SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Dino's Bar & Grill

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Goose94 who wrote (7313)8/25/2014 7:54:37 AM
From: Goose94Read Replies (1) of 202737
 
Paramount Gold and Silver (PZG-T) Aug 25, '14 announced today the results of a Preliminary Economic Assessment for its 100%-owned San Miguel gold and silver project located in Chihuahua State, Mexico. The PEA was prepared by Metal Mining Consultants Inc. of Denver, Colorado incorporating a resource model developed by Mine Development Associates of Reno, Nevada. The new PEA confirms that the San Miguel project represents a potentially robust economic opportunity to develop a low-cost mine in the prolific Sierra Madre belt in Mexico. The new PEA adds an efficient, inexpensive open pit, heap leach operation to the front end of the production scenario which helps fund underground mining and related mill construction from cash flow. The new PEA also features a very substantial increase in measured, indicated and inferred resources compared to the 2013 PEA also prepared by MMC. The complete PEA has been filed at SEDAR on August 22, 2014.

Commenting on the results, Paramount CEO Christopher Crupi stated: "This new PEA incorporates a much more mature and efficient design than the one from last year. The additional drilling and metallurgical testing since the first iteration have allowed us to capture a sizeable, near surface, mid-to-lower grade resource in a heap leach operation which generates a substantial economic improvement over last year. Lower average metal prices have reduced the new NPV/IRR calculations from 2013. However, if you run the new design on the same base case metal prices as last year's PEA, which are gold at $1500 and silver at $29, the NPV this year comes in at $792.0 million, a 12% increase from 2013. This apples-to-apples comparison points to the significant progress we have made at San Miguel. We think a prospective partner can now put a reliable valuation on the project."

Project Design and Economics

In their analysis, MMC proposed a 4,000 tonnes per day mill with a heap leaching facility fed by open pits and underground mines, resulting in a projected 17 year operation with a total metal production of 933,000 ounces of gold and 47.1 million ounces of silver (1,700,000 ounces of gold equivalent at the base case gold-to-silver price ratio of 61.4 to 1). Start-up capital costs including owners cost and working capital are estimated at $69.6 million. This is for the development of the heap leach pad and the start of mining operations. Sustaining capital costs over the project's life are projected to be an additional $346.1 million, with 25% sustaining contingency for mill construction included and $21.3 million in EPCM for mill construction in year 2, total life-of-mine capital costs are estimated at $439.5 million. Projected life-of-mine average cash operating costs are $597 per ounce of equivalent gold recovered. The total cost of production (including cash operating costs and total capital and contingency costs over the life of the mine) is estimated at $855 per ounce of gold equivalent, which compares favorably with current producers in the region. Payback for initial capital comes in year 3 of production and payback of mill expansion and underground start-up in year 5.

At a gold price of $1,350 per ounce and a silver price of $22 per ounce, the base case price assumptions, San Miguel has an estimated $841.2 million pre-tax net cash flow, a $472.6 million pre-tax net present value ("NPV") at a 5% discount rate and a highly accretive internal rate of return ("IRR") of 23.2%. Using the prices of the 2013 PEA of $1,500 gold and $29 silver, San Miguel's projected economics improve to $1.3 billion in pre-tax net cash flow, $792.0 million of net present value at a 5% discount rate and a 33.9% IRR.

Mineral Resources

In July 2014, MDA completed a National Instrument 43-101 compliant global resource estimate for the San Miguel project (see paramountgold.com ) which was used for the PEA. The San Miguel database used for MDA's resource estimate includes 318 core and 61 reverse circulation drill holes totaling almost 139,000 meters. Total global resource estimates by measured, indicated, and inferred as reported by MDA are as follows: media3.marketwire.com

MMC has determined that the most suitable mining scenario for the project is an underground operation for the high grade Don Ese, a combination of open pit and underground mining for La Union and San Miguel and open pit extraction for San Antonio, La Veronica, Monte Cristo, and San Francisco.

A PEA provides a basis to estimate project operating and capital costs and establish a projection of the potential mineable resource including measured, indicated and inferred categories as permitted under National Instrument 43-101.

