of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Form 20-F o | Form 40-F þ |
Yes o | No þ |
Signatures
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
GLAMIS GOLD LTD. (Registrant) | ||||
Date: August 2, 2006 | By: | /s/ Cheryl A. Sedestrom | ||
Cheryl A. Sedestrom | ||||
Chief Financial Officer |
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
SECTION | PAGE | |||||||||
VOLUME I: FEASIBILITY STUDY | ||||||||||
1 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 1-1 | ||||||||
1.1 | Title Page | 1-1 | ||||||||
1.2 | Table Of Contents | 1-1 | ||||||||
1.3 | Summary (Synopsis) | 1-2 | ||||||||
1.3.1 | Abstract of Base Case | 1-2 | ||||||||
1.3.2 | Scope | 1-4 | ||||||||
1.3.3 | Base Case Definition | 1-4 | ||||||||
1.3.4 | Capital Cost Estimate Cases | 1-5 | ||||||||
1.3.5 | Mining Reserves Metrics | 1-5 | ||||||||
1.3.6 | Resources | 1-5 | ||||||||
1.3.7 | Metallurgical Recoveries for Sulphide Ores | 1-6 | ||||||||
1.3.8 | Oxide Recoveries | 1-6 | ||||||||
1.3.9 | Ore Grades | 1-6 | ||||||||
1.3.10 | Capital Cost Estimate Summaries | 1-7 | ||||||||
1.3.11 | Operating Cost Estimate | 1-7 | ||||||||
1.3.12 | Schedule | 1-8 | ||||||||
1.3.13 | Financial Model Metrics and Sensitivities | 1-9 | ||||||||
1.3.14 | Sensitivities | 1-9 | ||||||||
1.3.15 | Peñasquito Project Operating and Production Cost | 1-10 | ||||||||
1.3.16 | Property Description and Location | 1-10 | ||||||||
1.3.17 | Development Plan | 1-11 | ||||||||
1.3.18 | Resources Tabulation | 1-11 | ||||||||
1.3.19 | Reserves Tabulation | 1-16 | ||||||||
1.3.20 | Facilities | 1-20 | ||||||||
1.3.21 | Utilities | 1-21 | ||||||||
1.3.22 | Infrastructure | 1-21 | ||||||||
1.3.23 | Metallurgy Test Program | 1-22 | ||||||||
1.3.24 | Smelters and Refineries | 1-22 | ||||||||
1.3.25 | Conclusions | 1-22 | ||||||||
1.4 | Introduction & Terms Of Reference | 1-23 | ||||||||
1.5 | Disclaimer | 1-25 | ||||||||
1.6 | Property Description & Location | 1-26 | ||||||||
1.7 | Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure And Physiography | 1-27 | ||||||||
1.7.1 | Physiography | 1-27 | ||||||||
1.7.2 | Infrastructure | 1-27 | ||||||||
1.7.3 | Climate | 1-28 | ||||||||
1.7.4 | Surface Rights | 1-28 | ||||||||
1.7.5 | Water | 1-29 | ||||||||
1.8 | History | 1-30 | ||||||||
i |
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
SECTION | PAGE | |||||||||
1.9 | Geological Setting | 1-31 | ||||||||
1.10 | Deposit Types And Mineralization | 1-32 | ||||||||
1.11 | Mineralization | 1-32 | ||||||||
1.12 | Exploration | 1-33 | ||||||||
1.13 | Drilling | 1-34 | ||||||||
1.14 | Sampling Method And Approach | 1-36 | ||||||||
1.15 | Sample Preparation And Analyses And Security | 1-36 | ||||||||
1.16 | Data Verification | 1-37 | ||||||||
1.17 | Adjacent Properties | 1-38 | ||||||||
1.18 | Mineral Processing And Metallurgical Testing | 1-38 | ||||||||
1.18.1 | Sulphide Metallurgical Testing | 1-39 | ||||||||
1.18.2 | Sulphide Process Plant | 1-42 | ||||||||
1.18.3 | Oxide Metallurgical Testing | 1-43 | ||||||||
1.18.4 | Oxide Process Plant | 1-44 | ||||||||
1.19 | Mineral Resource And Mineral Reserve Estimates | 1-44 | ||||||||
1.20 | Other Relevant Data And Information | 1-49 | ||||||||
1.20.1 | Geotechnical | 1-49 | ||||||||
1.20.2 | Tailings Design | 1-51 | ||||||||
1.20.3 | Rock Piles | 1-52 | ||||||||
1.20.4 | Leach Pad | 1-52 | ||||||||
1.21 | Interpretation And Conclusions | 1-52 | ||||||||
1.22 | Recommendations | 1-52 | ||||||||
1.23 | References | 1-53 | ||||||||
1.24 | Date | 1-56 | ||||||||
1.25 | Additional Requirements For Technical Reports On Development Properties And Production Properties | 1-56 | ||||||||
1.25.1 | Mine Operations | 1-57 | ||||||||
1.25.2 | Recoveries | 1-67 | ||||||||
1.25.3 | Markets | 1-67 | ||||||||
1.25.4 | Contracts | 1-68 | ||||||||
1.25.5 | Environmental Considerations | 1-68 | ||||||||
1.25.6 | Taxes | 1-72 | ||||||||
1.25.7 | Reclamation Costs | 1-72 | ||||||||
1.25.8 | Economics | 1-72 | ||||||||
1.26 | Illustrations | 1-83 |
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
TABLE NO. | DESCRIPTION | |
Table 1-1 | Peñasquito Mineral Resources Summary Data – June 21, 2006 | |
Table 1-2a | Peñasquito Project Mineral Resources — Measured Category | |
Table 1-2b | Peñasquito Project Mineral Resources – Indicated Category | |
Table 1-2c | Peñasquito Project Mineral Resources – Inferred Category | |
Table 1-3 | Peñasquito Proven and Probable Reserves Summary Data – June 21, 2006 | |
Table 1-4a | Peñasquito Project Reserves – Proven Category | |
Table 1-4b | Peñasquito Project Reserves – Probable Category | |
Table 1-4c | Peñasquito Project Reserves – Proven + Probable Totals | |
Table 1-5 | Major Mine Equipment | |
Table 1-6 | Mine Support Equipment | |
Table 1-7 | List of Pertinent Claims | |
Table 1-8 | Summary of Project Drilling at Peñasquito — Through Campaign 17 | |
Table 1-9 | Summary of Exploration Drilling Campaigns at Peñasquito* | |
Table 1-10 | Summary of Drilling Activity at the Peñasquito Property | |
Table 1-11 | Summary of Metallurgical Testing | |
Table 1-12 | Projections of Concentrate Grades and Recoveries | |
Table 1-13 | Estimated Measured Plus Indicated Resources by Open Pit | |
Table 1-14 | Estimated Inferred Resources | |
Table 1-15 | Peñasquito Project Open Pit Reserve Summary | |
Table 1-16 | Mine Production Schedule | |
Table 1-17 | Mine Production Schedule | |
Table 1-18 | Mine Production Schedule | |
Table 1-19 | Mine Plan Basis | |
Table 1-20 | Mining Equipment Selection* | |
Table 1-21 | Summary Manpower Requirements | |
Table 1-22 | Key Permits For 50,000 MTPD Plant6 | |
Table 1-23 | Smelter Payable and Deducts | |
Table 1-24 | Pilot Plant Concentrate Production | |
Table 1-25 | Summary of Historical and Future Commodity Prices — June 30, 2006 | |
Table 1-26 | Mine Costs Summary | |
Table 1-27 | Average Operating Margin ($/tonne ore) | |
Table 1-28 | Cash Flow Summary | |
Table 1-29 | Key Financial Metrics | |
Table 1-30 | IRR and NPV Factors | |
Table 1-31 | Financial Model Summary |
100,000mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
FIGURE | DESCRIPTION | |
1-1 | National Transportation Corridors | |
1-2 | Project State Plan | |
1-3 | Project Region Plan | |
1-4 | Project Vicinity Plan | |
1-5 | Project Facilities Plan | |
1-6 | Sulphide Mill | |
1-7 | Peñasquito Mineral Concessions | |
1-8 | Private and Ejido Surface Ownership | |
1-9 | Local Geology | |
1-10A | Peñasco Drill Hole Traces | |
1-10B | Chile Colorado Drill Hole Traces | |
1-11 | Peñasco and Chile Colorado Pit Plan | |
1-12 | North-South Cross Section — Peñasco Pit | |
1-13 | East-West Cross Section — Chile Colorado Pit | |
1-14 | Peñasco Open Pit Phases 1-7 | |
1-15 | Chile Colorado Open Pit Phases 1-3 | |
1-16 | Project Schedule | |
1-17 | Project Perspective | |
1-18 | Mill Area Perspective | |
1-19 | Grinding Area Elevation | |
1-20 | Financial Sensitivities | |
1-21 | Annual Payable Gold Metal | |
1-22 | Silver Metal Production | |
1-23 | Lead Metal Production | |
1-24 | Zinc Metal Production | |
1-25 | Mining Production | |
1-26 | Cash Flow Summary | |
1-27 | Operating Cost |
iv
100,000mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
APPENDIX | DESCRIPTION | |
A | Professional Qualifications | |
• Certificate of Qualified Person and Consent of Author | ||
• Résumés of Principal Authors |
Responsibility | Qualified Person | Registration | Company | |||
Resource Modeling | James S. Voorhees | P.E. | Glamis | |||
Mine Planning | James S. Voorhees | P.E. | Glamis | |||
Reserves | James S. Voorhees | P.E. | Glamis | |||
Geology | Charlie Ronkos | Corporate | Glamis | |||
Metallurgical Testing | Jerry Hanks | P.E. | Independent | |||
Flow Sheets | Tom Drielick | P.E. | M3 Engineering | |||
Pit Geotechnical | Tom Wythes | P.E. | Golder Assoc. | |||
Process Plant and Costing | Conrad Huss | P.E. | M3 Engineering | |||
Foundation Design | Michael Pegnam | P.E. | Golder Assoc. | |||
Tailings | Jim Johnson | P.E. | Golder Assoc. |
v
100,000mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
1 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY |
1.1 | Title Page | ||
This report is prepared in accordance with the Canadian Standard NI 43-101. The first two items of this 26-item outline are the Title Page and Table of Contents. For ease of cross-referencing during review, the first two subsections of this report (1.1 and 1.2) are incorporated into the format for this report. | |||
1.2 | Table Of Contents | ||
See discussion in subsection 1.1. |
1-1
100,000mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
1.3 | Summary (Synopsis) |
1.3.1 | Abstract of Base Case | ||
The following metrics outline the polymetallic project into various gold equivalencies context. These metrics provide a reference framework for comparison to other Glamis Gold Ltd. (Glamis) properties. A more conventional polymetallic summary follows this abstract. |
Mine life (years) | 17 | |||||||||||
Mill throughput (tonnes per day) | 100,000 | (50,000 initial) | ||||||||||
Initial capital cost ($US millions) | $ | 882 | ||||||||||
Sustaining capital ($US millions) | $ | 327 | ||||||||||
Average Annual Payable Metal: | ||||||||||||
Gold (troy ounces) | 387,500 | |||||||||||
Silver (troy ounces) | 22,846,000 | |||||||||||
Lead (tonnes) | 71,125 | |||||||||||
Zinc (tonnes) | 137,400 | |||||||||||
Total production as gold equivalent (troy ounces): | 1,339,300 | (for scale comparison only) | ||||||||||
Unit operating costs: | ||||||||||||
Mining cost per total tonne | $ | 0.81 | ||||||||||
Milling cost per ore tonne | $ | 2.98 | �� | |||||||||
G&A cost per ore tonne | $ | 0.22 | ||||||||||
Average total cash costs per unit (lead as by-product): | ||||||||||||
Gold (per ounce) | $ | 125 | ||||||||||
Silver (per ounce) | $ | 4.91 | ||||||||||
Zinc (per pound) | $ | 0.44 | ||||||||||
Total cash cost per ounce gold production (utilizing all other metals as by-products) | $ | (378 | ) |
Metals price assumptions: | Base case | Low Case | High Case | |||||||||
Gold (per ounce) | $ | 532.74 | $ | 450 | $ | 650 | ||||||
Silver (per ounce) | $ | 8.84 | $ | 7.00 | $ | 10.00 | ||||||
Zinc (per pound) | $ | 0.787 | $ | 0.60 | $ | 0.86 | ||||||
Lead (per pound) | $ | 0.424 | $ | 0.30 | $ | 0.43 | ||||||
Project IRR (after tax) | 18.7 | % | 10.2 | % | 23.4 | % | ||||||
After Tax NPV 0% Discount ($US millions) | $ | 3,256 | $ | 1,560 | $ | 4,334 | ||||||
After Tax NPV 5% Discount ($US millions) | $ | 1,521 | $ | 514 | $ | 2,161 | ||||||
Payback (years) | 5.6 | 7.6 | 4.8 |
1-2
100,000mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Life of Mine | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ore Tonnes (kt) | 564,016 | — | — | 10,514 | 24,397 | 39,148 | 22,918 | 43,077 | 40,779 | 38,284 | 36,772 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Tonnes (kt) | 2,121,342 | — | — | 36,000 | 99,000 | 99,000 | 139,000 | 179,000 | 179,000 | 179,000 | 179,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stripping Ratio | 2.76 | — | — | 2.42 | 3.06 | 1.53 | 5.07 | 3.16 | 3.39 | 3.68 | 3.87 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Metals | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gold Ounces (000’s) | 6,239 | — | — | 38 | 107 | 203 | 132 | 369 | 331 | 405 | 575 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silver Ounces (000’s) | 368,083 | — | — | 2,546 | 8,104 | 14,657 | 10,105 | 23,136 | 21,226 | 23,089 | 26,747 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lead Tonnes (000’s) | 1,138 | — | — | — | 13 | 40 | 39 | 74 | 69 | 70 | 82 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zinc Tonnes (000’s) | 2,199 | — | — | — | 23 | 65 | 61 | 150 | 127 | 124 | 140 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Equiv. Gold Ounces Produced (000’s) | 21,496 | — | — | 67 | 295 | 660 | 590 | 1,236 | 1,245 | 1,298 | 1,565 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Revenue (000’s) | $ | 11,451,521 | — | — | $ | 35,545 | $ | 173,183 | $ | 384,513 | $ | 312,209 | $ | 728,533 | $ | 650,063 | $ | 701,639 | $ | 862,783 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Operating Cost (000’s) | $ | 5,772,843 | — | $ | 50 | $ | 62,803 | $ | 139,366 | $ | 229,800 | $ | 233,696 | $ | 406,777 | $ | 394,318 | $ | 408,797 | $ | 429,833 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Initial Capital Cost (000’s) | $ | 881,844 | $ | 82,131 | $ | 209,476 | $ | 254,358 | $ | 94,768 | $ | 120,156 | $ | 120,955 | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sustaining Capital Cost (000’s) | $ | 327,438 | — | — | — | $ | 46,279 | $ | 40,892 | $ | 62,007 | $ | 66,302 | $ | 57,600 | $ | 2 | $ | 2,988 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Income Tax (000’s) | $ | 870,654 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | $ | 87,851 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash Flow (000’s) | $ | 3,256,200 | $ | (82,131 | ) | $ | (209,526 | ) | $ | (256,775 | ) | $ | (111,373 | ) | $ | (49,833 | ) | $ | (100,449 | ) | $ | 171,454 | $ | 210,145 | $ | 281,840 | $ | 307,111 | ||||||||||||||||
Cumulative Cash Flow (000’s) | $ | (82,131 | ) | $ | (291,657 | ) | $ | (548,432 | ) | $ | (659,805 | ) | $ | (709,638 | ) | $ | (810,087 | ) | $ | (638,633 | ) | $ | (428,489 | ) | $ | (146,648 | ) | $ | 160,463 | |||||||||||||||
Mining Cost $/total tonne | $ | 0.81 | — | — | $ | 1.14 | $ | 0.65 | $ | 0.69 | $ | 0.69 | $ | 0.70 | $ | 0.74 | $ | 0.84 | $ | 0.85 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Processing Cost $/ore tonne | $ | 2.98 | — | — | $ | 1.13 | $ | 1.67 | $ | 2.13 | $ | 2.88 | $ | 2.93 | $ | 3.03 | $ | 3.16 | $ | 3.24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
G&A Cost $/ore tonne | $ | 0.22 | — | — | $ | 0.70 | $ | 0.30 | $ | 0.18 | $ | 0.31 | $ | 0.17 | $ | 0.18 | $ | 0.19 | $ | 0.20 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Cash Cost $/Gold Oz (net of lead) | $ | 125.41 | — | — | $ | 784 | $ | 318 | $ | 157 | $ | 219 | $ | 139 | $ | 163 | $ | 181 | $ | 159 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Cash Cost $/Silver Oz | $ | 4.91 | — | — | $ | 13.02 | $ | 7.37 | $ | 5.84 | $ | 7.92 | $ | 5.43 | $ | 5.98 | $ | 5.69 | $ | 4.84 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Cash Cost $/Zinc lb | $ | 0.44 | — | — | — | $ | 0.68 | $ | 0.52 | $ | 0.66 | $ | 0.49 | $ | 0.53 | $ | 0.51 | $ | 0.43 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Cash Cost $/Gold Oz (net of all metals) | $ | (377.90 | ) | — | — | $ | 1,165 | $ | 181 | $ | (244 | ) | $ | (14 | ) | $ | (344 | ) | $ | (239 | ) | $ | (189 | ) | $ | (219 | ) | |||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ore Tonnes (kt) | 36,753 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 38,584 | 39,806 | 42,884 | 40,645 | 29,216 | 7,239 | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Tonnes (kt) | 179,000 | 179,000 | 179,000 | 162,300 | 97,200 | 74,800 | 95,024 | 58,047 | 7,971 | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stripping Ratio | 3.87 | 3.90 | 3.90 | 3.21 | 1.44 | 0.74 | 1.34 | 0.99 | 0.10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Metals | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gold Ounces (000’s) | 677 | 640 | 687 | 464 | 629 | 554 | 357 | 49 | 24 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silver Ounces (000’s) | 25,433 | 23,302 | 26,167 | 27,342 | 28,766 | 33,950 | 30,976 | 33,719 | 8,819 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lead Tonnes (000’s) | 79 | 77 | 84 | 98 | 107 | 101 | 75 | 110 | 20 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zinc Tonnes (000’s) | 156 | 152 | 179 | 193 | 225 | 251 | 155 | 153 | 46 | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Equiv. Gold Ounces Produced (000’s) | 1,724 | 1,672 | 1,817 | 1,741 | 1,976 | 2,097 | 1,606 | 1,337 | 512 | 58 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Revenue (000’s) | $ | 929,338 | $ | 883,564 | $ | 985,000 | $ | 914,495 | $ | 1,079,929 | $ | 1,123,178 | $ | 801,463 | $ | 697,083 | $ | 189,003 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Operating Cost (000’s) | $ | 440,192 | $ | 444,069 | $ | 449,995 | $ | 451,731 | $ | 438,752 | $ | 431,090 | $ | 374,493 | $ | 342,900 | $ | 89,593 | $ | 4,587 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Initial Capital Cost (000’s) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sustaining Capital Cost (000’s) | $ | 26,758 | $ | 11,755 | $ | 3,695 | $ | 9,160 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Income Tax (000’s) | $ | 129,618 | $ | 170,247 | $ | 191,205 | $ | 134,031 | $ | 103,371 | $ | 50,515 | $ | 3,816 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash Flow (000’s) | $ | 320,621 | $ | 313,627 | $ | 369,432 | $ | 337,987 | $ | 438,930 | $ | 491,883 | $ | 357,939 | $ | 271,811 | $ | 164,695 | $ | 28,813 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cumulative Cash Flow (000’s) | $ | 481,084 | $ | 794,711 | $ | 1,164,143 | $ | 1,502,129 | $ | 1,941,059 | $ | 2,432,942 | $ | 2,790,881 | $ | 3,062,692 | $ | 3,227,387 | $ | 3,256,200 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mining Cost $/total tonne | $ | 0.85 | $ | 0.90 | $ | 0.81 | $ | 0.79 | $ | 0.89 | $ | 0.80 | $ | 0.93 | $ | 1.09 | $ | 1.17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Processing Cost $/ore tonne | $ | 3.24 | $ | 3.24 | $ | 3.24 | $ | 3.14 | $ | 3.08 | $ | 2.94 | $ | 3.05 | $ | 3.82 | $ | 4.04 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
G&A Cost $/ore tonne | $ | 0.20 | $ | 0.20 | $ | 0.20 | $ | 0.19 | $ | 0.18 | $ | 0.17 | $ | 0.18 | $ | 0.25 | $ | 0.99 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Cash Cost $/Gold Oz (net of lead) | $ | 166 | $ | 179 | $ | 151 | $ | 93 | $ | 80 | $ | 53 | $ | 75 | $ | (1,769 | ) | $ | (506 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Cash Cost $/Silver Oz | $ | 4.54 | $ | 4.84 | $ | 4.38 | $ | 4.85 | $ | 3.95 | $ | 3.69 | $ | 4.53 | $ | 5.13 | $ | 4.66 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Cash Cost $/Zinc lb | $ | 0.41 | $ | 0.43 | $ | 0.39 | $ | 0.43 | $ | 0.35 | $ | 0.33 | $ | 0.40 | $ | 0.45 | $ | 0.41 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Cash Cost $/Gold Oz (net of all metals) | $ | (190 | ) | $ | (153 | ) | $ | (246 | ) | $ | (467 | ) | $ | (487 | ) | $ | (718 | ) | $ | (666 | ) | $ | (6,651 | ) | $ | (3,600 | ) |
l-3
100,000mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
1.3.2 | Scope | ||
This feasibility study has been prepared by M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation (M3) to: a) summarize the work performed to date on the Glamis Minera Peñasquito project, and b) evaluate the economics of the plant operating at 100,000 MTPD versus the previously envisioned 50,000 MTPD. The ore body is polymetallic with the precious metals of silver and gold providing over one-half the revenue and the base metals of lead and zinc providing the remainder. The study sets forth conclusions and recommendations, based on M3’s experience and professional opinion, which result from their analysis of work and data collected. Glamis has provided all information for the resource model and mining, as well as reviewing and determining more conservative metallurgical recovery rates than established in prior studies. M3 concurs with this approach. | |||
Minera Peñasquito, S.A. de C.V. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Glamis Gold Ltd. (Glamis). The project is located in the state of Zacatecas, Mexico. | |||
1.3.3 | Base Case Definition | ||
The financials for this project are based on the following: |
• | Oxide plant in full production July 1, 2008. (Initially 30,000 MTPD run-of-mine, peaking at 50,000 MTPD, and averaging 25,000 MTPD for the first seven years; thereafter, only a nominal amount.) | ||
• | Sulphide SAG Line 1 start up July 1, 2009, with two-thirds production (33,300 MTPD) for the last six months of 2009. Thereafter, SAG Line 1 will operate at 50,000 MTPD. | ||
• | Sulphide SAG Line 2 starts up October 1, 2011, with full production of 50,000 MTPD starting January 1, 2012. Thereafter, between SAG Lines 1 and 2, the sulphide plant will operate at 100,000 MTPD. | ||
• | Metal pricing for determining resources are as follows: |
Gold | $650.00/ounce | |||
Silver | $10.00/ounce | |||
Zinc | $0.86/pound | |||
Lead | $0.43/pound |
• | Metals pricing for determining reserves approximates a 36 month historical average, i.e., the geometry for the pit and ore blocks within the geometry were based on the following: |
Gold | $450.00/ounce |
l-4
100,000mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Silver | $7.00/ounce | |||
Zinc | $0.60/pound | |||
Lead | $0.30/pound |
• | Metals pricing for the financial model is based on a 60/40 blend of three years’ historical and two years’ future, i.e., the following were applied to the geometry as determined above: |
Gold | $532.74/ounce | |||
Silver | $8.84/ounce | |||
Zinc | $0.787/pound | |||
Lead | $0.424/pound |
• | Unless otherwise stated, metals revenue and associated metrics (unit costs, average annual payable metal, etc.) are based on payable units after smelter deductions. |
1.3.4 | Capital Cost Estimate Cases | ||
As part of this effort, M3 has developed process plant capital cost estimates for the following main two cases. |
Case 1: | 100,000 MTPD plant July 2006 costing. | |||
This is the Base Case for this report. | ||||
Case 2: | 50,000 MTPD plant modifiable to100,000 MTPD July 2006 costing. |
Owner’s costs have been outlined by Glamis and are included. | |||
1.3.5 | Mining Reserves Metrics | ||
The following life-of-mine tonnages have been identified |
Oxide Ore | 87,000,000 tonnes | ||||
Sulphide Ore | 477,000,000 tonnes | ||||
Waste | 1,557,000,000 tonnes | ||||
Total | 2,121,000,000 tonnes |
1.3.6 | Resources |
Measured and Indicated Resources | 872,500,000 tonnes | |||
Inferred Resources | 2,576,600,000 tonnes |
1-5
100,000mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
1.3.7 | Metallurgical Recoveries for Sulphide Ores |
Lead Concentrate | Zinc Concentrate | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Breccia | Intrusive | Sedimentary | Breccia | Intrusive | Sedimentary | |||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Mill Recoveries | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lead | 75.0 | % | 72.0 | % | 60.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | ||||||||||||
Zinc | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 0.0 | % | 78.0 | % | 60.0 | % | 50.0 | % | ||||||||||||
Silver | 65.0 | % | 63.0 | % | 40.0 | % | 16.0 | % | 16.0 | % | 10.0 | % | ||||||||||||
Gold | 66.0 | % | 65.0 | % | 25.0 | % | 14.0 | % | 12.0 | % | 10.0 | % | ||||||||||||
Concentrate Grade | 52.0 | % | 51.0 | % | 45.0 | % | 50.0 | % | 50.0 | % | 50.0 | % | ||||||||||||
Chile Colorado Mill Recoveries | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lead | 63.0 | % | 0.0 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Zinc | 0.0 | % | 60.0 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Silver | 58.0 | % | 13.0 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Gold | 20.0 | % | 7.0 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Concentrate Grade | 50.0 | % | 55.0 | % |
Composition of Sulphide Ore in Peñasco: |
Breccia | 77 | % | ||||
Intrusives | 10 | % | ||||
Sedimentary | 13 | % |
1.3.8 | Oxide Recoveries |
Gold | Silver | |||||||||
Peñasco | 50 | % | 28 | % | ||||||
Chile Colorado | 50 | % | 22 | % |
1.3.9 | Ore Grades | ||
Oxide Ore: |
Gold | 0.28 grams/tonne | |||
Silver | 23.8 grams/tonne |
Sulphide Ore: |
Gold | 0.60 grams/tonne | |||||
Silver | 33.2 grams/tonne | |||||
Lead | 0.35 % | |||||
Zinc | 0.76 % |
l-6
100,000mtpd Minera PeÑasquito Feasibility Study
VolumeI
1.3.10 | Capital Cost Estimate Summaries | ||
The total project capital cost for the base case is estimated as follows: |
Initial | Sustaining | |||||||
Camp and Roads | $ | 25 | million | |||||
Mine Equipment | $ | 131 | million | $327 million | ||||
Pre-Stripping | $ | 55 | million | |||||
Power Setup | $ | 48 | million | |||||
SAG Line #1 and Infrastructure | $ | 270 | million | |||||
Tailing Dam and Reclaim | $ | 28 | million | |||||
Merrill-Crowe Plant and Pad | $ | 26 | million | |||||
SAG Line #2 | $ | 217 | million | |||||
Port | $ | 28 | million | |||||
Owner’s Costs | $ | 54 | million | |||||
$ | 882 | million | $327 million |
Camp and Roads | $ | 25 | million | |||||
Mine Equipment | $ | 84 | million | $312 million | ||||
Pre-Stripping | $ | 55 | million | |||||
Power Setup | $ | 48 | million | |||||
SAG Line #1 and Infrastructure | $ | 270 | million | |||||
Tailing Dam and Reclaim | $ | 28 | million | |||||
Merrill-Crowe Plant and Pad | $ | 26 | million | |||||
Port | $ | 28 | million | |||||
Owner’s Costs | $ | 44 | million | |||||
$ | 608 | million | $312 million |
1.3.11 | Operating Cost Estimate | ||
The following life-of-mine costs are anticipated where ore is defined as the combination of oxide and sulphide ore: |
Mining Costs | = | $3.05/tonne ore | ||||
Sulphide Process Costs | = | 2.80/tonne ore | ||||
Oxide Process Costs | = | 0.18/tonne ore | ||||
G&A Costs | = | 0.22/tonne ore | ||||
Lead Concentrate Shipping and Smelting | = | 1.13/tonne ore | ||||
Zinc Concentrate Shipping and Smelting | = | 2.50/tonne ore | ||||
Doré Shipping and Refining | = | 0.02/tonne ore | ||||
Total | $9.90/tonne ore |
The above listing indicates the significance of shipping and smelter charges. |
1-7 |
100,000mtpd Minera PeÑasquito Feasibility Study
VolumeI
The following indicates costing on a different per unit basis: |
Chile Colorado Process Costs | = | $3.81/tonne CC sulphide ore | ||
Peñasco Process Costs | = | $3.24/tonne PN sulphide ore | ||
Mine Costs | = | $0.81/tonne mined | ||
Heap Leach Process Costs | = | $1.18/tonne of oxide ore |
1.3.12 | Schedule | ||
Engineering and procurement activities began immediately following issuance of the November 2005 Feasibility Study. Starting in the second quarter 2006, critical purchase orders were placed for major, schedule critical process equipment. Mine equipment has not yet been ordered. | |||
Preconstruction activities including roads, camps, and air strip will occur during the last two quarters of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007. | |||
Permits, surface rights negotiations, and financing are assumed to be in place by the first quarter of 2007, leading to full release of the project (NTP). At this time all purchase orders will be released for full fabrication and delivery. | |||
Mobilization to the field for the process facilities will commence at NTP and early field work will be comprised of stripping, roads, leach pad, ponds, power supply and the Merrill-Crowe plant. |
Schedule on Which Financials Are Based | |||
Mobile mine equipment (e.g., shovels and trucks) will arrive for assembly in the 4th quarter of 2007. Stripping of mine overburden will begin in the first quarter of 2008. Placement of crushed overliner material will commence in the second quarter of 2008 and continue throughout 2009. | |||
The Merrill-Crowe plant will be completed by the second quarter of 2008 leading to full doré production in the last half of 2008. | |||
The sulphide concentrator (SAG Line No. 1) pre-operational testing will be completed at the end of June 2009. Mill start up and commissioning will commence in July 2009, with ramp up through the remainder of 2009. | |||
SAG Line No. 2 will be engineered in 2009 and built in 2010/2011. Start up begins October 1, 2011. Full production starts January 1, 2012. | |||
Figure 1-16 is the Project Development Summary Schedule. |
1-8 |
100,000mtpd Minera PeÑasquito Feasibility Study
VolumeI
1.3.13 | Financial Model Metrics and Sensitivities Metrics for Base Case |
IRR | = | 18.7% after Mexican income taxes | |||||
NPV (at 0% discount rate) | = | $3,256,200,000 | |||||
NPV (at 5% discount rate) | = | $1,521,378,000 | |||||
Payback | = | 5.6 years | |||||
Revenue: | Gold | = | 28% | ||||
Silver | = | 28% | |||||
Lead | = | 9% | |||||
Zinc | = | 35% | |||||
100% | |||||||
NSR (Life-of-Mine) | = | $18.95 / tonne of ore | |||||
Gross Margin | = | $9.05 / tonne of ore |
1.3.14 | Sensitivities | ||
See Figure 1-20 for a graphical representation of the following table. |
NPV @ 5% | Pay Back | |||||||||||||
Sensitivity | Variance | IRR (%) | ($000s) | (Years) | ||||||||||
Metal Prices | Increase 20% | 25.5 | 2,477,072 | 4.0 | ||||||||||
Increase 10% | 22.2 | 2,000,231 | 5.8 | |||||||||||
Decrease 10% | 14.9 | 1,045,275 | 6.3 | |||||||||||
Decrease 20% | 10.6 | 562,892 | 8.3 | |||||||||||
Metal Recoveries | Increase 20% | 24.3 | 2,304,027 | 4.3 | ||||||||||
Increase 10% | 21.6 | 1,915,894 | 5.3 | |||||||||||
Decrease 10% | 15.6 | 1,133,202 | 5.8 | |||||||||||
Decrease 20% | 12.2 | 736,683 | 7.1 | |||||||||||
Operating Costs | Increase 20% | 15.8 | 1,209,764 | 5.9 | ||||||||||
Increase 10% | 17.3 | 1,365,572 | 6.2 | |||||||||||
Decrease 10% | 20.1 | 1,676,586 | 5.6 | |||||||||||
Decrease 20% | 21.5 | 1,831,266 | 5.2 | |||||||||||
Capital Costs | Increase 20% | 16.1 | 1,366,719 | 6.5 | ||||||||||
Increase 10% | 17.3 | 1,444,357 | 6.0 | |||||||||||
Decrease 10% | 20.2 | 1,597,296 | 4.9 | |||||||||||
Decrease 20% | 22.0 | 1,672,991 | 5.3 | |||||||||||
Compressed Schedule | SAG #1 starts 1/1/09 | 20.7 | 1,616,726 | 4.8 | ||||||||||
SAG #2 starts 1/1/11 | ||||||||||||||
Base Case Ref | — | 18.7 | 1,521,378 | 5.6 |
Total Metal Production | |||
Over the 17 year mine life, the sulphide ore mill is expected to produce approximately 5.12 million tonnes of zinc concentrate and 2.36 million tonnes of lead concentrate containing a total of 387.6 million ounces of |
1-9 |
100,000mtpd Minera PeÑasquito Feasibility Study
VolumeI
silver, 6.60 million ounces of gold, 1.2 million tonnes of lead and 2.59 million tonnes of zinc. The oxide ore leach plant is expected to produce a further 17.9 million ounces of silver and 396,000 ounces of gold. | |||
Total Metal Production | |||
The metals contained in concentrate are subject to smelter deductions, resulting in a payable metals quantity slightly lower than metals produced in concentrate. Figures 1-21 through 1-24 illustrate payable metals by year. | |||
1.3.15 | Peñasquito Project Operating and Production Cost |
Co-Product Accounting | ||||||||||||
Gold | ||||||||||||
($/ounce) | Silver | Zinc | ||||||||||
Net of Lead | ($/ounce) | ($/pound) | ||||||||||
Unit Total Cash Cost (Includes taxes and royalty) | 125.41 | 4.91 | 0.44 | |||||||||
Unit Total Cost (Also includes reclamation and depreciation) | 185.36 | 5.91 | 0.53 |
The unit total cash cost of payable gold ounces is $(378), treating all other metals as by products. | |||
1.3.16 | Property Description and Location | ||
Glamis owns 100% of the mineral rights to a large area covering approximately 39,000 hectares located in the north-eastern portion of the State of Zacatecas (Figures 1-1 and 1-2) in north-central Mexico. As shown on Figures 1-3 and 1-4, the portion of this area referred to as the Peñasquito property lies approximately 27 km west of the town of Concepción del Oro in a wide, generally flat valley covered by coarse grasses and cacti. | |||
