before interest and tax) was calculated
on a resource block-by block-basis using the key economic and
technical parameters. For a column of resource blocks to be
included in the reserve, the capital costs of establishing the
wells for those blocks would have to be less than the combine EBIT
for the same blocks. The mineral reserve was estimated after
applying engineering and operational design parameters which
removed the thinner and deeper portions of the mineral resource.
Internal dilution has been included in the final mineral reserve
estimate. MDA is of the opinion that the mineral reserve
estimate derived in this PFS reasonably quantifies the economical
mineralization of the North Star Deposit. The reserve estimate is
as of October 1, 2016 and the mineral
reserves presented in the table below are included in the mineral
resource estimate set out above.
North Star Mineral
Reserves (Oxide and Transition at 0.05%
cut-off)(1)
|
Category
|
Short Tons
(million)
|
Total Copper
(%)
|
Pounds of Cu
(million)
|
Probable
|
782
|
0.29
|
4,505
|
1. 48% of the total copper
reserve is considered recoverable
|
Mr. Neil Prenn, with the
independent firm Mine Development Associates (MDA) of Reno, Nevada, is a Qualified Person as defined
by NI 43-101 and is responsible for reviewing and approving this
mineral reserve estimate. He has verified, reviewed and approved
the technical disclosure contained in this section of the news
release. Mr. Prenn has verified the data underlying the results by
reviewing the drilling, sampling, assay, and quality assurance and
quality control data, as well as the geologic interpretations
completed by Excelsior.
Risks
A number of risks are highlighted in the Report. Those that
are more specific to in-situ mining include:
- Potential for lower than predicted (modelled) sweep
efficiency.
- Potential for mineral precipitates to restrict flow paths,
porosity, and permeability.
- Potential for gas bubbles to restrict flow paths, porosity, and
permeability.
- Flushing with neutralized raffinate to remove CO2
may be less effective than modelled.
- The observed CO2 attenuation could be masking other
wellfield problems.
- Short circuiting can occur through very permeable structures,
reducing overall sweep efficiency and effecting modelled
parameters.
Opportunities
Opportunities at Gunnison are also highlighted in the Report.
Those that are related to in-situ mining include:
- Well stimulation has the potential to alleviate or solve
CO2 gas blocking and greatly improve porosity,
permeability, sweep efficiency and flow rates.
- Grouting, down-hole packers, and down-hole flow control valves
have the potential to minimize short circuiting.
- Wellfield optimization including well spacing, pump sizing,
borehole diameter, hole configuration and down-hole differential
flow control have the potential to greatly improve wellfield
performance.
- Anticipated copper recoveries could be higher than the estimate
of 48 percent of total copper, which would increase total revenue
during the life of the mine.
- The conversion of the 187.2 million tons of inferred mineral
resources to measured or indicated categories has the potential to
increase mineral reserves.
- The Project has high quality limestone resources that could be
used to supplement imported lime in the water treatment
process.
Recommendations
A number of recommendations are included in the report aimed at
improving wellfield performance, reducing risk, and tightening up
engineering and design prior to construction of the raffinate
neutralization plant. Excelsior intends to investigate and
implement these recommendations prior to further development which
include:
- Metallurgical Testwork Recommendations: Investigating in
situ leaching with different lixiviants as opportunities to leach
metals without the formation of gypsum.
- Wellfield Recommendations: Conducting experimentation to
ensure that neutralized raffinate is effective in dissolving
CO2 in the subsurface while the engineering,
procurement, and construction is at an early stage to enhance the
water treatment design criteria.
- Well Stimulation Trials: Well stimulation trials should
be undertaken to determine if the technique(s) have the potential
to alleviate or solve CO2 blocking, improve
connectiveness, and increase flow rates and sweep efficiency. Given
that the results of well stimulation have the potential to reduce
the need for raffinate neutralization or change the design criteria
for the neutralization plant, it should be undertaken before or in
parallel with design activities on the water treatment plant. Well
stimulation is allowed under Class III Underground Injection
Control permits but requires EPA approval of the stimulation
programs.
- Water Treatment: A scope of work and bid package should
be assembled to select a water treatment vendor to design the water
treatment system. Selection criteria should favor rapid, low-cost
solutions to demonstrate that the technology is effective in
solving the wellfield challenges.
Johnson Camp HEAP LEACH PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC
ASSESSMENT
Economic Analysis
The Johnson Camp Mine ("JCM") has historically been an open pit,
heap leach operation since Cyprus Minerals opened the property in
the 1970's. The operation includes two open pits, a two-stage
crushing-agglomerating circuit, a fully functioning SX-EW plant
capable of producing 25 million pounds of cathode copper per year,
a complete set of PLS and raffinate ponds, and full infrastructure
(ancillary facilities, access, power, water, and
communications).
Excelsior is exploring re-opening the Burro and Copper Chief
pits for open pit mining to produce run-of-mine (ROM) material that
can be placed on a new leach pad (Pad 5) as a means of extracting
copper from the remaining mineral resources within the two pits. A
Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) has been completed by M3 with
respect to this planned re-opening.
Mining of JCM would be by traditional open pit and the
highlights of the PEA financial model are tabulated below assuming
a copper price of $4.25/lb. (Year 1
through 5) and $4.00/lb (beyond Year
5).
Mine Life and post
mining processing
|
~5 years
|
Heap Leach Material
Mined
|
19.64 M ton
|
Total Copper Grade
(CuT%)
|
0.387%
|
Acid Soluble Copper
Grade (AsCu%)
|
0.187%
|
Cu Produced
|
65.9 M lb
|
Total Tonnage
Mined
|
34.4 M ton
|
Initial Capital for new
heap leach pad
|
$26.5
million
|
Initial Mine
Capital
|
$14.3
million
|
Total Operating Cash
Cost ($/lb Cu)
|
$2.83
|
After-Tax NPV/IRR (7.5%
discount rate)
|
$7.8M /
13.4%
|
The table below sets out the sensitivities of the
After-Tax NPV and IRR to
copper price:
Sensitivity
Analysis
|
Sensitivity
|
-20%
|
-10%
|
0
|
+10%
|
+20%
|
Cu
Price
|
$3.40
|
$3.83
|
$4.25
|
$4.67
|
$5.10
|
IRR
After-Tax
|
(11.2)%
|
(4.8)%
|
13.4%
|
29.7%
|
42.9%
|
NPV*
After-Tax
|
($38)
|
($16)
|
$7
|
$27
|
$44
|
*million $ at 7.5%
discount rate
|
The PEA is preliminary in nature and includes inferred mineral
resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have
the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them
to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is no certainty that
the conclusions reached in the PEA will be realized. Mineral
resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated
economic viability.
Based on the current pit shell limited mineral resources for the
two pits is approximately 61.5 million tons at a cut-off grade of
0.2% CuT. The amount that is included in the conceptual mine plan
over four years of mining is 19.6 million tons. It is possible that
more than the initial 19.6 million tons can be mined from the JCM
open pits if copper prices continue to be favorable.
"With the positive NPV result of the Johnson Camp open pit, heap
leach PEA, Excelsior has an opportunity to increase copper
production in the short to medium term with conventional mining and
utilizing our existing Solvent Extraction
infrastructure. Infill drilling and capital risk reduction has
the opportunity to further improve JCM economics as we complete the
necessary recommendations on our core Gunnison asset", says
Robert Winton, Sr. VP
Operations.
Excelsior management has launched a small drilling program to
confirm mineral resources and additional column leach metallurgical
testing to confirm prior test work.
Mineral Resources
The JCM Mineral Resources are provided in the table below.
Classification
|
Tons
|
% CuT
|
%
CuAs
|
lbs
CuT
|
lbs
CuAs
|
Inferred
|
61,529,000
|
0.38
|
0.18
|
472,167,000
|
220,189,000
|
1. The
Effective Date of the mineral resources is February 21, 2022.
2. The project mineral resources are comprised of all
model blocks at a 0.2 % CuT cut-off that lie within optimized
resource pits.
3. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do
not have demonstrated economic viability.
4. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially
affected by geology, environmental, permitting, legal, title,
taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.
5. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may
result in apparent discrepancies between tons, grade, and contained
metal content.
|
The estimate is classified as an inferred mineral resource,
consistent with the CIM definitions referred to in National
Instrument 43-101. The Johnson Camp Mine mineral resources are
entirely classified as Inferred. This classification is based
on the confidence in the underlying data which are largely
historical. Excelsior's sampling programs in 2016 and 2017
verified the historical data sufficiently to warrant the Inferred
classification, but additional drilling and sampling, as well as
more detailed geological modeling, would be required to allow for
higher classification of the project resources.
The JCM copper resources were modeled and estimated using
information provided by Excelsior under Mr. Bickel's
supervision. The information is derived from historical core
holes drilled by Cyprus Mining, Arimetco, Summo USA Corp., and Nord Resources Corp. The
drill hole database also includes analyses performed by Excelsior
on the historical core. These data, as well as digital
topography of the project area, were provided to MDA by
Excelsior.
Total copper grades, as well as soluble copper ratios, were
interpolated using inverse distance, ordinary kriging, and
nearest-neighbor methods. The mineral resources reported
herein were estimated by inverse distance interpolation as this
method led to results that most appropriately reflected the drill
data and geology of the deposit. This is particularly true
with respect to the estimation of the lowest-grade areas in the
model, where potential over-estimation of volumes could materially
impact the resource estimation at grades close to potential
open-pit mining cut-offs. The nearest-neighbor estimation was
completed for the purposes of statistical checking of the various
estimation iterations.
The JCM mineral resources have been estimated to reflect
potential open-pit extraction and potential processing by heap
leaching. To meet the requirement of the resources having
reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction, a pit
optimization was completed using the parameters summarized in the
table below.
Parameter
|
Value
|
Unit
|
Copper Price
|
$ 4.00
|
$/lb sold
|
Contract Mine
Cost
|
$ 2.30
|
$/ton Mined
|
Heap
Management
|
$ 0.25
|
$/ton
Processed
|
Heap Capital
Cost
|
$ 0.60
|
$/ton
Processed
|
G&A Cost
|
$ 0.07
|
$/lb Cu
Produced
|
SXEW Cost
|
$ 0.25
|
$/lb Cu
Produced
|
Recovery
|
90%
|
Acid Soluble
Cu
|
Royalty
|
17.90%
|
NSR
|
Acid Cost
|
$ 120
|
$/ton
|
Acid Consumption and
Cost by Formation
|
Formation
|
Acid Cons.
lb/ton
|
Acid Cost
$/ton Processed
|
Pioneer
Shale
|
20
|
$ 1.20
|
Bolsa
Quartzite
|
25
|
$ 1.50
|
Diabase
|
30
|
$ 1.80
|
Middle
Abrigo
|
55
|
$ 3.30
|
Upper Abrigo
|
45
|
$ 2.70
|
Lower Abrigo
|
40
|
$ 2.40
|
Martin
|
70
|
$ 4.20
|
The pit shells created using these optimization parameters were
used to constrain the project resources. The in-pit resources were
further constrained by the application of a cut-off of 0.2% CuT to
all model blocks within the optimized pits.
Mr. Jeffrey Bickel, C.P.G., with
the independent firm Mine Development Associates (MDA) of
Reno, Nevada, is a Qualified
Person as defined by NI 43-101 and is responsible for this mineral
resource estimate. He has verified, reviewed and approved the
technical disclosure contained in this section of the news release.
Mr. Bickel has verified the data underlying the results by
reviewing the drilling, sampling, assay, and quality assurance and
quality control data, as well as the geologic interpretations
completed by Excelsior. Mr. Bickel is not aware of any
environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political,
marketing or other issues which may materially affect its estimate
of mineral resources.
PEA Assumptions
The JCM plan has been developed with the expectation that it
will produce leachable copper material and provide cash flow while
the Gunnison Copper Project is being constructed. This mine plan
targets a small tonnage portion on the east side of the Burro
deposit that is planned to be mined over a 3.5-year period. A
contract miner will be selected for executing the mining portion of
the project because of the short duration of the mine
plan.
Mining of the deposit is expected to be accomplished with
100-ton haul trucks and front-end loaders. Mining is planned
on 20-ft bench heights. The pit configuration is double-benched
with catch benches every vertical 40 ft. An annual schedule was
developed for the mine plan. Run of mine heap leach material
will be processed by placement on a truck-dumped leach
pad. This tonnage production is limited by the copper
production capacity of the existing SX-EW plant of 25 million
pounds of copper per year.
The mining contractor is expected to be responsible for mine
supervision, equipment operation, equipment maintenance, and blast
hole drilling and loading. The reference to specific equipment
manufacturers is to illustrate equipment size and is not to be
considered a recommendation by Independent Mining Consultants.
Production drilling is expected to be accomplished with Epiroc DM45
class drills or similar. Loading is expected to be
accomplished with 14-yard CAT 992 class front-end
loaders. Haul trucks are planned to be CAT 777 class 100-ton
trucks.
The existing leach pads (Pads 1, 2 & 3) will not be used for
future mining for new material extracted from the Burro and Copper
Chief pits. The new leach pad area, Pad 5, is to be located
northeast of the existing plant facility and is to be designed such
that leach solutions flow by gravity into the new combined ILS-PLS
pond located down slope of the new leach pad. The PLS solution will
be pumped back to the existing JCM SX-EW plant. A storm water pond
is also provided.
An Aquifer Protection Permit ("APP") is required for facilities
that have the potential to discharge and impact groundwater
quality. The Johnson Camp Mine is currently covered under Aquifer
Protection Permit P-100514. Excelsior is currently working on a
significant amendment to the existing APP to accommodate mining at
JCM from the Burro Pit. A new facility, Leach Pad 5, with
associated impoundments needs to be added to the existing APP to
accommodate resumption of mining at JCM.
The full capital cost for restarting the JCM heap leaching
operation between mining pre-production, first fills/Owners costs,
leach pad construction and haul road construction is approximately
$26.5 million. Staffing for the
JCM project is mostly in place and few hires will be needed to
augment the existing staff.
Risks and Opportunities
Infill drilling results incorporated into a new mine plan have
the opportunity to generate increased copper tons earlier in the
mine life from the current PEA, improving NPV. More detailed
capital planning will reduce contingency values and potentially
reduce the overall project cost. Macroeconomic pressure on reagent
costs and procurement time could ease through 2022, improving the
return on capital and reducing the time to first
production.
Risks to a successful restart of the JCM pits are a worsening of
supply chain lead times and further upward pressure on input costs.
Infill drilling reduces copper resources, increases ore-waste
ratios, or moves production further along the mine life also have
the potential to reduce the economic potential of the JCM pits.
Excelsior will be completing additional infill drilling and
metallurgical testing prior to making a final decision on the start
of operations at JCM.
Technical Report and Qualified Person
The Report will be filed on SEDAR and on Excelsior's website
today. The Report will consist of a summary of the PFS. The
Report is being prepared under the supervision of Richard Zimmerman, SME-RM of M3 Engineering
& Technology Corporation, Tucson,
Arizona, who is a Qualified Person that is independent of
the Company. The Report will also receive contributions from the
following additional Qualified Persons, who are also independent of
the Company:
- Mr. Thomas L. Drielick, of M3
Engineering & Technology Corporation, Tucson, Arizona (recovery methods, capital and
operating costs, and economic analysis).
- Mr. Jeffrey Bickel of MDA of
Reno, Nevada (geology and mineral
resource).
- Mr. Neil Prenn, of MDA of
Reno, Nevada (mineral
reserve).
- Dr. Robert J. Bowell of SRK
Consulting, Cardiff, UK
(wellfield).
- Dr. Terence P. McNulty of T.P.
McNulty & Associates of Tucson,
Arizona (metallurgy).
- Mr. R. Douglas Bartlett, of
Clear Creek and Associates of
Phoenix, Arizona (hydrology,
mining method, permitting and environment).
- Herb Welhener of Independent
Mining Consultants, Inc. of Tucson,
Arizona (Mining methods for Johnson Camp)
Each of these Qualified Persons has reviewed and approved the
technical information contained in this news release that is
relevant to their area of responsibility and verified the data
underlying such technical information.
About Excelsior Mining
Excelsior "The Copper Solution Company" is a mineral
exploration and production company that owns and operates the
Gunnison Copper Project in Cochise
County, Arizona. The project is a low cost, environmentally
friendly in-situ recovery copper extraction project that is
permitted to 125 million pounds per year of copper cathode
production. Excelsior also owns the past producing Johnson Camp
Mine and a portfolio of exploration projects, including
the Peabody Sill and the Strong and Harris deposits.
For more information on Excelsior, please visit our website at
www.excelsiormining.com.
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking
Information
This news release contains "forward-looking information"
concerning anticipated developments and events that may occur in
the future. Forward looking information contained in this news
release includes, but is not limited to, statements with respect
to: (i) expectations for the resolution of carbon dioxide issues
and increased flow rates; (ii) the future development plans for the
Gunnison Project; (iii) operating and capital costs estimates,
along with the economics of the Gunnison Project and JCM; (iv) the
intention to mine Johnson Camp and future production therefrom; and
(v) the results of the PFS and PEA.
In certain cases, forward-looking information can be
identified by the use of words such as "plans", "expects" or "does
not expect", "budget", "scheduled", "estimates", "forecasts",
"intends", "anticipates" or "does not anticipate", or "believes",
or variations of such words and phrases or state that certain
actions, events or results "may", "could", "would", "might",
"occur" or "be achieved" suggesting future outcomes, or other
expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, assumptions, intentions
or statements about future events or performance. Forward-looking
information contained in this news release is based on certain
factors and assumptions regarding, among other things, the
estimation of mineral resources and mineral reserves, the
realization of resource and reserve estimates, expectations and
anticipated impact of the COVID-19 outbreak, copper and other metal
prices, the timing and amount of future development expenditures,
the estimation of initial and sustaining capital requirements, the
estimation of labour and operating costs (including the price of
acid), the availability of labour, material and acid supply,
receipt of and compliance with necessary regulatory approvals and
permits, the estimation of insurance coverage, and assumptions with
respect to currency fluctuations, environmental risks, title
disputes or claims, and other similar matters. While the Company
considers these assumptions to be reasonable based on information
currently available to it, they may prove to be incorrect.
Forward looking information involves known and unknown risks,
uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results,
performance or achievements of the Company to be materially
different from any future results, performance or achievements
expressed or implied by the forward-looking information. Such
factors include risks inherent in the construction and operation of
mineral deposits, including risks relating to changes in project
parameters as plans continue to be redefined including the
possibility that mining operations may not be sustained at the
Gunnison Copper Project, risks relating to variations in mineral
resources and reserves, grade or recovery rates, risks relating to
the ability to access infrastructure, risks relating to changes in
copper and other commodity prices and the worldwide demand for and
supply of copper and related products, risks related to increased
competition in the market for copper and related products, risks
related to current global financial conditions, risks related to
current global financial conditions and the impact of COVID-19 on
the Company's business, uncertainties inherent in the estimation of
mineral resources, access and supply risks, risks related to the
ability to access acid supply on commercially reasonable terms,
reliance on key personnel, operational risks inherent in the
conduct of mining activities, including the risk of accidents,
labour disputes, increases in capital and operating costs and the
risk of delays or increased costs that might be encountered during
the construction or mining process, regulatory risks including the
risk that permits may not be obtained in a timely fashion or at
all, financing, capitalization and liquidity risks, risks related
to disputes concerning property titles and interests, environmental
risks and the additional risks identified in the "Risk Factors"
section of the Company's reports and filings with applicable
Canadian securities regulators.
Although the Company has attempted to identify important
factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to
differ materially from those described in forward-looking
information, there may be other factors that cause actions, events
or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended.
Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on
forward-looking information. The forward-looking information is
made as of the date of this news release. Except as required by
applicable securities laws, the Company does not undertake any
obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking
information.
View original content to download
multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/excelsior-mining-announces-updated-technical-report-for-gunnison-copper-project-and-johnson-camp-mine-301513723.html
SOURCE Excelsior Mining Corp.