The total global mineral resources model prepared by MDA was then used by MMC to estimate open pit and underground mining using the following associated cutoff grades:

Source and ProcessSilver Equivalent Cut-off Grades (gpt)Associated Gold Equivalent Cut-off Grades (gpt)
Open Pit Mill390.64
Open Pit Heap Leach90.15
Don Ese Underground Mill1502.44
San Miguel Underground Mill991.61
La Union Underground Mill1041.69
MMC estimated the base case scenario on open pits and underground designs using the following minable material*

SourceClasskTonnesAu gptAu kOz.Ag gptAg kOz.
Open Pit MillMeasured5120.5910149.62,465
Open Pit Heap LeachMeasured226--36.8267
Underground MillMeasured2,0562.70179117.47,757
Open Pit MillIndicated6,3020.4081103.921,060
Open Pit Heap LeachIndicated3,3340.151613.71,469
Underground MillIndicated5,1192.84468133.221,924
TotalMeasured
& Indicated
17,5501.3475497.454,942
MineClasskTonnesAu gptAu Oz.Ag gptAg Oz.
Open Pit MillInferred6,3410.449054.211,054
Open Pit Heap LeachInferred8,5390.19526.81,860
Underground MillInferred1,5662.45123136.06,849
TotalInferred16,4450.5026637.419,763
*Note: The PEA evaluated mineral resources which are considered to be too geologically speculative to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves and, as such, do not have demonstrated economic viability. There can be no certainty that the estimates contained in the PEA will be realized.
The potentially minable material in the 2014 PEA has increased significantly from the potentially minable material incorporated into the 2013 PEA. The following table summarizes the increases in mined tonnages:

Class2013 PEA kTonnes2014 PEA kTonnesIncrease
Measured9742,794187%
Indicated8,80714,75668%
Total9,78217,55079%
Class2013 PEA kTonnes2014 PEA kTonnesIncrease
Inferred8,71016,44589%
Metallurgy

Test work performed at McClelland Laboratories Inc. in Sparks, Nevada, has provided a reliable basis for deriving gold and silver recoveries for each of the deposits included in this PEA. MMC used gold and silver recoveries specific to each of the deposits. Overall, gold recoveries exceeded 90 percent and silver recoveries averaged above 70 percent in cyanide leach bottle roll tests at a grind of 74 microns. Estimates of cyanide and lime consumptions have also been obtained from the test work and were used to develop the processing methodology. The economic scenario defined by MMC incorporated a 4,000 tonne per day mill facility, followed by agitated cyanide leach in tanks with a Merrill Crowe recovery circuit which will produce a dore bar. Additional test work conducted on coarse material in the past year has indicated that Heap Leaching could recover significant metal. MMC has worked to bring the heap leaching case to a planned operating scenario to allow economics to be generated. This result has indicated that the project be started under a Heap Leach operation and delay the mill and underground operations by one year.

Mine Planning

The project will be mined by combined conventional open pit and underground operations. The recommended open pit mining method is conventional drilling and blasting with mineralized material and overburden loaded into rigid frame haul trucks. Mechanized underground mining will be from sublevel open stoping with delayed backfilling. A vertical mining sequence was assumed based on panels defined by local bottom elevations from which vertical overhand mining would proceed. Where required, the panel bottom was assumed to be filled with cemented rockfill, to create intermediate sills to allow underlying panels to be developed later in the production schedule as mining advanced vertically downward. The majority of stope backfilling would use uncemented development waste (unmineralized material) or open pit overburden backhauled from the surface. These mining methodologies are in common use in this region of Mexico.

A summarized production schedule for annual averages for the heap leach startup followed the heap leach and mill production stages of the project is as follows*:

San Miguel Project Schedule
Project StageHeap Leach Start UpHeap Leach
and Mill Production
Life of Mine
Yearly AveragesYear 1 to Year 2Year 3 to Year 17Total
Mineralized Tonnes to Mill-1,394,00020,910,000
Au Grade (gpt)-1.401.40
Ag Grade (gpt)-99.0599.05
Au Recovery-92%92%
Ag Recovery-72%72%
Recovered Au Oz-60,287877,000
Recovered Ag Oz-3,117,77145,416,000
Mineralized Tonnes to Pad902,000730,00012,754,000
Au Grade (gpt)0.170.180.18
Ag Grade (gpt)33.558.7512.26
Au Recovery77%77%77%
Ag Recovery33%33%33%
Recovered Au Oz3,7193,26956,000
Recovered Ag Oz321,16078,9331,659,000
Total Mineralized Tonnes902,0002,124,00033,664,000
Total Rejected Material Tonnes4,249,0004,740,00079,602,000
Total Recovered Au Oz3,71963,556933,000
Total Recovered Ag Oz321,1603,196,70547,075,000
*Note: Rounding may cause apparent discrepancies
Key production statistics are as follows:

ItemMillHeap Leach
Annual Gold Production (kOz)643.3
Assumed Gold Recovery94%77%
Annual Silver Production (kOz)3,16974
Assumed Silver Recovery72%33%
Project ElementOpen PitUnderground
Mined Mineralization (kTonnes)25,4988,807
Mined Waste (kTonnes)76,8622,729
Strip Ratio3.010.31
Contained Au (kOz)234764
Contained Ag (kOz)35,23436,601
Mined Resource Classification
Measured (% of mineralized tonnes)3%23%
Indicated (% of mineralized tonnes)38%58%
Inferred (% of mineralized tonnes)58%18%
Capital Costs