Investigations on this property have identified several major sulphide mineralization zones with significant values of silver, gold, zinc and lead (Figure 1-9). This study considers the economic development of two zones, the Peñasco and the Chile Colorado, which have been the subject of most of the geological and metallurgical investigations to date. Preliminary resource investigation has been performed on two additional zones, Azul Breccia and El Sotol, but no development plan has yet been evaluated. In addition to the sulphide mineralization, the Peñasco and the Chile Colorado zones also have substantial oxide ore and mixed ore (oxide/sulphide transition material) caps which contain recoverable gold |
1-10 |
100,000mtpd Minera PeÑasquito Feasibility Study
VolumeI
and silver. The gold and silver recovered from the oxide and mixed ores have been included in the project economic evaluation. |
1.3.17 | Development Plan | ||
The sulphide ore bodies will be developed in sequence beginning with the Peñasco pit followed by the Chile Colorado pit. Overburden and oxide ore will be stripped to allow access to the sulphide ore. Oxide ore, as it is encountered during the stripping, will be placed on a leach pad. The run-of-mine oxide material will be leached with sodium cyanide solution and gold and silver will be recovered through a Merrill-Crowe processing facility. The rate at which oxide ore is placed on the leach pad varies from about 10,000 metric tonnes per day (MTPD) to 50,000 MTPD during the first seven years of operation and at a diminished rate over an additional nine years. | |||
The sulphide ore will be mined as follows: |
a) | Peñasco Pit (50,000 MTPD nominal) operating Years 1 through 2. | ||
b) | Peñasco Pit (100,000 MTPD nominal) operating Years 3 through 12. | ||
c) | Peñasco Pit (50,000 MTPD) and Chile Colorado Pit (40,000 MTPD) operating Years 13 and 14. | ||
d) | Chile Colorado Pit (80,000 MTPD nominal) operating Years 15 through 16. |
As indicated above, during Years 13 and 14, both pits will be mined simultaneously. | |||
The Azul zone is contiguous with the northern edge of the Chile Colorado pit. For this report, the Azul resources are not included in any technical or financial analyses. El Sotol is a zone of mineralization to the west of Peñasco. Like Azul, its tabulated resources are not included in any technical or financial evaluation. | |||
1.3.18 | Resources Tabulation | ||
Glamis with Independent Mining Consultants (IMC) developed block models for both the Peñasco (including El Sotol) and Chile Colorado (including Azul) deposits based on exploration drilling performed by Glamis and predecessor companies. Data through Drilling Campaign 17 in March 2006 was used. | |||
Reported resources are based on a floating cone geometry that used reasonably foreseeable long term metals prices. These prices are: $650/oz gold, $10/oz silver, $0.43/lb lead and $0.86/lb zinc. This defines a |
1-11 |
100,000mtpd Minera PeÑasquito Feasibility Study
VolumeI
resource that has the potential of being mined by open pit methods and is not the total block model contained mineralization, i.e., higher metal prices would define a still larger resource than reported herein. | |||
An explanation of Net Smelter Return (NSR) is included here for reference. For mineral deposits whose value is tied up in one commodity, mining ore cut-offs are customarily defined in terms of the grade of that commodity, e.g., less than 0.2 grams/tonne gold defined as waste, greater than or equal to 0.2 grams/tonne gold defined as ore. In the case of mineral deposits containing two economic metals, such as gold-silver deposits, it is common to report mineral resources at a cut-off grade in equivalent gold or equivalent silver, depending on which metal has greater financial contribution. In polymetallic deposits, such as lead-zinc-silver-gold deposits, the definition of ore is commonly described in terms of Net Smelter Return (NSR), the difference between revenues for the summation of the metals minus the costs downstream from the mining property. | |||
Definitions bear repeating here. |
1. | NET SMELTER RETURN (NSR) equals the amount paid by the smelter and is calculated as the value of metals content minus the summation of smelter and refinery charges (including penalty elements) plus shipping costs (including inland transportation, port handling fees, etc.) plus any broker transaction costs. Glamis is paying Kennecott a royalty based on this definition. A mine’s gross NSR must be higher than the mining property’s operating and maintenance costs plus a prudent profit margin. | ||
2. | The BREAKEVEN CUT-OFF for pit configuration is determined by cone economics using an algorithm that takes into account NSR, mining costs, lift costs, stripping costs, royalties, G&A and mill process costs. This will be a higher number than the Internal NSR Cut-off. | ||
3. | The INTERNAL NSR CUT-OFF grade is equal to the G&A plus mill processing costs. Any material that is mined and hauled to the rim of the pit (and as such the costs can be considered to be sunk), will be directed to the mill if its NSR exceeds the G&A plus mill processing costs or to a waste dump if its value is less than G&A plus mill processing costs. The INTERNAL NSR CUT-OFF would imply mining marginal material at a loss, but it would be less of a loss than sending the material to a waste dump. Obviously, enough high Internal NSR material must be present to offset the marginal material. |
1-12 |
100,000mtpd Minera PeÑasquito Feasibility Study
VolumeI
An NSR value for the sulphide, mixed and oxide materials was calculated using input data on operating costs, metallurgical recoveries, metal pricing and smelter terms effective the end of the second quarter of 2006. A flotation milling process has been defined for the sulphide material with an Internal NSR Cut-Off of $3.60 for Peñasco and a $4.18 NSR for Chile Colorado. A run-of-mine, heap leach process for gold and silver has been defined for the oxide and mixed materials with an Internal NSR Cut-Off calculated at $1.30 for both pits. | |||
The mineral resources inventory has increased significantly since the late 2005 report, and continued drilling to convert these resources is expected to provide the basis for future reserve growth. The current mineral resources are summarized in the following Tables 1-1 and 1-2: |
Feasibility | Update | % | ||||||||||
November 2005 | June 2006 | Change | ||||||||||
Measured & Indicated Resource (inclusive of proven and probable reserves) | ||||||||||||
Tonnes (millions) | 671.3 | 872.5 | 30 | % | ||||||||
Contained Metals | ||||||||||||
Gold (troy ounces — millions) | 8.7 | 12.8 | 47 | % | ||||||||
Silver (troy ounces — millions) | 614 | 822 | 34 | % | ||||||||
Lead (tonnes — millions) | 1.8 | 2.4 | 33 | % | ||||||||
Zinc (tonnes — millions) | 4.1 | 5.3 | 29 | % | ||||||||
Inferred Resource | ||||||||||||
Tonnes (millions) | 246.7 | 2,577.0 | 945 | % | ||||||||
Contained Metals | ||||||||||||
Gold (troy ounces – millions) | 2.8 | 14.3 | 411 | % | ||||||||
Silver (troy ounces – million) | 192 | 882 | 359 | % | ||||||||
Lead (tonnes – million) | 0.6 | 2.4 | 300 | % | ||||||||
Zinc (tonnes – millions) | 1.4 | 7.1 | 407 | % |
In accordance with NI 43-101 guidelines, only material in the measured and indicated categories has been used in the economic evaluation of these deposits. In addition, only the Peñasco and Chile Colorado deposits have been used. |
1-13 |
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Tonnes | Gold Grade | Gold | Silver Grade | Silver | Lead Grade | Lead Tonnes | Zinc Grade | Zinc Tonnes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MEASURED CATEGORY | (Millions) | (gpt) | (Ounces) | (gpt) | (Ounces) | (%) | (Millions) | (%) | (Millions) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Oxide Resource | 53.9 | 0.28 | 480,000 | 24.9 | 43,101,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Sulfide Resource | 242.6 | 0.65 | 5,095,000 | 31.1 | 242,693,000 | 0.33 | 0.8 | 0.74 | 1.8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado Oxide Resource | 30.4 | 0.18 | 176,000 | 17.3 | 16,950,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado Sulfide Resource | 139.6 | 0.28 | 1,258,000 | 35.6 | 159,592,000 | 0.37 | 0.5 | 0.80 | 1.1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Oxide Measured Resources | 84.3 | 0.24 | 656,000 | 22.2 | 60,051,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Sulfide Measured Resources | 382.3 | 0.52 | 6,353,000 | 32.7 | 402,285,000 | 0.34 | 1.3 | 0.76 | 2.9 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Measured Resources | 466.6 | 0.47 | 7,009,000 | 30.8 | 462,336,000 |
Tonnes | Gold Grade | Gold | Silver Grade | Silver | Lead Grade | Lead Tonnes | Zinc Grade | Zinc Tonnes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
INDICATED CATEGORY | (Millions) | (gpt) | (Ounces) | (gpt) | (Ounces) | (%) | (Millions) | (%) | (Millions) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Oxide Resource | 20.8 | 0.31 | 208,000 | 21.8 | 14,569,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Sulfide Resource | 263.3 | 0.58 | 4,941,000 | 29.2 | 246,957,000 | 0.29 | 0.8 | 0.67 | 1.8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado Oxide Resource | 19.1 | 0.14 | 89,000 | 17.5 | 10,776,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado Sulfide Resource | 102.7 | 0.16 | 517,000 | 26.4 | 87,233,000 | 0.32 | 0.3 | 0.64 | 0.7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Oxide Indicated Resources | 39.9 | 0.23 | 297,000 | 19.7 | 25,345,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Sulfide Indicated Resources | 366.0 | 0.46 | 5,458,000 | 28.4 | 334,190,000 | 0.30 | 1.1 | 0.66 | 2.4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Indicated Resources | 405.9 | 0.44 | 5,755,000 | 27.5 | 359,535,000 |
Tonnes | Gold Grade | Gold | Silver Grade | Silver | Lead Grade | Lead Tonnes | Zinc Grade | Zinc Tonnes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
INFERRED CATEGORY | (Millions) | (gpt) | (Ounces) | (gpt) | (Ounces) | (%) | (Millions) | (%) | (Millions) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Oxide Resource | 22.9 | 0.14 | 101,000 | 10.7 | 7,900,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Sulfide Resource | 1,041.7 | 0.28 | 9,365,000 | 14.5 | 485,522,000 | 0.13 | 1.4 | 0.38 | 4.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado Oxide Resource | 149.1 | 0.06 | 287,000 | 5.0 | 23,793,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado Sulfide Resource | 1,362.9 | 0.10 | 4,514,000 | 8.3 | 364,539,000 | 0.08 | 1.0 | 0.23 | 3.1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Oxide Inferred Resources | 172.0 | 0.07 | 388,000 | 5.7 | 31,693,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Sulfide Inferred Resources | 2,404.6 | 0.18 | 13,879,000 | 11.0 | 850,061,000 | 0.10 | 2.4 | 0.29 | 7.1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Inferred Resources | 2,576.6 | 0.17 | 14,267,000 | 10.6 | 881,754,000 |
Notes: | ||
1) | The terms Mineral Resource and Reserves as used herein conform to the definitions contained in the National Instrument 43-101 which adopts those published by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, & Petroleum (CIM). These resource and reserves estimates have been prepared under the supervision of James S. Voorhees, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Glamis Gold Ltd., who is a Qualified Person as defined in National Instrument 43-101. | |
2) | Reserves have been calculated using assumed long-term metals prices as follows: Gold — $450 per ounce; Silver — $7.00 per ounce; Zinc — $0.60 per pound and Lead — $0.30 per pound. Mineral Resources have been calculated using assumed long-term metals |
1-14
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
prices as follows: Gold — $650 per ounce; Silver — $10.00 per ounce; Zinc — $0.86 per pound and Lead — $0.43 per pound. | ||
3) | Measured plus Indicated (M&I) Resources are defined as being inside an optimized floating cone geometry that was developed using the Mineral Resource metal prices set forth above and all classifications of material. This defines a resource that has the potential of being mined by open pit methods and is not the total block model contained mineralization. In the Peñasco deposit, Measured Resources are defined as any block within the reasonably foreseeable open pit that is within 35 meters of two or more drill holes. In the Peñasco deposit, Indicated Resources are defined as any block within the reasonably foreseeable open pit not defined as Measured that is within 70 meters of two or more drill holes. In the Chile Colorado deposit, Measured Resources are defined as any block within the reasonably foreseeable open pit that has five or more holes within 135 meters of the block with the closest hole no more than 50 meters distance. In the Chile Colorado deposit, Indicated Resources are defined as any block within the reasonably foreseeable open pit not defined as Measured that has two or more holes within 135 meters of the block with the closest hole no more than 70 meters distance | |
4) | The M&I Resources have been calculated using NSR (Net Smelter Return) cut-off grades and assuming the long-term Mineral Resource metals prices set forth above. For oxide M&I resources, an NSR cut-off grade of $1.30 was applied. For sulfide M&I Resources, an NSR cut-off grade of $3.60 was applied. | |
5) | In the Peñasco deposit, Inferred Resources are defined as any block within the computer model not defined as Measured or Indicated that is located within a manually defined mineralized grade domain. The grade domain was developed using geologic interpretation of drill hole assays, lithology and alteration data. In the Chile Colorado deposit, Inferred Resources are defined as any block within the computer model not defined as Measured or Indicated that is located within 135 meters of a drill hole. | |
6) | The Inferred Resources have been stated using NSR cut-off grades and assuming the long-term Mineral Resource metals prices set forth above. For oxide Inferred Resources, an NSR cut-off grade of $0.70 was applied and for sulfide Inferred Resources, an NSR cut-off grade of $1.60 was applied, with both cut-off grades being based on reserve metal prices. | |
7) | Reserves are a subset of Measured and Indicated Resources. |
1-15
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
1-16
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Feasibility | Update | % | ||||||||||
November 2005 | June 2006 | Change | ||||||||||
Ore Tonnes (millions) | ||||||||||||
Oxide (heap leach) | 77.3 | 87.1 | 13 | % | ||||||||
Sulfide (flotation) | 257.8 | 476.9 | 85 | % | ||||||||
Total Ore Tonnes (millions) | 335.1 | 564.0 | 68 | % | ||||||||
Oxide Ore Grade | ||||||||||||
Gold (grams per tonne) | 0.29 | 0.28 | -3 | % | ||||||||
Silver (grams per tonne) | 24.0 | 23.8 | -1 | % | ||||||||
Sulfide Ore Grade | ||||||||||||
Gold (grams per tonne) | 0.51 | 0.60 | 18 | % | ||||||||
Silver (grams per tonne) | 30.2 | 33.2 | 10 | % | ||||||||
Lead (%) | 0.31 | 0.35 | 13 | % | ||||||||
Zinc (%) | 0.69 | 0.76 | 10 | % | ||||||||
Contained Metals | ||||||||||||
Gold (troy ounces — millions) | 4.93 | 9.98 | 102 | % | ||||||||
Silver (troy ounces — millions) | 310 | 575 | 86 | % | ||||||||
Lead (tonnes — millions) | 0.79 | 1.67 | 111 | % | ||||||||
Zinc (tonnes — millions) | 1.78 | 3.62 | 103 | % | ||||||||
Stripping Ratio (tonnes waste: oxide ore plus sulfide ore) | 1.95 | 2.76 | 42 | % |
1-17
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Ore Tonnes | Gold Grade | Gold | Silver Grade | Silver | Lead Grade | Lead Tonnes | Zinc Grade | Zinc Tonnes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PROVEN CATEGORY | (Millions) | (gpt) | Ounces | (gpt) | Ounces | (%) | (Millions) | (%) | (Millions) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Pit Oxide | 51.6 | 0.28 | 471,000 | 25.4 | 42,136,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Pit Sulfide | 221.2 | 0.67 | 4,733,000 | 32.2 | 228,967,000 | 0.35 | 0.8 | 0.77 | 1.7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado Pit Oxide | 16.7 | 0.22 | 120,000 | 20.3 | 10,878,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado Pit Sulfide | 46.7 | 0.29 | 442,000 | 50.9 | 76,372,000 | 0.56 | 0.3 | 0.97 | 0.5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Pits Oxide Proven Reserves | 68.2 | 0.27 | 591,000 | 24.2 | 53,014,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Pits Sulfide Proven Reserves | 267.9 | 0.60 | 5,175,000 | 35.4 | 305,339,000 | 0.38 | 1.0 | 0.81 | 2.2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Pits Proven Reserves | 336.2 | 0.53 | 5,766,000 | 33.2 | 358,353,000 |
Ore Tonnes | Gold Grade | Gold | Silver Grade | Silver | Lead Grade | Lead Tonnes | Zinc Grade | Zinc Tonnes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PROBABLE CATEGORY | (Millions) | (gpt) | Ounces | (gpt) | Ounces | (%) | (Millions) | (%) | (Millions) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Pit Oxide | 16.6 | 0.35 | 186,000 | 23.4 | 12,465,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Pit Sulfide | 207.3 | 0.60 | 3,999,000 | 30.2 | 201,405,000 | 0.31 | 0.6 | 0.70 | 1.5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado Pit Oxide | 2.2 | 0.22 | 16,000 | 14.7 | 1,060,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado Pit Sulfide | 1.7 | 0.25 | 14,000 | 28.9 | �� | 1,578,000 | 0.34 | 0.0 | 0.65 | 0.0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Pits Oxide Probable Reserves | 18.8 | 0.33 | 202,000 | 22.4 | 13,525,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Pits Sulfide Probable Reserves | 209.0 | 0.60 | 4,013,000 | 30.2 | 202,983,000 | 0.31 | 0.6 | 0.70 | 1.5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Pits Probable Reserves | 227.8 | 0.58 | 4,215,000 | 29.6 | 216,508,000 |
Ore Tonnes | Gold Grade | Gold | Silver Grade | Silver | Lead Grade | Lead Tonnes | Zinc Grade | Zinc Tonnes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PROVEN + PROBABLE TOTALS | (Millions) | (gpt) | Ounces | (gpt) | Ounces | (%) | (Millions) | (%) | (Millions) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Pit Oxide | 68.2 | 0.30 | 657,000 | 24.9 | 54,601,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Pit Sulfide | 428.5 | 0.63 | 8,732,000 | 31.2 | 430,372,000 | 0.33 | 1.4 | 0.74 | 3.2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado Pit Oxide | 18.9 | 0.22 | 136,000 | 19.6 | 11,938,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado Pit Sulfide | 48.4 | 0.29 | 456,000 | 50.1 | 77,950,000 | 0.55 | 0.3 | 0.96 | 0.5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Pits Oxide P+ P Reserves | 87.1 | 0.28 | 793,000 | 23.8 | 66,539,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Pits Sulfide P+ P Reserves | 476.9 | 0.60 | 9,188,000 | 33.2 | 508,322,000 | 0.35 | 1.7 | 0.76 | 3.6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Pits P+ P Reserves | 564.0 | 0.55 | 9,981,000 | 31.7 | 574,861,000 |
1-18
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
**Units | ||||
P&H 250XP Diesel Blast Hole Drill ** | 8 | |||
P&H 4100 Shovel, 41 Cum Bucket | 4 | |||
LeTourneau L-1850 Hi Lift, 25 Cum Bucket** | 2 | |||
Komatsu 930E Series III Haul Truck** | 75 | |||
Cat D9T Track Dozer (Stockpile/Tailing Pond) | 2 | |||
Cat D10T Track Dozer** | 6 | |||
Cat 854G Wheel Dozer | 2 | |||
Cat 16H Motor Grader** | 5 | |||
Cat 777D Water Truck** | 5 | |||
Cat 988H Wheel Loader, Concentrate Loading | 1 | |||
IR ECM 590/YH Rock Drill | 1 | |||
Cat 325BL Excavator (W-hammer) | 3 | |||
Subtotal Major Equipment | 114 |
** | Replacement units not included in totals |
1-19
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Units | ||||
Fuel/Lube Truck (18,500 ltr.) | 2 | |||
Blast Hole Stemmer | 3 | |||
Blasters Flatbed Truck (2 T) | 2 | |||
ANFO/Slurry Truck (18mt) | 3 | |||
Cable Reeler | 2 | |||
Crane Truck (25T) | 1 | |||
Shop Forklift (Hyster H100XM) | 2 | |||
R T Forklift (Sellick SD-100) | 2 | |||
Mechanics Truck | 3 | |||
Welding Truck | 3 | |||
Grove 120 Crane | 1 | |||
CAT 160H Motor Grader, Road Crew | 1 | |||
CAT 420 Backhoe, Road Crew | 1 | |||
4000 gal Water Truck, Road Crew | 1 | |||
2660 Trailer for Backhoe, Road Crew | 1 | |||
Dump Truck, 10 yd, Road Crew | 1 | |||
Skidsteer Loader | 1 | |||
Cat IT38 IT with Tire Handler | 2 | |||
Crew Bus | 6 | |||
Pickup Truck (4x4) | 40 | |||
Portable Light Towers | 14 | |||
Mine Communications System | 1 | |||
Mine Radios | 173 | |||
Water Pipe-Dewatering | 8 | |||
Mine Pumps | 5 | |||
Mine Dispatch System | 2 | |||
Generator on Trailer (Shovel Movement) | 1 | |||
Subtotal Mine Support Equipment | 282 |
1-20
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
1-21
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
• | Established threshold for NPV and IRR with economics that withstand sensitivity tests. | ||
• | Recoveries used for financial analysis are less than those achieved in laboratory testing for Peñasco and Chile Colorado ores. The likelihood exists that laboratory recoveries will eventually be realized by operations. |
1-22
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
• | Minimum mine life of 17 years. This life significantly exceeds metal pricing cycles. The payback period is 5.6 years. | ||
• | Opportunity to improve financials by compressing project schedule. | ||
• | High daily tonnage production. | ||
• | Early revenue from leaching oxide ore to produce silver/gold doré. | ||
• | Favorable site with relatively low earthwork costs. | ||
• | Potential for more conversion of waste to ore with infill drilling, i.e., reduced stripping ratio. | ||
• | Significant opportunity to develop the Azul deposit as a connector of Chile Colorado and Peñasco pits. | ||
• | Reasonable opportunity to develop underground deposits. | ||
• | Reasonable opportunity to improve the threshold Chile Colorado recoveries that have already been established by laboratory testing. | ||
• | Favorable business atmosphere in the setting of long established mining district heritage. | ||
• | Ideal technical power provider situation, i.e., tap off of 400 kV national grid. |
1.4 | Introduction & Terms Of Reference |
1-23
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
• | In July 2003 M3 Engineering and Technology Corporation completed and issued a Scoping Study and Capital Cost Estimate for the Chile Colorado ore body on behalf of Western Silver. The study was based upon a Preliminary Mineral Resource Estimate prepared by SNC-Lavalin Engineers and Constructors, Inc. The study demonstrated that the project was economically viable at the prevailing metal prices, but approximately 20% of the material in the pit at the time was still categorized as inferred. | ||
• | In September of 2003, Western Silver authorized M3 to commence work on a Pre-Feasibility Study for the project. At the same time, Western Silver commenced work on an in-fill drilling program on the Chile Colorado deposit with a view to upgrading the confidence level of the material in the pit to the point where it could all be reported in the measured and indicated category as required by NI 43-101. | ||
In March 2004, M3 completed and issued this Pre-feasibility Study for the Chile Colorado deposit. This study confirmed the apparent economic viability of the project and the report summary was made public by Western Silver. | |||
• | In October of 2004, M3 produced a confidential Scoping Study for Western Silver’s internal use only. The purpose of the Scoping Study was to consider the impact of mining the Peñasco and Chile Colorado ore bodies in combination. It was based on the pre-feasibility resource model of Chile Colorado and an early version of the Peñasco resource model developed by Western Silver. Various financial analyses were developed for different pit development scenarios. The study also looked at heap leaching oxide ore from both the Chile Colorado and the Peñasco deposits. This study concluded that mining both ore bodies potentially yielded a higher IRR and NPV than the March 2004 Pre-feasibility Study and warranted further study. | ||
• | In November 2004, M3 Engineering completed a confidential Heap Leach Study for the Peñasquito Project for Western Silver’s internal planning use. This study concluded that the oxide ore bodies were not sufficient on their own to justify a project, but that processing oxide ore in concert with the development of the sulphide ore could add value. | ||
• | As part of these ongoing earlier efforts, SNC-Lavalin Engineers and Constructors, Inc. (SNC) prepared a report entitled, “Peñasquito Deposit - Mineral Resource Estimate for the Chile Colorado Zone,” March 2004, which was an update to the Minera Peñasquito S.A. de C.V. Peñasquito Preliminary |
1-24
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Mineral Resource Estimate, March 2003. In addition, SNC prepared a report outlining the mineral resource estimate for the Peñasco zone. In an independent effort during the last quarter of 2004, and to provide further assurance, M3 reviewed the base data and validated and accepted the SNC findings in M3’s Amended and Restated Peñasquito Pre-Feasibility Study, December 10, 2004. | |||
• | In February 2005, M3 Engineering completed a confidential Capital Cost Update for the Heap Leach Study, which included a mine fleet cost analysis. This study further substantiated the findings of the November 2004 study, and verified the potential financial worthiness of processing oxide ore given the facilities already being in place for sulphide ores. | ||
• | In March 2005, M3 completed an Interim Feasibility Study for internal use, based on developing both the Peñasco and Chile Colorado pits. This report concluded that if Peñasco inferred resources could be advanced to the measured and indicated categories, the project NPV would increase. Accordingly, an infill drilling campaign was initiated by Glamis. | ||
• | In November 2005, M3 completed the Feasibility Study for the 50,000 MTPD plant and recommended that the project go forward. |
1.5 | Disclaimer |
1-25
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
1.5 | Property Description & Location |
AREA | DATE | EXP. | ||||||||||||||
CLAIM | TYPE | TITLE | FILE NO. | HECTARES | ISSUED | DATE | ||||||||||
EL PEÑASQUITO | EXPLOIT. | 196289 | 43/885 | 2.000 | 1993-07-16 | 2011-07-11 | ||||||||||
LA PEÑA | EXPLOIT. | 203264 | 07/1.3/547 | 58.000 | 1996-06-28 | 2046-06-27 | ||||||||||
LAS PEÑAS | EXPLOIT. | 212290 | 8/1.3/00983 | 40.000 | 2000-09-29 | 2050-09-28 | ||||||||||
ALFA | EXPLOIT. | 201997 | 7/1.3/485 | 1100.000 | 1995-10-11 | 2045-10-10 | ||||||||||
BETA | EXPLOIT. | 211970 | 8/1.3/01137 | 2054.761 | 2000-08-18 | 2050-08-17 | ||||||||||
SEGUNDA RED. CONCHA | EXPLOR. | 218920 | 8/2/00018 | 23304.691 | 2000-11-07 | 2006-11-06 | ||||||||||
MAZAPIL 3 F. I | EXPLOR. | 217001 | 007/13852 | 1950.702 | 2002-06-14 | 2008-06-13 | ||||||||||
MAZAPIL 10 | EXPLOR | 223327 | 93/26975 | 1073.555 | 2004-10-02 | 2010-10-01 |
1-26
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
1.7 | Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure And Physiography |
1.7.1 | Physiography |
1.7.2 | Infrastructure |
1-27
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
1.7.3 | Climate |
1.7.4 | Surface Rights |
1-28
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
The project site is generally flat with a gradual fall of 1.5 – 2.5% to the west. There is adequate space for development of the process facilities and the tailings and waste areas. The tailings disposal will be constructed as a four-sided containment area using mine waste for a starter dam and tailings for raising the embankment. In general, this is a very favorable site for development. | |||
Given the mining experience in the area and the high unemployment rate, there is expected to be an adequate pool of mining personnel available. | |||
1.7.5 | Water | ||
By Mexican federal law, water encountered as the result of mining operations (e.g., open pits or underground workings) is available to the mining operation without subscription so long as mining continues. Such water must be purchased in accordance with published Federal rates that are updated annually. Again, although this water must be metered and purchased, it is casual water and as such does not credit against any subscribed amount. | |||
The pits will intercept both the upper alluvial portion of the aquifer and the more massive lower fragmented rock portion of the aquifer. | |||
A study has been conducted to confirm the presence of adequate capacity. Reportedly, such a general study was not previously carried out and as such, by Mexican regulations, the general report was the first step in process. This summary report was prepared for M3 entitled, “Study for an Integral Hydrogeological Evaluation of Cedro’s Aquifer and Adjoining Basins, Mazapil County, Zacatecas”. Its analysis concludes that the unsubscribed water availability from the Cedros aquifer is 17.3 million m3/year, evaluated according to NOM-011-CNA-2000 which is more than adequate for the project. | |||
This report was submitted to CNA authorities on December 15, 2004 in regional offices of Torreon Coahuila. Within this report Western Silver indicated its intent to apply for water rights. Typically, the multi-department CNA review takes between 8 to 12 months. Upon completion of the review, the report and associated CNA findings are published in the official Diary of the Federation (DOF). During the CNA review for this report, a letter of intent was prepared for a concession to pump up to 10 million m3/year to be used for the operation of Peñasquito. This letter was initially transmitted to CNA in April 2005. In subsequent communications, CNA has indicated that it will post the report in 2006. CNA has given preliminary indication that it will permit an allocation of 5 million m3/year from this upper portion of the aquifer. Additional drilling is ongoing to support an application for the remaining 5 million m3/year to |
1-29
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
support the 50,000 MTPD first line. Additional work will continue to secure rights for the full 100,000 MTPD throughput. |
1.8 | History | ||
The region has a strong tradition of mining going back to the mid 1500’s when silver mining first started in the region and the city of Zacatecas was founded. On a historical note, up until the 19th century, 20% of all silver mined in the world was reportedly mined from the City of Zacatecas Region. | |||
