Independent Preliminary Economic Assessment of CUMO Molybdenum-Copper-Silver Project Confirms Multi-Billion Dollar Net Present Value and Excellent Internal Rate of Return
5:00 PM ET, October 7, 2009
Oct 07, 2009 (TheNewswire.ca via COMTEX) -- (via Thenewswire.ca)
MOSQUITO CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES LIMITED
MSQ -TSX Venture Exchange
Tel: 604-689-7902 www.mosquitogold.com Fax: 604-689-7816
Independent Preliminary Economic Assessment of CUMO Molybdenum-Copper-Silver Project
Confirms Multi-Billion Dollar Net Present Value and Excellent Internal Rate of Return
Vancouver, October 7, 2009 - Mosquito Consolidated Gold Mines Limited (Mosquito - TSX Venture: MSQ) is pleased to report that it has received an extremely positive NI 43-101 compliant Preliminary Economic Assessment ("PEA") of its Idaho-based CUMO molybdenum-copper-silver project. The PEA was managed by Ausenco Minerals Canada Inc. (Ausenco), a Vancouver-based engineering firm with corporate headquarters in Brisbane, Australia. The Ausenco group of companies provides world-leading engineering, project management and operations solutions to global resource, energy and process infrastructure industries; and has a workforce in excess of 2,200 people in more than 26 offices across 13 countries.
Based on a pre-tax financial model (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization) and using a long-term, base-metal price scenario, Ausenco's study showed the CUMO project having a Net Present Value (NPV) of US$16 Billion for a 150,000 short tons per day ore production rate and US$10 Billion for a 100,000 short tons per day ore production rate. Corresponding Internal Rates of Return (IRR) were 36% and 29% respectively - significantly above the minimum 12.5% to 15% IRR typically required for United States-based projects to be considered for production - and straight-line payback periods for startup capital costs were 2.3 and 3.0 years respectively. These very substantial figures indicate that Mosquito should be developing CUMO toward an initial ore production rate of between 100,000 and 150,000 short tons per day.
Ausenco's PEA of CUMO outlined several options for the further development of the project under four different production rates: Ore production rates of 50,000, 100,000, 150,000 and 200,000 short tons per day were considered for the data analysis. All associated costs were also tabulated corresponding to these production rates, including: preliminary pit designs, scoping-level tailings, storage facilities and waste rock sites, power and water requirements, mine scheduling, mine plant, capital and operating costs.
"Ausenco's assessment of CUMO provides independent confirmation of the staggering economic potential of this project," said Mosquito President Brian McClay. "Our well-researched belief is that CUMO can be designed in an environmentally-friendly manner while providing thousands of high paying jobs and taxes to one of the poorest counties in Idaho. CUMO contains one of the world's largest, strategic stores of mineral wealth. Based on this report, we will continue to significantly further develop the project and maximize value for our shareholders."
Adding to Mr. McClay's comments, Mosquito's Exploration Manager Shaun Dykes said, "This evaluation outlines the mineral resource/reserve targets required to bring CUMO into production. Geologically, the mineralization has been identified and our drill programs have been designed to convert the current inferred resource, and expand the measured and indicated resource in order to achieve these targets. The extremely short payback periods outlined in the PEA is one of the most significant aspects. The path to production continues, with the updated resource calculation for CUMO being completed at the end of the 2009 drill season."
The following two tables show highlight figures from Ausenco's CUMO-PEA, for 150,000 and 100,000 short tons of ore per day for a mine life of 40 years. All prices and values are in US$. Based on a pre-tax financial model and long-term base-metal prices of $16/lb molybdenum oxide, $2.10/lb copper, $12.00/ounce silver, $6.00/gram rhenium and $135/ton sulphuric acid, the results are as follows:
150,000 short tons per day
Net Present Value ((NPV 5%) $16 Billion dollars
Internal Rate of Return 36 %
Cost/lb: Molybdenum oxide/ Copper$3.9 / $0.5
Startup Capital Cost$2,800 Million dollars
Payback Period (see Notes)2.3 years
100,000 short tons per day
Net Present Value (NPV 5%) $10 Billion dollars
Internal Rate of Return 29 %
Cost/lb: Molybdenum oxide/ Copper$4.3 / $0.6
Startup Capital Cost$2,200 Million dollars
Payback Period (see Notes)3.0 years
Cost/lb: Molybdenum oxide/ Copper is the total operating cost per pound, assuming all by-products are credited against the costs of production of the reference metal.