Capital costs were developed based on scaling costs from similar facilities for production rates and from design basis assumptions. The costs are collected in three separate categories; (1) Initial capital (construction costs to initiate mining and heap leaching operations including EPCM, initial contingency, pre-stripping, working capital and start-up owners cost), (2) Sustaining capital (costs due to delayed construction of the mill, sustaining contingency for the mill, delayed development of the underground mines, plus additions to the mobile mining equipment fleet and equipment rebuilds, and (3) Sustaining EPCM estimates. The estimated capital costs are as follows:

Capital CategoryCosts
Initial Capital$69.6 million
Sustaining Capital$346.1 million
Sustaining EPCM$23.8 million
Total CapEx$439.5 million
Operating Costs

Operating costs are based on similar mining operations in the immediate area of San Miguel and on information on other mining operations in North America using similar mining methods. Operating cost estimates are as follows:

Unit CostsCosts
Open Pit Overburden Mining (US $/Tonne)$1.59
Open Pit Mineralized Mining (US $/Tonne)$1.94
Underground Mining per tonne Mined and Transported to Crusher (US $/Tonne)$36.31
Open Pit Mining Cost per tonne processed (US $/Process Tonne)$5.94
UG Mining Cost per tonne processed (US $/Process Tonne)$46.19
Processing Cost per tonne milled (US $/Process Tonne)$13.75
Operating Cost per tonne leached (US $/Process Tonne)$3.00
Administration Cost per tonne processed (US $/Process Tonne)$5.00
Reclamation Cost per tonne processed (US $/Process Tonne)$1.62
Economic Analysis

The base case economic evaluation used a close to current metal prices and lower than historical three-year trailing averages for gold and silver prices. This approach is more conservative than the guidance of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, is accepted by the Ontario Securities Commission and is an industry standard. A second case was prepared using the gold and silver prices used in the 2013 PEA presented as an upside case. Post-tax versions for each case were prepared using the following: a 0.5% Net Smelter Return; a 7.5% royalty on earnings before interest; depreciation and amortization; a 30% tax on net income as provided by the new Mexican tax regulations implemented in March 2014; and the application of available net loss carry forwards. The pre-tax results for the base case and upside case along with the post-tax base case and upside case are as follows:

ItemBase CaseUpside CaseBase Case
Post-Tax
Upside Case Post-Tax
Gold Price Per Ounce$1,350$1,500$1,350$1,500
Silver Price Per Ounce$22$29$22$29
Net Cash Flow$841.2 million$1,310.7 million$528.6 million$831.0 million
NPV @ 5% Discount Rate$472.6 million$792.0 million$261.5 million$467.9 million
NPV @ 7.5% Discount Rate$350.9 million$619.9 million$174.2 million$348.2 million
NPV @ 10% Discount Rate$256.5 million$485.8 million$106.8 million$255.5 million
Internal rate of Return (@ 5% Discount)23.2%33.9%15.9%23.6%
Operating Costs Per Ounce of Gold Equivalent Produced (life of mine)$597$550$597$550
Total Costs Per Ounce of Gold Equivalent Produced (includes all capital and closure costs)$855$789$855$789
Infrastructure

The development of mining and processing infrastructure was defined in a conceptual plan that was based on a central process facility with a tailings storage facility and a heap leaching facility. Individual open pit mines would be developed as satellite production operations with mineralized material transported to the process site by haul truck. A main electrical power line and power center would be developed at the process facility, with individual power lines going to the underground mining operations at Don Ese, San Miguel and La Union. Don Ese's distance from the main mining and processing facilities will require it to have its own facilities and infrastructure whereas San Miguel and La Union will be able to utilize shared facilities and most of their infrastructure. Underground mines would have separate ventilation and dewatering systems because of their location remote from each other. Access/haul roads would be developed to each mining operation. It is assumed that personnel for the mining operation would live in the local communities or the Town of Temoris and that no camp facility would be constructed.

National Instrument 43-101 Disclosure

The PEA for the San Miguel Project was prepared by Metal Mining Consultants Inc. ("MMC") under the direction of Mr. Scott E. Wilson, CPG and by Mine Development Associates ("MDA") under the direction of Michael Gustin, CPG. The PEA incorporates the work of a number of industry-leading consultants, many of which are Qualified Persons (as defined under National Instrument 43-101) and are independent of Paramount. Scott Wilson has reviewed and approved this press release.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext