THUNDER BAY, ON, Dec. 1, 2021 /CNW/ - Clean Air Metals Inc.
("Clean Air Metals" or the "Company") (TSXV: AIR)
(FRA: CKU) (OTCQB: CLRMF) is pleased to announce results from an
independent Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) that was
completed for its Thunder Bay North Platinum Group Element (PGE) -
Copper (Cu) – Nickel (Ni) Project ("Thunder Bay North" or the
"Project") near Thunder Bay, Ontario,
Canada. The PEA was prepared by Nordmin Engineering Ltd.
("Nordmin") of Thunder Bay,
Ontario, and includes a new stand-alone milling complex and
waste storage facility (WSF) with mill feed from both the Current
deposit and the Escape deposit, part of the Thunder Bay North
Project Mineral Resource Estimate as amended, that was completed by
Nordmin (see press release dated January 20,
2021). All amounts are in CAD dollars, unless otherwise
stated. Summary results of the PEA are shown below in Table
1.
The PEA was independently prepared by Mr. Glen Kuntz, P.Geo., Mr. Kurt Boyko, P.Eng. and Mr. Brian Wissent, P.Eng. of Nordmin, Mr.
Lyn Jones, P.Eng. of Blue Coast
Research, Mr. Wilson Muir, P.Eng. of
Knight Piésold Ltd., Mr. Kris Tuuttila
P.Geo. (Limited) of DST Consulting, and Dr. Geoff Heggie, Exploration Manager of Clean Air
Metals, who are considered "Qualified Persons" under National
Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. The
technical disclosure in this news release is based upon the
information in the PEA prepared by or under the supervision of Mr.
Kuntz, Mr. Boyko, Mr. Wissent, Mr. Jones, Mr. Muir, Mr. Tuuttila,
and Dr. Heggie.
Project Metrics (Table 1)
- The Project has a pre-tax net present value (NPV) of
$425.0 million, and after-tax NPV of
$378.4 million, at a 5% discount
rate.
- The pre-tax internal rate of return (IRR) is 31.1%, and the
after-tax IRR is 29.8%.
- The capital payback is 2.4 years from start of production.
- Revenue's average $239.8 million
per year from sale of PGE and Copper mineral concentrates.
- Total mined metal production over a 10-year mine life based on
the present resource base is expected to be 629 k oz Platinum, 618
k oz Palladium, 111 M pounds
Copper, 57 M pounds Nickel,
38 k oz Gold, 850 k oz Silver, or 2,886
k oz PtEq1.
- 65.2% of total mineral production occurs in the first 5
years.
- Operating margin of 59% in the first 5 years and Life-of-Mine
Operating margin of 53%.
- The Project is located in close proximity to key infrastructure
near the City of Thunder Bay,
Canada.
- Base case economics were calculated using a 2-yr trailing
average price deck (Table 2)
___________
|
1
|
Equivalency formula
can be viewed in the following Link (Click Here)
|
PEA Key Metrics
Table 1: Key Financial and Project Metrics
Project
Metric
|
Units
|
Value
|
Pre-tax NPV @
5%
|
$M
|
$425.04
|
After-tax NPV @
5%
|
$M
|
$378.38
|
Pre-tax IRR @
5%
|
% (real)
|
31.1
|
After-tax IRR @
5%
|
% (real)
|
29.8
|
Payback Period from
start of production
|
Years
|
2.4
|
Initial Capital
Expenditure ("Capex")
|
$M
|
$367.17
|
Initial EPCM /
Indirects (incl. in Capex)
|
$M
|
$41.16
|
Initial Contingency
(incl. in Capex)
|
$M
|
$60.20
|
Maximum Production
Rate
|
Mtpa
|
1.3
|
Mine Life
|
Years
|
10
|
Ramp-up
Years
|
Years
|
1
|
Long-hole Open
Stoping Mill Feed
|
kt
|
10,338
|
Drift and Fill Mill
Feed
|
kt
|
1,946
|
Total Mill
Feed
|
kt
|
12,284
|
Life of Mine Mill
Feed Grade
|
EqPt (g/t)
|
7.3
|
Total
Revenue
|
$M
|
$2,245
|
Total Operating
Costs
|
$M
|
$1,057
|
Pre-tax Operating
Cashflow
|
$M
|
$1,188
|
Total
Capital
|
$M
|
$536
|
Net Smelter Return
(NSR)
|
$/tonne mill
feed
|
$178.02
|
Operating
Margin
|
%
|
53%
|
Operating
Costs
|
|
|
Underground Mine
Operating Costs
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$47.37
|
Processing Plant /
WSF
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$25.03
|
General and
Administration (G&A) Costs
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$6.87
|
Royalties
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$2.63
|
Transportation to
Smelter
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$4.71
|
Total Unit
Operating Costs
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$86.61
|
Notes: PtEq
Grade = Total Metal Value in 1 Tonne ÷ Pt Price per Oz × 31.10348 g
per oz and
includes total 6 metals (Platinum, Palladium, Gold, Silver, Copper
and Nickel)
|
The Company has not made a production decision at the Thunder
Bay North Project and there is no guarantee that a production
decision will be made or that the production rates at the Thunder
Bay North Project will be achieved. There are no Mineral Reserves
for the Thunder Bay North Project currently. The information
reported in the PEA for the Project is preliminary in nature and
includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too
speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to
them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.
Inferred Mineral Resources are based on limited geological evidence
and sampling. The tonnage and grade of Inferred Mineral Resources
have significant uncertainty as to their existence and as to
whether they can be mined economically. There is no certainty that
results for the PEA for the Project will be finally realized.
Executive Remarks
Executive Chair Jim
Gallagher, P.Eng. stated: "The initial PEA for the
Thunder Bay North Project brings together two previously
independent deposits into one mining plan which is relatively low
risk, low capital, quick to production and generates robust
financial metrics. Given the significant potential upside with
continued exploration drilling along the known conduits and with
the already identified massive sulphide targets we believe that
this PEA is a minimum base case that Clean Air Metals will continue
to attempt to de-risk towards prefeasibility."
CEO Abraham Drost, P.Geo.,
stated that "the PEA sets a mine plan that allows the Company to
move forward with several de-risking objectives. These include:
- converting mine plan-impacted unpatented mining claims to
mining leases;
- engaging with regulators toward early commencement of the mine
permitting process;
- continuation of the environmental impact studies (EIS) led by
Englobe/DST Engineering;
- commencement of prefeasibility technical studies including
optimization and tradeoffs around mining, metallurgy and mill
design; and
- negotiation of Impact and Benefit agreements with affected
First Nations and Métis."
Significant Production Potential
- The study considers a 1.3 Mtpa (million tonnes per year) 3,600
tpd mill throughput ramp-access underground mining operation with
over a 10 year mine (project) life plus 2 years of construction.
Early revenue is generated by mining near surface production areas
and prioritizing high grade near surface material from the high
head grades from the Lower Current and Bridge Zones grading 9.4 g/t
PtEq insitu for first 4 years of production.
- Operating costs average $86.61
per tonne mined with an NSR of $178.02 per tonne over a 10-year life of mine
(LOM).
Development Capital
- Initial capital expenditures (CAPEX) are $367.17 million (includes EPCM of $41 million and contingency of $60 million) and ongoing capex for the life of
the project is $169 million.
Table 2: 2-Year Trailing Price Deck
Metal
|
Unit
|
2 Year
Trailing
(Aug'19 - Jul'21)
|
Platinum
|
US$/oz
|
969
|
Palladium
|
US$/oz
|
2,214
|
Gold
|
US$/oz
|
1,723
|
Silver
|
US$/oz
|
22
|
Copper
|
US$/lb
|
3.09
|
Nickel
|
US$/lb
|
6.86
|
Note: 2yr
price deck provided by CRU as of Aug, 2021.
|
Clean Air Metals will be hosting a webcast on Thursday,
December 2, 2021, at 11:00 am (Eastern
Time). Abraham Drost, Chief
Executive Officer, and Jim
Gallagher, Executive Chair will provide an in-depth review
of the Company's PEA and will be available to answer shareholder
questions. Copies of the news release and management's presentation
will be available on the Company's website at
www.cleanairmetals.ca.
Pre-registration will be open Wednesday, December 1,
2021 and the webcast can be accessed by clicking HERE or at the
following URL:
https://onlinexperiences.com/Launch/QReg/ShowUUID=6A93091E-B89F-465F-AB82-AFB9FCBF4B19&LangLocaleID=1033&GroupID=Onyx
A Chrome or Firefox browser is recommended. Please test your
connection prior to joining the webcast at
https://onlinexperiences.com/Launch/StudioTest.htm
Mine Operations
The proposed Thunder Bay North operation involves underground
mining at an average rate of 4450 tonnes per day (tpd) (3600 tpd in
ore and 850 tpd in waste) with an accompanying process plant with a
matching 3,600 tpd capacity. Shown in Figure 1 is the proposed site
plan with the mineable Current and Escape deposits.
The Current deposit is accessed via a portal from surface and
has a 12-month pre-production development period, which allows for
the Current deposit main decline system to connect to the Current
main fresh air raise and provide secondary egress for the mine.
Contractor decline development is assumed for the 12-month
pre-production period as well as the following 2 years.
The Escape deposit is accessed via a separate portal from
surface. The main decline development begins 12 months after the
Current deposit decline begins and continues for 3 years, until the
decline connects with the Escape main fresh air raise. Contractor
decline development is assumed for the Escape deposit.
The Current deposit pre-production development period is
followed by a production ramp-up period and achieves full
production (3,600 tpd) in the first quarter of year 1. The Current
deposit production commences in the Current and Bridge mining zones
and continues in these areas for the first 3 years. In year 4, the
Escape deposit begins production in the High Grade Zone (HGZ) at
1,800 tpd and the Current deposit production rate is reduced to
1,800 tpd. Figures 2 and 3 show long sections of the proposed
Current deposit and Escape deposit.
The underground production was scheduled based on 3,600 tpd mill
feed and 850 tpd waste, excavated using a fleet of 10-tonne
load-haul-dump loaders (LHD), and hauled with 40-tonne trucks,
using the Current and Escape declines to haul material to
surface.
The underground mining inventory was determined using Deswik's
Mineable Shape Optimizer (MSO) software tool. The MSO uses the
geological block model to generate shapes (e.g., stopes) based on
economic and geometric parameters as listed in Table 3. The mining
underground inventory is a combination of the four mining areas
(Current, Bridge, Beaver-Cloud, and 437) within the Current deposit
and the two mining areas (HGZ and Boundary) within the Escape
deposit. The underground inventory spans along a strike length of
3.3 km and to a depth of 700 m within the Current deposit
and spans along a strike length of 1 km and to a depth of
500 m within the Escape deposit. The underground stope
inventory is constrained by a crown pillar, extending 30 m
below the unconsolidated sediments below Current Lake.
The Current and Escape deposits will be mined via a combination
of conventional underground long-hole open stope and drift &
fill mining methods, backfilled with a combination of cemented
paste back fill (CPB), cemented rock fill (CRF) and unconsolidated
rock fill (URF). Stopes are designed to be accessed and excavated
via overcut and undercut development cross-cut drifts, which
connect to the main declines. The main declines provide
ventilation, haulage to surface, and mine access. Table 3 shows the
underground design parameters and Table 4 shows the underground MSO
cutoff.
Table 3: Underground Design Parameters
Parameter
|
Value
|
Long-hole Open
Stoping Size
|
|
Length
(Maximum)
|
20 m
|
Height
(Maximum)
|
25 m
|
Width
(Range)
|
5 m to
15 m
|
Drift and Fill
Stoping Dimensions
|
|
Height
|
5 m
|
Width
|
5 m
|
Development Drift
Dimensions
|
|
Ramp
|
5 m (height) x 5 m
(width)
|
Cross-cut
|
4.5 m (height) x
5 m (width)
|
Mining Dilution
& Recovery
|
|
Underground (UG)
Mining Dilution
|
9.6%
|
UG Mining
Recovery
|
95%
|
Resources Used for
MSO and UG Design
|
Measured + Indicated
+ Inferred
|
Table 4: Underground MSO Cutoff
Parameter
|
Unit
|
Current
|
Bridge
|
Beaver
- Cloud
|
Boundary
|
HGZ
|
Direct Mining Cost
(LHOS)
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$34.7
|
$28.5
|
$30.8
|
$32.0
|
$34.5
|
Direct Mining Cost
(DAF)
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$44.0
|
$43.8
|
$46.5
|
$47.7
|
$52.9
|
Milling / WSF
Cost
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$23.0
|
$23.0
|
$23.0
|
$23.0
|
$23.0
|
Indirect / G&A
Cost
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$10.0
|
$10.0
|
$10.0
|
$10.0
|
$10.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NSR Cutoff
(LHOS)
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$67.7
|
$61.5
|
$63.8
|
$65.0
|
$67.5
|
NSR Cutoff
(DAF)
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$77.0
|
$76.8
|
$79.5
|
$80.7
|
$85.9
|
Note: NSR
calculation includes mining dilution and recovery, milling
recoveries, smelter payables and
deductions, royalties and transportation. LHOS – Long Hole Open
Stoping DAF – Drift and Fill
|
Mineralogy
Copper is contained primarily as chalcopyrite and approximately
two-thirds of the nickel is in sulphide form, primarily as
pentlandite. The remaining nickel is mostly hosted by
magnesium-silicate minerals, chiefly serpentine and olivine. The
platinum, palladium, and gold mineralization is very fine grained,
however they are closely associated with all sulphide minerals,
including pyrite and pyrrhotite, and recovery of the sulphides will
therefore bring along the majority of the precious metal values.
Gangue silicates consist of serpentine, amphibole, chlorite, mica
and feldspar. Copper and nickel sulphide material liberation
indicate a moderately fine grind is required for good recovery of
the sulphides.
Metallurgical Test Work
A flotation development program was completed on one master
composite and ten variability composites from the Current deposit
and three variability composites from the Escape deposit. Flowsheet
options considered include separate copper and nickel concentrates,
separate copper and bulk concentrates, and a single bulk
concentrate. A flowsheet was developed, consisting of primary
grinding to a P80 (80% passing) of 65 microns,
sequential flotation of copper bearing minerals, followed by nickel
or bulk flotation. Regrinding of the copper rougher concentrate to
a P80 of ~25 microns followed by two stages of cleaning
achieved concentrate grades of ~25% copper. Nickel concentrate
grades up to 11% nickel were achieved with fine regrinding to a
P80 < 20 microns, but resulted in low nickel and PGE
recoveries to a selective nickel concentrate. Replacing the nickel
concentrate with a bulk concentrate eliminates the Ni regrind and
improves overall metal recovery. Platinum, palladium and gold
recovery is closely linked with sulphur recovery. High recoveries
of the precious metals are possible if all the sulphides are
floated, however the rejection of any of the sulphide minerals
leads to an attendant drop in PGE and gold recovery. Table 5 shows
the consolidated concentrate average milling recovery for each
payable metal.
Table 5: Consolidated Average Milling Recovery
Payable
Metal
|
Consolidated
Average Milling
Recovery
|
Platinum
|
82%
|
Palladium
|
86%
|
Gold
|
80%
|
Silver
|
68%
|
Copper
|
95%
|
Nickel
|
51%
|
Mineral Processing
The conceptional process plant has been designed as a
conventional milling operation with a capacity of 3,600 tpd.
Run of mine (ROM) mineralized material will be reduced to
P80 of 300 mm by a single jaw crusher. Crusher
discharge would be transferred to a surface stockpile, from which
material would be reclaimed by two active apron feeders. A
front-end loader would be utilized on occasion to minimize size
segregation and to motivate the pile during the winter period.
A conventional semi-autogenous grinding (SAG) and ball mill
grinding circuit is proposed. The conceptual design targets a grind
size P80 of 65μm, utilizing a SAG size of 6.7 m
diameter by 2.8 m (EGL) long and a ball mill size of
4.5 m by 7m (EGL) long. The SAG
mill is closed-in with a pebble circuit where pebbles are crushed
prior to being recycled to the SAG feed. The ball mill will be
closed-in with hydrocyclones, with cyclone overflow reporting to
the copper rougher circuit. Figure 4 shows the conceptual process
plant flow diagram.
The flotation circuit will produce two separate marketable
concentrates. A copper-PGE concentrate will be the primary float,
utilizing a regrind stage of the rougher float product prior to two
subsequent stages of cleaning. Cu-PGE concentrate will be thickened
and dewatered via a filter press prior to being stored in a covered
stockpile prior to shipment.
Copper rougher tails will be pumped to a bulk concentrate
flotation circuit which consists of rougher stage, and four
subsequent cleaning stages. The bulk concentrate product will be
thickened and dewatered via a filter press prior to being stored in
a covered stockpile prior to shipment.
Copper-PGE concentrate is anticipated to amount to approximately
53 Tpd (Dmt), with an assumed target moisture content of 8% which
amounts to an annual concentrate production of 20,650 Wmt. The
remaining bulk concentrate production will be approximately 119 Tpd
(Dmt), with an assumed target moisture content of 8% which
translates to an annual concentrate production of 46,500 Wmt.
It is anticipated that the two separate concentrate products
will be shipped by truck to separate regional smelters suited to
handle the separate marketable concentrate products.
Clean Air Metals' management have received indicative terms from
selected smelters and refiners. The source of smelting terms is
specifically excluded, as smelting terms are confidential in
nature. The net payable for a metal is calculated as the payable
content of the contained metal, less a minimum deduction (in g/t
for palladium, gold, platinum and silver and a % for copper), if
applicable. Table 6 shows the net payable rates and deductions for
the copper concentrate and sulphide concentrate.
Table 6: Smelter Payable % and Deductions
Payable
Metal
|
Payable
%
|
Deductions
|
Payable
%
|
Deductions
|
|
(Copper
Concentrate)
|
(Bulk
Concentrate)
|
Platinum
|
90%
|
1.5 g/t
|
90%
|
1.5 g/t
|
Palladium
|
90%
|
2.0 g/t
|
90%
|
2.0 g/t
|
Gold
|
98%
|
1.0 g/t
|
98%
|
1.0 g/t
|
Silver
|
98%
|
30 g/t
|
92%
|
30 g/t
|
Copper
|
96.65%
|
1%
|
40%
|
1%
|
Nickel
|
|
|
65%
|
|
The treatment charges (TC) and refining charges (RC) are charges
deducted from the payable value of the concentrates to account for
the costs of smelting and refining. The TC and RC are influenced by
global supply and demand and governed by mine and smelter economics
based on copper prices and operating costs. The TC and RC
applicable to each concentrate may be based on variable annual
negotiations, fixed rates and/or market benchmarks. Table 7 shows
the TC and RC charges for the copper concentrate and bulk
concentrate. The TC and RC shown in Table 7 was calculated from a
2-year trailing benchmark from CRU (Aug'19 - Jul'21).
Table 7: Smelter TC/RC
Payable
Metal
|
TC
|
RC
|
TC
|
RC
|
|
(Copper
Concentrate)
|
(Bulk
Concentrate)
|
Platinum
|
|
US$15/oz
|
|
US$15/oz
|
Palladium
|
|
US$15/oz
|
|
US$15/oz
|
Gold
|
|
US$4.5/oz
|
|
US$4.5/oz
|
Silver
|
|
US$0.45/oz
|
|
US$0.45/oz
|
Copper
|
US$67.33/wmt
|
US$0.067/lb
|
|
|
Nickel
|
|
|
US$150/wmt
|
|
CRU Consulting (a division of CRU International Ltd), provided
the two-year trailing average metal prices used in the revenue
projections for the PEA. Nordmin applied these 2-year trailing
averages to the minable mineral resource and economic model within
the PEA (Table 2). Currently there are no metal streaming or
hedging agreements in place.
Onsite Project Infrastructure
Waste Storage Facility
The conceptional WSF will be located to the north of the Plant
Site with sufficient offsets from local waterbodies and contain a
maximum of 6.0 million tonnes of potentially acid generating (PAG)
filtered tailings and 1.3 million tonnes of PAG waste rock. The WSF
will be constructed in two stages, with the initial WSF designed to
contain 1.3 million tonnes of filtered tailings and 0.4 million
tonnes of waste rock to support the first two years of mining. The
WSF footprint will be expanded during Year 2 of operations and then
the entire WSF footprint will be used to place the waste and raise
the facility using the upstream construction method to establish a
paddock.
The foundation materials in the area typically consist of a
veneer of silty sand with varying gravel content overlying
competent bedrock. The overburden will be removed from the WSF
footprint to expose the bedrock and drains will be strategically
installed to route any collected seepage to perimeter water
collection ponds. A starter perimeter berm consisting of non-PAG
waste rock from underground mine development, locally quarried
rockfill, and locally processed filter zone material will be placed
to allow for initial waste placement. The filtered tailings will be
transported to the WSF using conveyors and the material will be
placed and compacted with a dozer and compactor. The PAG waste rock
will be hauled to the WSF and strategically co-disposed with the
tailings. Waste and the perimeter berm materials will be placed in
generally level lifts across the entire WSF footprint to raise the
facility. This approach will prevent ponding of water on the WSF
surface and allow any runoff to shed from the WSF. During the
winter months, snow will be removed from the interim surfaces as
the material is placed.
The WSF will be progressively reclaimed during operations by
placing the overburden removed from the foundation excavation on
the perimeter embankment slopes and establishing vegetation. A soil
cover will be placed on the final WSF surface and vegetation will
be established on the cover at closure.
Water Management
Water management for the WSF will include a series of water
collection ditches and ponds along the toe of the WSF. The
collected water will be pumped to a central water management pond
(WMP), which will also be used to collect contact water from the
plant site and other site infrastructure. The WMP will provide
temporary storage of contact water during normal operations. A
floating pump and pipeline will be installed at the WMP to convey
the contact water to the mill for re-use in the process or to a
water treatment facility. It is expected that the site will operate
under a hydrological surplus and contact water will need to be
treated, as required, and discharged over a portion of each year.
The WMP will also temporarily store runoff from the environmental
design flood (EDF) and safely pass runoff resulting from the inflow
design flood (IDF) via a spillway.
Offsite Project Infrastructure
Power
Power is assumed to be supplied via a new 230 kV E-W tie line
running to the south-east of the project site (expected completion
date of 2022) that is accessed by construction of approximately
6 km of new 230 kV power lines. The estimated cost of an
electrical substation and power to site is at an estimate costed of
$9.36 million.
Access
Access to the mine site is in discussion with a major forestry
company via a combination of upgrades to existing logging roads and
construction of new roads, totaling 10.5 km, connecting to
Highway 527 to the West, at an estimated cost of $1.82 million.
Capital Costs Summary
The initial project capital cost is estimated at $367.2 million, including a contingency allowance
of 20% to 25% for major items. The duration of the detailed design
and construction phase of the project is estimated at 24 months.
The capital cost estimates are detailed in Table 8.
Table 8: Total Capital Cost Estimates
|
Units
|
Initial
|
Ongoing
& Closure
|
Total
|
Category
|
Underground Capital
Development
|
$M
|
$15
|
$62
|
$77
|
Underground Major
Infrastructure
|
$M
|
$2
|
$12
|
$14
|
Underground Mobile
Fleet
|
$M
|
$27
|
$22
|
$49
|
Processing Plant /
Concentrate Loadout
|
$M
|
$154
|
$0
|
$154
|
Waste Storage
Facility
|
$M
|
$12
|
$10
|
$22
|
Other Surface Site
Infrastructure
|
$M
|
$36
|
$7
|
$43
|
Offsite
Infrastructure
|
$M
|
$9
|
$1
|
$9
|
Pre-Production
G&A
|
$M
|
$11
|
$0
|
$11
|
Sustaining
Capital
|
$M
|
$0
|
$46
|
$46
|
Mine
Closure
|
$M
|
$0
|
$30
|
$30
|
Salvage
|
$M
|
$0
|
($30)
|
($30)
|
EPCM
|
$M
|
$41
|
$0
|
$41
|
Contingency
|
$M
|
$60
|
$10
|
$70
|
Total
|
$M
|
$367
|
$169
|
$536
|
Operating Costs Summary
The operating cost estimates are detailed in Table 9.
Table 9: Total Operating Cost Estimates
Category
|
Life of
Mine
$M
|
LOM
Average
$/t (Total Mill
Feed)
|
Underground Mine
Operating Costs
|
$577
|
$47.37
|
Processing Plant
& WSF
|
$305
|
$25.03
|
G&A
Costs
|
$84
|
$6.87
|
Royalties
|
$33
|
$2.63
|
Transportation to
Smelter
|
$58
|
$4.71
|
Total
|
$1,057
|
$86.61
|
Financial Analysis and Sensitivity
The expected project cashflows were modelled using a simple
discounted cashflow model, using a discount rate of 5%. The project
cashflow is scheduled annually and uses an exchange rate of
1.3 CAD to USD. All values are in
CAD, unless stated otherwise.
A simple tax model was constructed using a depletion model for
depreciation estimates. No opening balance of tax credits or
eligible prior expenditure was used. Table 10 summarizes the
estimated total LOM cashflows. The column at the right is the NPV
(cost) of those cashflows. Table 11 summarizes the post-tax revenue
and cost NPV sensitivity, Table 12 summarizes the post-Tax discount
rate NPV sensitivity, Figures 5 and 6 summarize the post-tax
revenue NPV sensitivity and post-tax cost NPV sensitivity,
respectively.
Table 10: Key Financials
Cashflow
|
Units
|
LOM
|
Total
Revenue
|
$M
|
$2,245
|
Total Operating
Costs
|
$M
|
$1,057
|
Pre-tax Operating
Cashflow
|
$M
|
$1,188
|
Total
Capital
|
$M
|
$536
|
Pre-Tax Accumulated
Cashflow
|
$M
|
$652
|
Pre-Tax NPV @ 5%
Discount
|
$M
|
$425
|
Pre-Tax
IRR
|
%
|
31.1%
|
Taxes
|
$M
|
$70
|
Post-Tax Accumulated
Cashflow
|
$M
|
$582
|
Post-Tax NPV @ 5%
Discount
|
$M
|
$378
|
Post-Tax
IRR
|
%
|
29.8%
|
Table 11: Post-Tax Revenue and Cost NPV Sensitivity
|
Post-Tax NPV
Sensitivity (CA$million)
|
Sensitivity
Item
|
-20%
|
-15%
|
-10%
|
-5%
|
0%
|
5%
|
10%
|
15%
|
20%
|
Revenue
Pt
|
315
|
331
|
347
|
363
|
378
|
394
|
410
|
426
|
441
|
Revenue
Pd
|
231
|
268
|
305
|
342
|
378
|
415
|
452
|
488
|
524
|
Revenue
Au
|
375
|
376
|
377
|
378
|
378
|
379
|
380
|
381
|
382
|
Revenue
Ag
|
378
|
378
|
378
|
378
|
378
|
379
|
379
|
379
|
379
|
Revenue
Cu
|
340
|
350
|
359
|
369
|
378
|
388
|
398
|
407
|
417
|
Revenue
Ni
|
361
|
366
|
370
|
374
|
378
|
383
|
387
|
391
|
396
|
Initial
Capital
|
433
|
419
|
406
|
392
|
378
|
365
|
351
|
338
|
324
|
Ongoing
Capital
|
404
|
398
|
391
|
385
|
378
|
372
|
366
|
359
|
353
|
Underground
Operating
Costs
|
442
|
427
|
411
|
395
|
378
|
362
|
346
|
330
|
314
|
Processing Plant /
WSF
Operating Costs
|
412
|
404
|
395
|
387
|
378
|
370
|
362
|
353
|
345
|
Other Operating
(G&A,
Royalties, Transport)
|
398
|
393
|
388
|
383
|
378
|
373
|
369
|
364
|
359
|
Table 12: Post-Tax Discount Rate NPV Sensitivity
Discount
Rate
|
Post-Tax
NPV
|
(%)
|
(CA$million)
|
0%
|
582
|
3%
|
450
|
5%
|
378
|
7%
|
317
|
12%
|
199
|
Updated Mineral Resource
Nordmin examined and modelled the mineralization within the
Current and Escape deposits for the purpose of grade concentration
and isolation of composites, while including lithological,
geochemical, and structural correlations between rock types that
are influencing the mineralization at each respective deposit.
Wireframes were initially created on 10 m to 20 m plan
sections and adjusted on vertical section views to edit and smooth
each wireframe where required. When not cut off by drilling, the
wireframes terminate at the contact of the conduit or due to lack
of drilling, whichever was most appropriate. No wireframe
overlapping exists within a given domain, but all domains are
independent of each other.
Domain wireframes were modelled for seven grade elements,
including combined Platinum ("Pt") and Palladium ("Pd"), Gold
("Au"), Silver ("Ag"), Copper ("Cu"), Nickel ("Ni"), Cobalt ("Co"),
and Rhodium ("Rh"). Each domain was built using geology,
mineralization, and grade bin for a combination of Background grade
("BG"), Low Grade ("LG"), Medium Grade ("MG"), and High Grade
("HG"). Background grades were isolated through applying the
overall conduit wireframe.
The Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) is predominately based on an
unchanged geological model and methodologies utilized to calculate
the 2021 MRE. The differences in the Current deposit relate to the
incorporation of approximately 7,200 m of infill drilling
within the Lower Bridge/Upper Beaver area and the corresponding
reinterpretation of the infill drilling and incorporating updated
metal prices (Table 2), metallurgical and smelter recoveries (Table
5 and Table 6).
The Thunder Bay North Project 2021 PEA, while based largely on
MSO analysis in continuous mineralized material within the
indicated mineral resource category, is preliminary in nature and
includes an economic analysis that is based in part on Inferred
Mineral Resources. Inferred mineral resources are considered too
speculative geologically for the application of economic
considerations that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral
Reserves and there is no certainty that the results will be
realized. Mineral Resources do not have demonstrated economic
viability and are not Mineral Reserves. Table 13 shows the MRE
grades and Table 14 shows the MRE contained metals.
Table 13: Thunder Bay North Resource Estimate (Effective Date
November 1, 2021)
Category
|
Area
|
Tonnes
|
Pd
|
Pt
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Cu
|
Ni
|
Co
|
Rh
|
PtEq
|
(g/t)
|
(g/t)
|
(g/t)
|
(g/t)
|
(%)
|
(%)
|
(g/t)
|
(g/t)
|
(g/t)
|
Indicated -
Current deposit
|
Upper
Current
|
1,123,518
|
1.54
|
1.67
|
0.10
|
2.29
|
0.41
|
0.21
|
155.30
|
0.07
|
8.19
|
Lower
Current
|
1,574,152
|
2.38
|
2.56
|
0.13
|
2.99
|
0.52
|
0.23
|
159.05
|
0.05
|
11.49
|
Bridge
|
3,261,258
|
1.90
|
2.14
|
0.11
|
2.77
|
0.47
|
0.20
|
148.33
|
0.05
|
9.37
|
Beaver
|
3,592,490
|
1.39
|
1.54
|
0.06
|
1.61
|
0.27
|
0.22
|
147.57
|
0.03
|
6.90
|
Cloud
|
837,545
|
0.83
|
0.88
|
0.05
|
1.28
|
0.21
|
0.15
|
147.87
|
0.04
|
4.58
|
Indicated -
Escape deposit
|
Steepledge
North
|
124,611
|
0.84
|
0.73
|
0.06
|
1.30
|
0.29
|
0.18
|
157.85
|
0.01
|
4.63
|
Steepledge
South
|
42,812
|
1.05
|
0.89
|
0.05
|
1.15
|
0.28
|
0.17
|
142.66
|
0.00
|
5.02
|
|
Escape
South
|
3,996,938
|
1.22
|
0.95
|
0.13
|
2.52
|
0.53
|
0.29
|
211.89
|
0.06
|
7.73
|
Comprised
of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Escape South
Perimeter
|
1,672,990
|
0.62
|
0.51
|
0.08
|
1.47
|
0.37
|
0.21
|
176.82
|
0.04
|
4.69
|
Escape South
HGZ
|
2,323,948
|
1.67
|
1.28
|
0.16
|
3.31
|
0.66
|
0.34
|
238.05
|
0.08
|
9.99
|
TOTAL
INDICATED
RESOURCE
|
|
14,553,324
|
1.54
|
1.58
|
0.10
|
2.30
|
0.42
|
0.23
|
167.33
|
0.05
|
8.12
|
Inferred -
Current deposit
|
Beaver
|
505,794
|
0.84
|
0.88
|
0.06
|
1.66
|
0.27
|
0.20
|
151.67
|
0.02
|
4.72
|
437-SE
|
4,769,004
|
0.60
|
0.63
|
0.07
|
0.98
|
0.33
|
0.13
|
114.94
|
0.01
|
3.74
|
Inferred -
Escape deposit
|
Steepledge
North
|
97,464
|
0.59
|
0.50
|
0.05
|
0.58
|
0.27
|
0.21
|
149.59
|
0.00
|
3.74
|
Steepledge
South
|
1,990,612
|
0.90
|
0.78
|
0.07
|
1.18
|
0.33
|
0.17
|
177.16
|
0.00
|
4.74
|
Escape
South
|
714,722
|
0.61
|
0.49
|
0.08
|
0.97
|
0.36
|
0.19
|
177.20
|
0.00
|
4.03
|
Comprised
of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Escape South
Perimeter
|
649,938
|
0.62
|
0.50
|
0.08
|
0.92
|
0.35
|
0.19
|
176.30
|
0.00
|
4.03
|
Escape South
HGZ
|
64,784
|
0.53
|
0.40
|
0.09
|
1.43
|
0.36
|
0.20
|
186.07
|
0.01
|
4.01
|
TOTAL
INFERRED
RESOURCE
|
|
8,077,595
|
0.69
|
0.67
|
0.07
|
1.07
|
0.33
|
0.15
|
138.50
|
0.01
|
4.07
|
Table 14: Thunder Bay North Resource Estimate Contained
Metal
Category
|
Area
|
Tonnes
|
Pd
|
Pt
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Cu
|
Ni
|
Co
|
Rh
|
PtEq
|
|
|
|
(oz)
|
(oz)
|
(oz)
|
(oz)
|
(t)
|
(t)
|
(t)
|
(oz)
|
(oz)
|
Indicated -
Current
deposit
|
Upper
Current
|
1,123,518
|
55,607
|
60,222
|
3,568
|
82,691
|
4,628
|
2,309
|
174
|
2,420
|
295,814
|
Lower
Current
|
1,574,152
|
120,255
|
129,778
|
6,507
|
151,304
|
8,107
|
3,627
|
250
|
2,715
|
581,322
|
Bridge
|
3,261,258
|
199,559
|
224,187
|
11,958
|
290,047
|
15,358
|
6,412
|
484
|
4,880
|
982,764
|
Beaver
|
3,592,490
|
160,524
|
177,526
|
7,401
|
185,975
|
9,574
|
7,834
|
530
|
4,033
|
797,121
|
Cloud
|
837,545
|
22,344
|
23,618
|
1,426
|
34,385
|
1,718
|
1,223
|
124
|
1,200
|
123,229
|
Indicated -
Escape
deposit
|
Steepledge
North
|
124,611
|
3,379
|
2,931
|
250
|
5,200
|
359
|
218
|
20
|
45
|
18,560
|
Steepledge
South
|
42,812
|
1,448
|
1,223
|
75
|
1,581
|
119
|
72
|
6
|
0
|
6,913
|
Escape
South
|
3,996,938
|
156,402
|
121,942
|
16,136
|
324,200
|
21,263
|
11,435
|
847
|
8,219
|
992,858
|
Comprised
of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Escape South
Perimeter
|
1,672,990
|
31,966
|
26,451
|
4,382
|
76,875
|
6,027
|
3,425
|
294
|
2,129
|
246,577
|
Escape South
HGZ
|
2,323,948
|
124,437
|
95,491
|
11,754
|
247,325
|
15,236
|
8,010
|
553
|
6,090
|
746,281
|
TOTAL
INDICATED
RESOURCE
|
|
14,553,324
|
719,518
|
741,426
|
47,322
|
1,075,381
|
61,126
|
33,131
|
2,435
|
23,511
|
3,798,581
|
Inferred -
Current
deposit
|
Beaver
|
505,794
|
13,618
|
14,268
|
995
|
27,012
|
1,369
|
1,035
|
77
|
329
|
76,677
|
437-SE
|
4,769,004
|
92,264
|
96,427
|
10,111
|
150,294
|
15,545
|
6,089
|
548
|
1,324
|
573,599
|
Inferred -
Escape
deposit
|
Steepledge
North
|
97,464
|
1,846
|
1,578
|
169
|
1,805
|
260
|
204
|
15
|
0
|
11,730
|
Steepledge
South
|
1,990,612
|
57,381
|
50,208
|
4,410
|
75,364
|
6,613
|
3,308
|
353
|
0
|
303,144
|
Escape
South
|
714,722
|
14,020
|
11,348
|
1,824
|
22,227
|
2,541
|
1,373
|
127
|
70
|
92,496
|
Comprised
of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Escape South
Perimeter
|
649,938
|
12,913
|
10,507
|
1,647
|
19,252
|
2,306
|
1,242
|
115
|
41
|
84,146
|
Escape South
HGZ
|
64,784
|
1,108
|
841
|
177
|
2,975
|
235
|
131
|
12
|
29
|
8,350
|
TOTAL
INFERRED
RESOURCE
|
|
8,077,595
|
179,130
|
173,829
|
17,508
|
276,702
|
26,329
|
12,009
|
1,119
|
1,724
|
1,057,646
|
Mineral Resource
Estimate Notes
|
1.
|
Underground Mineral
Resources were prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 and
the CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral
Reserves (2014) and the CIM Estimation of Mineral Resources and
Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines (2019). Mineral Resources
that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic
viability. This estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially
affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation,
sociopolitical, marketing, or other relevant issues.
|
2.
|
Underground
Mineral Resources are based on a 2-year trailing price deck (table
2 above) as of September 30, 2021.
|
3.
|
Resource excludes
all material immediately below Current Lake, above a minimum crown
pillar thickness of 20 m which is assumed to be not
recoverable by underground methods.
|
4.
|
Minor variations may
occur during the addition of rounded numbers.
|
5.
|
Calculations used
metric units (metres (m), tonnes (t) and grams/tonne
(g/t)).
|
6.
|
Assays were
variably capped on a domain by domain basis.
|
7.
|
Specific gravity
was applied using Ordinary Kriging (OK) estimation.
|
8.
|
Mineral Resource
effective date November 1, 2021.
|
9.
|
All figures are
rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates and
totals may not add correctly.
|
10.
|
Reported from
within a mineralization envelope accounting for mineral
continuity.
|
Input Parameters for Resource Calculation Mining Cutoff
Grade
The cutoff value used for the mineral resource for Current
deposit is US$93/tonne (CA$121/tonne)
insitu contained value and the Escape deposit is US$100/tonne (CA$130/tonne) insitu contained
value. The cutoff value is calculated based on estimations as
follows: direct mining operating cost, onsite milling operating
cost, tailings management facility operating cost, indirect
operating cost, G&A cost, onsite milling metal recoveries,
offsite smelting metal recoveries, and smelter metal payable
percentages.
Estimated operating costs, onsite estimated mill metal
recoveries, offsite estimated smelting metal recoveries and
estimated smelter payable percentages used for mineral resource
cutoff grade calculations are summarized in Table 15. For resource
cutoff calculation purposes, a mining recovery of 100.0% and 0.0%
mining dilution were applied.
Table 15: Mineral Resource Estimate Cutoff Grade
Calculation
Parameter
|
Unit
|
Value
Current
deposit
|
Value
Escape
deposit
|
Currency used for
Evaluation
|
$
|
CAD
|
CAD
|
Mill Daily Throughput
/ Mining Rate
|
Tonnes per
day
|
3600
|
3600
|
Long Hole Open
Stoping Component
|
%
|
75%
|
75%
|
Drift and Fill
Component
|
%
|
25%
|
25%
|
Direct Mining
Cost
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$30
|
$31
|
Milling / WSF
Cost
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$21
|
$21
|
Indirect / G&A
Cost
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$10
|
$10
|
Transportation to
Refinery Charges
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$4.9
|
$4.5
|
Royalties
|
%
|
1.3%
|
1.5%
|
Milling
Recovery
|
%
|
77%
|
77%
|
Smelter Recovery
& Payables
|
%
|
73%
|
68%
|
|
|
|
|
Insitu Contained
Value Cutoff ($CAD)
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$121
|
$130
|
Insitu Contained
Value Cutoff ($USD)
|
$/t mill
feed
|
$93
|
$100
|
Clean Air Metals expects to complete a mineral resource update
in 2022 on the greater than 35,000 m of step-out and
delineation drilling that has been completed on the Escape deposit
since the January 20, 2021 resource statement. Much of the
inferred material in the present PEA mine plan has been a focus of
infill drilling activity as previously disclosed and is expected to
convert to indicated mineral inventory. Continuity of
mineralization has been also demonstrated geophysically (using the
Magnetometric Resistivity (MMR) technique). The additional drilling
is expected to support the use of the MSO algorithm in a
prefeasibility study.
Mineral Resource Estimate Methodology
The Current deposit drill hole database is comprised of
171,465 m from 767 diamond drill holes completed between 2006
and 2021. The Escape deposit drill hole database is comprised of
49,383 m from 137 drill holes completed between 2008 and
2020.
The 3D geological modelling integrates assay and geological data
collected from diamond core drilling; surface geologic mapping;
airborne magnetic; and radiometric geophysical surveys.
The Current and Escape deposit block models were estimated using
nearest neighbours (NN), inverse distance squared (ID2), inverse
distance cubed (ID3), and ordinary kriging (OK) interpolation
methods for global comparisons and validation purposes. The OK
method was used for the MRE; it was selected over ID2, ID3, and NN
as the OK method was the most representative approach to
controlling the smoothing of grades.
Zonal controls were used to constrain the grade estimates to
within each low grade and high grade wireframes. These controls
prevented the assays from individual domain wireframes from
influencing the block grades of one another, acting as a "hard
boundary" between the zones.
Search orientations were used for estimation of the block model
and were based on the shape of the modelled mineral domains. A
total of three nested searches were performed on all zones. The
search distances were based upon the variography ranges.
Search ellipsoids defined by metal modelled variograms, which
range from 130 to 140 m in the major axis, 100 m in the
minor axis, and 9 to 18 m in the vertical axis. The MRE was
estimated with 3 m composites
utilizing ordinary kriging and local varying anisotropy. The
search radius of the first search was based upon the first
structure of the variogram, the second search is approximately two
times the first search pass and the third search pass is 1.5 times
the initial search. Search strategies for each domain used an
elliptical search with a minimum and maximum number of composites.
Unestimated blocks were left as absent and not reported in the
MRE.
Tables 16 and 17 below illustrate the sensitivity of the MRE to
different cutoff grades for a potential underground operation
scenario with reasonable outlook for economic extraction. The
reader is cautioned that the figures provided in these tables
should not be interpreted as a statement of Mineral Resources.
Quantities and estimated grades for different cutoff grades are
presented for the sole purpose of demonstrating the sensitivity of
the resource model to the choice of a specific cutoff grade.
Mineral Resource Estimate
- The Mineral Resources were classified using the 2014 CIM
Definition standards and the 2019 CIM Best Practice Guidelines and
has an effective date of November 1,
2021. The updated MRE comprises a 14.6 million tonne
Indicated Mineral Resource, averaging 8.12 g/t PtEq and an 8.1
million tonne Inferred Mineral Resource, averaging 4.07 g/t PtEq.,
reported at a cutoff insitu contained value of US$93/tonne for Current deposit and a cutoff
insitu contained value of US$100/tonne for Escape deposit (Table 16).
Figure 7 shows the PtEq (g/t) Grade-Tonne Curve.
- The current resource represents a 4.5% increase in the
indicated material on a contained PtEq metal ounce basis in
comparison to the prior January 20,
2021 MRE due to the estimation of 2021 7,500 m infill drilling within the Bridge/Beaver
portion of the Current deposit. The infill drilling improved the
continuity of medium and higher grade portions of the deposit.
Note: PtEq Grade = Total Metal Value in 1 Tonne ÷ Pt Price per
Oz × 31.10348 g per Oz. For the MRE, total metal value
includes 8 metals (Platinum, Palladium, Gold, Silver, Rhodium,
Cobalt, Copper and Nickel)
Optimization Opportunities and Next Steps
Clean Air Metals has identified additional tradeoff
opportunities at a prefeasibility level to enhance sustainability
and overall project economics, including:
- Optimization of mineral processing, metals recovery, to
potentially make rhodium and cobalt payable metals and to improve
total playability of nickel.
- Negotiating competitive rather than Indicative smelter payable
terms as project is de-risked and timeline to production
reduced.
- Review of direct shipping and toll-milling options to local
processor reducing capital intensity of mill concentrator and WSF
construction.
- Reduction of PEA-level 20% contingency allowance.
- Sourcing refurbished rather than brand new OEM milling
equipment.
- Exploration targeting yielded 1) detailed delineation of
braided magma streams in the Beaver zone down plunge in the Current
deposit, and 2) discovery of high grade massive sulphide deposits
consistent with the Talnakh mineral deposit model, in structures
beneath and in the feeder zone areas at the base of the Current and
Escape magma conduit intrusions and along the conjoining Escape
Lake Fault.
Table 16: Mineral Resource Sensitivity to Reporting Cutoff
(Indicated)
Category
|
Cutoff
Insitu
($/t)
|
Tonnes
|
Pt
(g/t)
|
Pd
(g/t)
|
Au
(g/t)
|
Ag
(g/t)
|
Rh
(g/t)
|
Co
(g/t)
|
Cu
(%)
|
Ni
(%)
|
PtEq
(g/t)
|
PdEq
(g/t)
|
Indicated
|
77
|
15,191,639
|
1.55
|
1.41
|
0.08
|
1.95
|
0.04
|
146
|
0.33
|
0.19
|
7.19
|
3.15
|
|
86
|
13,143,362
|
1.73
|
1.57
|
0.09
|
2.11
|
0.05
|
148
|
0.36
|
0.20
|
7.91
|
3.46
|
Current
|
93
|
11,879,626
|
1.87
|
1.70
|
0.09
|
2.22
|
0.05
|
150
|
0.38
|
0.20
|
8.44
|
3.69
|
Deposit
|
100
|
10,880,057
|
2.00
|
1.81
|
0.10
|
2.33
|
0.05
|
151
|
0.40
|
0.21
|
8.93
|
3.91
|
|
110
|
9,755,864
|
2.16
|
1.96
|
0.10
|
2.46
|
0.05
|
153
|
0.42
|
0.22
|
9.58
|
4.19
|
|
120
|
8,878,497
|
2.32
|
2.12
|
0.11
|
2.65
|
0.05
|
155
|
0.41
|
0.22
|
9.91
|
4.48
|
Indicated
|
77
|
5,932,329
|
0.72
|
0.92
|
0.07
|
1.51
|
0.02
|
188
|
0.33
|
0.20
|
5.05
|
2.21
|
|
86
|
5,116,115
|
0.81
|
1.03
|
0.11
|
2.21
|
0.06
|
201
|
0.47
|
0.26
|
6.75
|
2.95
|
Escape
|
93
|
4,639,233
|
0.87
|
1.11
|
0.12
|
2.33
|
0.06
|
205
|
0.50
|
0.27
|
7.14
|
3.13
|
Deposit
|
100
|
4,164,360
|
0.94
|
1.20
|
0.12
|
2.47
|
0.06
|
210
|
0.52
|
0.28
|
7.61
|
3.33
|
|
110
|
3,515,820
|
1.07
|
1.37
|
0.13
|
2.66
|
0.07
|
216
|
0.56
|
0.30
|
8.39
|
3.67
|
|
120
|
2,995,727
|
1.21
|
1.55
|
0.14
|
2.86
|
0.07
|
222
|
0.59
|
0.31
|
9.21
|
4.03
|
Table 17: Mineral Resource Sensitivity to Reporting Cutoff
(Inferred)
Category
|
Cutoff
Insitu
($/t)
|
Tonnes
|
Pt
(g/t)
|
Pd
(g/t)
|
Au
(g/t)
|
Ag
(g/t)
|
Rh
(g/t)
|
Co
(g/t)
|
Cu
(%)
|
Ni
(%)
|
PtEq
(g/t)
|
PdEq
(g/t)
|
Inferred
|
77
|
8,301,417
|
0.56
|
0.53
|
0.06
|
0.94
|
0.01
|
120
|
0.27
|
0.13
|
3.41
|
1.49
|
|
86
|
6,097,335
|
0.60
|
0.63
|
0.06
|
1.02
|
0.01
|
119
|
0.30
|
0.13
|
3.70
|
1.62
|
Current
|
93
|
5,274,818
|
0.65
|
0.62
|
0.07
|
1.05
|
0.01
|
118
|
0.32
|
0.14
|
3.83
|
1.68
|
Deposit
|
100
|
4,840,267
|
0.67
|
0.64
|
0.07
|
1.05
|
0.01
|
120
|
0.32
|
0.14
|
3.90
|
1.71
|
|
110
|
3,256,414
|
0.72
|
0.69
|
0.07
|
1.09
|
0.01
|
123
|
0.33
|
0.14
|
4.11
|
1.80
|
|
120
|
1,188,886
|
0.94
|
0.90
|
0.07
|
1.24
|
0.02
|
138
|
0.31
|
0.16
|
5.02
|
2.20
|
Inferred
|
77
|
5,347,493
|
0.54
|
0.62
|
0.06
|
1.03
|
0.00
|
162
|
0.28
|
0.17
|
3.71
|
1.62
|
|
86
|
4,227,441
|
0.60
|
0.69
|
0.06
|
1.07
|
0.00
|
167
|
0.30
|
0.17
|
4.00
|
1.75
|
Escape
|
93
|
3,405,362
|
0.65
|
0.75
|
0.07
|
1.11
|
0.00
|
172
|
0.32
|
0.17
|
4.27
|
1.87
|
Deposit
|
100
|
2,802,798
|
0.70
|
0.81
|
0.07
|
1.10
|
0.00
|
176
|
0.34
|
0.17
|
4.52
|
1.98
|
|
110
|
2,220,097
|
0.77
|
0.90
|
0.07
|
1.11
|
0.00
|
181
|
0.35
|
0.18
|
4.83
|
2.11
|
|
120
|
1,706,029
|
0.84
|
0.99
|
0.08
|
1.15
|
0.00
|
187
|
0.36
|
0.18
|
5.17
|
2.26
|
About the Thunder Bay North Project Property
Thunder Bay North Project is located in the Tartan and Greenwich
Lake Areas approximately 50 km north of the City of Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. The
site is paved highway accessible from Thunder Bay on Trans-Canada Highway 11-17 and
then north on Highway 527 to the Escape Lake Road network. The
proximity of the mine site plan to power (235 kV East-West Tie
Line) and transportation infrastructure (paved Highway 527) within
the Company's mining claims is felt to offer a competitive
advantage.
Proximity to mining supply and services and a skilled workforce
within one hour from the City of Thunder
Bay is expected to facilitate a future construction
decision. Partnerships with affected First Nations (the
"Participating Communities") who bring joint-venture capacity and a
willing workforce for supply and services to a future mining
operation at Thunder Bay North.
Environmental and Social
Clean Air Metals acknowledges that the project is within the
Robinson-Superior Treaty territory and that the land on which the
project lies is the traditional territory of the Fort William First
Nation, Red Rock Indian Band and Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging
Anishinaabek. Clean Air Metals has signed a Memorandum of Agreement
(January 9, 2020) with each of the
three proximate First Nation communities (the Participating
Communities).
Clean Air Metals, as well as previous owners, have engaged
environmental consulting firms to complete a variety of
environmental baseline studies across the project, resulting in a
robust historical data set. Baseline data collection is continuing
to be collected on physical environment studies (hydrology, surface
water, sediment, hydrogeology, metals leaching and acid rock
drainage, meteorology and noise), biological environment studies
(fish and fish habitat, mammals, birds, species at risk, vegetation
and wetlands) and archaeological studies. The data will be used to
advance an anticipated Provincial Environmental Assessment and
future permitting. Based on the current mine plans, the project is
not anticipated to be subject to the federal Impact Assessment
Act.
Exploration Upside
A total of 37,100 m of core drilling in 2021 has been
completed on the Escape deposit since the Mineral Resource update
reported January 20, 2021. Although the Escape South HGZ Area
(shown in Figure 8 below) of the PEA mine plan is fully Indicated,
a further 10,705 m of drilling in 2022 is required to bring
the Steepledge South Area portion of the PEA mine plan into the
Indicated Mineral Resource category. A further 19,895 m of
drilling in 2022 will also be required in the Lower Beaver Lake
Zone and Upper 437 Zone of the Current deposit to bring the PEA
mine plan fully into Indicated Mineral Resource (shown in Figure 9
below).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8206b/8206b33d63ff4aecb28de3f7e157b81e5270e3bc" alt="Figure 8: Escape Deposit Indicated and Inferred Mineable Inventory (CNW Group/Clean Air Metals Inc.) Figure 8: Escape Deposit Indicated and Inferred Mineable Inventory (CNW Group/Clean Air Metals Inc.)"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ed3e8/ed3e81e3685befc6037c348bd495b277719edd03" alt="Figure 9: Current Deposit Indicated and Inferred Mineable Inventory (CNW Group/Clean Air Metals Inc.) Figure 9: Current Deposit Indicated and Inferred Mineable Inventory (CNW Group/Clean Air Metals Inc.)"
In terms of exploration upside, a total of 16,700 m of
drilling is planned at the base of the Escape and Current deposits
where six (6) ultra-low resistivity magnetotelluric (MT) anomalies
termed Anomalies A, B, C, D, E, F have been identified (shown in
Figure 10) along the Escape Lake Fault zone. The feeder system and
Escape Lake Fault are important from a massive sulphide exploration
perspective. High grade massive sulphide intercepts in core have
been discovered within the Current deposit including hole BL10-197
which intersected 52.7 g/t Pt, 41.5 g/t Pd, 3.6 g/t
Au, 60.5 g/t Ag and 11.5% Cu over 2.6 m between 187.4-
190.0 m downhole and hole ELR20-041 in the Escape deposit
which intersected 7.93 g/t Palladium (Pd), 6.41 g/t
Platinum (Pt), 4.76% Copper (Cu), 2.5% Nickel (Ni), 0.151% Cobalt
(Co) over 0.5 m from 337.0 m–337.5 m downhole attest to
the deposits capacity to host massive sulphide. Given the
demonstrated similarity of the Thunder Bay North magmatic system
with the Talnakh complex at Norilsk, it is felt that larger
deposits should be in the system. The Escape Lake Fault system is
erosionally recessive and wet. The exploration team is waiting for
a hard freeze to complete additional geophysics (deep seeking pulse
EM) and set up the drill.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f87a0/f87a01617b37b5f17fc9b56574e3ce501682029f" alt="Figure 10: Massive Sulphide Targets A-F; Low-resistivity magnetotelluric (MT) anomalies (CNW Group/Clean Air Metals Inc.) Figure 10: Massive Sulphide Targets A-F; Low-resistivity magnetotelluric (MT) anomalies (CNW Group/Clean Air Metals Inc.)"
Please see the link below for Figures 1 to 10.
Figure 1: Site Plan with Mineable Current and Escape
Deposits - Link (Click Here)
Figure 2: Current Deposit Long Section (Facing
South-West) - Link (Click Here)
Figure 3: Escape Deposit Long Section (Facing
South-West) - Link (Click Here)
Figure 4: Conceptual Process Plant Flow Diagram -
Link (Click Here)
Figure 5: Post-Tax Revenue NPV Sensitivity - Link
(Click Here)
Figure 6: Post-Tax Cost NPV Sensitivity - Link
(Click Here)
Figure 7: PtEq (g/t) Grade-Tonne Curve - Link (Click
Here)
Figure 8: Escape Deposit Indicated and Inferred
Mineable Inventory - Link (Click Here)
Figure 9: Current Deposit Indicated and Inferred
Mineable Inventory - Link (Click Here)
Figure 10: Massive Sulphide Targets A-F;
Low-resistivity magnetotelluric (MT) anomalies- Link (Click
Here)
Technical Information & Qualified Person
The PEA was independently prepared by Mr. Glen Kuntz, P.Geo., Mr. Kurt Boyko, P.Eng. and Mr. Brian Wissent, P.Eng. of Nordmin, Mr.
Lyn Jones, P.Eng. of Blue Coast
Research, Mr. Wilson Muir, P.Eng. of
Knight Piésold Ltd., Mr. Kris Tuuttila
P.Geo. (Limited) of DST Consulting, and Dr. Geoff Heggie, Exploration Manager of Clean Air
Metals, who are considered "Qualified Persons" under National
Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. The
technical disclosure in this news release is based upon the
information in the PEA prepared by or under the supervision of Mr.
Kuntz, Mr. Boyko, Mr. Wissent, Mr. Jones, Mr. Muir, Mr. Tuuttila,
and Dr. Heggie.
The technical information in this release has been reviewed and
verified by Mr. Glen Kuntz, P.Geo.
and Dr. Geoff Heggie who are a
"Qualified Persons" for the purpose of National Instrument
43-101.
After-tax results were calculated by Clean Air Metals'
management team and verified by the Company Auditor and are not
considered independent.
The Company will file a technical report prepared in accordance
with National Instrument 43-101 on www.sedar.com within 45 days of
this news release.
Carbon Neutrality – Opportunities and Risks
The Thunder Bay Project principal payable commodity suite will
be a significant contributor to carbon neutrality. Platinum is
critical to the emerging hydrogen economy. Palladium continues to
be a regulated and required component for pollution control in
catalytic converters in internal combustion engines. Copper is the
conductor of choice for electric vehicles (EV) and electrical grid
infrastructure. Nickel is a proven EV battery metal.
Future underground mine production at Thunder Bay North would
feature a small footprint and be powered by an electrical power
grid that is 100% renewable with majority hydroelectric, plus wind
and solar. In terms of mine design, the Company will maximize use
of electric-powered equipment. The Company is coordinating with a
major forestry company operator around co-funding of tree
replanting efforts in legacy areas including old gravel pits and
decommissioned forestry access roads. The Company will investigate
carbon sequestration within ultramafic mine tailing material.
From an Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) perspective,
the Company will help develop capacity in affected aboriginal
communities and Métis Nations towards building capacity, training
and development of meaningful business opportunities around supply
and services, construction and operations at a potential future
mine site development. The Company has a diverse Board of Directors
and is committed to publishing a full baseline report around ESG
factors.
Social Engagement
Clean Air Metals Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Panoramic PGMs (Canada) Ltd.
acknowledge that the Thunder Bay North Project is on the
traditional territories of the Fort William First Nation, Red
Rock First Nation and Biinjitiwabik Zaaging Anishinabek. The
parties together are the Cooperating Participants in a Memorandum
of Agreement dated January 9, 2021.
The Company appreciates the opportunity to work in these
territories and remains committed to the recognition and respect of
those who have lived, travelled, and gathered on the lands since
time immemorial. Clean Air Metals is committed to stewarding
Indigenous heritage and remains committed to building, fostering
and encouraging a respectful relationship with First Nations,
Métis, and Inuit peoples based upon principles of mutual trust,
respect, reciprocity and collaboration in the spirit of
reconciliation.
About Clean Air Metals Inc.
Clean Air Metals' flagship asset is the 100% owned, high grade
Thunder Bay North Project, a platinum, palladium, copper, nickel
project located near the City of Thunder
Bay, Ontario and the Lac des Iles Mine owned by Impala
Platinum. The Clean Air Metals project hosts the Current deposit
and magma conduit and the Company is actively exploring the Escape
deposit, a twin structure to the Current deposit. Executive Chair
Jim Gallagher and CEO Abraham Drost lead an experienced team of
geologists and engineers who are using the Noril'sk magma conduit
stratigraphic and mineral deposit model to guide ongoing
exploration and development studies. As the former CEO of North
American Palladium Ltd. which owned the Lac des Iles Mine prior to
the sale to Impala Platinum in December 2019, Jim Gallagher and team are credited with the
mine turnaround and creation of significant value for
shareholders.
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
"Abraham Drost"
Abraham Drost, Chief Executive
Officer of Clean Air Metals Inc.
Website: www.cleanairmetals.ca
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services
Provider (as that term is defined in policies of the TSX Venture
Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of
this release.
Cautionary Notes
The information contained herein contains "forward-looking
statements" within the meaning of applicable securities
legislation, including statements regarding the potential of the
Thunder Bay North Project and the Escape Lake and Current Lake
deposits and timing of technical studies (include the preliminary
economic assessment) and mineral resource estimates.
Forward-looking statements relate to information that is based on
assumptions of management, forecasts of future results, and
estimates of amounts not yet determinable. Any statements that
express predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections,
objectives, assumptions or future events or performance are not
statements of historical fact and may be "forward-looking
statements." Forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of
risks and uncertainties which could cause actual events or results
to differ from those reflected in the forward-looking statements,
including, without limitation: political and regulatory risks
associated with mining and exploration; risks related to the
maintenance of stock exchange listings; risks related to
environmental regulation and liability; the potential for delays in
exploration or development activities or the completion of
feasibility studies; the uncertainty of profitability; risks and
uncertainties relating to the interpretation of drill results, the
geology, grade and continuity of mineral deposits; risks related to
the inherent uncertainty of production and cost estimates and the
potential for unexpected costs and expenses; results of
prefeasibility and feasibility studies, and the possibility that
future exploration, development or mining results will not be
consistent with the Company's expectations; risks related to
commodity price fluctuations; and other risks and uncertainties
related to the Company's prospects, properties and business
detailed elsewhere in the Company's disclosure record.
Should one or more of these risks and uncertainties materialize,
or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results
may vary materially from those described in forward-looking
statements. Investors are cautioned against attributing undue
certainty to forward-looking statements. These forward-looking
statements are made as of the date hereof and the Company does not
assume any obligation to update or revise them to reflect new
events or circumstances, except in accordance with applicable
securities laws. Actual events or results could differ materially
from the Company's expectations or projection.
View original content to download
multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clean-air-metals-announces-a-pea-of-the-current-and-escape-pge-cu-ni-deposits-of-the-thunder-bay-north-project-with-post-tax-npv5-of-c378m-irr-29-8-301434834.html
SOURCE Clean Air Metals Inc.