Three other price scenarios were undertaken to analyze the project's sensitivity to metal prices. These consisted of high-, low- and ten-year cyclical prices.
High Price
High metal prices are $28/lb molybdenum oxide, $3.50/lb copper, $15.00/ounce silver, $10.00/gram rhenium and $235/ton sulphuric acid.
Pre-tax, 5% discount rate 100,000 short tpd 150,000 short tpd UnitsNet Present Value (NPV) $22 $35 Billions US$Internal Rate of Return 51% 61% %Payback Period 1.6 1.2 Years
Cyclical Price
Cyclical metal prices consist of a range of prices between the low and the high in a ten-year cycle starting on a rising price trend and passing through the low every ten years. Prices are $7.50/lb to $28/lb molybdenum oxide, $1.50/lb to $3.50/lb copper, $9.00/ounce to $15.00/ounce silver, $2.50/gram to $10.00/gram rhenium and $85/ton to $235/ton sulphuric acid.
Pre-tax, 5% discount rate 100,000 short tpd 150,000 short tpd UnitsNet Present Value (NPV) $12 $21 Billions US$Internal Rate of Return 39% 49% %Payback Period 1.9 1.5 years
Low Price
Low metal prices are $7.50/lb molybdenum oxide, $1.50/lb copper, $9.00/ounce silver, $2.50/gram rhenium and $85/ton sulphuric acid.
Pre-tax, 5% discount rate 100,000 short tpd 150,000 short tpd UnitsNet Present Value (NPV) $1.1 $2.9 Billions US$Internal Rate of Return 9% 12% %Payback Period 9.6 6.4 years
The results for all production rates can be found in the tables on page 9 of this release.
Studies and reviews for the PEA were conducted by Ausenco and Vector Engineering Inc. (Vector), a member of the Ausenco group of companies. Based in Grass Valley, USA, Vector specializes in environmental and consulting services. Vector undertook a review of mine design, developed mine, waste stockpile and tailings storage facility (TSF) capital and operating-cost estimates to an accuracy of ±35%. Ausenco conducted the metallurgical test-work review, process-plant design, process-plant capital and operating-cost estimates to ±35% accuracy as well as the economic analysis.
Capital Costs
Ausenco and Vector examined various potential milling complex-, waste dump- and tailings sites in the area around CUMO and concluded that several options exist for mine-, waste dump- and tailings sites that are suitable for the overall project. Ausenco and Vector proceeded to estimate the capital cost requirement based on utilizing these sites. The analysis also includes the project's own roasting and acid-making complex to be located at a different site from the mine and milling complex. Capital cost estimates are considered to have an accuracy of +/- 35% in this PEA, not including provisions for costs to complete the feasibility study and are as follows:
Capital (millions US $) 50,000 short tpd 100,000 short tpdDescription Starting Sustaining Total Starting Sustaining TotalMine Pre-Development (with Pre-strip) $750 $0 $750 $700 $0 $700Mine Equipment & Infrastructure $100 $300 $400 $200 $720 $920Tailings $40 $200 $240 $80 $470 $550Mill (fixed plant) $590 $250 $830 $1,020 $430 $1,450Roaster $120 $50 $170 $200 $80 $280Overall Total $1,600 $800 $2,400 $2,200 $1,700 $3,900 150,000 short tpd 200,000 short tpdDescription Starting Sustaining Total Starting Sustaining TotalMine Pre-Development (with Pre-strip) $640 $0.0 $640 $660 $0.0 $660Mine Equipment & Infrastructure $270 $1030 $1,300 $270 $960 $1,230Tailings $80 $720 $800 $160 $690 $850Mill (fixed plant) $1,540 $620 $2,160 $1960 $800 $2,760Roaster $270 $130 $400 $350 $150 $500Overall Total $2,800 $2,500 $5,300 $3,400 $2,600 $6,000
Mining capital costs for CUMO were estimated using information from InfoMine, USA's CostMine handbook, the Mining Cost Service. Using total tons moved on a daily basis for each CUMO production alternative, a factor analysis from CostMine was used to develop estimates for mining equipment requirements and capital costs for equipment, haul roads and site work, and buildings. The models in CostMine were constructed using Sherpa, the mine cost estimating software published by Aventurine Engineering.
The CUMO process plant capital cost estimates were derived from the mechanical equipment costs. Costs were based on recent equipment quotations or from previous projects. The cost estimates for all other disciplines were determined from the mechanical equipment list using factors developed from the Ausenco data base of projects.
Operating Costs
CUMO mining costs have been estimated based on a factored analysis of the costs estimated for similar large open pit operations. Using the four production rates, Ausenco produced possible operating costs for the various aspects of the project. Wherever possible, numbers from existing producing mines were used, such as Thompson Creek, Morenci, and Highland Valley. Operating cost estimates are considered to have an accuracy of +/- 35% in this PEA.
The processing plant operating cost estimate was developed based on fixed and variable components relating to ore throughput and ore characteristics. Metallurgical requirements were estimated from the SGS test work and combined with market prices for consumables and benchmarked operating data for fixed operating costs from similar sized facilities. The results are summarized below:
Operating Cost (million US $ per year)Description 50,000 short tpd 100,000 short tpd 150,000 short tpd 200,000 short tpdMining Cost of ore $13 $18 $21 $27Mining Cost of stockpile material $29 $27 $26 $22Mining Cost of waste $39 $40 $35 $32Total Mining Cost $81 $85 $82 $81Plant $91 $169 $251 $331General & Administration $5 $7 $8 $9Closure and Reclamation Cost Allowance $1 $2 $3 $4Subtotal -Mine site Costs $178 $263 $344 $425Roaster $17 $32 $48 $60Realization costs per ton milled $8 $13 $19 $26TOTAL UNIT OPERATING COST $203 $308 $411 $510TOTAL UNIT OPERATING COST ($/short ton ore milled)see Note $11.2 $8.6 $7.6 $7.1TOTAL UNIT OPERATING COST ($/short ton ore milled without stockpile mining cost) see Note $9.6 $7.8 $7.1 $6.8
Note: For the purposes of this PEA, a fixed mine and plant life of 40 years has been selected to conduct the economic comparison despite the fact that the mine is not exhausted under any of the current proposed mining rates. This results in the cost per ton of ore being higher than other comparable operations. The costs attributed to the mining of the stockpile are recovered beyond the 40 year studied life. Removing the cost of mining the stockpile from the overall operating costs gives a better indication of the true long term unit operating costs (excluding additional stockpile re-handle and tailings costs), rather than having the ore carry the entire cost.
Ore will be crushed and sent by conveyor to the mill complex, stockpile will be stored in the vicinity of the pits and waste will be placed in waste dumps and used in the construction of tailings storage facilities. Other assumptions include a near pit crushing location, 15 miles per hour average truck speed, 10% ramps (Morenci), sufficient water available at the mine site and electrical power being available from the nearby grid at same costs as the nearby Thompson Creek mine.
The analysis also includes operating costs for the project's own roasting and acid making complex to be located up to 200 km from the mine and milling complex. Operating costs for the smelter includes molybdenum roaster costs and smelting and refining charges associated with delivering a copper concentrate to a third-party smelter.
Mineral Resource
The recently announced (May 4, 2009) updated resource calculation produced by Gary Giroux of Giroux Consultants, an independent, internationally recognized mineral industry consultant, was used in the PEA to produce a production schedule for each of the four production rates. The base resource consisted of the following:
Indicated
Cutoff Grade > Cutoff Contained Metal Recov. Recov. LbsGRV millions MoS2 Cu Ag W Million Million Million Million Million Cu MoO3$US (short tons) (%) (%) (g/t) (ppm) lbs. Mo lbs MoO3 lbs Cu oz Ag lbs W Equiv Equiv<7.50 206.2 0.017 0.08 2.29 33.62 43.1 64.6 314.0 13.8 13.9 0.18 0.367.5-20 581.6 0.045 0.09 2.58 43.45 314.4 471.6 1052.0 43.8 50.5 0.48 0.95>20 659.1 0.110 0.06 1.95 47.88 869.0 1303.6 845.0 37.5 63.1 1.02 2.03
Inferred
Cutoff Grade > Cutoff Contained Metal Recov. Recov. LbsGRV millions MoS2 Cu Ag W Million Million Million Million Million Cu MoO3$US (short tons) (%) (%) (g/t) (ppm) lbs. Mo lbs MoO3 lbs Cu oz Ag lbs W Equiv Equiv<7.50 843.1 0.013 0.07 2.19 34.32 133.2 199.8 1256.0 53.7 57.9 0.18 0.367.5-20 844.6 0.042 0.08 2.29 34.40 429.8 644.8 1411.0 56.3 58.1 0.44 0.89>20 828.6 0.097 0.06 2.00 36.05 964.2 1446.3 1000.0 48.4 59.7 0.89 1.79
Four different-sized pits (each progressively larger) were constructed using the indicated and inferred blocks contained within the resource. The pit slope used varied, starting at 45 degrees for 1,000 feet, 40 degrees for the next 1000 feet and 35 degrees for below. The highest wall is 2800 feet with an average slope of 38 degrees, similar to the high wall at Bingham Canyon mine. Pit design parameters at this stage are conceptual only and are not based on any collected geotechnical data.
For the purposes of the PEA, material above $20 recovered metal value ($RV) is considered ore, material between $7.50 and $20 is considered stockpile and material less than $7.50 is considered waste. A forty year mine life was used for each of the four different-sized pits. In all cases, pit designs by Mosquito Consolidated Gold Mines demonstrate that each pit contains sufficient ore and stockpile material to extend the mine life beyond forty years.
Using updated metal recoveries to reflect the mill circuit designed by Ausenco, a production table with recovered grades was generated for each treatment rate. These were then used in the economic analyses.
Mosquito is continuing drilling to both expand the existing resource and to convert the inferred to indicated, in an attempt to delineate the required resource and subsequent reserves to meet the established targets. Following completion of the ten hole 2009 exploration program, an updated mineral resource will be calculated. A final exploration program will then be outlined that would provide sufficient drilling to establish the measured and indicated resource required to support the 100,000 to 150,000 short tons per day ore production rates.
Metallurgical Recoveries
Metallurgical recoveries used for the Giroux Resource, (2009) (see table in Notes) were adjusted to reflect the recoveries within the mill circuit designed by Ausenco. These adjustments take into account additional unit processes required in the processing plant, which had not been included in the SGS test work study to produce salable products. The additional unit processes required include flotation recovery from bulk concentrate, ferric chloride leaching and roasting.
The assumed recoveries used in the economic analysis are as follows:
Zone Cu% MoS2% Ag %CuAg 64% 83% 70%CuMo 85% 92% 78%Mo 72% 95% 55%
In addition, 90% recovery of rhenium in molybdenum concentrate and the production rate of one ton of sulphuric acid per one ton of concentrate were assumed at the roaster and acid plant.
Potential Opportunities
The PEA has identified several areas and opportunities that may provide significant costs savings and improved economics for the project, including the following:
Mining
-Optimization of waste and stockpile haulage methodology to reduce the amount of trucking involved.
-Optimization of the in-pit haulage through the utilization of trolley assisted programs, and/or in-pit crushing
-Detailed equipment costing to determine potential discounts to list price for all major components.
Milling
-.More metallurgical work to determine optimum grind size (the current assessment is based on the finest grind tested to date) and analyze recoveries of the various metals.
-.Optimize reagents to reduce costs and improve metallurgy.
Tailings
Other
Hydroelectric power can be developed, using non-fish bearing creeks that are in the area.
These and other areas will be examined in more detail as part of the next engineering phase.
Based on the excellent results of the Preliminary Economic Assessment of CUMO, Mosquito plans to complete the 2009 drilling and update the current mineral resource. At the same time, work will continue on the environmental baseline, engineering, and metallurgical work required to bring the project to feasibility.
A Preliminary Assessment Summary Technical Report is being finalized to comply with Canada's National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects and will be filed on SEDAR within 45 days.
Mr. Shaun M. Dykes, M.Sc. (Eng), P.Geo., Exploration Manager and Director of Mosquito is the designated qualified person for the CUMO Project, and prepared the technical information contained in this news release.
On Behalf of the BoardMOSQUITO CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES LTD.Brian McClayPresident
About Mosquito Consolidated Gold Mines
Headquartered in Vancouver, Canada, Mosquito Consolidated Gold Mines Limited (www.mosquitogold.com) is a mining exploration and development company with a diverse portfolio of high-potential precious and base metals projects, located in low-political-risk environments in North America and Australia. The Company's primary focus is the development of its Idaho-based CUMO deposit, recognized as one of the largest molybdenum-copper-silver porphyry deposits in the world, and its Nevada-based Pine Tree porphyry copper-molybdenum-silver project.
THIS NEWS RELEASE WAS PREPARED BY MANAGEMENT WHO TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTENTS. Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
This news release includes certain statements that express management's expectation or estimates of future performance and may be deemed "forward-looking statements". These forward-looking statements include plans, estimates, forecasts and statements as to management's expectations regarding the CUMO Project. These forward-looking statements involve assumptions, risks and uncertainties and actual results may vary materially. For these reasons shareholders should not place undue reliance on such forward-looking information.
United States residents are cautioned that some of the information that may be published by Mosquito may not be consistent with United States Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure rules and may be materially different from what the Company is permitted to disclose in the United States and therefore United States residents should not rely on such information.
Table 1a Preliminary Assessment Financial results for the Base Case Metal Prices.
Note: Cost/lb: molybdenum oxide/Copper, capital and operating costs for each throughput option are the same for all metal price cases.
Pre-tax, 5% discount rate 50,000 short tpd 100,000 short tpd 150,000 short tpd 200,000 short tpdNet Present Value (millions US $) $3,900 $9,800 $15,700 $20,900Internal Rate of Return (%) 19% 29% 36% 40%Cost/Lb: Molybdenum oxide/Copper (US$/lb) $5.5/ $0.7 $4.3 /$0.6 $3.9/$0.5 $3.8/ 0.5Starting Capital (millions US $) $1,600 $2,200 $2,800 $3,400Sustaining Capital (millions US $) $800 $1,700 $2,500 $2,600Payback Period (years) 4.9 3.0 2.3 2.0
Table 1b Preliminary Assessment Financial results for the High Price case
Pre-tax, 5% discount rate 50,000 short tpd 100,000 short tpd 150,000 short tpd 200,000 short tpdNet Present Value (millions US $) $10,000 $22,000 $35,000 $45,000Internal Rate of Return (%) 36% 51% 61% 66%Payback Period 2.4 1.6 1.2 1.1
Table 1c Preliminary Assessment Financial results for the Cyclical Price case
Pre-tax, 5% discount rate 50,000 short tpd 100,000 short tpd 150,000 short tpd 200,000 short tpdNet Present Value (millions US $) $5,400 $12,000 $20,000 $27,000Internal Rate of Return (%) 26% 39% 49% 55%Payback Period 2.8 1.9 1.5 1.3
Table 1d Preliminary Assessment Financial results for the Low Price case
Pre-tax, 5% discount rate 50,000 short tpd 100,000 short tpd 150,000 short tpd 200,000 short tpdNet Present Value (millions US $) -$500 $1,100 $2,900 $4,400Internal Rate of Return (%) 3% 9% 12% 15%Payback Period 25.1 9.6 6.4 5.6
Notes:
Net Present Value (NPV) is defined as the total present value of a time series of cash flows. It is a standard method for using the time value of money to appraise long-term projects. In the calculation each yearly cash flow is discounted back to its present value using a discount rate.
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is a rate of return used in capital budgeting to measure and compare the profitability of investments. It is also called the discounted cash flow rate of return. For example, the interest the bank pays is the rate of return on an investment. Minimum rate of return for most mines in North America is around 12 to 15%; i.e. earning 12 to 15% on every dollar invested.
Payback Period is the period of time required for the return on an investment to "repay" the sum of the original investment. In the PEA, the straight-line method is presented which does not take into account the time value of money.
Mineral Resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Mineral resources can include mineral reserves.
An Indicated Mineral Resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade can be estimated with a level of confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.
An Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade can be estimated, on the basis of geological evidence and limited sampling and reasonably assumed geological and grade continuity.
$RV cutoff used for the resource estimate is a recovered value calculated using metal recoveries shown below.
Copper equivalent (Cu. Equiv.) and Molybdenite equivalent (MoS2 Equiv.) are based on the following metal prices(all in US$): Copper $1.50/lb, Molybdenum Oxide ($15/lb), Silver $0.35/gram and Tungsten $0.22/gram.($7.00 per lb)
Other factors include 1% = 20 pounds; 1 ppm = 1 gm/T; 1000 ppb =1 ppm = 1 gm/T.
Metallurgical recoveries used in the resource calculation are as follows for each metal zones. Recoveries are slightly lower that those currently reported by SGS in their recent metallurgical study.
Zone Cu% MoS2% Ag % W %Oxide 60% 80% 70% 35%CuAg 68% 85% 73% 35%CuMo 87% 92% 78% 35%Mo 80% 95% 55% 35%
Formulas (resource calculation) :
Recv for a metal is taken from the above table for each assay/block in a particular zone and is value percentage/100
$RV= ((Cu*20*$* recv)+((MoS2*20*(1.5/1.6681)*$(MoO3)* recv)+(Ag*$* recv)+(W*$* recv))
Recovered Cu. Equiv. = $RV / ($(Copper) *20)
Recovered MoS2. Equiv. = $RV / ((1.6681/1.5)* $(MoO3)*20)
Copyright (c) 2009 Thenewswire.ca - All rights reserved.
AI