Mining remains active in the State of Zacatecas. M3 has provided Engineering & Procurement and Start Up services for the recent Peñoles Fresnillo expansion as well as the greenfields Peñoles F.Y. Madero project. Both of these ongoing operations have polymetallic ore bodies. | |||
Perhaps of greater interest is the recently mined out Real de Angeles property near the city of Zacatecas. This open pit mine operated from June 1982 to November 1998, averaged 17,000 MTPD ore, and had life-of-mine ore grades of 0.58% lead, 0.9% zinc, 70 grams/tonne of silver and no appreciable gold. Life-of-mine stripping ratio was approximately 5 to 1. Values of metal contained are similar to the Peñasquito deposit, taking into account the gold prevalent at Peñasquito. | |||
Focusing on the Peñasquito project under consideration, some limited exploration of the project area had taken place previously with a short shaft and two shallow drill holes in the 1950’s. However, it was not until 1994 when Kennecott initiated a comprehensive exploration program that the size and potential of the mineralized system were recognized. | |||
Beginning in 1994, Kennecott consolidated the land position and completed extensive geochemical, geophysical and drilling programs to evaluate the area, primarily for large tonnage porphyry copper/skarn deposits. | |||
During 1996, drilling along the southern edge of the Azul pipe resulted in the discovery of the Chile Colorado silver-lead-zinc-gold zone, which was not of interest to Kennecott on a stand-alone basis. | |||
Western Silver acquired 100% of the Peñasquito project from Kennecott in March 1998. The acquisition was driven by the large size of the alteration-mineralization system (in excess of 9 km sq), the two large breccia pipes, the zone of probable economic Ag-Pb-Zn-Au mineralization at Chile Colorado, and numerous untested targets with potential similar to Chile Colorado. During 1998 Western Silver completed nine core holes (3,185 meters) and 13.4 line kilometers of Tensor CSAMT. Most of the work was focused on Chile Colorado and the adjacent Azul breccia pipe. |
1-30
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
During the fourth quarter of 2000, Hochschild completed a 14 hole, 4,601 meter drill program, with 11 holes drilled in the Chile Colorado area. However, they returned Peñasquito to Western Silver after spending more than $1 million on drilling and land payments. Hochschild decided not to tackle a bulk tonnage target with potentially large capital costs. | |||
In 2002, Western Silver began actively drilling the Peñasquito property. In 2006, Glamis acquired the Peñasquito property from Western Silver. | |||
Section 1.13 has summaries of the drilling effort. | |||
1.9 | Geological Setting | ||
Figure 1-9 shows the local geology. | |||
The regional geology of the area is well understood and has been extensively mapped. Concepción del Oro lies within the Mexico Geosyncline, a 2.5 km thick series of marine sediments deposited during the Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods and consisting of a 2000 meter thick sequence of carbonaceous and calcareous turbidic siltstones and interbedded sandstones underlain by a 1200 meter thick limestone sequence. | |||
The two sierras in the area are separated in the western half of the district by the Mazapil Valley which is a synclinal valley underlain by the Upper Cretaceous Caracol Formation. The Caracol siltstone-sandstone section is generally flat lying in the valley with occasional small parasitic anticlines and drag folds along faults. | |||
The local geology is dominated almost entirely by the rocks of the Mexico Geosyncline. The oldest rocks in the area are the Upper Jurassic aged limestones and cherts of the Zuloaga Limestone. | |||
These rocks are overlain by the La Caja Formation, a series of thinly bedded phosphatic cherts and silty to sandy limestones that may be fossiliferous. | |||
The La Caja Formation is overlain by the limestones and argillaceous limestones of the Taraises Formation, which in turn are overlain by the limestones of the Cupido Formation, one of the more favorable host rock units for much of the mineralization previously mined in the area. | |||
The Cupido limestones are overlain by the cherty limestones of the La Pena Formation, deposited during the Lower Cretaceous Period. These rocks are in turn overlain by the Cuesta del Cura limestone. | |||
The Indidura Formation, a series of shales, calcareous siltstones and argillaceous limestones, overlies the Cuesta del Cura limestone. |
1-31
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Upper Cretaceous Period rocks of the Caracol Formation, consisting primarily of interbedded shales and sandstones, overlie the Indidura Formation. These rocks dominate the geology in the Peñasquito Project area and are overlain by the Tertiary aged Mazapil Conglomerate. | |||
A large granodiorite stock is believed to underlie the entire area and the sediments described above are cut by numerous intrusive dykes, sills and stocks of intermediate to felsic composition. The intrusives are interpreted to have been emplaced from the late Eocene to mid-Oligocene Epochs and have been dated at 30-40 million years in age. | |||
1.10 | Deposit Types And Mineralization | ||
Both the Caracol sediments and the granodiorite are believed to have been intruded along the western and southern margins of the granodiorite by one or two quartz-feldspar porphyry stocks. The porphyry stocks did not reach surface but are at depth. They are represented at the bedrock surface by two hydrothermal diatreme breccia pipes, the Azul and Outcrop breccia pipes. There is a single outcrop of silicified breccia of the Outcrop breccia, thePeñasco. It is the only outcrop on the property. | |||
Both breccia pipes are believed to have erupted and breached the surface. Their eruption craters and ejecta aprons have since been eroded away, and the current bedrock surface at Peñasquito is estimated to be on the order of 50-75 meters below the paleo-eruption surface. Both of the breccia pipes sit within a hydrothermal alteration shell of propylitic alteration that has largely been overprinted by weak phyllic alteration that intensifies at depth. | |||
1.11 | Mineralization | ||
Sulphide mineralization occurs in the Chile Colorado deposit, in the Peñasco deposit hosted in the Outcrop breccia, in the Luna Azul and Azul NE deposits hosted in the Azul Breccia, and at other smaller targets on the Peñasquito project. Exploration drilling has recently focused on the large Peñasco deposit. | |||
The Peñasco deposit is in the east half of the Outcrop breccia directly above the projected throat of the breccia pipe. In plan view, it is ovoid in shape, at least 500 meters wide in an east direction and 1000 meters long in a north direction, and has formed around a complex series of small quartz-porphyry stocks and dikes with some felsite dikes. It is composed of disseminations and veinlets of medium to coarse-grained sphalerite-galena-argentite, other unidentified silver sulfosalts, minor tetrahedrite-polybasite and common gangue of calcite-rhodochrosite-quartz-fluorite. |
1-32
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
The intrusive rocks themselves are also often mineralized. Mineralization also extends upwards along the north and south contacts of the Outcrop breccia. At the south contract, it extends upwards in the mixed clast breccia adjacent to the northwest faults that cut the breccia pipe. | |||
The most common mineral host is the intrusive hydrothermal breccia. This breccia is the dominant rock below the 1,600-meter level. It also is widely distributed as a halo around the porphyry stocks and dikes. The porphyry often appears to brecciate into the intrusive hydrothermal breccia as it passes upwards. Mineralization is present in the upper mixed clast breccia along the south contact, the quartz-feldspar porphyry intrusive breccia and, to a lesser extent, the quartz-porphyry dikes. The felsite dikes are at times also good mineral hosts. | |||
The Chile Colorado Ag-Zn-Pb mineralization normally occurs as both veining and narrow fracture filling, hosted in weakly silicified sandstone, siltstone or shale. The mineralization has been interpreted to represent stockworks, localized by a north-south trending fracture zone, extending south from the Azul diatreme. | |||
Sphalerite and galena associated with carbonate and pyrite occur as massive veins. Pyrite, sphalerite and galena have also been observed as discrete crystals and disseminations within sandstone units. Late state carbonates and pyrite fracture fillings occur throughout the sediments. | |||
1.12 | Exploration | ||
Kennecott completed numerous air and ground based geophysical surveys on the Peñasquito claim groups between 1994 and 1997. The aeromagnetic survey of the region defined an 8 km x 4 km, N-S trending magnetic high centered roughly on the Outcrop Breccia. These surveys provided coverage of the area including the Peñasco zone and confirmed the area as a suitable target for drilling. | |||
In 2004, Western Silver initiated additional CSAMT and IP surveys that extended coverage on the older lines, and extended coverage to the east of the pre-existing coverage. The geophysical database for the Peñasquito project area now provides a detailed electric cross-section that images changes in geology, and appears to identify specific targets of interest. | |||
Kennecott completed an extensive rapid air blast (“RAB”) drilling campaign across much the Peñasquito project area after the discovery of the Chile Colorado deposit. This program, designed to systematically test the entire project area, consisted of 250 holes. The holes penetrated the extensive overburden cover and collected chip samples from anomalies, which had been discovered during the numerous geophysical surveys as well as outlining other, previously unknown anomalies. Twenty-eight of the RAB holes in this campaign by Kennecott were drilled within and immediately adjacent to the Peñasco zone breccia pipe. The |
1-33
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
geochemical survey results indicated that further exploration was warranted in this area. Exploration drilling results have subsequently confirmed significant mineralization in the Peñasco zone. | |||
1.13 | Drilling | ||
Drilling at the Peñasquito property has focused on the exploration of three principal areas: Chile Colorado, Azul (Azul Breccia, Azul NE and Luna Azul) and Peñasco including El Sotol adjacent to Peñasco (Figures 1-10A and 1-10B). Work is presently concentrated on both in-fill and step-out exploration drilling of the Peñasco zone. | |||
The Peñasquito property has been drilled by different operators over several campaigns and phases beginning in 1995 under Minera Kennecott S.A. de C.V. | |||
The following tables summarize exploration drilling performed and assayed to date on the Peñasquito property. This data has been used in the preparation of the resource estimates used in this report. | |||
The summaries of the drilling through Campaign 17 are in Tables 1-8, 1-9, and 1-10. Additional extensive drilling is ongoing. |
TOTAL DRILL HOLES | ||||||||
HOLE PURPOSE | Number | Meters | ||||||
Resource Estimate – Peñasco & El Sotol | 328 | 175,500 | ||||||
Resource Estimate – Chile Colorado & Azul | 122 | 48,900 | ||||||
Subtotal – Holes Used for Resource Estimate(1) | 450 | 224,400 | ||||||
Chile Colorado – Hochschild Holes Excluded for Resource Estimate | 14 | 4,601 | ||||||
Condemnation | 11 | 4,559 | ||||||
Metallurgy | 13 | 4,016 | ||||||
Pit Geotechnical | 11 | 4,126 | ||||||
Outside Exploration | 29 | 7,721 | ||||||
Total | 528 | 249,423 |
(1) | 15,135 meters are reverse circulation drilling; the balance is core. |
1-34
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Number | Meters | |||||||||||||||||
of | of | Average Hole | ||||||||||||||||
Campaign | Period | Drilling Type | Hole IDs | Drill Holes | Drilling | Length (m) | ||||||||||||
Kennecott | 1994-1997 | Reverse Circulation & Diamond Drilling | PN01 - PN71 | 71 | 23,929 | 337 | ||||||||||||
Western Copper | 1998 | Diamond Drilling | WC01 - WC09 | 9 | 3,185 | 354 | ||||||||||||
Mauricio Hochschild | 2000 | Diamond Drilling | MHC01 - MHC14 | 14 | 4,601 | 329 | ||||||||||||
Western Copper | 2002 | Diamond Drilling | WC10 - WC54 | 45 | 19,795 | 440 | ||||||||||||
Western Copper | 2003 | Reverse Circulation | S01 - S57 | 51 | 12,090 | 237 | ||||||||||||
Diamond Drilling | S09Ext*,S24Ext*,S30Ext* | |||||||||||||||||
Western Copper | 2003 | Diamond Drilling | WC55 - WC100 | 48 | 14,605 | 304 | ||||||||||||
WC67A, PN26Ext* | ||||||||||||||||||
WC53Ext** | �� | |||||||||||||||||
Western Silver — Phase 9 | 2004 | Diamond Drilling | WC101 - WC130 | 31 | 14,842 | 479 | ||||||||||||
WC119A | ||||||||||||||||||
Western Silver — Phase 10 | 2004 | Diamond Drilling | WC131 - WC179 | 56 | 20,241 | 361 | ||||||||||||
WC131A,WC137A | ||||||||||||||||||
WC138A,WC146A | ||||||||||||||||||
WC150A,WC154A | ||||||||||||||||||
WC156A | ||||||||||||||||||
Western Silver — Phase 11 | 2004 | Diamond Drilling | WC180 - WC211 | 33 | 21,968 | 666 | ||||||||||||
WC99Ext**, WC189A | ||||||||||||||||||
Western Silver — Phase 12 | 2005 | Diamond Drilling | WC212 - WC227 | 16 | 11,460 | 716 | ||||||||||||
Western Silver — Phase 13 | 2005 | Diamond Drilling | WC228 - WC256 | 32 | 21,005 | 656 | ||||||||||||
Western Silver — Phase 14 | 2005 | Diamond Drilling | WC257 - WC278 | 22 | 14,226 | 647 | ||||||||||||
Western Silver — Phase 15 | 2005 | Diamond Drilling | WC279 – WC309 | 31 | 19,601 | 632 | ||||||||||||
Western Silver — Phase 16 | 2005 | Diamond Drilling | WC310 – WC346 | 37 | 24,928 | 674 | ||||||||||||
Western Silver — Phase 17 | 2006 | Diamond Drilling | WC347 – WC377 | 32 | 22,944 | 717 | ||||||||||||
Totals | 528 | 249,420 | 472 |
* | - Feasibility Study grade modeling excludes all MHC drilling, WC277, the latter part of WC276. | |
Ext*- diamond drill extension of reverse circulation hole | ||
Ext**- diamond drill extension of diamond drill hole |
Number of | Meters of | Average Hole | ||||||||||
Calendar Year | Drill Holes | Drilling | Length (m) | |||||||||
1994-1997 Drilling | 71 | 23,929 | 337 | |||||||||
1998 Drilling | 9 | 3,185 | 354 | |||||||||
2000 Drilling | 14 | 4,601 | 329 | |||||||||
2002 Drilling | 45 | 19,795 | 440 | |||||||||
2003 Drilling | 99 | 26,695 | 270 | |||||||||
2004 Drilling | 120 | 57,051 | 475 | |||||||||
2005 Drilling | 138 | 91,220 | 661 | |||||||||
2006 Drilling to June 30 | 32 | 22,944 | 717 | |||||||||
Drilling Total | 528 | 249,420 | 473 |
1-35
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
1.14 | Sampling Method And Approach | ||
Due to the alluvial cover at Peñasquito, the vast majority of resource sampling has been done using either reverse circulation or diamond core drilling. All drilling in 2004 and most other drilling has been primarily HQ size core drilling, but narrowing to NQ diameter at depth in the longer holes. | |||
Minera Peñasquito reports that it samples drill holes from bedrock to final depth. The standard sample interval is 2.0 meters. Some samples are limited to geological boundaries and are less than 2.0 meters in length. A senior geologist examines the core, defines the primary sample contacts, and designates the axis along which to cut the core. Special attention in veined areas is taken to ensure representative splits are made perpendicular and not parallel to veins. | |||
Geological logging is very detailed and follows the geological legend on a regional scale. Once the core has been measured, marked, photographed, and logged geotechnically and geologically the core boxes are brought to the diamond saw cutting stations. The core is sawed in half. One-half of every sample is placed into a heavy plastic bag. The Splitter’s Helper has previously marked the drill hole and sample number on the plastic bag and inserted the relative sample tag in the plastic bag. | |||
Standard Reference Material samples and blanks are inserted into the sample stream going to the assay laboratory in a documented sequence on a frequency of approximately 1 in 20 samples. | |||
A Minera Peñasquito truck transports the sacks to the ALS Chemex laboratories in Guadalajara approximately once per week, where the samples are prepped and pulped. Pulps are sent to ALS Chemex labs in Vancouver where they are assayed and checked. At present ALS Chemex is Minera Peñasquito’s primary assay lab. Check samples are sent to Acme Labs of Vancouver. | |||
The sample preparation procedures on site prior to shipment to the laboratory have been independently reviewed and deemed secure and adequate. | |||
An independent sampling, preparation and assaying audit has not been performed. | |||
1.15 | Sample Preparation And Analyses And Security | ||
The quality assurance and quality control procedures employed by Minera Peñasquito (“QA/QC”) have been independently reviewed and no significant concerns noted. Approximately 90% of the data base assays were run on Minera Peñasquito samples, and Minera Peñasquito generally used ALS Chemex as the primary lab and Acme as the check lab. Both Chemex and Acme are ISO9002-certified. Both labs use industry standard sample preparation procedures. |
1-36
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
No independent samples have been taken and assayed, but comparisons between Minera Peñasquito and Kennecott drilling results show no biases (see Section 1.16). | |||
The samples assayed are under the control of Minera Peñasquito or either ALS Chemex or Acme as described in Section 1.14. | |||
1.16 | Data Verification | ||
Based on a review of Minera Peñasquito’s sample preparation, analysis, security, and QA/QC procedures to date with respect to database verification, the database used for the resource estimates is deemed to be accurately compiled and maintained, and is suitable for use in mineral resource estimation. | |||
No significant problems were identified during reviews of the drilling data. The holes appear to have been properly located and downhole-surveyed and to have recovered an adequate sample (core recovery during the later Minera Peñasquito campaigns averaged 97.8%). | |||
Almost all of the drilled intervals are assayed for gold, silver, lead and zinc. The average assay interval is slightly over 2 m. Approximately 90% of the data base assays were run on Minera Peñasquito samples, and Minera Peñasquito generally used ALS Chemex as the primary lab and Acme as the check lab. Both Chemex and Acme are ISO9002-certified. Data entry errors should be minimal because IMC re-compiled the bulk of the assay data base directly from the original lab’s electronic files of assay certificates. | |||
Several thousand gold, silver, lead and zinc check assays run by a check laboratory (usually Acme) on pulps prepared by the primary laboratory that ran the data base assays (usually Chemex) are available for the Kennecott campaign and for Minera Peñasquito Phases 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. These assays act as a check on the analytical procedures used by the primary lab. A few hundred gold, silver, lead and zinc assays run by a check lab (Acme, M3/Hazen Research or Davis Metallurgical Laboratories) on fresh pulps prepared by the check lab are available for Minera Peñasquito Phases 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. These assays act as a check on both the analytical and the sample preparation procedures used by the primary lab. No check assays are available for the Hochschild, 1998 and Minera Peñasquito Phase 4 campaigns, and as of the time of writing the check assaying for Minera Peñasquito Phases 15, 16, and 17 was in progress. | |||
The check assay comparisons show generally acceptable overall agreement between the primary and check labs for all of the campaigns/phases for which check assays are available. Standard and blank assaying results also appear to be generally acceptable. There are indications that some of the data base silver |
1-37
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
assays run by Chemex during the later Minera Peñasquito phases may be biased 5-15% low as a result of analytical factors, but this bias cannot presently be confirmed, and the errors introduced into NSR value estimates would be minimal even if it did exist. | |||
IMC supplemented the check assay data by performing numerous paired comparisons of grades from different drilling and assaying campaigns, including those for which no check assays are available. The results show no evidence to indicate that any of the Minera Peñasquito and Kennecott data base assays are affected by large analytical or sample preparation biases. However, they do suggest that the Hochschild grades are quite heavily high-biased relative to the Kennecott and Minera Peñasquito grades for gold, silver, and zinc. No Hochschild samples were available for re-assay, so the precautionary decision was taken not to use the Hochschild assays when estimating grades in the model. | |||
The paired-comparison reviews did not detect any biases between core and reverse circulation drilling. (About 10% of the exploration drilling is RC.) | |||
No significant problems were identified with other data supplied to IMC, which included sulfur assays (used to define oxidized zones) and lithology, alteration, and oxidation data base codings. Drill logs were of excellent quality. Density data were obtained from core sample measurements and the values are reasonable relative to sample lithology. | |||
1.17 | Adjacent Properties | ||
There are no adjacent properties from which exploration and/or mining activities would lead to better understanding of the Chile Colorado or Peñasco open pit deposits. | |||
The Tayahua underground mine operates in the foothills to the northeast of the Peñasquito property. This is a polymetallic zoned Cu-Pb-Zn-Ag-Au skarn ore body hosted in carbonates adjacent to a quartz monzonite intrusion. As such, it might become of interest as Glamis pursues its potential underground deposit beneath the Peñasco Pit. | |||
1.18 | Mineral Processing And Metallurgical Testing | ||
Metallurgical test work initiated since the 2004 Pre-feasibility Study was completed includes: comminution testing, flotation testing, modal analyses, and gravity testing, all for the sulphide process. For the oxide process, bottle roll and column leach tests have been performed. Additional work is in progress for both the sulphide and oxide mineralization. Samples from both Chile Colorado and the Peñasco areas are being tested. Most of the work now in progress and planned for |
1-38
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
the near future utilizes metallurgical diamond drill hole (DDH) samples produced in late 2004 and early 2005. A program consisting of 13 DDHs was completed in February 2005. The program produced approximately 3,400 meters of PQ (83 mm) and 600 meters of HQ (64 mm diameter). The core from the sulphide zone was shrink-wrapped to prevent oxidation. Crushed sulphide samples are also being stored in freezers until they can be tested. Additionally, bulk samples for run-of-mine testing of the oxide ore were extracted from four hand-dug wells in the Peñasco deposit. | |||
The following tests have been run on Chile Colorado and Peñasco ores. This program has been used to determine the recoveries employed in this study. |
Peñasquito Process Development Tests 2004-2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Sulphide Tests | Oxide Tests | |||||||||||||||||||
Flotation Tests | 280 | |||||||||||||||||||
Comminution Tests | 73 | Bottle Rolls | 47 | |||||||||||||||||
Process Mineralogy | 13 | Column | 46 | |||||||||||||||||
Leach | 5 | Small Column | 42 | |||||||||||||||||
Settling | 27 | Intermediate Column | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
Pulp Rheology | 8 | Large Column | 3 | |||||||||||||||||
Filtration | 4 | Miscellaneous | 6 | |||||||||||||||||
Analyses | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
Pilot Plant | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
Tailing Cyclone Test | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
Total Number of Tests | 368 | Total Number of Tests | 99 | => | 467 |
1.18.1 | Sulphide Metallurgical Testing | ||
Comminution test work was performed on 19 samples from the Chile Colorado deposit and 24 samples from the Peñasco deposit. During the first quarter of 2006 an additional 49 samples from Peñasco were tested, making a total of 73 Peñasco samples tested. The tests were performed by Minnovex of Toronto, and included the SAG Power Index (SPI), Crusher Index (CI), and the Minnovex Modified Bond Work Index (WI). Three full Bond Work Index determinations were also performed to calibrate the modified procedure,Progressive Grinding Circuit Design for the Western Silver – Peñasquito Project, Minnovex Technologies, Inc., June 2005. Using data from these tests and additional input parameters provided by M3, Minnovex used their proprietary grinding circuit simulation program, CEET, to estimate mill sizes. The CEET data were used by mill vendors to recommend sizing as follows: |
• | SAG mill: One mill @ 18,690 kW, 11.6 m x 6.1 m (38' x 20') |
1-39
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
• | Ball Mill: Two mills @ 14,317 kW each, 7.6 m x 10.4 m (25' x 34.5') | ||
• | Pebble Crusher: One @ 600 kW, 2.4 m (8’) (For this report M3 has selected one MP800 crusher.) |
Tests were also performed by SGS Lakefield using the JK Tech drop-weight test method. The JKSimMet simulation method was used to estimate mill sizing, which generally agreed with the Minnovex results. | |||
The primary crusher was sized from the 2004 test work and the required capacity of 100,000 MTPD of Peñasco ore. The crusher is a gyratory type, 1524 mm x 2870 mm (60“x113”) in size. | |||
Following completion of the pre-feasibility test work, a new campaign of flotation test work was performed in two laboratories, Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories in Salt Lake City and G&T Laboratories in Kamloops BC. In total these test programs resulted in 24 variability scheme tests on Chile Colorado and 34 tests on Peñasco ore. A further 40 tests, approximately, were performed to examine the grind-grade-recovery relationship and to improve the reagent scheme from that developed for the 2004 Pre-Feasibility Study. | |||
Since the Feasibility Study work, five flotation tests have been conducted on Chile Colorado ore including one locked cycle test, and four tests in which dextrin was tested as a carbon depressant. The Peñasco ore has had an additional fifty-six flotation tests, which include 51 variability tests, four locked cycle tests on specific lithology composites, and a large scale locked cycle test to produce concentrates for dewatering tests. | |||
Locked cycle tests on ore from both deposits were performed as part of the flotation test program in order to provide a basis for the projected plant recoveries. These tests revealed that recoveries in the Peñasco Pit correlated with three basic ore categories: breccia, intrusive and sedimentary. Recoveries in the Chile Colorado tests have not yet revealed an obvious correlation. Work is ongoing to determine if any correlation exists and to improve recoveries. Based on the most recent results, the following metallurgical data has been used for flow sheet development. |
1-40
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
MINE HEAD GRADES | ||||||||||||||||||||
Resource Category | Tonnes | Au | Ag | Pb | Zn | |||||||||||||||
Peñasco Intrusive | 42,147,000 | 0.78 g/t | 25.1 g/t | 0.24 | % | 0.54 | % | |||||||||||||
Peñasco Breccia | 328,260,000 | 0.64 | 32.7 | 0.34 | 0.77 | |||||||||||||||
Peñasco Sedimentary | 58,141,000 | 0.56 | 27.3 | 0.30 | 0.70 | |||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado | 48,414,000 | 0.29 | 50.1 | 0.56 | 0.96 |
LEAD CONCENTRATES | Grades | Recoveries | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Resource Category | Au | Ag | Pb | Zn | Au | Ag | Pb | Zn | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Breccia | 40 g/t | 3,250 g/t | 52 | % | 5 | % | 66 | % | 65 | % | 75 | % | 4 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Intrusive | 72 | 2,600 | 51 | 8 | 65 | 63 | 72 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Sedimentary | 15 | 2,500 | 45 | 15 | 25 | 40 | 60 | 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado | 8 | 3,050 | 50 | 5 | 20 | 58 | 63 | 4 |
ZINC CONCENTRATES | Grades | Recoveries | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Resource Category | Au | Ag | Pb | Zn | Au | Ag | Pb | Zn | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Breccia | 5 g/t | 220 g/t | 2 | % | 50 | % | 14 | % | 16 | % | 4 | % | 78 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Intrusive | 7 | 350 | 4 | 50 | 12 | 16 | 10 | 60 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco Sedimentary | 3 | 450 | 4 | 50 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 50 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado | 0.8 | 360 | 1 | 55 | 7 | 13 | 4 | 60 |
In the first part of 2006 more tests have been carried out on the Peñasco ore. There have been nine new settling, eight Pulp Rheology, and four filtration tests. All of these tests are described in the report,Flocculant Screening, Gravity Sedimentation, Pulp Rheology, Pressure Filtration, and Vacuum Filtration, prepared by Pocock Industrial, Inc., Salt Lake City, dated May 2006. | |||
A small scale pilot plant test was performed on samples of the Peñasco ore. The plant capacity was approximately 100 kg/hr and was run intermittently over a period of four days. The purpose of the run was to provide concentrate samples for smelter testing as well as tailing samples for geotechnical and environmental testing. Due to the low grade of the ore relative to the size of the pilot plant equipment and the short duration of the test it was not possible to optimize test conditions. The lead first and second cleaners were operated in a locked cycle mode and the zinc concentrate was re-cleaned in the laboratory after the pilot plant run. The pilot plant generally confirmed that the recoveries predicted by locked cycle testing were achievable at larger scale and yielded approximately 9 kg of zinc concentrate and 7 kg of lead concentrate. | |||
Modal analyses and liberation analyses were also performed to support the test work through a better understanding of the mineralogy and liberation characteristics of the samples. |
1-41
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
One small scale gravity test was performed on a sample from Peñasco, high in gold and silver. The test products were assayed and evaluated using an Automated Digital Imaging System (ADIS.) The results indicated that any free gold occurs as particles finer than about 10 microns, meaning gravity recovery of gold is not likely to be successful. | |||
An ADIS analysis of the occurrence of gold in the rougher and cleaner tailing from a locked cycle test on a sample from the Peñasco deposit revealed very little visible gold in either product. In the rougher tailing 275 slides, approximately 30 x 106particles, were examined, and only four gold particles were found at an average mean diameter of 7.2 microns. In the cleaner tailing examination of 75 slides, 11 x 106particles, found 3 particles with an average mean diameter of 15.4 microns. | |||
A gold model was constructed using multiple regression techniques on the locked cycle test products. These results suggest that, for Peñasco the gold and silver track galena in the flotation process. A small amount of the silver tracks sphalerite. For Chile Colorado most of the gold tends to track pyrite, with a small fraction behaving like copper sulphide and galena. Most of the silver tends to track copper sulphide and galena. | |||
1.18.2 | Sulphide Process Plant | ||
The process plant selected for the project is conventional. Figure 1-6 outlines the plant. The following is a simplified process description for the sulphide ore process: |
• | Run-of-mine ore is discharged from haul trucks into the crusher pocket. | ||
• | The crusher is a single 60” x 113” (1524 x 2870 mm) gyratory crusher. | ||
• | Crusher product is conveyed to a 91,700 tonne live capacity stockpile (45,850 tonne per line). | ||
• | Crushed ore from the stockpile will be reclaimed via five variable speed belt feeders per line located in the reclaim tunnel. | ||
• | Ore from the stockpile will be conveyed to a one SAG mill/two ball mill circuit designed to produce an average of 50,000 MTPD of Peñasco ore or 40,000 MTPD of Chile Colorado ore at 80% passing 125 micron. | ||
• | One pebble crusher in closed circuit with the SAG mill will crush pebbles to minus 19 mm and return the material to the SAG mill feed conveyor. | ||
• | The slurry from the grinding circuit will first pass to the lead flotation circuit. |
1-42
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
• | Lead flotation consists of two banks of five each rougher flotation cells in parallel followed by regrinding and three stages of cleaner flotation cells. | ||
• | The first cell of each row in the lead flotation circuit may be used for carbon pre-float when treating carbonaceous ore from Chile Colorado. Space will be provided to install carbon cleaner flotation cell when needed. | ||
• | The zinc flotation circuit consists of two banks of five each rougher flotation cells in parallel followed by regrinding and three stages of cleaner cells. | ||
• | Concentrate from the lead and zinc circuits will be pumped to respective thickeners followed by pressure filters. | ||
• | Concentrate filter cake from the pressure filters will be discharged to stockpiles from which the material will be reclaimed by loader and loaded onto highway trucks for transport to rail, port, or smelter. |
1.18.3 | Oxide Metallurgical Testing | ||
Preliminary metallurgical testing of oxide ore has been performed. Process flow sheets were developed based on results of the test work. All test work on oxide ore to date has been completed by METCON, Research located in Tucson, Arizona. | |||
Initial testing of the oxide ore was performed by means of bottle roll tests. A total of 13 bottle roll tests, of 72 hour duration, were performed using coarse reject material supplied from the Chemex sample preparation facilities in Guadalajara. The samples originated from the Peñasco Deposit diamond drill samples (DDH WC-102 from 16 to 68 m and DDH WC-108, Intervals from 16 to 80 m, downhole.) Test results indicated that the ore leached well with expected reagent consumptions. | |||
Based on the results of the bottle roll tests two column leach tests were performed using the same original samples, but composited into shallow and deep fractions. The tests were performed by agglomerating the ore and curing with cyanide, lime, and Portland cement. These tests are described inPeñasquito Project Preliminary Cyanide Leach Tests, METCON Research Inc., December 2004. | |||
A second series of bottle roll and column leach tests was completed on six trench samples taken from old dump sites in the Peñasco ore. One bottle roll test was done on each sample (six total). Two column leach tests were done on each sample at different crush sizes (P80=38 mm & P80=9.5 mm) to determine affect of size on recovery and reagent consumption. One bottle roll and one column leach test was completed on a seventh dump |
1-43
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
sample. This column test was run at ‘as received’ size to determine impact to recovery with no crushing. | |||
A third series of 21 bottle roll and 17 column leach tests were completed using the metallurgical DDH samples. Four of the column tests were run on Chile Colorado ore and 13 of the column tests were run on Peñasco ore. All columns were run on ore that was crushed to 38 mm. | |||
A fourth series of tests, six bottle roll and six column leach, were completed on bulk samples taken from three wells in the Peñasco area. Two column leach tests were done on each sample, one at estimated run-of-mine (ROM) size and one at 38 mm. Results from these tests were used to develop the flow sheets, as well as estimates of extraction and cyanide and lime consumption for this study. | |||
Because of the extremely high ratio of Ag to Au, the Merrill-Crowe (zinc precipitation) process was selected over the carbon adsorption method of recovering the precious metals from solution. | |||
The recoveries for silver and gold from the heap leach are presently estimated for: 1) Peñasco oxide and mixed ores, gold 50%, silver 28%; and 2) Chile Colorado oxide and mixed ores, gold 50%, silver 22%. | |||
1.18.4 | Oxide Process Plant | ||
The following is a simplified process description for the oxide ore: |
• | ROM ore is discharged from haul trucks onto a heap leach pile. | ||
• | Lime is added to the ROM ore prior to being placed on the pad. The ore is placed in 10 m lifts. | ||
• | The ore is leached with cyanide solution. | ||
• | The pregnant leach solution is clarified, filtered, and de-aerated, then treated with zinc dust to precipitate the precious metals. | ||
• | The precipitated metals are then pressure filtered. | ||
• | The resulting filter cake is smelted to doré. |
1.19 | Mineral Resource And Mineral Reserve Estimates | ||
Mineral Resource Estimate | |||
Mineral resources for Chile Colorado and the Peñasco zones were calculated by Glamis and were classified according to the “CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines” prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions and adopted by CIM Council November 14, 2004. A number of elements that represent the confidence in the |
1-44
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
geological interpretation, the database integrity, the spatial continuity of mineralization and the quality of estimation were utilized in the classification. | |||
The model used for the Chile Colorado and Azul deposits in this report is the IMC March 2005 model based on drill hole information through the Phase 12 drilling completed in early 2005. No significant additional drilling has been done in this area after Phase 12. Thirteen Hochschild holes in the Chile Colorado area were not used in the modeling process as the assay values from these holes are inexplicably biased high. In addition, five Phase 13 and 14 holes (WC254, 261, 267, 272 and 275) and ten Phases 15 and 16 holes (WC281, 283, 287,291, 295, 299, 302, 307, and 311), drilled after the model was completed in March 2005 were not used in the modeling process simply due to time constraints. | |||
Since no additional drilling data or geologic interpretation of the Chile Colorado – Azul deposit was considered, Glamis continued use of the IMC March 2005 model data for Chile Colorado resource and reserve calculations. However, it was not used directly as it was a 10 m bench based model. The 10 m model was mathematically converted from a 10 m bench to a 15 m bench height with every other bench being split and its values combined with the adjoining 10 m bench. Glamis then calculated updated Chile Colorado NSR values using more recent metal prices and metallurgical recovery factors. | |||
The Chile Colorado – Azul resource is based on a computer block model with a block size of 20 m by 20 m in plan and 15 m high. The silver, gold, lead and zinc grade are estimated into the model from 10 m composites of the drill data using ordinary kriging with a 135 m maximum spherical search. Geologic information (lithology, alteration and oxidization) are assigned to the model using a nearest neighbor approach from the drill hole composite data. Density values are based on test work on core samples and are assigned to the model based on the oxidization and lithology assignments: overburden, 2.20; oxide (all lithologies), 2.40; mixed (all lithologies), 2.475; sulphide, Caracol sediments, 2.60; sulphide, Azul breccia units, 2.50. | |||
The model used for the Peñasco deposit is a Glamis June 2006 model developed from drill hole information through drill Phase 17. The Peñasco computer block model has a block size of 20 m by 20 m in plan and 15 m high. The silver, gold, lead and zinc grade are estimated into the model from 15 m composites of the drill data using ordinary kriging. The spherical search kriging used composites and blocks contained within a geologically defined mineralized grade domain. The grade domain and geologic information (lithology, alteration and oxidization) are assigned to the model using cross sectional based 3-Dimensional solids. Density values are based on test work on core samples and are assigned to the model based on the oxidization and lithology assignments: overburden, 2.20; oxide (all lithologies), 2.30; mixed (all lithologies), 2.40; sulphide, Caracol sediments, 2.60; sulphide, breccia units, 2.50. |
1-45
100,000mtpdMineraPeñasquitoFeasibilityStudy
Volume I
Chile Colorado – Azul Deposits | ||
Within 135 m of 5 or more holes and within 40 m of closest hole: | Measured | |
Within 135 m of 2 to 4 holes and within 50 m of the closest hole: | Indicated | |
Within 135 m of one hole: | Inferred |
Peñasco Deposit | ||
Within 35 m of 2 or more holes: | Measured | |
Within 36 m to 70 m of 2 or more holes: | Indicated | |
Greater than 70 m of one hole: | Inferred |
1-46
100,000mtpdMineraPeñasquitoFeasibilityStudy
Volume I
Internal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
NSR | Million | Silver | Gold, | Lead | Zinc | |||||||||||||||||||
Cut-off | Tonnes | g/t | g/t | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||
Sulphide, Peñasco | $ | 3.60 | 505.9 | 30.1 | 0.62 | 0.31 | 0.71 | |||||||||||||||||
Sulphide, Chile Colorado | $ | 3.60 | 242.3 | 31.7 | 0.23 | 0.35 | 0.73 | |||||||||||||||||
Combined Sulphide | 748.2 | 30.6 | 0.49 | 0.32 | 0.71 | |||||||||||||||||||
Oxide/Mixed, Peñasco | $ | 1.30 | 74.7 | 24.0 | 0.29 | — | — | |||||||||||||||||
Oxide/Mixed, Chile Colorado | $ | 1.30 | 49.6 | 17.4 | 0.17 | — | — | |||||||||||||||||
Combined Oxide/Mixed | 124.3 | 21.4 | 0.24 | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||
Combined Types Peñasco | 580.5 | 29.3 | 0.57 | 0.31 | 0.71 | |||||||||||||||||||
Combined Types Chile Colorado | 291.9 | 29.3 | 0.22 | 0.35 | 0.73 | |||||||||||||||||||
Combined Types All Deposits | 872.5 | 29.3 | 0.46 | 0.32 | 0.71 |
Internal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
NSR | Million | Silver | Gold, | Lead | Zinc | |||||||||||||||||||
Cut off | Tonnes | g/t | g/t | % | % | |||||||||||||||||||
Sulphide, Peñasco | $ | 1.60 | 1,041.7 | 14.5 | 0.28 | 0.13 | 0.38 | |||||||||||||||||
Sulphide, Chile Colorado | $ | 1.60 | 1,362.9 | 8.3 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.23 | |||||||||||||||||
Combined Sulphide | 2,404.6 | 11.0 | 0.18 | 0.10 | 0.29 | |||||||||||||||||||
Oxide/Mixed, Peñasco | $ | 0.70 | 22.9 | 10.7 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.38 | |||||||||||||||||
Oxide/Mixed, Chile Colorado | $ | 0.70 | 149.1 | 5.0 | 0.06 | |||||||||||||||||||
Combined Oxide/Mixed | 172.0 | 5.7 | 0.07 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Types Peñasco | 1,064.6 | 14.4 | 0.28 | 0.13 | 0.38 | |||||||||||||||||||
Combined Types Chile Colorado | 1,512.0 | 8.0 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.23 | |||||||||||||||||||
Combined Types All Deposits | 2,576.6 | 10.6 | 0.17 | 0.10 | 0.29 |
1-47
100,000mtpdMineraPeñasquitoFeasibilityStudy
Volume I
development of the reserve pit geometry were $450/oz Au, $7.00/oz Ag, $0.30/lb Pb and $0.60/lb Zn. | |||
Based on the calculated operating costs from previous studies and an overall pit slope angles based on earlier pit designs and geotechnical studies, a number of theoretical pit shell runs were calculated. The “final” pit shell in both deposits was based on a $0.80/tonne mining cost for rock and overburden, an additional mine cost of $0.01 per bench of depth below the 1980 elevation to both ore and waste and a discount rate of 1% per bench. Overall slope angles ranged from 39o to 46o in Peñasco and 37o to 44o in Chile Colorado – Azul. The floating cone runs did generate a pit shell in the Azul and El Sotol deposits, but for this study they were not included in the reserve or mine production schedule. | |||
The reserve summary is the sum of a mine production schedule using the proven and probable tonnages from the two ultimate pit designs. The sulphide material reports to a flotation mill and the oxide plus mixed material reports to a run-of-mine, heap leach. The NSR values used to tabulate the reserves within the final pits are based on metal prices of: $450/oz Au, $7.00/oz Ag, $0.30/lb Pb and $0.60/lb Zn |
Grades | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ktonnes | Au, g/t | Ag, g/t | Pb,% | Zn,% | ||||||||||||||||||||
Sulphides: Mill Ore (1) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado | Proven | 46,700 | 0.29 | 50.9 | 0.56 | 0.97 | ||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco | Proven | 221,200 | 0.67 | 32.2 | 0.35 | 0.77 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total, Proven Pit Reserve | 267,900 | 0.60 | 35.4 | 0.38 | 0.81 | |||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado | Probable | 1,700 | 0.25 | 28.9 | 0.34 | 0.65 | ||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco | Probable | 207,300 | 0.60 | 30.2 | 0.31 | 0.70 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total, Probable Pit Reserve | 209,000 | 0.60 | 30.2 | 0.31 | 0.70 | |||||||||||||||||||
Mill Ore, Combined Proven and Probable | 476,900 | 0.60 | 33.2 | 0.35 | 0.76 | |||||||||||||||||||
Oxides + Mixed: Leach ore (2) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado | Proven | 16,700 | 0.22 | 20.3 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco | Proven | 51,600 | 0.28 | 25.4 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Total, Proven Pit Reserve | 68,200 | 0.27 | 24.2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Chile Colorado | Probable | 2,200 | 0.22 | 14.7 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Peñasco | Probable | 16,600 | 0.35 | 23.4 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Total, Probable Pit Reserve | 18,800 | 0.33 | 22.4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Leach Ore, Combined Proven and Probable 87,100 | 0.28 | 23.8 |
1) | Sulphides are reported at a U.S. $3.60/tonne Internal NSR Cut-off for Peñasco and $4.18/tonne for Chile Colorado. | |
2) | Leach tonnage is reported at a U.S. $1.30/tonne NSR Cut-off. |
100,000mtpdMineraPeñasquitoFeasibilityStudy
Volume I
1.20 | Other Relevant Data And Information |
1.20.1 | Geotechnical |
a) | Geotechnical Drilling and Sampling Program for Foundation Design | ||
Initial geotechnical field investigation was performed by Golder Associates to collect the geotechnical data required to support the design of the heap leach facility, waste rock piles, tailings impoundment and process plant. The field investigation was performed from March 2, 2005 to March 23, 2005. | |||
The first-portion of the field investigation included the drilling of thirty-four boreholes within the project site area. The second-portion of the field investigation included excavation of test pits to characterize the superficial foundation and construction materials. This work was performed during late May and early June 2005. | |||
The drilling contractor utilized was Estudios Especializados de Mecánica de Suelos, S.A. de C.V. (EEMSSA) from Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico. The contractor used a Foremost Mobil Drill Model B-59 and a CME-55 to perform the drilling. | |||
1.5 m long, 4.50-inch outside diameter (OD) continuous flight augers were used to advance the borehole through the alluvial soil. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in each borehole. The SPT used a standard split-spoon sampler with a 2-inch OD; applicable American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1586 procedures were followed during the testing. Rock coring techniques were also performed with 1.5 m long, NQ size double barrel equipment to collect samples of the rock materials. | |||
The boreholes were logged by geotechnical field technicians. Borehole logs associated with the field investigation, including sample descriptions, SPT blow counts, sample numbers and visual classifications according to the United Soil Classification System (USCS) were prepared. | |||
Additional geotechnical data collection and analysis will be performed at the site as the project advances to final design, e.g., boreholes drilled at final locations of heavy equipment such as mills and crushers. | |||
b) | Geotechnical Oriented Core Drilling Summary for Pit Slope Stability | ||
Pit slope angles are based on a progression of geotechnical analysis of the Peñasco and Chile Colorado deposits. Several phases of oriented |
1-49
100,000mtpdMineraPeñasquitoFeasibilityStudy
Volume I
core drilling, geotechnical logging and geotechnical modeling have occurred in support of pit slope recommendations over the last several years. This analysis has been detailed in the following 2 reports: | |||
Peñasquito Project, Feasibility Pit Slope Design, prepared by Golder Associates dated July 2005. | |||
Addendum to Peñasquito Project, Feasibility Pit Slope Design, prepared by Golder Associates, dated 24 | |||
August 2005. | |||
In June 2006, Golder Associates was asked to review the updated design pits and assess whether the pit slope recommendations that were provided in the 2005 pit slope design reports remain valid for the new designs. The conclusions and recommendations of this recent work were: |
• | The recommendations of pit slope angle for the Chile Colorado Pit are considered to be appropriate. | ||
• | The recommendations for the Peñasco Pit are unreliable, particularly for the upper bench slopes; four additional oriented core holes are recommended and additional characterization be completed; for purposes of preliminary pit planning, an inter-ramp slope angle in the bedrock units of the Peñasco Pit be limited to 47 degrees for slopes above the 1700 meter elevation. |
The June 2006 Golder report was not received in time to incorporate their recommendations into the new pit design. Therefore, the July 2006 Peñasco Pit design incorporates the recommendations of the July 2005 Golder report. However, a review of the design as compared to the June 2006 Golder review indicates inter-ramp slope angles in the bedrock units above the 1700 meter elevation vary from 47 to 50 degrees. Glamis estimates reducing these slope angles in the areas above the 1700 meter elevation that are greater than 47 degrees would add 38.5 million tonnes of waste to the design. This represents an increase of 2.7% to the total waste tonnes of the Peñasco pit. This quantity is not felt significant enough to impact the pit optimization as it now stands. | |||
The oriented core drilling was performed by Major Drilling Co. A geologist was present at the drill rig full-time during drilling. A total 4,126 m of oriented core drilling was completed in eight core holes in the Chile Colorado pit and three core holes in the Peñasco pit. Core hole diameters were typically HQ3 (61 mm ID) but were telescoped down to NQ3 (45 mm ID) if difficult drilling conditions were encountered. Core was recovered in a triple tube core barrel assembly. |
1-50
100,000mtpdMineraPeñasquitoFeasibilityStudy
Volume I
The holes were oriented at an angle of 60 degrees to the horizontal and were sited to intersect the November 2005 design basis pit wall one-third of the ultimate wall height above the base of the final pit level. Core orientation was accomplished using two independent methods: clay impression and a mechanical down hole system referred to as Corientor™. Field point load tests were completed for each core run to estimate the unconfined compressive strength of the intact rock. Core runs and geotechnical logging were typically completed at 3 m intervals. A total of 20 samples were collected from the geotechnical core holes for laboratory testing. | |||
An extensive geotechnical database was developed from the oriented core data as well as from exploration logging data (up to hole WC-250). |
1-51
100,000mtpdMineraPeñasquitoFeasibilityStudy
Volume I
1.21 | Interpretation And Conclusions | ||
This project has considerable upsides as far as resources, reserves, and recoveries. | |||
The availability of high voltage power is ideal. | |||
Additional water must be secured. | |||
Although negotiations with private owner and the Ejidos have involved the usual individual challenges, in general the area is socially stable with an available work force with hard rock mining heritage. The business climate is favorable. | |||
This project will be good for both Glamis and the state’s economy. |
1.22 | Recommendations | ||
M3 recommends development of the Peñasquito project based on 100,000 MTPD. | |||
Given current metal prices, M3 recommends that this project be placed into production as quickly as practical. | |||
With the considerable expertise developed in the Mexico mining industry, M3 recommends that construction be by local and national contractors. |
1-52
100,000mtpdMineraPeñasquitoFeasibilityStudy
Volume I
1.23 | References | ||
The Feasibility Study is based in part on the findings of others as listed below: |
• | “Addendum to the Final Report (Issued September 30, 2005) on Flotation Test Work Conduction on Individual (Variability Tests) and Master,” dated 20 March 2006, prepared by Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories. | ||
• | “Addendum to Peñasquito Project, Feasibility Pit Slope Design,” dated 24 August 2005, prepared by Golder Associates. | ||
• | “An Assessment of Metallurgical Performance, Concepción del Oro District, Zacatecas State, Mexico, Western Silver, KM1652,” dated October 2005, prepared by G&T Metallurgical Services, Ltd. | ||
• | “An Evaluation of Locked Cycle Test Data, Concepción del Oro District, Zacatecas State, Mexico, KM1816,” dated 11 May 2006, prepared by G&T Metallurgical Services Ltd. | ||
• | “An Investigation into the Grindability Characteristics of Peñasquito Samples, Project 10044-163, Report 1,” dated 21 March 2006, prepared by SGS Lakefield Research Ltd. | ||
• | “Analysis of Carbon Concentrate Peñasquito Project M3 Engineering KM1528,” dated 24 July 2004, prepared by G&T Metallurgical Services Ltd. | ||
• | “Cyanide Leach of Peñasco Tailing Products, KM1774,” dated 24 January 2006, prepared by G&T Metallurgical Services Ltd. | ||
• | “Comminution Testing,” dated 5 May 2006, prepared by Hazen Research. | ||
• | “Chile Colorado and Peñasco Areas, Open Cycle Column Leach on Drill Core Samples, Document No. Q653-04-028.01,” dated December 2005, prepared by METCON Research, Inc. | ||
• | “Environmental Impact Assessment”, dated November 2005, prepared by M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation. | ||
• | “Estudio Regional De Evaluación Hidrogeológica del Acuífero Cedros, En El Municipio de Mazapil, En El Estado De Zacatecas,” dated Diciembre del 2004, prepared by Universidad de Sonora, Departamento de Geología. | ||
• | “Estudio Regional De Evaluación Hidrogeológica del Acuífero Cedros, En El Municipio de Mazapil, En El Estado De Zacatecas, Informe Que Presenta,” dated Diciembre del 2004, Revisión Febrero de 2006, prepared by Universidad de Sonora, Departamento de Geología. |
1-53
100,000mtpdMineraPeñasquitoFeasibilityStudy
Volume I
• | “Feasibility Study Heap Leach Facility, Waste Rock Pile, Tailings Impoundment, and plant Site Foundation Recommendations,” dated 22 September 2005, prepared by Golder Associates. | ||
• | “Final Report on Flotation Test Work Conducted on Individual (Variability Tests) and Master Composite Samples from the Chile Colorado and Peñasco Deposits within the Peñasquitos Property in Mexico,” dated 30 September 2005, prepared by Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories, Inc. | ||
• | “Final Report on Percent Moisture, Bulk Density and Assays Results on Individual Samples from the Chile Colorado and Peñasco Deposits within the Peñasquitos Property in Mexico,” dated 7 September 2005, prepared by Dawson Metallurgical. | ||
• | “Flocculant Screening, Gravity Sedimentation, Pulp Rheology, Pressure Filtration, And Vacuum Filtration Studies Conducted For Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories, Inc.,” dated May 2006, prepared by Pocock Industrial, Inc. | ||
• | “Flora and Fauna Study,” dated November 2004, prepared by M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation. | ||
• | “Gold Occurrences in Peñasco Tailings Products,” dated 2 November 2005, prepared by G&T Metallurgical Services, Ltd. | ||
• | “Grinding Circuit Design for the Western Silver — Peñasquito Project, Peñasco Orebody, Based on Geostatistical Distribution of Hardness,” dated March 2006, prepared by Minnovex Technologies, Inc. | ||
• | “Locked Cycle Column Cyanide Leach Oxide Bulk Samples, Document No. Q653-05-028,” dated December 2005, prepared by METCON Research, Inc. | ||
• | “Marketing Input into Pre-Feasibility Study for the Peñasquito Project,” dated February 2004, prepared by Neil S. Seldon and Associates. | ||
• | “Minera Peñasquito S.A. de C.V., Peñasquito Project Mineral Resource Estimate for Chile Colorado Zone,” dated March 2004, prepared by SNC-Lavalin Engineers and Constructors. | ||
• | “Modal Analysis of Test Products, Peñasquito Project, Mexico, M3 Engineering, KM1445,” dated 27 January 2004, prepared by G&T Metallurgical Services, Ltd. | ||
• | “Modal Analysis of Test Products, Peñasquito Project, Mexico, M3 Engineering, KM1483,” dated 26 February 2004, prepared by G&T Metallurgical Services, Ltd. |
1-54
100,000mtpdMineraPeñasquitoFeasibilityStudy
Volume I
• | “Mineral Liberation Assessments, Peñasquito Project, KM1808,” dated 17 March 2006, prepared by G&T Metallurgical Services Ltd. | ||
• | “Mineral Liberation Assessments, KM1732,” dated 14 October 2005, prepared by G&T Metallurgical Services, Ltd. | ||
• | “Open Cycle Column Leach Test on Oxide Dump Sample No.,” dated 7 January 2006, prepared by METCON Research, Inc. | ||
• | “Outstanding Work on Peñasquito Samples, Peñasquito Project, KM 1780,” dated 10 February 2006, prepared by G&T Metallurgical Services Ltd. | ||
• | “Peñasquito Feasibility Study, Volumes 1, II and III,” dated December 2005, prepared by M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation. | ||
• | “Peñasquito Grindability Evaluation,” dated 19 January 2004, prepared by Hazen Research, Inc. | ||
• | “Peñasquito Pb/Zn/Au/Ag Project, Projected Metal Recoveries and Concentrate Grades Prepared for Glamis Gold Ltd.,” dated 13 July 2006, prepared by T. P. McNulty and Associates, Inc. | ||
• | “Peñasquito Project Crush Size Study Open Cycle Column Leach Oxide Dump Samples,” dated July 2005, prepared by METCON Research. | ||
• | “Peñasquito Project, Feasibility Pit Slope Design,” dated July 2005, prepared by Golder Associates. | ||
• | “Peñasquito Project – Mineral Resource Estimate for the Chile Colorado Zone,” dated March 2004, prepared by SNC-Lavalin Engineers and Constructors, Inc. | ||
• | “Peñasquito Project Preliminary Cyanide Leach Tests,” dated December 2004, prepared by METCON Research, Inc. | ||
• | “Phase 1 Pit Slope Stability Evaluation Chile Colorado and Peñasco Pits,” dated 3 November 2004, prepared by Golder Associates. | ||
• | “Phase II Pilot Plant Testing Program from the Peñasquito Deposit,” dated 20 January 2004, prepared by Mountain States R&D International, Inc. | ||
• | “Progressive Grinding Circuit Design for the Glamis Gold – Peñasquito Project,” dated June 2005, prepared by Minnovex Technologies, Inc. | ||
• | “Proposed Grinding System for the Peñasquito Project Using Small-scale Data,” dated 8 July 2005, prepared by SGS Lakefield Research Ltd. |
1-55
100,000mtpdMineraPeñasquitoFeasibilityStudy
Volume I
• | “Report on Metallurgical Testwork Conducted on Composite Samples from the Peñasquito Property in Mexico,” dated 15 March 2004, prepared by Dawson Metallurgical, Inc. | ||
• | “Report on Metallurgical Testwork Conducted on a Master Composite (HG + MF) Sample from the Chile Colorado Deposit Located on the Peñasquito Property,” dated 26 August 2004, prepared by Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories, Inc. | ||
• | “Report on the Use of Cyanide in Milling and Leaching,” dated February 2006, prepared by M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation. | ||
• | “Summaries of Variability Flotation Testing of 50 Samples and Testing of Selected Samples for Gold Recovery from the Peñasquito Project,” dated 3 May 2004, prepared by Dawson Metallurgical, Inc. | ||
• | “Summary Report, Metallurgical Review,” dated November 2005, prepared by M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation. | ||
• | “Tailings Storage Facility Conceptual Design Report (First Draft), Peñasquito Project, Zacatecas State, Mexico,” dated 20 April 2006, prepared by Golder Associates. | ||
• | “Tailings Storage Facility Conceptual Design Report, Peñasquito Project, M3 Engineering & Technology Group, Zacatecas State, Mexico,” (Golder has combined the finalized TSF conceptual design report with the geochemical characterization of tailings letter to form a single report.) dated June 2006, prepared by Golder Associates. | ||
• | “Tailings Storage Facility, Geochemical Characterization of Tailings Materials, Peñasquito Project, Zacatecas State, Mexico,” dated 25 April 2006, prepared by Golder Associates. | ||
• | “Tailings Testing Information” dated June, July and October 2005 prepared by Krebs Engineers. |
1.24 | Date | ||
The information in this report is current as of July 2006. |
1-56
100,000mtpdMineraPeñasquitoFeasibilityStudy
Volume I
1.25 | Additional Requirements For Technical Reports On Development Properties And Production Properties |
1.25.1 | Mine Operations | ||
The Chile Colorado and Peñasco mine plan will provide sulphide ore to a mill – flotation plant that will produce two concentrates for sale: a lead concentrate and a zinc concentrate. Both concentrates will have gold and silver credits. Likewise, the mine plan will provide oxide and mixed ores to a heap leaching facility that will produce a silver and gold doré. | |||
Table 1-16 shows the combined production schedule for both sulphide and oxide ores from both the Peñasco and Chile Colorado deposits. The calendar year 2008, the start of mining operations, is taken as Year 0 in the mining schedule. Half way through Year 1, sufficient sulphide ore is available such that the mill operation can begin under a 6-month startup and commissioning mode. Commercial mill production begins in Year 2 and continues through Year 3 at an annual mining rate of 18.2 million tonnes of sulphide ore per year. Starting in Year 4, production of sulphide mill ore increases to a rate of 36.5 million tonnes per year. The total material mined per year increases over the first 5 years to peak at 179.0 million (511,430 TPD). The production rate increases correspond to significant increases in the equipment quantities of the mining fleet. | |||
The current ore reserves are 476.9 million tonnes of sulphide ore, 87.1 million tones of leach ore with a life of mine waste to ore ratio of 2.76:1. Commercial sulphide production is scheduled for 17 years. | |||
Mining begins in the Peñasco pit, which provides the only sulphide mill feed through Year 12, and continues to provide mill feed through Year 14. Waste stripping begins in Chile Colorado in Year 13 and sulphide ore is mined during Years 13 through 16. The sulphide mill feed is from both pits during Years 13 and 14. | |||
Table 1-19 shows the parameters used to determine the mine equipment fleet requirements. |
1-57
100,000mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Penasco and Chile Colorado Combined Mine Production Schedule at 50,000 tpd Sulphide Ore Feed, Expand to 100,000 tpd in Year 4
MILL ORE, SULPHIDE | LEACH ORE | WASTE | STRIP RATIO | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
YEAR | CLASS OF | Gold | Silver | Lead | Zinc | Gold | Silver | TOTAL | WASTE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(0 = 2008) | ORE | kt | NSR, $ | g/t | g/t | % | % | kt | NSR, $ | g/t | g/t | Ovbrdn | Oxide | Mixed | Sulphide | Undef. | Total | kt | MILL+LEACH | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0 | Prov&Prb | 12 | 13.31 | 0.21 | 28.9 | 0.23 | 1.61 | 10,502 | 3.26 | 0.23 | 27.1 | 18,111 | 7,155 | 127 | 93 | 0 | 25,486 | 36,000 | 2.42 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Prov&Prb | 5,475 | 9.47 | 0.22 | 27.9 | 0.34 | 0.62 | 18,922 | 3.47 | 0.27 | 25.9 | 48,570 | 21,345 | 1,036 | 3,645 | 7 | 74,603 | 99,000 | 3.06 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Prov&Prb | 18,250 | 8.73 | 0.26 | 23.7 | 0.31 | 0.54 | 20,898 | 3.65 | 0.30 | 25.2 | 2,243 | 30,090 | 643 | 26,876 | 0 | 59,852 | 99,000 | 1.53 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Prov&Prb | 18,250 | 8.47 | 0.28 | 21.7 | 0.30 | 0.52 | 4,668 | 3.42 | 0.27 | 24.7 | 40,806 | 47,750 | 1,181 | 26,247 | 98 | 116,082 | 139,000 | 5.07 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 10.77 | 0.42 | 26.3 | 0.30 | 0.65 | 6,577 | 3.43 | 0.30 | 21.0 | 2,248 | 51,001 | 578 | 82,096 | 0 | 135,923 | 179,000 | 3.16 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 9.55 | 0.38 | 24.6 | 0.27 | 0.56 | 4,279 | 4.23 | 0.42 | 19.8 | 10,673 | 28,726 | 4 | 98,567 | 251 | 138,221 | 179,000 | 3.39 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 10.77 | 0.49 | 27.8 | 0.27 | 0.55 | 1,784 | 6.14 | 0.64 | 25.5 | 14,578 | 38,053 | 0 | 88,085 | 0 | 140,716 | 179,000 | 3.68 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 14.00 | 0.71 | 32.1 | 0.31 | 0.63 | 272 | 8.70 | 1.03 | 21.2 | 8,337 | 38,910 | 0 | 91,123 | 3,858 | 142,228 | 179,000 | 3.87 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 15.06 | 0.85 | 30.9 | 0.31 | 0.69 | 253 | 11.84 | 1.34 | 36.5 | 4,084 | 60,596 | 751 | 76,816 | 0 | 142,247 | 179,000 | 3.87 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 14.12 | 0.80 | 28.5 | 0.31 | 0.68 | 0 | 0 | 6,502 | 1,492 | 134,506 | 0 | 142,500 | 179,000 | 3.90 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 15.76 | 0.86 | 31.9 | 0.32 | 0.78 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 142,500 | 0 | 142,500 | 179,000 | 3.90 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 13.66 | 0.67 | 35.5 | 0.40 | 0.89 | 2,084 | 2.60 | 0.27 | 14.0 | 29,901 | 3,992 | 0 | 89,772 | 51 | 123,716 | 162,300 | 3.21 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 16.05 | 0.86 | 36.6 | 0.43 | 1.01 | 3,306 | 2.32 | 0.23 | 14.8 | 26,721 | 9,864 | 0 | 20,552 | 257 | 57,394 | 97,200 | 1.44 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | Prov&Prb | 36,366 | 16.55 | 0.72 | 40.7 | 0.39 | 1.10 | 6,518 | 2.26 | 0.20 | 18.8 | 41 | 18,039 | 1,391 | 12,445 | 0 | 31,916 | 74,800 | 0.74 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | Prov&Prb | 33,670 | 13.16 | 0.49 | 39.0 | 0.34 | 0.75 | 6,975 | 2.77 | 0.23 | 24.5 | 0 | 4,741 | 7,319 | 42,319 | 0 | 54,379 | 95,024 | 1.34 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | Prov&Prb | 29,200 | 12.00 | 0.28 | 55.2 | 0.63 | 1.03 | 16 | 2.33 | 0.24 | 14.0 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 28,802 | 0 | 28,831 | 58,047 | 0.99 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 | Prov&Prb | 7,239 | 13.34 | 0.49 | 58.2 | 0.46 | 1.25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 732 | 0 | 732 | 7,971 | 0.10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total | 476,962 | 13.06 | 0.60 | 33.2 | 0.35 | 0.76 | 87,054 | 3.40 | 0.28 | 23.8 | 206,313 | 366,764 | 14,551 | 965,176 | 4,522 | 1,557,326 | 2,121,342 | 2.76 |
100,000mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Penasco Pit Only Mine Production Schedule at 50,000 tpd Sulphide Ore Feed, Expand to 100,000 tpd in Year 4
MILL ORE, SULPHIDE | LEACH ORE | WASTE | STRIP RATIO | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
YEAR | CLASS OF | Gold | Silver | Lead | Zinc | Gold | Silver | TOTAL | WASTE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(0 = 2008) | ORE | kt | NSR, $ | g/t | g/t | % | % | kt | NSR, $ | g/t | g/t | Ovbrdn | Oxide | Mixed | Sulphide | Undef. | Total | kt | MILL+LEACH | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0 | Prov&Prb | 12 | 13.31 | 0.21 | 28.9 | 0.23 | 1.61 | 10,502 | 3.26 | 0.23 | 27.1 | 18,111 | 7,155 | 127 | 93 | 0 | 25,486 | 36,000 | 2.42 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Prov&Prb | 5,475 | 9.47 | 0.22 | 27.9 | 0.34 | 0.62 | 18,922 | 3.47 | 0.27 | 25.9 | 48,570 | 21,345 | 1,036 | 3,645 | 7 | 74,603 | 99,000 | 3.06 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Prov&Prb | 18,250 | 8.73 | 0.26 | 23.7 | 0.31 | 0.54 | 20,898 | 3.65 | 0.30 | 25.2 | 2,243 | 30,090 | 643 | 26,876 | 0 | 59,852 | 99,000 | 1.53 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Prov&Prb | 18,250 | 8.47 | 0.28 | 21.7 | 0.30 | 0.52 | 4,668 | 3.42 | 0.27 | 24.7 | 40,806 | 47,750 | 1,181 | 26,247 | 98 | 116,082 | 139,000 | 5.07 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 10.77 | 0.42 | 26.3 | 0.30 | 0.65 | 6,577 | 3.43 | 0.30 | 21.0 | 2,248 | 51,001 | 578 | 82,096 | 0 | 135,923 | 179,000 | 3.16 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 9.55 | 0.38 | 24.6 | 0.27 | 0.56 | 4,279 | 4.23 | 0.42 | 19.8 | 10,673 | 28,726 | 4 | 98,567 | 251 | 138,221 | 179,000 | 3.39 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 10.77 | 0.49 | 27.8 | 0.27 | 0.55 | 1,784 | 6.14 | 0.64 | 25.5 | 14,578 | 38,053 | 0 | 88,085 | 0 | 140,716 | 179,000 | 3.68 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 14.00 | 0.71 | 32.1 | 0.31 | 0.63 | 272 | 8.70 | 1.03 | 21.2 | 8,337 | 38,910 | 0 | 91,123 | 3,858 | 142,228 | 179,000 | 3.87 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 15.06 | 0.85 | 30.9 | 0.31 | 0.69 | 253 | 11.84 | 1.34 | 36.5 | 4,084 | 60,596 | 751 | 76,816 | 0 | 142,247 | 179,000 | 3.87 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 14.12 | 0.80 | 28.5 | 0.31 | 0.68 | 0 | 0 | 6,502 | 1,492 | 134,506 | 0 | 142,500 | 179,000 | 3.90 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 15.76 | 0.86 | 31.9 | 0.32 | 0.78 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 142,500 | 0 | 142,500 | 179,000 | 3.90 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 13.66 | 0.67 | 35.5 | 0.40 | 0.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 89,772 | 0 | 89,772 | 126,272 | 2.46 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | Prov&Prb | 36,500 | 16.05 | 0.86 | 36.6 | 0.43 | 1.01 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20,465 | 0 | 20,465 | 56,965 | 0.56 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | Prov&Prb | 35,716 | 16.71 | 0.73 | 40.9 | 0.39 | 1.11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10,139 | 0 | 10,139 | 45,855 | 0.28 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | Prov&Prb | 22,345 | 16.03 | 0.64 | 42.1 | 0.29 | 0.82 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7,151 | 0 | 7,151 | 29,496 | 0.32 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | Prov&Prb | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 | Prov&Prb | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total | 428,548 | 13.28 | 0.63 | 31.2 | 0.33 | 0.74 | 68,155 | 3.66 | 0.30 | 24.9 | 149,650 | 330,128 | 5,812 | 898,081 | 4,214 | 1,387,885 | 1,884,588 | 2.79 |
100,000mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Chile Colorado Pit Only Mine Production Schedule at 50,000 tpd Sulphide Ore Feed, Expand to 100,000 tpd in Year 4
MILL ORE, SULPHIDE | LEACH ORE | WASTE | STRIP RATIO | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
YEAR | CLASS OF | Gold | Silver | Lead | Zinc | Gold | Silver | TOTAL | WASTE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(0 = 2008) | ORE | kt | NSR, $ | g/t | g/t | % | % | kt | NSR, $ | g/t | g/t | Ovbrdn | Oxide | Mixed | Sulphide | Undef. | Total | kt | MILL+LEACH | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0 | Prov&Prb | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Prov&Prb | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Prov&Prb | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Prov&Prb | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Prov&Prb | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Prov&Prb | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Prov&Prb | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Prov&Prb | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Prov&Prb | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Prov&Prb | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Prov&Prb | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | Prov&Prb | 0 | 2,084 | 2.60 | 0.27 | 14.0 | 29,901 | 3,992 | 0 | 0 | 51 | 33,944 | 36,028 | 16.29 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | Prov&Prb | 0 | 3,306 | 2.32 | 0.23 | 14.8 | 26,721 | 9,864 | 0 | 87 | 257 | 36,929 | 40,235 | 11.17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | Prov&Prb | 650 | 7.64 | 0.41 | 28.6 | 0.34 | 0.67 | 6,518 | 2.26 | 0.20 | 18.8 | 41 | 18,039 | 1,391 | 2,306 | 0 | 21,777 | 28,945 | 3.04 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | Prov&Prb | 11,325 | 7.50 | 0.20 | 32.9 | 0.43 | 0.63 | 6,975 | 2.77 | 0.23 | 24.5 | 0 | 4,741 | 7,319 | 35,168 | 0 | 47,228 | 65,528 | 2.58 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | Prov&Prb | 29,200 | 12.00 | 0.28 | 55.2 | 0.63 | 1.03 | 16 | 2.33 | 0.24 | 14.0 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 28,802 | 0 | 28,831 | 58,047 | 0.99 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 | Prov&Prb | 7,239 | 13.34 | 0.49 | 58.2 | 0.46 | 1.25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 732 | 0 | 732 | 7,971 | 0.10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total | 48,414 | 11.09 | 0.29 | 50.1 | 0.56 | 0.96 | 18,899 | 2.50 | 0.22 | 19.6 | 56,663 | 36,636 | 8,739 | 67,095 | 308 | 169,441 | 236,754 | 2.52 |
100,000mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Available Days per Year | d | 365 | ||||||
Available Shifts per Day | shifts / d | 2 | ||||||
Available Shifts per Year | shifts / yr | 730 | ||||||
Scheduled Operating Days / Year | d | 350 | ||||||
Scheduled Operating Shifts / Year | shifts | 700 | ||||||
Shift Duration | hrs | 12 | ||||||
Available Time per Shift | min | 720 | ||||||
Lunch & Breaks Duration | min | 60 | ||||||
Equipment Inspection Duration | min | 10 | ||||||
Shift Change Duration | min | 10 | ||||||
Fuel, Lube and Service Duration | min | 10 | ||||||
Operating Delays per Operating Hour | min / op hr | 10 | ||||||
Operating Delays per Shift | min / shift | 105 | ||||||
Effective Minutes per Shift | min | 525 | ||||||
Sulphide Ore and Waste Rock | ||||||||
Material — Average In Place Density | kg / bcm | 2,570 | ||||||
Swell % | % | 40.0 | % | |||||
Swell Factor | * | 0.71 | ||||||
Material Bulk Density, Dry | kg / lcm | 1,836 | ||||||
Moisture Content | % | 5 | % | |||||
Oxide & Mixed Ore and Waste Rock | ||||||||
Material — Average In Place Density | kg / bcm | 2,400 | ||||||
Swell % | % | 40.0 | % | |||||
Swell Factor | * | 0.71 | ||||||
Material Bulk Density, Dry | kg / lcm | 1,714 | ||||||
Moisture Content | % | 5 | % | |||||
Overburden | ||||||||
Material — In Place Density | kg / bcm | 2,200 | ||||||
Swell % | % | 40.0 | % | |||||
Swell Factor | * | 0.71 | ||||||
Material Bulk Density, Dry | kg / lcm | 1,570 | ||||||
Moisture Content | % | 5 | % |
a) | Equipment Selection | |
The mining equipment sized to accommodate the mine plan at a production rate peaking at 511,429 MTPD of total material (assuming 350 operating days per year) during Years 4 through 10 consists of large sized primary |
100,000mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
mining equipment and a selection of matched pit/dump support and maintenance equipment. | ||
For the purpose of capacity and cost calculations, it has been assumed that the major mining equipment will be the equivalent of P & H 4100 shovels, Le Tourneau 1850 Loaders, P & H 250XP Diesel blast hole drills and Komatsu 950E haul trucks. Support equipment including track dozers, rubber tire dozers, excavator, and graders are assumed to be equivalent to the Caterpillar models. | ||
Drilling for all materials except the heap leach ore will be carried out with crawler mounted, diesel powered, blast hole drills on 15 m benches drilled with 1.5 m of sub-grade. It is assumed that 20% of the overburden will be drilled and blasted using a wider hole pattern. The heap leach ore drill pattern will be adjusted as needed to assure rock fragmentation of about 127 to 152 mm for leaching. This may require a smaller drill than what is presently included in the mine capital cost estimate. | ||
It is assumed that blasting will be carried out primarily with conventional ANFO explosive, supplied by an explosives contractor. The blast holes will be loaded by mine personnel and initiated by the blasting supervisor. A powder factor of 0.20 kg / tonne has been used for explosives consumption estimation in rock, 0.12 kg / tonne for overburden and 0.40 kg / tonne for the heap leach ore. | ||
The primary loading units will be the P&H 4100 shovels equipped with a 55 cubic meter bucket. An L-1850 LeTourneau front-end loader (25 cubic meter bucket) will be used for selective mining at ore/ waste contacts, low mining faces and in the tighter mining geometries. The loader will also be used for general and utility work around the mine property. | ||
The 290 tonne class haul trucks will be the primary hauling unit for ore and waste. | ||
b) | Equipment Requirements | |
Major mining equipment requirements have been determined on the basis of a two shift per day basis for seven days per week to a total of 350 days per year (assuming 10 holidays and 5 shut down days for weather or other reasons). The mine will operate a total of 700 shifts per year with four mining crews working on a 4 on and 4 off rotation. | ||
A stockpile will allow the mill to operate 365 days per year. |
100,000mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Table 1-20 lists the mining and support equipment that has been selected, sized and evaluated for this plan. The list also includes estimated support equipment requirements. | ||
Haul truck productivities over the life-of-mine were calculated on the basis of the fixed and variable components of the hauling cycle and travel distances to the primary crusher truck dump pocket at the 1,968 m elevation, to the run of mine heap leach and to the waste dumps. For this study, the waste material has been segregated into separate dumps for overburden, oxide plus mixed material and sulphide material. |
Initial | Maximum | |||||||||
Equipment | No. Reqd | No. Reqd | General Specification | |||||||
Rotary Blast Hole Drill | 2 | 8 | P & H 250XP, 311 mm Diesel | |||||||
Electric Shovel | 2 | 4 | P&H 4100XBP, 41 cu m, Electric | |||||||
Wheel Loader | 2 | 2 | L-1850 LeTourneau Loader | |||||||
Haul Truck | 15 | 75 | Komatsu 930E, Series III 320, End Dump | |||||||
Track Dozer | 6 | 8 | 6 ea – D10 T, 10SU, 18.5 cu m, Ripper, 2 ea – D9T for Stockpile & Tailings | |||||||
Rubber Tire Dozer | 0 | 2 | Cat 854G, Universal Blade | |||||||
Grader | 3 | 5 | Cat 16H, 4.9 m | |||||||
Water Truck | 3 | 5 | Cat 777, 70,000 liter | |||||||
Wheel Loader | 1 | 1 | Cat 988H | |||||||
Auxiliary Rock Drill | 1 | 1 | IR ECM 590/YH Rock Drill, | |||||||
Backhoe / Excavator | 1 | 3 | Cat 325, 2.2 cu m, with Hammer | |||||||
Fuel / Lube Truck | 2 | 2 | 18,500 liter | |||||||
Blast Hole Stemmer | 2 | 3 | Cat 416C | |||||||
Flatbed Truck | 1 | 2 | 2 tonne | |||||||
ANFO/Slurry Truck | 2 | 3 | 18 tonne | |||||||
Cable Reeler | 1 | 2 | Cat 966G | |||||||
Crane Truck | 1 | 1 | 25 tonne | |||||||
Forklift | 1 | 2 | Hyster H100XM | |||||||
Forklift | 1 | 2 | Sellick SD-100 | |||||||
Mobile Crane | 1 | 1 | 120 tonne Grove | |||||||
Service / Welder / Steam Truck | 6 | 6 | 25,000 kg GVW | |||||||
Grader | 1 | 1 | Cat 160H | |||||||
Backhoe | 1 | 1 | Cat 420 | |||||||
Water Truck | 1 | 1 | 4000 gallon | |||||||
Trailer | 1 | 1 | 2660 trailer | |||||||
Dump Truck | 1 | 1 | 10 yard | |||||||
Loader | 1 | 1 | Skidsteer | |||||||
Integrated Tool carrier | 1 | 2 | Cat IT-62G, Tire Service / Maintenance | |||||||
Crew Bus | 2 | 6 | 20 man | |||||||
Pick-Up Truck | 20 | 40 | 4 x 4 | |||||||
Light Plant | 8 | 14 | Diesel Generator | |||||||
Mine Communications System | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
Mine Radios | 70 | 173 | ||||||||
Pumps | 2 | 5 | Submersible, Pit Dewatering | |||||||
Mine Dispatch System | 1 | 2 | 19 high precision GPS units | |||||||
Generator | 1 | 1 | Mounted on trailer | |||||||
Engineering Computers & Software | 1 | 1 | Drafting, Plotting, Engineering | |||||||
Surveying Equipment | 1 | 1 | GPS Surveying System | |||||||
Mine Maintenance Computers & Software | 1 | 1 | Inventory Control, Planning |
* | Selection assumes fire truck and ambulance are to the account of G&A area. | |
* | Selection assumes existence of on site diesel / gasoline fuel storage with dispensing capability to fuel haul trucks. | |
* | Selection provides for full field fuel service to dozers, loaders, excavator and portable generators only. Trucks refueled at tank farm. | |
* | Selection does not include step down transformers, switchgear and cabling for pit power. | |
* | Selection does not include mobile equipment maintenance shop equipped with small tools, power tools, welders, hoists, lube dispensing |
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
c) | Manpower | ||
All personnel in the mine department will be Mexican nationals with the exception of an expatriate mine superintendent, the mine and maintenance general foremen, the mine and maintenance trainers and a maintenance planner for the initial years (Years 1- 3) of production. It is expected that based on the unemployment levels in the area and the regional experience in mining, that there will be no difficulty staffing the project. | |||
Mine operations and mine maintenance manpower complement has been estimated based on a two 12 hour shift per day, four-on-four-off, seven day per week operation for all unit operations. Supervision, engineering personnel and the blasting crews are scheduled to work on an eight hour day, five day per week rotation. | |||
In general one operator has been assigned to each equipment unit on each shift. For instance, in drilling operations four operators are assigned to each drill during high utilization years and reduced during low drill utilization years. Some manpower reductions have been made where opportunities to use operators on several equipment types exist, such as in mining support equipment. | |||
Maintenance personnel requirements have been estimated on the basis of equipment requirements and utilization with adjustments to reflect an average mine-life ratio of about 0.65:1 mine maintenance personnel to mine operating personnel. | |||
A summary life of mine manpower schedule is shown on Table 1-21. |
1-64
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Area | Position | Number | ||||||||
General Management | ||||||||||
General Manager | 1 | |||||||||
Executive Secretary | 1 | |||||||||
Receptionist | 1 | |||||||||
Sub-Total | 3 | |||||||||
Mine | ||||||||||
Mine Manager | 1 | |||||||||
Mine Clerk | 1 | |||||||||
Mine Superintendent | 1 | |||||||||
Mine General Foreman | 1 | |||||||||
Senior Shift Foreman | 3 | |||||||||
Shift Foreman | 9 | |||||||||
Equipment Trainer | 1 | |||||||||
Shovel/Loader Operators | 21 | |||||||||
Support Equipment Operators | 60 | |||||||||
Truck Operators | 225 | |||||||||
D&B General Foreman | 1 | |||||||||
Blasting Supervisor | 2 | |||||||||
Blasting Crew | 9 | |||||||||
Drillers | 36 | |||||||||
Dewatering & Cable Crew | 12 | |||||||||
Laborers | 9 | |||||||||
VS&A Allowance | 14 | |||||||||
Mine Maintenance Superintendent | 1 | |||||||||
Maintenance Planner | 4 | |||||||||
Maintenance Supervisors | 3 | |||||||||
Mechanics | 12 | |||||||||
Welders | 12 | |||||||||
Lubemen | 9 | |||||||||
Mechanic Helpers | 6 | |||||||||
Laborers | 3 | |||||||||
VS&A Allowance | 10 | |||||||||
Technical Services Manager | 1 | |||||||||
Chief Engineer | 1 | |||||||||
Mine Engineers | 6 | |||||||||
Ore Control Engineers | 6 | |||||||||
Lead Surveyor | 3 | |||||||||
Survey Assistant | 12 | |||||||||
Chief Geologist | 1 | |||||||||
Mine Geologist | 9 | |||||||||
Sub-Total | 505 | |||||||||
Process | ||||||||||
Process Manager | 1 | |||||||||
Process Clerk/Assistant | 1 | |||||||||
Mill Superintendent | 1 | |||||||||
Grinding/Crusher Supervisors | 3 | |||||||||
Grinding Operators | 6 | |||||||||
Grinding Helpers | 6 | |||||||||
Lime Circuit Operators | 3 | |||||||||
Lime Circuit Reagents | 2 | |||||||||
Crusher Operators | 3 | |||||||||
Crusher Helpers | 3 | |||||||||
Flotations Supervisors | 3 | |||||||||
Pb Flotation Operators | 6 | |||||||||
Pb Flotation Helpers | 9 | |||||||||
Zn Flotation Operators | 6 | |||||||||
Zn Flotation Helpers | 9 | |||||||||
Tailings Operators | 3 | |||||||||
Tailings Helpers | 6 | |||||||||
Pb/Zn Concentrate Supervisors | 3 | |||||||||
Pb Concentrate Operators | 3 | |||||||||
Pb Concentrates Helpers | 3 | |||||||||
Zn Concentrate Operators | 3 | |||||||||
Zn Concentrate Helpers | 3 | |||||||||
Scale Operator | 3 | |||||||||
Leach Superintendent | 1 | |||||||||
HL Supervisors | 3 | |||||||||
Merrill-Crowe Operators | 3 | |||||||||
Merrill-Crowe Helpers | 3 | |||||||||
Refinery Operators | 2 | |||||||||
Refinery Helpers | 1 | |||||||||
HL Helpers | 2 | |||||||||
Metallurgist Superintendent | 1 | |||||||||
Chief Metallurgist | 1 | |||||||||
Metallurgists | 3 | |||||||||
Chief Chemist | 1 | |||||||||
Mill Lab Supervisors | 3 | |||||||||
Sample Prep Helpers | 9 | |||||||||
Fire Assay Operators | 9 | |||||||||
Wet Lab Operators | 9 | |||||||||
HL Lab Supervisor | 1 | |||||||||
HL Samplers | 3 | |||||||||
HL AA assayers | 3 | |||||||||
HL Environmental Operator | 1 | |||||||||
Maintenance Superintendent | 1 | |||||||||
Maintenance Planner | 1 | |||||||||
Plant Mechanics | 27 | |||||||||
Plant Electrical/Instrumentation | 6 | |||||||||
Sub-Total | 183 | |||||||||
Administration | ||||||||||
Administrative Manager | 1 | |||||||||
Environmental Coordinator | 1 | |||||||||
Environmental Technicians | 3 | |||||||||
Environmental Laborers | 6 | |||||||||
Safety & Health Coordinator | 1 | |||||||||
Safety Technicians | 3 | |||||||||
Doctors | 2 | |||||||||
Paramedics | 1 | |||||||||
Nurses | 1 | |||||||||
Community Relations Coordinator | 1 | |||||||||
Community Relations Supervisor | 1 | |||||||||
Community Relations Technicians | 3 | |||||||||
Sub-Total | 24 | |||||||||
Human Resources | ||||||||||
HR Manager | 1 | |||||||||
HR Secretary | 1 | |||||||||
HR Supervisor | 2 | |||||||||
HR Specialist | 3 | |||||||||
Payroll Administrator | 4 | |||||||||
Security | 3 | |||||||||
Camp Administrator | 1 | |||||||||
Janitorial Service | 0 | |||||||||
Sub-Total | 15 | |||||||||
Accounting | ||||||||||
Controller | 1 | |||||||||
Senior Mine Accountant | 1 | |||||||||
Accounting Clerk | 1 | |||||||||
Cost Accounting Supervisor | 1 | |||||||||
Cost Accounting Assistant | 1 | |||||||||
Tax Accountant | 1 | |||||||||
Sr. Accounts Payable | 1 | |||||||||
Accounts Payable Assistants | 3 | |||||||||
IT Supervisor | 1 | |||||||||
IT Assistants | 5 | |||||||||
Sub-Total | 16 | |||||||||
Purchasing and Warehousing | ||||||||||
Purchasing &Warehouse Manager | 1 | |||||||||
Purchasing Coordinator | 1 | |||||||||
Buyers | 4 | |||||||||
Warehouse Supervisor | 1 | |||||||||
Warehouse Assistant | 1 | |||||||||
Warehouse Attendants | 3 | |||||||||
Drivers | 4 | |||||||||
Sub-Total | 15 | |||||||||
TOTAL | 761 |
General Manager | 3 | |||
Mine | 505 | |||
Process | 183 | |||
Administration | 24 | |||
Human Resources | 15 | |||
Accounting | 16 | |||
Purchasing and Warehousing | 15 | |||
TOTAL | 761 |
1-65
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
d) | Mine Maintenance and Dry Facilities | ||
A mine service complex will be provided adjacent to the plant site which will include truck and support equipment repair and maintenance bays, a steam bay, a tire service bay and a welding bay. Fuelling facilities for haul trucks and small mobile equipment will be constructed. A mine dry which includes clean and dirty change areas, storage lockers and washroom/shower facilities will be constructed. | |||
e) | Explosive Magazines and AN Storage | ||
Explosives supplies, office/shop facilities and AN storage facilities for mining operations will be supplied by an explosives contractor. High explosives will be stored in magazines, and AN will be stored in dispensing silos. The magazines will be fenced and located within the property boundary and situated to meet the legal required distances from the mine facilities, roads or populated areas. | |||
Service roads connecting the magazine area, the AN storage silo, and the office/shop facilities will be constructed. Fuel oil for blasting will be supplied by the owner. | |||
f) | Pit Power | ||
The electrical power to operate in-pit submersible sump pumps for mine dewatering and the electric loading shovels will be distributed from the main site substation to in-pit and pit perimeter transformers and switchgear. | |||
g) | Mine Dewatering | ||
The groundwater inflow into the pits has been assumed to be minimal for purposes of this study. It is anticipated that groundwater inflow and pit runoff will be carried by drainage ditches along haul roads and sumped in the pit floor for pumping out of the pit. Additional pumping capacity for flood control will be required for periods of intense precipitation during the wet season. A requirement for peak inflow pumping capacity has been assumed. | |||
Simple ditches along pit rim perimeters will prevent runoff water from entering the pit. A mining support excavator will be available to provide ongoing road/runoff ditching and pit sump excavation capacity. | |||
h) | Engineering and Grade Control | ||
The mine department personnel complement will include engineers, a surveyor, a geologist, a draftsman, grade control technicians, and a mine clerk that will carry out required mine engineering, surveying, geology, |
1-66
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
grade control, production planning, and production tracking tasks. The mine engineering department will be equipped with office computers, mine planning software, GPS surveying equipment, and CAD drafting stations and software. A truck dispatching system has not been included. |
Sulphide mill ore, oxide plus mixed heap leach ore and ore/waste contacts will be marked in the field to guide the ore loading operations to allow for selective mining with a minimum of dilution. Grade contacts will be defined with aid of sampled and assayed blast hole cuttings. | |||
The maintenance clerk will schedule equipment maintenance, monitor repair parts inventories and track maintenance performance with the aid of maintenance scheduling software. | |||
1.25.2 | Recoveries This is discussed in Section 1.18. 1.25.3 Markets | ||
At the time of this report no agreements have been made with any smelters and no discussions have been entered into with a view to concluding any agreements. Not withstanding this, several smelter operators have expressed interest in entering into discussions. Samples of the concentrates have been provided to those requesting it. | |||
Market research has been performed by a specialist consultant, Neil S. Seldon and Associates Limited. The following is a summary of the findings: | |||
The markets for the lead and zinc concentrates from Peñasquito fall into two categories, smelters within Mexico and smelters overseas. The overseas smelters are further divided into Asian, North American and European markets. | |||
For the purpose of the study, it is assumed that all lead concentrate will be smelted in Mexico but it is also recognized that some will be smelted in overseas smelters. The smelter terms recommended in the consultant’s report for the lead concentrate represent “typical” terms for the market. They represent a forecast of terms based on historical averages with due consideration for projected supply and demand over the foreseeable future. | |||
It is possible that there may be a market for zinc concentrate in Mexico. The report assumes that zinc will be split between local and overseas either Europe or Asia. Again the smelter terms used in the calculations in this |
1-67
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
report represent an average of the typical terms deduced from the market research. | |||
Transportation cost and port charges in-country have been determined based on a survey of transportation companies and other users. They represent current costs. Ocean freight charges recommended by the consultant are projected future costs based on historical averages and projected supply and demand. | |||
Actual smelter terms and freight costs used in the report are set out in Section 1.25.8. | |||
1.25.4 | Contracts | ||
Mining and mill operating costs as discussed later are derived from engineering estimates based on the current level of information available. They are not based on contract prices obtained from third parties. The rates used are viewed as being within the typical range for operations of this size. | |||
As noted in the previous section, no smelting, refining or transportation contracts have yet been entered into, nor have any such discussions been initiated. | |||
1.25.5 | Environmental Considerations | ||
The Peñasquito mining Project is located in a rural area of mining tradition, since its geological characteristics embody a mineral ore body able to be exploited with the best available technology. | |||
The site is not within protected natural areas, and the mining work is not considered a risk to the environmental system integrity since it will take the required environmental control measures for the flora and fauna species identified in the site. | |||
Other identified impacts will be drainage and the site soils, but the site impact will be lessened by mitigation and control measures to be implemented in the different project phases. | |||
Summing up, there are no inconveniences for the mining project to be authorized on environmental impact because the ideal conditions are in place to comply with the present Mexican environmental codes. | |||
Federal laws primarily regulate mining in Mexico, however there are several permit programs subject to state and local jurisdiction. The key permits required are shown in Table 1-22. The chart shows the government agencies involved as well as the status and the estimated approval time for each permit. The Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources |
1-68
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
(SEMARNAT)is the chief agency regulating environmental matters in Mexico. The CNA has authority over all matters concerning water rights and activities that affect ground and surface water supplies, including activities in the floodplains. | |||
The SEMARNAT permit programs that are mandatory for the construction stage are the Environmental Impact Manifest (MIA), Risk Study and the Land Use Change Study. An endorsement must also be obtained at the municipal level to start the mine construction. A release letter from National Institure of Anthropology and History (INAH) must be obtained prior to any actions that could disturb the identified cultural resources at the site. Glamis has obtained a release letter from INAH. | |||
The explosives use permit must be secured before any explosives can be brought into the storage area. The National Secretary of Defense (SEDENA) has authority over all explosives permits. | |||
The preparation of a full MIA for the mine and processing plant is complete in accordance with Mexican requirements. The MIA will comprise the following volumes: |
• | Environmental Impact Assessment | ||
• | Risk Analysis | ||
• | Land Use Change | ||
• | EIA has been prepared with data of 50,000 TPD. In the future a change to EIA needs to be done to 100,000 TPD or SEMARNAT could request a new EIA. |
1-69
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
• | Rock pile will be placed at a 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical average side slope. | ||
• | Leach piles will be placed at a 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical average side slope. | ||
• | Tailings will be placed by centerline spigot (or cyclone) construction and have a minimum average side slope of 4 horizontal to 1 vertical. | ||
• | Rock pile foundations will be caliche or silty-clay grade surface. A suitable thickness of pit oxide overburden (10 meters minimum) will be placed on this benign strata. Sulphide or oxide waste rock will be placed over the oxide overburden layer. During the last placements of material, surveying will be employed to ensure proper slopes and suitable grades for drainage of the top surface. At the end-of-mine life, a top cover layer will be placed on the sides and top of each rock pile unit, in effect “bagging” the sulphide material in an oxide envelope. In the case of the Peñasco rock piles, overburden for the Chile Colorado pit will likely be largely used as it is scheduled to be mined after Peñasco. For Chile Colorado waste rock, topcover will come from previously stockpiled topsoil. The possibility also exists that Chile Colorado waste rock may be deposited in the Peñasco Pit. | ||
• | Leach pile foundations will be caliche or silty-clay scarified surface. On this surface a double liner will be placed (clay and LLDPE geomembrane). On top of this a cushioning sand layer will be followed by a crushed and screened drainage layer. | ||
• | Tailings foundation will be caliche or silty-clay grade surface. The caliche/silty-clay will be overlain by consolidated tails to form a sufficient barrier for tails confinement. |
1-70
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
REQUIRED | ESTIMATED | ACTUAL STATUS | ||||||
PERMIT | MINING STAGE | AGENCY | RESPONSE TIME | (June 2006) | ||||
Environmental Impact Manifest-mine1 | Construction/operation/ abandonment | SEMARNAT- Federal Offices Mexico DF) | 0-120 works days. | Complete by August 2006 | ||||
Land use change study-mine1 | Construction/ operation | SEMARNAT- DGGFS2-Federal offices. | 90% complete by August 2006 | |||||
Risk analysis study-mine1 | Construction/ operation | SEMARNAT-(Mexico City office) | 0-120 works days. | 75% complete by August 2006 | ||||
Environmental Impact Manifest-power line1 | Construction/operation/ abandonment | SEMARNAT-State offices | 0-120 works days. | 50% complete by August 2006 | ||||
Land use change study-power line1 | Construction/ operation | SEMARNAT-DGGFS2-State offices. | 0-120 works days. | 50% complete by August 2006 | ||||
Land use license1 | Construction | Mazapil municipality | 2 months | Discussions underway | ||||
Explosive handling and storage permits | Construction/- operation | SEDENA3 (Also requires state and local approvals) | 4 months | Application to be submitted when final design is complete Environmental Impact authorization required. | ||||
Archaeological release letter1 | Construction | INAH4 (State offices) | 3 to 4 months | The mine authorization is in place but not so for the power line, we’re working to get it. Complete | ||||
Water use concession title | Construction/ operation | CNA5 (State offices) | 60 work days | Approx. 1 year to obtain permit of 10 million cubic meters of water. | ||||
Water discharge permit | Operation | CNA (State offices) | 60 work days s | Application to be submitted when final design is complete | ||||
Unique license | Operation | SEMARNAT-State offices | 3 to 12 months | Not required for construction and start-up, application will be submitted once mine is in operation | ||||
Accident prevention plan | Operation | SEMARNAT-State offices | Not defined | Not required for construction and start-up; to be submitted once mine is in operation |
1Mandatory to start construction activities. |
2DGGFS (General Department of Permitting for Forestry and Soils) |
3SEDENA (National Secretary of Defense) |
4INAH (National Institute of Anthropology and History) |
5CNA (National Water Commission) |
6All studies based on 50,000 MTPD plant. An amendment will be required for 100,000 MTPD plant. |
1-71
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
1.25.6 | Taxes | ||
Taxes have been calculated on a project basis in accordance with published Mexican taxation legislation. Additional details of how taxes have been applied can be found in Volume II of the Feasibility Study. Specialist taxation advice has not been solicited at this stage and no tax planning strategies have been assumed. | |||
IVA (Impuesto Valor Agregado) is a value-added sales tax at the Federal level. This tax has not been included in the estimates. | |||
PITEX (Programa de Importacion Temporal para Producir Articulos de Exportacion) is a federal program allowing a waiver of import duties on imported items that will exported at the end of the project. The cost of administrating this program has been included in the estimate. | |||
Income tax has been applied at a rate of 28% of taxable income after 2007 and an allowance for employee profit sharing has been included. | |||
Total federal income tax paid over the life of the mine is $1.3 billion. | |||
1.25.7 | Reclamation Costs | ||
Site Reclamation Costs at end of Mine Life are $15,784,000. | |||
SEMARNAT Change of Land Use Fee will be a sunk cost and not available for reclaiming but negates the requirement for bonding. | |||
It is noted that in addition to the reclamation costs indicated above, additional operating costs are incurred during the course of mining to accomplish reclamation as a continual process, e.g., rock piles and leach piles are placed to final average side slopes (instead of angle of repose) needed for reclamation, as described in 1.25.5. Annual haulage costs reflect this accordingly. | |||
1.25.8 | Economics |
a) | Key Parameters | ||
The following unit costs significantly affect the financial model. |
• | Mechanical and electrical equipment costs are in late second quarter 2006 dollars, based on recent hard money vendor quotations. | ||
• | Electricity power costs are based on published second quarter 2006 CFE rates. |
1-72
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
• | Diesel costs are based on second quarter 2006 negotiated contracts for other M3 Mexico projects. | ||
• | Base Case Metals pricing is based on the M3 end of June 2006 values, calculated on 60% historical and 40% futures. (See Paragraph F for further explanation). | ||
• | Smelter terms represent a forecast based on historical terms, current terms, and future projections. | ||
• | Concentrate transportation charges and port storage charges are based on current pricing. | ||
• | Concentrate ocean shipping charges are a forecast based on recent historical terms, current terms, and future projections. | ||
• | Reagent costs are based on second quarter 2006 quotations and the Glamis El Sauzal data bank. | ||
• | Grinding media costs are based on second quarter 2006 quotations and the Glamis El Sauzal data bank. | ||
• | Construction labor rates are based on the M3 historical data base as updated by bids received in 2005 and 2006. | ||
• | Operation labor rates are based on the M3 historical data base as updated by confidential records. | ||
• | M3’s capital costs estimate has been calibrated to unit metrics (e.g., all in cost for cubic meter of concrete or tonne of structural steel) received on comparable construction bids in 2005 and 2006. |
b) | Ore Reserves and Mine Life | ||
These are summarized in Section 1.19. | |||
c) | Metallurgical Recoveries | ||
Recoveries are indicated in Section 1.18. |
1-73
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
d) | Smelter Terms |
Lead Concentrate | ||||
Payable Lead in Lead Concentrate | 95.00 | % | ||
Lead Minimum Deduction — unit | 0.0 | |||
Treatment Charge — $/t | $ | 160.00 | ||
Gold Refining Charge — $/oz | $ | 6.00 | ||
Silver Refining Charge — $/oz | $ | 0.40 | ||
Payable Zinc in Lead Concentrate | 0.00 | % | ||
Payable Gold in Lead Concentrate | 95.00 | % | ||
Gold Deduction — gpt | 1.0 | |||
Payable Silver in Lead Concentrate | 100.00 | % | ||
Silver Minimum Deduction — gpt | 50.0 | |||
Zinc Concentrate | ||||
Payable Zinc in Zinc Concentrate | 85.00 | % | ||
Zinc Minimum Deduction — unit | 0.0 | |||
Treatment Charge — $/t* | $ | 205.00 | ||
Payable Lead in Zinc Concentrate | 0.00 | % | ||
Payable Gold in Zinc Concentrate | 75.00 | % | ||
Gold Deduction — gpt | 1.0 | |||
Payable Silver in Zinc Concentrate | 70.00 | % | ||
Silver Deduction — gpt | 93.3 |
Concentrate Transportation Costs | |||
The base case considers concentrate transportation charges as follows: |
• | Truck from mine to port | $ | 25.00 | |||
• | Port storage and loading charges | $ | 10.00 | |||
• | Ocean freight including losses and insurance | $ | 35.00 | |||
Total Overseas Cost | $ | 70.00 | ||||
• | Truck from mine to inland smelter | $ | 45.00 | |||
Total Local Cost | $ | 45.00 |
Wet concentrate tonnages estimates are based on a moisture content of 8%. | |||
Concentrate quality, based on Peñasco ore, is characterized in the following table. Concentrate from Chile Colorado ore is very similar. In general, the concentrates produced are clean and relatively free of deleterious elements. Although antimony and cadmium may be on the |
1-74
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
high side, general discussions with smelters suggest that these may not be problematic for all the smelters. No penalty charges have been assumed. |
Concentrate Mass and Assays | ||||||
Element | Units | Lead | Zinc | |||
Mass | Kg | 7.2 | 9.3 | |||
Lead | % | 52.6 | 2.83 | |||
Zinc | % | 7.3 | 51.0 | |||
Gold | ppm | 70.3 | 6.8 | |||
Silver | ppm | 2960 | 486 | |||
Antimony | % | 1.86 | 0.244 | |||
Arsenic | % | 0.536 | 0.137 | |||
Bismuth | ppm | 719 | 96 | |||
Cadmium | % | 0.077 | 0.354 | |||
Cobalt | % | 0.03 | 0.002 | |||
Copper | % | 2.36 | 0.55 | |||
Iron | % | 6.6 | 3.25 | |||
Mercury | ppm | <1 | 4 | |||
Molybdenum | % | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
Nickel | % | 0.007 | 0.05 | |||
Selenium | ppm | 891 | 67 | |||
Silica | % | 3.35 | 6.4 | |||
Sulphur | % | 21.5 | 29.7 | |||
Aluminum Oxide | % | 0.98 | 1.77 | |||
Calcium Oxide | % | 0.22 | 0.61 | |||
Magnesium Oxide | % | 0.14 | 0.27 |
e) | NI 43-101 Metals Pricing for Reserves | ||
Table 1-25 shows end of June 2006 M3 metal pricing based on three years of recent historical data and two years of future price forecast. M3 has used this proprietary method since 2004. M3 notes that Orion Research on October 5, 2005 stated “We are having indications that the SEC will allow the use of three-year trailing and two-year forward gold prices for reserve calculation.” Glamis has conservatively approximated its pit geometry using values close to 36-month historical data. |
1-75
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Gold | $450/ounce | |||||
Silver | $7/ounce | |||||
Zinc | $0.60/pound | |||||
Lead | $0.30/pound |
f) | NI 43-101 Metals Pricing for Financial Analysis | ||
M3 has used the weighted average for NI 43-101 financial analysis. |
Gold | $532.74/ounce | |||||||
Silver | $8.841/ounce | |||||||
Zinc | $0.787/pound | |||||||
Lead | $0.424/pound |
Prices Used for | ||||||||||||
Prices used for US Sec. Filings | NI 43-101 Filings | |||||||||||
Spot Price | Futures Price Forecast | Weighted | ||||||||||
EOM | Historical Price | (24-Month) Projected | Average | |||||||||
Commodity | June 2006 | (36-months) | Source of Data | thru June 2008 | (60-40) | |||||||
Gold | 613.50 | 445.50 | COMEX Daily Ave | 663.61 | COMEX Futures | 532.74 | ||||||
(USD per Tr Oz) | LME Daily Ave | |||||||||||
Silver | 10.700 | 7.343 | COMEX Daily Ave | 11.087 | COMEX Futures | 8.841 | ||||||
(USD per Tr Oz) | LME Daily Ave | |||||||||||
Copper | 3.355 | 1.593 | LME Monthly Ave | 2.558 | COMEX Futures | 1.979 | ||||||
(USD per lb) | & LME Futures | |||||||||||
Lead | 0.447 | 0.413 | LME Monthly Ave | 0.452 | LME Futures | 0.424 | ||||||
(USD per lb) | ||||||||||||
Nickel | 10.100 | 6.474 | LME Monthly Ave | 6.558 | LME Futures | 6.508 | ||||||
(USD per lb) | ||||||||||||
Zinc | 1.460 | 0.629 | LME Monthly Ave | 1.025 | LME Futures | 0.787 | ||||||
(USD per lb) |
1. | Precious Metals updated through End-of-Month (EOM) June 2006 Base metals updated through EOM June 2006 | |
2. | Sources: Commodity Exchange (COMEX, division of NY Mercantile Exchange) prices for gold and silver daily historical and EOM futures pricing | |
London Metals Exchange (LME) for copper, lead, nickel, and zinc monthly average settlement and futures pricing. Copper futures pricing is the average of the LME and COMEX copper futures prices. | ||
3. | M3 uses weighted average prices for NI-43-101 reporting purposes, 60 % historical prices; 40% futures forecast prices except for lead. | |
4. | Lead futures price projected for 15 months forward. Historical to futures price ratio is 70.6% to 29.4%. | |
5. | Spot prices are from London Bullion Market Association & Kitco Metals for precious metals and base metals, respectively. |
1-76
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
g) | Exchange Rate | ||
The following exchange rates have been used: |
11.39 | Mexican Peso | = US $1.00 | |||
0.789 | Euro | = US $1.00 | |||
114.4 | Japanese Yen | = US $1.00 | |||
1.35 | Aus $1.00 | = US $1.00 | |||
8.00 | Chinese Yuan | = US $1.00 |
h) | Operating Costs | ||
These are outlined in Section 1.3.11. |
i) | Capital Costs | ||
These are outlined in Section 1.3.10. |
j) | Royalties | ||
The base case includes a 2% NSR royalty payable to Kennecott on all production. |
k) | Taxes | ||
Taxes are discussed in Section 1.25.6. |
l) | Financing | ||
The base case economic analysis has been run on a basis of 100% equity. |
m) | Inflation | ||
The base case economic analysis has been run with no inflation (constant dollar basis). Capital and operating costs are expressed in July 2006 United States dollars. |
n) | Economic Results | ||
For end of month of June 2006 M3 metals pricing, the economic results based on a 100% equity calculation indicate that with an after-tax and mandated profit sharing, an IRR of 18.7% can be achieved. The corresponding after tax NPV is $3.3 billion at a zero discount rate, $1.5 billion at a 5% discount rate, and $650 million at a 10% discount rate. |
1-77
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Mine Cost | Mine Cost per | |||||||||||||||
Total Tonnes | per Total | Ore Tonnes | Ore Tonne | |||||||||||||
Mined | Total Mine Cost | Tonne Mined | Mined | Mined | ||||||||||||
(000) | ($000) | $/t | (000) | $/t | ||||||||||||
2,121,342 | $1,721,311 | 0.811 | 564,016 | 3.052 |
LOM | ||||
Lead and Zinc Concentrate Revenues | 22.58 | |||
Treatment and Shipping Charges | 3.63 | |||
Net Smelter Return | $ | 18.95 | ||
Operating Cost | 9.90 | |||
Royalties and Taxes | 0.34 | |||
Reclamation and Depreciation | 2.07 | |||
Gross Margin after RTRD | $ | 6.64 |
After Tax Cash Flows ($000) | LOM | |||
Income Statement | ||||
Revenues | $ | 11,451,521 | ||
Production Cost | 6,942,909 | |||
Income Taxes | 1,262,412 | |||
Net Income | $ | 3,246,200 | ||
Cash Flow Statement | ||||
Net Income | $ | 3,246,200 | ||
Plus Depreciation | 1,154,282 | |||
Working Capital | 0 | |||
Cash Flow from Operations | $ | 4,400,482 | ||
Initial Capital Investment | 826,844 | |||
Sustaining Capital | 327,438 | |||
Salvage Income | (10,000 | ) | ||
Net Cash Flow | $ | 3,256,200 |
1-78
100,000mtpdMinera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
After Tax Rate Of Return And Payback | LOM | |||
IRR (100% equity basis) | 18.7 | % | ||
Payback (years, 100% equity basis) | 5.6 |
After Tax Net Present Value | LOM | |||
0% Discount | $3.3 billion | |||
5% Discount | $1.5 billion | |||
10% Discount | $650 million |
o) | Sensitivities | ||
Fluctuation on Main Model sensitivity of the IRR and NPV to changes in basic factors is reflected in the table below. |
1-79
100,000mtpdMinera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Cumulative | NPV | NPV | ||||||||||||||||||
Net Cash Flow | @5% | @10% | Payback | |||||||||||||||||
Case | ($MM) | ($MM) | ($MM) | (Years) | IRR (%) | |||||||||||||||
Base Case | 3,256 | 1,521 | 650 | 5.6 | 18.7 | |||||||||||||||
Metal Price Variation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Metal Price + 20% | 4,880 | 2,447 | 1,249 | 4.0 | 25.5 | |||||||||||||||
Metal Price +10% | 4,068 | 2,000 | 951 | 5.8 | 22.2 | |||||||||||||||
Metal Price -10% | 2,451 | 1,045 | 350 | 6.3 | 14.9 | |||||||||||||||
Metal Price -20% | 1,643 | 563 | 43 | 8.3 | 10.6 | |||||||||||||||
Mill Recovery Variation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Mill Recovery +20% | 4,585 | 2,304 | 1,141 | 4.3 | 24.3 | |||||||||||||||
Mill Recovery +10% | 3,924 | 1,916 | 898 | 5.3 | 21.6 | |||||||||||||||
Mill Recovery -10% | 2,600 | 1,133 | 405 | 5.8 | 15.6 | |||||||||||||||
Mill Recovery -20% | 1,933 | 737 | 154 | 7.1 | 12.2 | |||||||||||||||
Operating Cost Variation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Operating Cost +20% | 2,766 | 1,210 | 439 | 5.9 | 15.8 | |||||||||||||||
Operating Cost +10% | 3,011 | 1,366 | 545 | 6.2 | 17.3 | |||||||||||||||
Operating Cost -10% | 3,501 | 1,677 | 754 | 5.6 | 20.1 | |||||||||||||||
Operating Cost -20% | 3,746 | 1,831 | 858 | 5.2 | 21.5 | |||||||||||||||
Capital Cost Variation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Capital Cost +20% | 3,090 | 1,367 | 507 | 6.5 | 16.1 | |||||||||||||||
Capital Cost +10% | 3,173 | 1,444 | 579 | 6.0 | 17.3 | |||||||||||||||
Capital Cost -10% | 3,338 | 1,597 | 720 | 4.9 | 20.2 | |||||||||||||||
Capital Cost -20% | 3,420 | 1,673 | 790 | 5.3 | 22.0 | |||||||||||||||
Compressed Schedule | ||||||||||||||||||||
SAG #1 starts 1/1/09 | 3,261 | 1,617 | 757 | 4.8 | 20.7 | |||||||||||||||
SAG #2 starts 1/1/11 |
1-80
100,000mtpdMinera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
p) | Payback | ||
Based on the cash flow schedule in the previous section it can be seen that the payback of the initial capital investment will be realized in 5.6 years for the base case. | |||
q) | Mine Life | ||
The proven and probable reserves identified at present, together with the selected production rate result in a mine life of 17 years. | |||
r) | Financial Model Summary | ||
See Table 1-31. |
1-81
100,000mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
Lead Price $/lb. = | $ 0.424 | Zinc Price $/lb. = | $ 0.787 | Silver Price $/oz = Silver Price $/g = | $ 8.841 $ 0.284 | Gold Price $/oz = Gold Price $/g = | $ 532.740 $ 17.128 | Price Factor | 1.00 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Days per Year | Total | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | 365 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mine Production Statistics | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Oxide Ore | Mined (kt) | 87,054 | — | — | 10,502 | 18,922 | 20,898 | 4,668 | 6,577 | 4,279 | 1,784 | 272 | 253 | 0 | 0 | 2,084 | 3,306 | 6,518 | 6,975 | 16 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Combined Sulfide Ore | Mined (kt) | 476,962 | — | — | 12 | 5,475 | 18,250 | 18,250 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 36,366 | 33,670 | 29,200 | 7,239 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Waste | Mined (kt) | 1,557,326 | — | — | 25,486 | 74,603 | 59,852 | 116,082 | 135,923 | 138,221 | 140,716 | 142,228 | 142,247 | 142,500 | 142,500 | 123,716 | 57,394 | 31,916 | 54,379 | 28,831 | 732 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stripping Ratios: | Total Waste: Ore | 2.76 | — | — | 2.42 | 3.06 | 1.53 | 5.07 | 3.16 | 3.39 | 3.68 | 3.87 | 3.87 | 3.90 | 3.90 | 3.21 | 1.44 | 0.74 | 1.34 | 0.99 | 0.10 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plant Production Statistics | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Oxide Total Processed | (kt) | 87,054 | — | — | 10,502 | 18,922 | 20,898 | 4,668 | 6,577 | 4,279 | 1,784 | 272 | 253 | 0 | 0 | 2,084 | 3,306 | 6,518 | 6,975 | 16 | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Oxide Overall Grade Processed | Lead — Percent | 0 | % | — | — | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zinc — Percent | 0 | % | — | — | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gold — g/t | 0.28 | — | — | 0.23 | 0.27 | 0.30 | 0.27 | 0.30 | 0.42 | 0.64 | 1.03 | 1.34 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.27 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.23 | 0.24 | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silver — g/t | 23.77 | — | — | 27.07 | 25.86 | 25.18 | 24.66 | 20.99 | 19.84 | 25.52 | 21.18 | 36.52 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 14.03 | 14.75 | 18.75 | 24.49 | 13.94 | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Sulfide Milled | (kt) | 476,962 | — | — | — | 5,487 | 18,250 | 18,250 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 36,500 | 36,366 | 33,670 | 29,200 | 7,239 | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sulfide Overall Grade Milled | Lead — Percent | 0.35 | % | — | — | — | 0.33 | % | 0.31 | % | 0.30 | % | 0.29 | % | 0.27 | % | 0.28 | % | 0.32 | % | 0.31 | % | 0.31 | % | 0.33 | % | 0.40 | % | 0.43 | % | 0.40 | % | 0.34 | % | 0.63 | % | 0.46 | % | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zinc — Percent | 0.76 | % | — | — | — | 0.62 | % | 0.54 | % | 0.52 | % | 0.65 | % | 0.56 | % | 0.56 | % | 0.62 | % | 0.69 | % | 0.68 | % | 0.78 | % | 0.89 | % | 1.01 | % | 1.10 | % | 0.75 | % | 1.03 | % | 1.24 | % | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gold — g/t | 0.60 | — | — | — | 0.22 | 0.26 | 0.28 | 0.42 | 0.38 | 0.49 | 0.71 | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.86 | 0.67 | 0.86 | 0.72 | 0.49 | 0.28 | 0.49 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silver — g/t | 33.16 | — | — | — | 28.83 | 23.68 | 21.72 | 26.31 | 24.59 | 27.76 | 32.12 | 30.91 | 28.54 | 31.87 | 35.47 | 36.55 | 40.65 | 39.01 | 55.21 | 58.22 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Concentrate Production | Lead Concentrate (kt) | 2,359 | — | — | — | 26 | 82 | 79 | 152 | 142 | 145 | 168 | 162 | 160 | 173 | 208 | 225 | 208 | 155 | 232 | 42 | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zinc Concentrate (kt) | 5,119 | — | — | — | 53 | 152 | 143 | 354 | 299 | 291 | 330 | 367 | 358 | 420 | 454 | 530 | 590 | 352 | 328 | 98 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Metal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lead Concentrate | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Lead (kt) | 1,138 | — | 13 | 40 | 39 | 74 | 69 | 70 | 82 | 79 | 77 | 84 | 98 | 107 | 101 | 75 | 110 | 20 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Zinc (kt) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Gold — (1000) Ounces | 5,071 | 0 | 23 | 91 | 98 | 295 | 264 | 336 | 494 | 582 | 555 | 596 | 391 | 531 | 464 | 288 | 43 | 20 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Silver — (1000) Ounces | 307,833 | 0 | 3,263 | 8,734 | 7,974 | 19,264 | 17,947 | 19,817 | 23,306 | 22,224 | 20,465 | 23,017 | 23,900 | 25,131 | 29,229 | 26,081 | 29,689 | 7,792 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zinc Concentrate | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Zinc (kt) | 2,199 | 0 | 23 | 65 | 61 | 150 | 127 | 124 | 140 | 156 | 152 | 179 | 193 | 225 | 251 | 155 | 153 | 46 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Lead (kt) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Gold — (1000) Ounces | 774 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 14 | 42 | 38 | 51 | 76 | 90 | 85 | 91 | 64 | 86 | 69 | 43 | 6 | 4 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Silver — (1000) Ounces | 42,425 | 0 | 458 | 1,210 | 1,100 | 2,635 | 2,519 | 2,864 | 3,389 | 3,126 | 2,837 | 3,150 | 3,236 | 3,292 | 3,861 | 3,693 | 4,028 | 1,027 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dore’ Metal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gold in Dore’ — (1000) Ounces | 396 | — | — | 38 | 81 | 100 | 20 | 32 | 29 | 18 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 12 | 21 | 26 | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silver in Dore’ — (1000) Ounces | 17,915 | — | — | 2,559 | 4,405 | 4,737 | 1,036 | 1,243 | 764 | 410 | 52 | 83 | 0 | 0 | 207 | 345 | 864 | 1,208 | 2 | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Payable Metal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Lead (kt) | 1,138 | — | 13 | 40 | 39 | 74 | 69 | 70 | 82 | 79 | 77 | 84 | 98 | 107 | 101 | 75 | 110 | 20 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Zinc (kt) | 2,199 | — | 23 | 65 | 61 | 150 | 127 | 124 | 140 | 156 | 152 | 179 | 193 | 225 | 251 | 155 | 153 | 46 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Gold — (1000 Grams) | 193,993 | 1,186 | 3,308 | 6,288 | 4,103 | 11,462 | 10,300 | 12,599 | 17,869 | 21,072 | 19,903 | 21,360 | 14,437 | 19,542 | 17,207 | 11,107 | 1,504 | 744 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Gold — (1000 Ounces) | 6,239 | 38 | 107 | 203 | 132 | 369 | 331 | 405 | 575 | 677 | 640 | 687 | 464 | 629 | 554 | 357 | 49 | 24 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Silver — (1000 Grams) | 11,448,690 | 79,203 | 252,063 | 455,911 | 314,287 | 719,590 | 660,231 | 718,133 | 831,924 | 791,032 | 724,779 | 813,888 | 850,404 | 894,725 | 1,055,984 | 963,471 | 1,048,768 | 274,296 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payable Silver — (1000 Ounces) | 368,083 | 2,546 | 8,104 | 14,657 | 10,105 | 23,136 | 21,226 | 23,089 | 26,747 | 25,433 | 23,302 | 26,167 | 27,342 | 28,766 | 33,950 | 30,976 | 33,719 | 8,819 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash Flow and Economic Indicators ($000’s) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Capital (Initial + Sustaining) | $ | 1,160,144 | $ | 75,489 | $ | 209,476 | $ | 231,000 | $ | 118,978 | $ | 161,048 | $ | 185,893 | $ | 66,302 | $ | 57,600 | $ | 2 | $ | 2,988 | $ | 26,758 | $ | 11,755 | $ | 3,695 | $ | 9,160 | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Salvage Value | $ | (10,000 | ) | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | (2,000 | ) | $ | (8,000 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Working Capital | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 5,159 | $ | 13,143 | $ | 10,498 | $ | (2,000 | ) | $ | 14,000 | $ | 1,000 | $ | 1,000 | $ | 6,000 | $ | 3,000 | $ | (1,000 | ) | $ | 3,000 | $ | (1,000 | ) | $ | 5,000 | $ | 3,000 | $ | (11,000 | ) | $ | (6,000 | ) | $ | (32,800 | ) | $ | (11,000 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Revenue | Metal Sales | $ | 11,451,521 | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 35,545 | $ | 157,183 | $ | 351,513 | $ | 314,209 | $ | 658,533 | $ | 663,063 | $ | 691,639 | $ | 833,783 | $ | 918,338 | $ | 890,564 | $ | 968,000 | $ | 927,495 | $ | 1,052,929 | $ | 1,117,178 | $ | 855,463 | $ | 712,083 | $ | 273,003 | $ | 31,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Cash Operating Costs | $ | 5,583,943 | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 61,753 | $ | 136,316 | $ | 223,750 | $ | 228,646 | $ | 396,727 | $ | 383,268 | $ | 397,747 | $ | 415,783 | $ | 425,142 | $ | 429,019 | $ | 433,945 | $ | 436,681 | $ | 421,702 | $ | 413,040 | $ | 360,443 | $ | 331,850 | $ | 84,543 | $ | 3,587 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Royalty | $ | 188,000 | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 1,000 | $ | 3,000 | $ | 6,000 | $ | 5,000 | $ | 10,000 | $ | 11,000 | $ | 11,000 | $ | 14,000 | $ | 15,000 | $ | 15,000 | $ | 16,000 | $ | 15,000 | $ | 17,000 | $ | 18,000 | $ | 14,000 | $ | 11,000 | $ | 5,000 | $ | 1,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Property Tax | $ | 900 | $ | — | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | 50 | $ | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reclamation & closure | $ | 15,784 | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 3,000 | $ | 12,784 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Depreciation | $ | 1,154,282 | $ | 20,533 | $ | 72,902 | $ | 128,991 | $ | 158,003 | $ | 177,732 | $ | 171,104 | $ | 131,590 | $ | 116,978 | $ | 76,717 | $ | 31,723 | $ | 21,837 | $ | 10,376 | $ | 11,299 | $ | 12,842 | $ | 6,153 | $ | 3,214 | $ | 2,286 | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Production Costs | $ | 6,942,909 | $ | 20,533 | $ | 72,952 | $ | 191,794 | $ | 297,369 | $ | 407,532 | $ | 404,800 | $ | 538,367 | $ | 511,296 | $ | 485,514 | $ | 461,556 | $ | 462,029 | $ | 454,445 | $ | 461,294 | $ | 464,573 | $ | 444,905 | $ | 434,304 | $ | 376,779 | $ | 342,900 | $ | 92,593 | $ | 17,371 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Income from Operations | $ | 4,508,612 | $ | (20,533 | ) | $ | (72,952 | ) | $ | (156,249 | ) | $ | (140,186 | ) | $ | (56,019 | ) | $ | (90,591 | ) | $ | 120,166 | $ | 151,767 | $ | 206,125 | $ | 372,227 | $ | 456,309 | $ | 436,119 | $ | 506,706 | $ | 462,923 | $ | 608,024 | $ | 682,874 | $ | 478,684 | $ | 369,182 | $ | 180,410 | $ | 13,629 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tax loss carry forward applied | $ | — | $ | (20,533 | ) | $ | (93,485 | ) | $ | (249,734 | ) | $ | (389,920 | ) | $ | (445,939 | ) | $ | (536,530 | ) | $ | (416,364 | ) | $ | (264,598 | ) | $ | (58,472 | ) | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taxes at 28% with loss carry forward applied | $ | 1,262,412 | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 87,851 | $ | 127,767 | $ | 122,113 | $ | 141,878 | $ | 129,618 | $ | 170,247 | $ | 191,205 | $ | 134,031 | $ | 103,371 | $ | 50,515 | $ | 3,816 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net Income After Taxes | 3,246,200 | $ | (20,533 | ) | $ | (72,952 | ) | $ | (156,249 | ) | $ | (140,186 | ) | $ | (56,019 | ) | $ | (90,591 | ) | $ | 120,166 | $ | 151,767 | $ | 206,125 | $ | 284,376 | $ | 328,542 | $ | 314,006 | $ | 364,828 | $ | 333,305 | $ | 437,777 | $ | 491,669 | $ | 344,653 | $ | 265,811 | $ | 129,895 | $ | 9,813 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash Flow — Yearly | $ | 2,730,759 | $ | (75,489 | ) | $ | (209,526 | ) | $ | (263,417 | ) | $ | (114,538 | ) | $ | (55,861 | ) | $ | (117,641 | ) | $ | 121,729 | $ | 150,572 | $ | 212,284 | $ | 304,721 | $ | 238,715 | $ | 241,285 | $ | 301,955 | $ | 313,235 | $ | 420,906 | $ | 458,223 | $ | 341,446 | $ | 268,651 | $ | 164,695 | $ | 28,813 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash Flow — Cumulative | $ | (75,489 | ) | $ | (285,015 | ) | $ | (548,432 | ) | $ | (662,970 | ) | $ | (718,831 | ) | $ | (836,472 | ) | $ | (714,742 | ) | $ | (564,170 | ) | $ | (351,886 | ) | $ | (47,165 | ) | $ | 191,550 | $ | 432,835 | $ | 734,790 | $ | 1,048,025 | $ | 1,468,931 | $ | 1,927,155 | $ | 2,268,600 | $ | 2,537,252 | $ | 2,701,946 | $ | 2,730,759 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Property Economic Indicators: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NPV at 0% — after tax | $ | 3,256,200 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NPV at 5% — after tax | $ | 1,521,378 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NPV at 10% — after tax | $ | 649,937 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IRR | 18.7 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payback — Years from Startup | 5.6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net Smelter Return (NSR) | $ | 9,037,000 | $ | — | $ | 76,000 | $ | 229,000 | $ | 221,000 | $ | 564,000 | $ | 507,000 | $ | 567,000 | $ | 720,000 | $ | 779,000 | $ | 741,000 | $ | 821,000 | $ | 729,000 | $ | 866,000 | $ | 887,000 | $ | 637,000 | $ | 543,000 | $ | 150,000 | $ | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net Smelter Return (NSR) — $/t ore (sulphide) | $ | 18.95 | $ | — | $ | 13.85 | $ | 12.55 | $ | 12.11 | $ | 15.45 | $ | 13.89 | $ | 15.53 | $ | 19.73 | $ | 21.34 | $ | 20.30 | $ | 22.49 | $ | 19.97 | $ | 23.73 | $ | 24.39 | $ | 18.92 | $ | 18.60 | $ | 20.72 | $ | — |
M3-PN06089 31 July 2006 | M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation |
1-82
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
1.26 | Illustrations |
Figure | Description | |
1-1 | National Transportation Corridors | |
1-2 | Project State Plan | |
1-3 | Project Region Plan | |
1-4 | Project Vicinity Plan | |
1-5 | Project Facilities Plan | |
1-6 | Sulphide Mill | |
1-7 | Peñasquito Mineral Concessions | |
1-8 | Private and Ejido Surface Ownership | |
1-9 | Local Geology | |
1-10A | Peñasco Drill Hole Traces | |
1-10B | Chile Colorado Drill Hole Traces | |
1-11 | Peñasco and Chile Colorado Pit Plan | |
1-12 | North-South Cross Section — Peñasco Pit | |
1-13 | East-West Cross Section — Chile Colorado Pit | |
1-14 | Peñasco Open Pit Phases 1-7 | |
1-15 | Chile Colorado Open Pit Phases 1-3 | |
1-16 | Project Schedule | |
1-17 | Project Perspective | |
1-18 | Mill Area Perspective | |
1-19 | Grinding Area Elevation | |
1-20 | Financial Sensitivities | |
1-21 | Gold Metal Production | |
1-22 | Silver Metal Production | |
1-23 | Lead Metal Production | |
1-24 | Zinc Metal Production | |
1-25 | Mining Production | |
1-26 | Cash Flow Summary | |
1-27 | Operating Cost | |
M3-PN06089 | M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation | |
31 July 2006 |
Figure 1-1 National Transportation Corridors |
Figure 1-2 |
Project State Plan |
Figure 1-3 Project Region Plan |
Figure 1-4 Project Vicinity Plan |
Figure 1-5 Project Facilities Plan |
Figure 1-6 Sulphide Mill |
Figure 1-7 Peñasquito Mineral Concessions |
Figure 1-8 Private and Ejido Surface Ownership |
Figure 1-9 Local Geology |
Figure 1-10A Peñasco Drill Hole Traces |
Figure 1-10B Chile Colorado Drill Hole Traces |
Figure 1-11 Peñasco and Chile Colorado Pit Plan |
Figure 1-12 North-South Cross Section – Peñasco Pit |
Figure 1-13 East-West Cross Section – Chile Colorado Pit |
Figure 1-14 Peñasco Open Pit Phases 1 — 7 |
Figure 1-15 Chile Colorado Open Pit Phases 1 — 3 |
Figure 1-16 Project Schedule |
Figure 1-17 Project Perspective |
Figure 1-18 Mill Area Perspective |
Figure 1-19 Grinding Area Elevation |
Figure 1-20 Financial Sensitivities Peñasquito After-Tax IRR Sensitivity |
Capital Cost (Mine & Process)Metal Recovery Operating Cost (Mine & Process)Metal Prices Early Expansion (2011) |
Figure 1-21 Annual Payable Gold Metal |
Figure 1-22 Annual Payable Silver Metal |
Figure 1-23 Annual Payable Lead Metal |
Figure 1-24 Annual Payable Zinc Metal |
Figure 1-25 Mining Production |
Figure 1-26 Cash Flow Summary |
Figure 1-27 Operating Cost |
100,000 mtpd Minera Peñasquito Feasibility Study
Volume I
• | Certificate of Qualified Person and Consent of Author | ||
• | Résumés of Principal Authors |
Responsibility | Qualified Person | Registration | Company | |||
Resource Modeling | James S. Voorhees | P.E. | Glamis | |||
Mine Planning | James S. Voorhees | P.E. | Glamis | |||
Reserves | James S. Voorhees | P.E. | Glamis | |||
Geology | Charlie Ronkos | Corporate | Glamis | |||
Metallurgical Testing | Jerry Hanks | P.E. | Independent | |||
Flow Sheets | Tom Drielick | P.E. | M3 Engineering | |||
Pit Geotechnical | Tom Wythes | P.E. | Golder Assoc. | |||
Process Plant and Costing | Conrad Huss | P.E. | M3 Engineering | |||
Foundation Design | Michael Pegnam | P.E. | Golder Assoc. | |||
Tailings | Jim Johnson | P.E. | Golder Assoc. |
Conrad E. Huss, P.E., Ph.D. | ||
Date: July 25, 2006 | ||
Jerry T. Hanks, P.E. | ||
/s/ Jerry T. Hanks, P.E. | ||
Date: July 25, 2006 |
By: | ||||
Name: Conrad E. Huss | ||||
Title: Executive Vice President | ||||
Date: July 25, 2006 |
5190 Neil Road, Suite 310
Reno, NV 89502
phone: (775) 827-4600 fax: (775) 827-5044
jamesv@glamis.com
James S. Voorhees
1. | I, James S. Voorhees, P.Eng., am a Professional Engineer and Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Glamis Gold Ltd. of Reno, Nevada. |
2. | I am a member of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc., a member society of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers Inc. |
3. | I graduated from the University of Nevada-Reno in 1976, with a Bachelor of Science degree in Mining Engineering. I have practised my profession continuously since 1976 except for a 20-month period beginning in 1984 when I held management positions outside of the mining industry. | |
4. | Since 1976 I have held positions in the mining industry: |
(a) | in surface and underground coal mining, both in engineering, construction, operating and management roles through 1984; | ||
(b) | in surface and underground metals mining from 1986 until the present, in engineering, construction, operating and management roles, including Engineering Manager for Santa Fe Pacific Gold Company (1992-1994), General Manager of the Mesquite Mine in California (1995-1996), and General Manager of the Twin Creeks Mine in Nevada (1997); | ||
(c) | as Director of Project Development for Newmont Mining Corporation (1997-1999). |
5. | As a result of my experience and qualifications I am a Qualified Person as defined in National Instrument 43-101. | |
6. | I am presently Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for Glamis Gold Ltd. |
- 2 -
7. | In April 2006 I visited the Peñasquito project site to review geology, exploration samples, project setting, and infrastructure requirements. | |
8. | The July 2006 100,000 tpd Peñasquito Project feasibility update Resource and Reserve calculations were prepared under my direct supervision by the following technical specialist: |
(a) | Robert Bryson, a Mining Engineering graduate from the University of Nevada-Reno, Mr. Bryson has over 20 years experience in various aspects of mining including ore reserve estimation, mining methods, and mine development; |
9. | I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect to the subject matter which is not reflected in this report, the omission to disclose which would make this report misleading. | |
10. | I have read National Instrument 43-101, Form 43-101F1 and this report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1. |
/s/ James S. Voorhees | ||
James S. Voorhees, P.Eng., | ||
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer | ||
QUALIFIED PERSON |
Glamis Gold Ltd.
5190 Neil Rd. Suite 310
Reno, NV 89502 USA
Phone 775-827-4600 / Fax 775-827-5044
TO: | Glamis Gold Ltd. | |
British Columbia Securities Commission | ||
Alberta Securities Commission | ||
Saskatchewan Securities Commission | ||
Manitoba Securities Commission | ||
Ontario Securities Commission | ||
Authorité des marchés financiers du Québec | ||
Nova Scotia Securities Commission | ||
New Brunswick Office of the Administrator of Securities | ||
PEI Provincial Affairs & Attorney General | ||
Department of Government Services and Lands, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador | ||
The Toronto Stock Exchange |
/s/ James S. Voorhees | ||
James S. Voorhees | ||
Name of Qualified Person |
7307 W. Mesquite River Drive
Tucson, Arizona 85743 USA
Phone: 520-579-9720
Email:jerryhanks@hotmail.com
1. | I am self-employed as a metallurgical and mineral processing engineer. My office is located at 7307 W. Mesquite River Drive, Tucson, Arizona 85743 USA. | ||
2. | I am a graduate of the Colorado School of Mines with the degree of Metallurgical Engineer, 1963. | ||
3. | I am a registered professional engineer in good standing in the states of Arizona (#21106) and Colorado (#10042), USA, I am a member in good standing of the Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME.) | ||
4. | I have practiced metallurgical and mineral processing engineering for 43 years. I worked for mining and exploration companies including ASARCO, AMAX, and Phelps Dodge Exploration (PDX) for thirty years and for engineering companies (The Ralph M. Parsons Company and E&C International) for seven years. I have been self-employed for six years following retirement from PDX in 1999. | ||
5. | I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and certify that, by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) arid past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101. | ||
6. | I am responsible for the preparation of Section 5, “Metallurgy,” of the technical report titled “Peñiasquito Feasibility Study 100,000 MTPD” dated July 31, 2006. I also oversaw the 2003-2005 process design test work. I visited the Peñasquito property on August 25 – 27, 2004. | ||
7. | I have had prior involvement with the Peñasquito property that is the subject of Teckical Report. The nature of my prior involvement is preparation of Section 5 of a “Pre-Feasibility Study” dated March 2004. | ||
8. | I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect to the subject matter of the Technical Report that is not reflected in the Teckical Report, the omission to disclose which makes the Technical Report misleading. |
- 2 -
9. | I am independent of the issuer applying all of the tests in section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101. | ||
10. | I have read National Instrument 43-101, and certify that Section 5 of the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with that instrument. | ||
11. | I consent to the filing of the Technical Report with any stock exchange and other regulatory authority and any publication by them for regulatory purposes, including electronic publication in the public company files on their websites accessible by the public, of the Technical Report. |
/s/ Jerry T. Hanks | ||
Jerry T. Hanks, PE |
7307 W. Mesquite River Drive
Tucson, Arizona 85743 USA
Phone: 520-579-9729
Email:jerryhanks@hotmail.com
TO: | Glamis Gold Ltd. | |
British Columbia Securities Commission | ||
Alberta Securities Commission | ||
Saskatchewan Securities Commission | ||
Manitoba Securities Commission | ||
Ontario Securities Commission | ||
Authorité des marches financiers du Québec | ||
Nova Scotia Securities Commission | ||
New Brunswick Office of the Administrator of Securities | ||
PEI Provincial Affairs & Attorney General | ||
Department of Government Services and Lands, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador | ||
The Toronto Stock Exchange |
/s/ Jerry Hanks | ||
Jerry Hanks. PE |
Mineral Processing Engineer
EDUCATION | Colorado School of Mines, Metallurgical Engineer, 1963 | |
REGISTRATION | Arizona and Colorado | |
EXPERIENCE | Forty (40) years of experience in exploration, mineral property evaluation, process development, project management, due diligence, feasibility studies, startups, plant operations and maintenance. |
• | Mineral Processing Consultant (15 years) |
— | Provided process engineering for a copper-cobalt project in the Democratic Republic of Congo, for Phelps Dodge Corporation. | ||
— | Managed a pre-feasibility study for the Cobre del Mayo Piedras Verdes Copper Project in Sonora, Mexico. | ||
— | Provided technical assistance on a copper heap leach project to a confidential client. | ||
— | Managed process development work and assisted with a bankable feasibility study for the Sossego Copper-Gold Project in Brazil, for Companhia Serra do Sossego. | ||
— | Assisted CVRD with evaluating test programs for the Vermelho nickel-cobalt laterite project in Brazil. | ||
— | Managed worldwide process development and engineering studies for Phelps Dodge Exploration Corporation. Assisted the Strategy and Business Development Group in evaluating properties for potential acquisitions, joint ventures, and licensing. | ||
— | Managed process development work and assisted with a prefeasibility study for a world class copper-gold project being developed in the Amazon Basin of Brazil. | ||
— | Evaluated the Las Cruces lead-zinc property in Bolivia as a possible acquisition for Phelps Dodge. | ||
— | Directed process testwork and metallurgical evaluation for the Piedras Verdes heap leach, SX/EW copper project in Mexico. | ||
— | Managed process development work for a large nickel-cobalt laterite deposit in Madagascar. Also acted as technical study manager during the bankable feasibility study for this $800 million project. | ||
— | Acted as team leader for a joint Exxon-Phelps Dodge evaluation of the Crandon lead- zinc project in Wisconsin. | ||
— | Oversaw testwork and managed a scoping study on the Jerome zinc-copper-gold project in Arizona, for Phelps Dodge. | ||
— | Evaluated a zinc concentrator and zinc refinery in Tennessee as a possible acquisition for Phelps Dodge. | ||
— | Managed both the process development work and the feasibility study for the La Candelaria Project, a highly successful $500 million dollar copper project in Chile. | ||
— | Developed standard practices for testing and evaluating exploration properties, thereby improving management’s ability to choose between projects competing for limited exploration funds. | ||
— | Served as a member of the Phelps Dodge Concentrator and Hydrometallurgy Steering Teams. |
Mineral Processing Engineer
• | E&C International Chief Metallurgist (3 years) |
— | Wrote the control system manuals in Spanish for the new Cananea Concentrator. Assisted with startup and trouble shooting in both the new and old concentrators. | ||
— | Performed in-plant consulting, trouble shooting, and de-bottlenecking at the Real de Angeles lead-zinc concentrator in Zacatecas, Mexico | ||
— | Designed, supervised fabrication, and commissioned the first two flotation columns installed in Mexico, for the Real de Angeles lead-zinc plant. |
• | Ralph M. Parsons Company, Principal Process Engineer (5 years) |
— | Preformed process design and engineering for the Cominco Red Dog lead-zinc concentrator in Alaska. | ||
— | Assisted with startup of a SAG mill / copper concentrator project in Chile. | ||
— | Performed both process and project engineering for a feasibility study for an 84,000 ton /day copper concentrator project also in Chile. | ||
— | Provided in-plant trouble shooting and de-bottlenecking for the Molycorp plant at Questa, NM. |
• | The Southern Peru Copper Corporation, Assistant Mill Superintendent (2 years) |
— | Oversaw operations, maintenance, and metallurgy for the 45,000 ton /day copper-moly concentrator in Toquepala, Peru. |
• | Climax Molybdenum Company, Shift Boss, Sr. Metallurgist, Mine-Mill Design Engineer, Mill Superintendent (10 years) |
— | Supervised production at the Climax moly-oxide recovery plant and at the Henderson Concentrator. | ||
— | Managed all process development work for the Henderson Project. | ||
— | Acted as Climax’s representative to the engineering company during detailed design of mine, mill, and infrastructure facilities for the Henderson Project. |
— | Spanish | ||
— | Portuguese | ||
— | French (Some) |
Mineral Processing Engineer
M3 Engineering & Technology Corp.
2440 W. Ruthrauff Rd., Suite 170
Tucson, AZ 85705 USA
Phone: 520-293-1488 / Fax 520-293-8349
1. | I am employed as a metallurgist and project manager at M3 Engineering & Technology Corp. located at 2440 W. Ruthrauff, Tucson, Arizona 85705 USA. | ||
2. | I am a graduate of Southern Illinois University and Michigan Technological University. | ||
3. | I am a registered professional engineer in good standing in the state of Arizona (#22958) | ||
4. | I have practiced metallurgical engineering for 36 years. I worked for U.S. Army, Metallurgical Engineer (3 Years); Kennecott Corporation, Process Engineer, Plant Metallurgical Engineer, Operations Foreman (8 Years); Newmont Mining Corporation, Project Manager and Project Engineer (8 Years); M3 Engineering & Technology, Project Manager and Metallurgist (17 Years) | ||
5. | I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and certify that, by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101. | ||
6. | I am responsible for the preparation of Section 6 of the technical report titled “Peñasquito Feasibility Study 100,000 MTPD” dated July 31, 2006. I have not visited the Peñasquito property. | ||
7. | I have had prior involvement with the Peñasquito property that is the subject of the technical report. The nature of my prior involvement is preparation of Section 5 of a “Pre-Feasibility Study” dated March 2004. | ||
8. | I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect to the subject matter of the technical report that is not reflected in the technical report, or an omission to disclose which makes the technical report misleading. | ||
9. | I have read National Instrument 43-101, and certify that Section 6 of the technical report has been prepared in compliance with that instrument. |
- 2 -
10. | I consent to the filing of the technical, report with any stock exchange and other regulatory authority and any publication by them for regulatory purposes, including electronic publication in the public company files on their websites accessible by the public, of the technical report. |
/s/ Thomas L. Drielick | ||
Thomas L. Drielick, PE |
M3 Engineering & Technology Corp.
2440 W. Ruthrauff Rd., Suite 170
Tucson, AZ 85705 USA
Phone: 520-293-1488 / Fax 520-293-8349
TO: | Glamis Gold Ltd. | |
British Columbia Securities Commission | ||
Alberta Securities Commission | ||
Saskatchewan Securities Commission | ||
Manitoba Securities Commission | ||
Ontario Securities Commission | ||
Authorité des marchés financiers du Québec | ||
Nova Scotia Securities Commission | ||
New Brunswick Office of the Administrator of Securities | ||
PEI Provincial Affairs & Attorney General | ||
Department of Government Services and Lands, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador | ||
The Toronto Stock Exchange |
/s/ Thomas L. Drielick | ||
Thomas L. Drielick, PE |
Project Engineer
EDUCATION | M.B.A., Southern Illinois University | |
B.S., Engineering, Michigan Technological University | ||
REGISTRATION | Engineer — Arizona | |
EXPERIENCE | Over thirty-two (32) years of professional management and engineering experience in plant operations, project management, budget control, quality/schedule control, bid evaluations, planning, design development, process flowsheets, and project evaluations. Experience has been international with projects in the U.S.A., Canada, Mexico, Central America, Argentina, Chile, Peru and Australia. Over 100 computerized simulations of flowsheets for ore processing (precious and base metals), chemical plants and water treatment, O&M estimates for reclamation closure/closeout projects. |
• | M3 Engineering & Technology, Project Manager and Metallurgist (15 Years) |
— | Pan American Silver, Manatial Espejo, Mexico | ||
— | Pan American Silver, Alamo Dorado, Mexico | ||
— | Alamos Mulatos Gold, Sonora, Mexico | ||
— | Western Silver Peñasquito Flowsheets, Zacateéas, Mexico | ||
— | Minefinders Dolores Gold Plant, Chihuahua, Mexico | ||
— | AVESTOR Battery Plant | ||
— | APC RIMOD 3 Modernization of Cement Plant | ||
— | ASARCO Mission Crushing Plant Upgrade | ||
— | Kerr-McGee Manganese Dioxide Chemical Plant | ||
— | Kerr McGee Physical Separation Facility including new chemical lime water treatment facility | ||
— | Kerr McGee West Chicago Remediation and Reclamation | ||
— | BHP Magma Anode Preparation Plant and Gold Concentrator | ||
— | BHP Magma Miami Unit SX-EW Organic Recovery | ||
— | BHP Magma San Manuel Selenium Recovery Circuit | ||
— | Battle Mountain Gold Crown Jewel Project | ||
— | Chemical Lime Apex Quicklime Handling | ||
— | ASARCO Ray SAG Mill Bypass Study | ||
— | ASARCO Ray Secondary Crushing Project | ||
— | ASARCO Ray Tankhouse Upgrade Project Chemstar Cosgrave Lime Crushing and Kiln | ||
— | Chemstar Tenmile Pass Lime Crushing & Kiln, Soda Springs, Idaho | ||
— | Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation Boleo Project | ||
— | Cyprus Bagdad Expansion Studies | ||
— | Cyprus Bagdad Mineral Park SX-EW |
Project Engineer
• | M3 Engineering & Technology (continued) |
— | Cyprus Bagdad 3000 Cu. Ft. Rougher Expansion | ||
— | Cyprus Bagdad Tonopah Mills and Cells | ||
— | BHP Magma Pinto Valley No. 4 Tailing Reclaim Water System | ||
— | BHP Magma Pinto Valley Tailing Pump Station | ||
— | BHP Magma San Manuel Smelter Flue Dust Leach and SX Plant | ||
— | Majdanpek Flotation Mill Expansion/Modernization | ||
— | Cyprus Bagdad “WaterFlush” Crushing Plant | ||
— | Cyprus Casa Grande Silver Leaching | ||
— | Cyprus Cerro Verde Crush/Convey Upgrade Project | ||
— | Cyprus Tohono Oxide Ore Process Plant | ||
— | Cyprus Tonopah SX-EW Study | ||
— | Cyprus Sierrita Copper Larox Pressure Filter Installation | ||
— | Cyprus Sierrita Moly Expansion Support | ||
— | Cyprus Sierrita Molybdenum Chemicals ADM Plant | ||
— | Cyprus Sierrita Roll Crusher Plant Addition | ||
— | Cyprus Sierrita Rhenium Plant Expansion | ||
— | Echo Bay Gold Aquarius Project including water system | ||
— | Echo Bay McCoy Gold Crushing/Grinding | ||
— | Echo Bay Paredones Amarillos Project including water system | ||
— | Francisco Gold El Sauzal Project | ||
— | Geomaque San Francisco Gold Project | ||
— | Golden Queen Mining Soledad Mountain Project , | ||
— | Granite Swan Road Sand and Gravel Plant | ||
— | Griffin Copper Bale Leach | ||
— | Griffin Copper Plant Expansion | ||
— | Grupo Mexico Cananea Raffinate Neutralization Project | ||
— | Hecla KT Clay Monterrey Expansion Project | ||
— | Hecla La Choya Gold Heap Leach | ||
— | Hecla Lucky Friday Mill Expansion | ||
— | Hecla Noche Buena Gold Plant Study | ||
— | Hecla Rosebud Gold Project including reverse osmosis water treatment | ||
— | Kennecott Carmen Feasibility Project | ||
— | Kennecott Sweetwater Uranium Water Recycle Project | ||
— | Kennecott Greens Creek Recommission Project including three new chemical lime water treatment projects facilities | ||
— | Kennecott Greens Creek Pyrite Circuit Study for Reclamation | ||
— | Kennecott Greens Creek Mill Enhancements Study | ||
— | Kennecott Greens Creek Cleaner Flotation Project |
Project Engineer
• | M3 Engineering & Technology (continued) |
— | Kennecott Utah Lime Plant | ||
— | Liximin/Golden News Luz del Cobre | ||
— | Maricunga Refugio Gold Operation Consulting | ||
— | Minera Alumbrera Prefeasibility Study, Gold/Copper — Argentina | ||
— | Minera Alumbrera Grinding Line No. 3 Project | ||
— | Minera Alumbrera Filter Plant | ||
— | Minera Alumbrera Crusher/Mill Upgrades | ||
— | Minera Alumbrera Mill Expansion Study | ||
— | Minera Las Cuevas Fluorspor Calcination and Leaching | ||
— | Minera Penmont La Herradura Gold Project | ||
— | Molycorp Mt. Pass Rare Earth Minerals Crushing Plant | ||
— | Morgain Minera MGM Trona Study | ||
— | Newmont Gold Company Gold Mine Dewatering | ||
— | Phelps Dodge New Mexico Properties Reclamation Plan | ||
— | Peñoles Fco. I Madero Project | ||
— | Peñoles Fresnillo Grinding Expansion Project | ||
— | Phelps Dodge Standard Low Cost SX-EW Study | ||
— | Phelps Dodge Arizona Properties Reclamation Plans (7) | ||
— | Phelps Dodge Ajo Concentrator Project | ||
— | Phelps Dodge Chino Waterflush Crusher | ||
— | Phelps Dodge Morenci Coronado Lead Project | ||
— | Phelps Dodge Morenci Metcalf 82,000 TPD Expansion Study | ||
— | Phelps Dodge Morenci Fine Grind Expansion Study | ||
— | Phelps Dodge Morenci Flotation Expansion | ||
— | Phelps Dodge Morenci Secondary Crushing Study | ||
— | Phelps Dodge New Mexico Reclamation Plans (3) including water treatment | ||
— | Phelps Dodge Tyrone SXEW Raffinate Tank | ||
— | Pinal Creek Group EPCM | ||
— | Pinal Creek Group Water Treatment Trade-Off Study | ||
— | Pinal Creek Group Water Treatment Pilot Plant | ||
— | Placer Dome Cortez In-pit Sizing and Conveying Study | ||
— | Placer Dome Mulatos Gold Project | ||
— | Questa Water Treatment Study | ||
— | Teck Cominco Morelos Camp Gold Plant Feasibility — Mexico | ||
— | Tucson Electric Power Springerville Lime Plant Study | ||
— | Zinc Corporation of America Zinc Sulfide Leach Plant Upgrade |
Project Engineer
• | Newmont Mining Corporation, Project Manager and Project Engineer (8 Years) |
— | Idarado Mining Company: Copper tailing pond dust suppression | ||
— | Limestone preparation plant evaluation | ||
— | Magma Copper Company: Copper concentrate drying evaluation | ||
— | Magma Copper Company: Copper slag concentrator project evaluation | ||
— | NHPL Telfer; Australia: Gold plant expansion evaluation | ||
— | NMC, Uchuchaqua: Silver plant expansion evaluation | ||
— | NML, Similkameen: Copper plant expansion evaluation |
• | Newmont Mining Corporation, Project Manager and Project Engineer (continued) |
— | NML, Similkameen: Copper tailing disposal modifications | ||
— | New Celebration Gold Mine, Australia: Gold plant expansion project | ||
— | Newmont Gold Company, Gold Quarry: Gold dump leach crushing plant evaluation | ||
— | Newmont Gold Company, Gold Quarry: Gold dump leach for 3 MM TYP | ||
— | Newmont Gold Company, Maggie Creek: Gold leach solution heating evaluation | ||
— | Newmont Gold Company, North Area: Gold heap leach and carbon in pulp | ||
— | Newmont Gold Company, No. 1 Mill: Gold plant expansion | ||
— | Newmont Gold Company, No. 2 Mill: Gold milling facility for 7,000 TPD | ||
— | Newmont Gold Company, No. 2 Mill: Gold plant expansion evaluation | ||
— | Newmont Gold Company, Rain: Gold project evaluation |
• | Kennecott Corporation, Process Engineer, Plant Metallurgical Engineer, Operations Foreman (7 Years) |
— | Chino Division: Copper, Molybdenite milling facility for 37,000 TPD | ||
— | Chino Division: Copper solvent extraction electrowinning process development | ||
— | Nevada Division: Copper tailing recovery and re-treatment evaluation | ||
— | Ray Division: Copper solvent extraction project evaluation | ||
— | Tintic Division: Lead, Zinc — Responsible for the concentrator metallurgical performance, production budget, quality standards, and development of process treatment methods | ||
— | Utah Division: Copper, Molybdenite concentrator metallurgist responsibilities included commissioning of new process facilities, training plant operators, solving production problems | ||
— | Copper, Molybdenite modernization project development/evaluation | ||
— | Utah Copper Division: Molybdenite plant project development/evaluation | ||
— | Utah Division: Copper, Molybdenite shift supervisor of crushing, grinding & flotation circuits |
• | U.S. Army, Metallurgical Engineer (3 Years) |
— | Frankford Arsenal, Metallurgical engineering research programs in the area of metal fragmentation and liquid metal embrittlement |
— | Completed MSHA Training |
1103 North Hudson St.
Silver City, NM 88061
phone: (505) 388-0118 fax: (505) 388-0120
twythes@golder.com
Thomas J. Wythes
1. | I, Thomas J. Wythes, P.E., P.G. am a Professional Engineer, Professional Geologist, and Senior Engineer of Golder Associates Inc. of Tucson, Arizona. |
2. | I am a member of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc. and the Geological Society of Arizona. |
3. | I graduated from the University of Washington in 1980 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geological Sciences and from the University of Nevada-Reno in 1993 with a Master of Science degree in Geological Engineering. 1 have practised my current profession continuously since 1993. |
4. | I am a Professional Engineer in good standing in the States of Arizona and New Mexico in the area of Geological Engineering. I am also registered as a Professional Geologist in the state of California. |
6. | I am responsible for the geotechnical investigation for the report titled “Peñasquito Feasibility Study Geotechnical Characterization Report, Heap Leach Facility, Waste Rock Piles, Tailings Impoundment, and Plant Site Foundation Recommendations” dated September 22, 2005 and the “Peñasquito Feasibility Pit Slope Design Report” dated July 15, 2005. These report are included as appendicies to the technical report titled “Peñasquito Feasibility Study 100,000 MTPD” dated July 27,2006 (the “Technical Report”) relating to the Peñasquito Project. I understand that changes have been made to these facilities since the September 22, 2005 report was published and I will have the opportunity to review and revise the geotechnical recommendations based on the new locations of the facilities and the pit geometry as they become available. I visited the Peñasquito property between October 15 and October 19, 2005 and again between November 22 to November 26, 2004 |
-2-
7. | I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of Technical Report. | |
8. | I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect to the subject matter of the Technical Report that is not reflected in the Technical Report, the omission to disclose which makes the Technical Report misleading. | |
9. | I am independent of the issuer applying all of the tests in Section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101. | |
10. | I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form. |
/s/ Thomas J. Wythes | ||
Senior Engineer | ||
QUALIFIED PERSON |
Golder Associates Inc.
1103 North Hudson St.
Silver City, NM 88061 USA
Phone: 505-388-0118 / Fax 505-388-0120
TO: | Glamis Gold Ltd. | |
British Columbia Securities Commission | ||
Alberta Securities Commission | ||
Saskatchewan Securities Commission | ||
Manitoba Securities Commission | ||
Ontario Securities Commission | ||
Authorité des marchés financiers du Quebéc | ||
Nova Scotia Securities Commission | ||
New Brunswick Office of the Administrator of Securities | ||
PEI Provincial Affairs & Attorney General | ||
Department of Government Services and Lands, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador | ||
The Toronto Stock Exchange |
/s/ Thomas J. Wythes | ||
Thomas J. Wythes |
Education: | M.S., Geological Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, 1993 B.S., Geological Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, 1980 Short Course, Blast Design, Assessment for Surface Mines and Quarries, October 2000 Short Course, River Modeling, Boss International, October 1999 Short Course, Applications in Stormwater Management, ASCE, January 1998 Short Course, Earthquake Hazards and Critical Facility Siting, AEG, October 1992 | |||
Affiliations: | Professional Engineer (P.E.) Arizona Registered Geologist (R.G.) California Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME) Arizona Geological Society (AGS) | |||
Experience: | ||||
1996 to Present | Golder Associates | Tucson, Arizona | ||
Senior Engineer | ||||
Mr. Wythes is responsible for performing and developing geotechnical and geological investigation programs and engineering analyses methods, and providing technical oversight, direction, and management on such projects. His areas of technical expertise include slope stability analyses, pit slope design, rock foundation analyses, surface water hydrology analyses and design, heap leach facility design, tailings dam design, and geologic hazard studies. Mr, Wythes’ technical skills have been applied extensively in the mineral industry providing consulting services for mineral exploration, resource delineation, mine facility permitting, design of mine facilities, facility expansions, aquifer protection permit support, and reclamation and closure support. | ||||
1994 to 1996 | WESTEC | Reno, Nevada | ||
Staff Engineer | ||||
Responsible for providing geotechnical engineering and design recommendations primarily for mining clients in support of facilities design and various permitting issues, Extensive background in slope stability, surface hydrology, rock mechanics, and geologic hazards. | ||||
1989 to 1991 | Consulting Geologist | Reno, Nevada | ||
Reviewed mineral property submittals from mineral landholders for mining clients. Generated and evaluated viable mineral exploration targets in Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona and presented these opportunities to mining clients. | ||||
1980 to 1989 | Freeport McMoRan Gold Company | Reno, Nevada | ||
Associate Geologist | ||||
Reviewed mineral property submittals. Generated and evaluated viable mineral exploration targets throughout the western U.S. Responsible for the design and oversight of exploration and development drilling programs and interpreted the results to provide recommendations for future action. |
Peñasquito Project | Zacatecas, Mexico |
Copperstone Project | Arizona |
Veladero Project | Argentina |
Cananea Mine | Sonora, Mexico |
El Sauzal Project | Chihuahua, Mexico |
Morenci Mine | Morenci, Arizona |
San Manuel Mine | San Manuel, Arizona |
La Granja Mine | Peru |
San Francisco Mine | Sonora, Mexico |
Imperial Project | Winterhaven, California |
Sleeper Mine | Winnemucca, Nevada |
Sleeper Mine | Winnemucca, Nevada |
Pinto Valley Mine | Miami, Arizona |
Mary Drinkwater Project | Tonopah, Nevada |
Hayden Hill Mine | Adin, California |
Lama Project | Argentina |
El Indio Mine | Chile |
Veladero Mine | Argentina |
Master’s Thesis | Reno, Nevada |
Erdenet Mine | Mongolia |
Veladero Project | Argentina |
Vueltas del Rio | Honduras |
Morenci Mine | Morenci, Arizona |
Cyprus Miami Mine | Miami, Arizona |
Cyprus Miami Mine | Miami, Arizona |
Robinson Project | Ely, Nevada |
Hayden Hill Mine | Adin, California |
Reona Project | Battle Mountain, Nevada |
Corona Gold Mine | Gabbs, Nevada |
Pinto Valley Mine | Miami, Arizona |
Grizzly Gulch Tailings Facility | Lead, South Dakota |
Mercur Mine | Tooele, Utah |
Bullfrog Mine | Beatty, Nevada |
Robinson Project | Ely, Nevada |
Tintaya Mine | Peru |
Mercur Mine | Tooele, Utah |
Cyprus Miami Mine | Miami, Arizona |
Cyprus Miami Mine | Miami, Arizona |
Robinson Project | Ely, Nevada |
Robinson Project | Ely, Nevada |
Pinto Valley Mine | Miami, Arizona |
Bullfrog Mine | Beatty, Utah |
Mercur Mine | Tooele, Utah |
Ray Complex | Hayden, Arizona |
M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation
2440 W. Ruthrauff Rd., Suite 170
Tucson, Arizona USA 85705
Phone: 520-293-1488 / Fax 520-293-8349
Email: chuss@m3eng.com
1. | I am Executive Vice President and Chairman of the Board of: | |
M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation 2440 W. Ruthrauff Rd., Suite 170 Tucson, Arizona USA 85705 | ||
2. | I graduated with a degree in Bachelor’s of Science in Mathematics and a Bachelor’s of Art in English from the University of Illinois in 1963. I graduated with a Master’s of Science in Engineering Mechanics from the University of Arizona in 1968. In addition, I earned a Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering Mechanics from the University of Arizona in 1970. | |
3. | I am a Professional Engineer in good standing in the State of Arizona in the areas of Civil and in Structural engineering. I am also registered as a professional engineering in the States of California, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. | |
4. | I have worked as an engineer for a total of thirty-seven years since my graduation from the University of Illinois. I have taught at the University level part-time for 5 years and as an assistant professor for one year. | |
5. | I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101. | |
6. | I am responsible for the preparation of the technical report titled “Peñasquito Feasibility Study 100,000 MTPD” dated July 31, 2006. . I visited the Peñasquito property on two separate occasions: September 24-25, 2003 and February 19-20, 2005. | |
7. | I have had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of Technical Report. The nature of my prior involvement is preparation of a “Pre-Feasibility Study” dated March 2004. |
8. | I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect to the subject matter of the Technical Report that is not reflected in the Technical Report, the omission to disclose which makes the Technical Report misleading. | |
9. | I am independent of the issuer applying all of the tests in Section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101. | |
10. | I have read National Instrument 43-101 and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with that instrument. | |
111. | I consent to the filing of the Technical Report with any stock exchange and other regulatory authority and any publication by them for regulatory purposes, including electronic publication in the public company files on their websites accessible by the public, of the Technical Report. |
Conrad E. Huss, PE |
M3 Engineering & Technology Corp.
2440 W. Ruthrauff Rd., Suite 170
Tucson, AZ 85705 USA
Phone: 520-293-1488 / Fax 520-293-8349
TO: | Glamis Gold Ltd. British Columbia Securities Commission Alberta Securities Commission Saskatchewan Securities Commission Manitoba Securities Commission Ontario Securities Commission Authorité des marchés financiers du Québec Nova Scotia Securities Commission New Brunswick Office of the Administrator of Securities PEI Provincial Affairs & Attorney General Department of Government Services and Lands, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador The Toronto Stock Exchange |
/s/ Conrad E. Huss | ||
Conrad E. Huss, PE | ||
Name of Qualified Person |
Engineering Manager
EDUCATION | Ph.D., Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona | |
M.S., Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona | ||
B.A., English, University of Illinois | ||
B.S., Mathematics, University of Illinois | ||
REGISTRATION | Civil and Structural Engineer — Arizona | |
Professional Engineer — California, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wyoming | ||
EXPERIENCE | Forty (40) years of design in industrial, municipal, commercial projects, including material handling, reclamation, water treatment, base metal and precious metal process plants, industrial minerals, smelters, chemical plants, special structures and audits. Career highlights include twenty-five years of design/construct experience, plant startups in South America and Mexico, oceanography/surveying in Alaska and Hawaii, and six years of university teaching. |
Engineering Manager
Engineering Manager
Engineering Manager
Engineering Manager
Engineering Manager
Engineering Manager
4730 N. Oracle Road, Suite 210
Tucson, AZ 85705
phone: (520) 888-8818 fax: (520) 888-8817
mpegnam@golder.com
Michael L. Pegnam
1. | I, Michael L. Pegnam, P.E., am a Professional Engineer and Senior Engineer of Golder Associates Inc. of Tucson, Arizona. | |
2. | I am a member of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc. and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers. | |
3. | I graduated from the University of Arizona in 1992 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geological Engineering and from the University of California, Berkeley in 1994 with a Master of Science degree in Geotechnical Engineering. I have practised my profession continuously since 1994. | |
4. | I am a Professional Engineer in good standing in the State of Arizona in the area of Civil Engineering. I am also registered as a professional engineer in the states of California and New Mexico. | |
5. | As a result of my experience and qualifications I am a Qualified Person as defined in National Instrument 43-101. | |
6. | I am presently a Senior Engineer for Golder Associates Inc. | |
7. | I am responsible for the geotechnical foundation recommendations for the report titled “Peñasquito Feasibility Study Geotechnical Characterization Report, Heap Leach Facility, Waste Rock Piles, Tailings Impoundment, and Plant Site Foundation Recommendations” dated September 22, 2005. This report is included as an appendix to the technical report titled “Peñasquito Feasibility Study 100,000 MTPD” dated July 27, 2006 (the “Technical Report”) relating to the Peñasquito Project. I understand that changes have been made to these facilities since the September 22, 2005 report was published and I will have the opportunity to review and revise the geotechnical recommendations based on the new locations of the facilities as (they become available. I have not visited the Peñasquito property. |
8. | I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. | |
9. | I am not aware of any material factor material change with respect to the subject matter which is not reflected in this report, the omission to disclose which would make this report misleading. | |
10. | I am independent of the issuer applying all of the tests in Section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101. | |
11. | I have read National Instrument 43-101, Form 43-101F1 and this report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1. |
/s/ Michael L. Pegnam | ||
Senior Engineer | ||
QUALIFIED PERSON |
Golder Associates Inc.
4730 N. Oracle Road, Suite 210
Tucson, AZ 85705 USA
Phone: 520-888-8818 / Fax 520-888-8817
TO: | Glamis Gold Ltd. British Columbia Securities Commission Alberta Securities Commission Saskatchewan Securities Commission Manitoba Securities Commission Ontario Securities Commission Authorité des marchés financiers du Québec Nova Scotia Securities Commission New Brunswick Office of the Administrator of Securities PEI Provincial Affairs & Attorney General Department of Government Services and Lands, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador The Toronto Stock Exchange |
/s/ Michael L. Pegnam | ||
Michael L. Pegnam | ||
Name of Qualified Person |
Education: | M.S., Geotechnical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1994 B.S., Geological Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, 1992 Short Course, Geotechnical Foundation Engineering — Rock Slopes, National Highway Institute, December 2000 | |||
Registrations/ Affiliations: | Professional Engineer in Arizona, California, and New Mexico American Society of Civil Engineers U.C. Berkeley Geotechnical Society | |||
Experience: | ||||
2004 to Present | Golder Associates | Tucson, Arizona | ||
Senior Geotechnical Engineer | ||||
Responsible for the geotechnical and geologic design of civil surface transportation projects and heap leach facilities and waste containment systems for the mining industry. Specialty expertise in civil projects includes geotechnical retaining wall design, including soil nail walls and mechanically stabilized earth walls, rigid and flexible pavement design, and bridge foundations. Specialty expertise in mining applications includes rock and soil slope stability evaluation. Foundation design experience for a wide variety of facilities and includes drilled shafts, micropiles, and shallow spread footings. Responsibilities also include providing technical oversight and review | ||||
1999 to 2004 | URS Corporation | Tucson, Arizona | ||
Geotechnical Team Leader | ||||
Project Manager and Geotechnical Engineer with the Surface Transportation Group of URS in Arizona. Responsible for the direction of design projects and field investigations for a wide variety of foundation engineering projects involving design of shallow and deep foundations in both soil and rock. These projects have included multi-disciplinary urban transportation projects, including highways and bridges, foundation engineering for light and heavy industrial development, including processing plants and power plant substations, and pavement design for applications ranging from major freeways to private parking facilities. Responsibilities also included management of junior geotechnical engineering personnel. | ||||
1997 to 1999 | Call & Nicholas, Inc. | Tucson, Arizona | ||
Project Engineer | ||||
Responsible for rock mass characterization, analysis of rock strength and structure data, as design of optimum pit slope angles for a variety of open pit mining operations. Responsibilities also included slope stability analysis and design of mine waste containment facilities. | ||||
1994 to 1997 | WESTEC, Inc. | Reno, Nevada | ||
Staff Engineer | ||||
Performed field investigations, and assisted in the design of heap leach facilities, tailings impoundments, and the geotechnical analysis of mine facility foundations. |
US 70 Hondo Valley Design/Build Project | Ruidoso, New Mexico |
Pima County DOT — Skyline Drive Design, Build Project | Tucson, Arizona |
On-call Geotechnical Engineering Services, New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department | Arizona |
1. | US 70, Ruidoso: Evaluate rock cuts and provide design recommendations, Revise the NMSHTD standard specs for rock excavation. | ||
2. | Raton Pass: Provide independent technical reviews for geotechnical work performed by others. There are several active landslides and rock cuts along the highway through Raton Pass. | ||
3. | US 84/285, Tesuque Traffic Interchange: Provide complete geotechnical analysis and design for Bohanon Huston, Inc. | ||
4. | US 84/285: Pojoaque and Cuyamungue Traffic Interchanges: Provide complete geotechnical analysis and design for Louis Berger. | ||
5. | I-40 / Louisiana Traffic Interchange in Albuquerque: Provide final geotechnical analysis and design for Parsons Brinckerhoff. | ||
6. | NM 434 Mora to Black Lake: Provide complete geotechnical services include subsurface investigations, analysis and design for a 25-mile-long highway for Holmes and Narver. |
I-10 / I-19 Traffic Interchange | Tucson, Arizona |
On-call Subsurface Investigations Arizona Department of Transportation | Arizona |
1. | I-17, MP 292 ±, Rock fall study; Provide recommendations for mitigation of rockfall hazard. The evaluation was twofold: including drainage and geotechnical issues. | ||
2. | ADOT Nogales Maintenance Facility, Foundation Repair: The foundation slab for the facility has experienced large settlements and cracked. Assignment includes investigation of the cause of distress and recommendations for foundation repair. | ||
3. | SR 89A — Oak Creek Canyon Switchbacks, Mitigation of Roadway Distress: The outside lane of SR 89A has experienced settlement and possibly sliding down the side of a steep rock slope. Assignment includes investigation of the cause of distress and recommendations for repair. | ||
4. | SR 82 Bridge over Santa Cruz River, Nogales: Provide complete geotechnical services for a five span bridge widening. | ||
5. | SR 87 Whiskey Springs Bridge: Evaluated the cause of distress of the MSE wall at the abutment, and evaluated several mitigation procedures in coordination with ADOT. |
On-call Geotechnical Engineering Pima County Department of Transportation | Arizona |
1. | Soil Nail Wall — River Road Improvements: Provide geotechnical construction inspection and training and review of value-engineered designs. | ||
2. | Soil Nail and Tied-back Wall Designs — Sunrise Drive: Provide guidance on design of cut walls, technical specifications, and review of MSE wall submittals. Provide inspectors during cut wall construction. | ||
3. | MSE wall design review — Phoenix Avenue, Summerhaven: Provide technical review of a geotechnical design report, design calculations, and preliminary project drawings associated with an MSE wall. |
Interchange 10 Traffic Interchange —Twin Peaks/Linda Vista | Marana, Arizona |
I-10 Mainline Widening — Cortaro Road to Ina Road | Marana, Arizona |
Duval Mine Road —I-49 T.I. | Sahuarita, Arizona |
SR 77 (Oracle Road): River Road to Ina Road, | Tucson, Arizona |
B-10 Quartzsite — Roadway Reconstruction | Arizona |
Silvercroft Wash Pedestrian Bridge, Pima County DOT&FCD, | Arizona |
US 93 Burro Creek Section - | Mohave County, Arizona |
US 93 Cottonwood Canyon—Bridle Creek Section, | Mohave County, Arizona |
I-10 Mainline Interim Widening — Marana Rd to Cortaro Rd, | Marana, Arizona |
P-483, Station Ordinance Area, Phase I — U.S. Marine Corps Air Station | Yuma |
SlimFast Foods Company | Tucson, Arizona |
Tucson Electric Power — Gateway Substation | Tucson, Arizona |
Midtown Library Project | Tucson, Arizona |
Kirk-Bear Canyon Library Expansion | Tucson, Arizona |
Electrical Consultants, Inc. | Arizona |
Minera Alumbrera, Ltd. | Argentina |
Compania Minera Mantos De Oro | Chile |
Calaveras Cement Company | Redding, California |
Hanson Permanente Quarry | California |
Luzenac America Talc Quarry | Ennis, Montana |
Freeport McMoran | Irian Jaya, Indonesia |
Diavik Diamond Mines, Inc. | Northwest Territory, Canada |
Ruby Hill Project | Eureka, Nevada |
Trenton Canyon Project | Valmy, Nevada |
Mule Canyon Project | Valmy, Nevada |
Mesquite Mine | Brawley, California |
Section 4 Tailings Impoundment Elkhorn Mine | Jefferson County, Montana |
Calaveras Cement Company | Redding, California |
Ayam Hitam Ore Stockpile | Irian Jaya, Indonesia |
Centralia Mining Company | Centralia, Washington |
44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80228
phone: (303) 980-0540 fax: (303) 985-2080
jmjohnson@golder.com
James M. Johnson
1. | I, James M. Johnson, P.E., am a Professional Engineer and Principal and Project Director of Golder Associates Inc. of Denver, Colorado. | |
2. | I am a member of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc., a member a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, a member of the United States Society on Dams, and a member of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. | |
3. | I graduated from Cornell University in 1976 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering and from Purdue University in 1979 with a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering (Geotechnical). I have practised my profession continuously since 1979. | |
4. | Since 1979 I have held positions in the following engineering consulting firms, working primarily on analysis, design, permitting and construction of tailings, heap leach, mine waste storage and water storage facilities: |
(a) | From 1979 to 1983 as a staff level geotechnical engineer based in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, working for Klohn Leonoff Ltd.; | ||
(b) | From 1983 to 1986 as a project level engineer based in Denver, Colorado USA, working for Fox Consultants Inc. (1983 -1985) and Canonie Engineers (1985-1986); | ||
(c) | From 1986 to 1994 as a senior engineer based in Denver, Colorado USA, working for Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (US) Inc. (1986 -1991) and Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1991-1994); | ||
(d) | From 1994 to present as an Associate, then Principal and Project Director, for Golder Associates Inc. in Denver, Colorado. |
5. | I am a Professional Engineer in good standing in the State of Arizona in the area of Civil Engineering. I am also registered as a professional engineer in eleven other states including my primary registration in Colorado. | |
6. | As a result of my experience and qualifications I am a Qualified Person as defined in National Instrument 43-101. | |
7. | I am presently a Principal and Project Director for Golder Associates Inc. | |
8. | I am responsible for the Tailings Storage Facility design for the Peñasquito Project as documented in the June 2006 Golder report titled “Tailings Storage Facility Conceptual Design Report, Peñasquito Project, Zacatecas State, Mexico” (Project No. 063- 2100.2010). This report, prepared by personnel of Golder Associates Inc under my direct supervision, is included as an appendix to the technical report titled “Peñasquito Feasibility Study 100,000 MTPD” dated July 27,2006 (the “Technical Report”) relating to the Peñasquito Project. I understand that changes have been made to mine plan since the June, 2006 report was published which will impact the size, location and operation of the tailings facilities, and that I will have the opportunity to review and revise the design based on an updated mine plan when it becomes available. I have not visited the Peñasquito property. | |
9. | Civil and geotechnical calculations for the Tailings Storage Facility design were prepared under my direct supervision by a team of engineers and support personnel. The evaluation of tailings geochemistry was the responsibility of the following technical specialist: |
(a) | Mr. Matt Wickham, a senior project manager and Associate at Golder Associates in Lakewood, Colorado with more than 20 years experience in hydrogeology and geochemistry in addition to M.Sc. and B.Sc. degrees in Hydrology and Hydrogeology from the University of Arizona. |
10. | I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. | |
11. | I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect to the subject matter which is not reflected in this report, the omission to disclose which would make this report misleading. | |
12. | I am independent of the issuer applying all of the tests in Section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101. | |
13. | I have read National Instrument 43-101, Form 43-101F1 and this report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1. |
/s/ James M. Johnson | ||
Principal and Project Director | ||
QUALIFIED PERSON |
Golder Associates Inc.
44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80228 USA
Phone: 303-980-0540 / Fax 303-985-2080
TO: | Glamis Gold Ltd. British Columbia Securities Commission Alberta Securities Commission Saskatchewan Securities Commission Manitoba Securities Commission Ontario Securities Commission Authorite des marches financiers du Quebec Nova Scotia Securities Commission New Brunswick Office of the Administrator of Securities PEI Provincial Affairs & Attorney General Department of Government Services and Lands, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador The Toronto Stock Exchange |
/s/ James M. Johnson | ||||
James M. Johnson | ||||
Name of Qualified Person |
Education: | B.S. (with distinction) Civil Engineering, Cornell University, 1976 M.S. Civil Engineering (Geotechnical), Purdue University, 1979 Economic Evaluation and Investment Decision Methods — Colorado School of Mines Engineering and Environmental Aspects of Mine Waste Disposal — SME Improvement of Soils Course — University of Wisconsin Copper Heap Leach Design — SME Planning and Design Concepts for Mine/Mill Closure — SME PM-24, Project Management Training — Golder U | |||
Affiliations: | Registered Professional Engineer in Colorado, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Maine, Arizona, Nevada and Michigan Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. American Society of Civil Engineers United States Society on Dams Association of State Dam Safety Officials | |||
Experience: | ||||
1994 to Present | Golder Associates | Denver, Colorado | ||
Principal and Project Director, Geotechnical Engineering | ||||
Project director/project manager for civil and mining design and construction projects, and environmental remediation projects. Typical projects include: design and construction of storage facilities for slurried, thickened, paste and filtered tailings,, heap leach pads and ponds, water storage reservoirs and ancillary facilities; preparation of environmental permitting documents; closure studies for mine facilities; feasibility studies for repair of water storage reservoirs; and remediation studies for mining sites. | ||||
1991 to 1994 | Woodward-Clyde Consultants | Denver, Colorado | ||
Consulting Engineer | ||||
Project manager of civil and mining design, construction, and remediation projects primarily in the western United States. Task manager and primary author of project alternatives chapters and plan of operation documents for NEPA permitting documents for mining operations. Typical projects included design and construction of tailings impoundments, feasibility studies for repairs to water storage reservoirs, technical review and oversight of MDA technical memoranda for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s SEED program to evaluate the condition and safety of existing dams, preparation of environmental permitting documents to meet NEPA and state requirements and preparation of RI/FS and EE/CA documents for mining superfund sites. | ||||
1986 to 1991 | Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. | Denver, Colorado | ||
Division Head-Geotechnics | ||||
Responsible for all aspects of geotechnical design and coordination of multidisciplinary teams on mining, waste disposal, and water resources projects. Typical projects included design, permitting, and construction of heap leach pads and ponds, tailings impoundments, ash disposal impoundments, and water storage reservoirs. Specialty work included grouting, slurry walls, tunnel liners, lined, and unlined impoundments, and seepage interception systems. |
1985 to 1986 | Canonie Engineers | Denver, Colorado | ||
Project Geotechnical Engineer | ||||
Responsible for all aspects of geotechnical design and management of construction monitoring crews for waste disposal and water storage facilities. Projects included design of structures for storage/disposal of industrial, municipal, and mine wastes and structures for water storage/transmission. Also responsible for development of plan of operation and health and safety documents for remediation of hazardous waste sites and evaluation of existing waste disposal facilities. | ||||
1983 to 1985 | Fox Consultants, Inc. | Denver, Colorado | ||
Project Geotechnical Engineer | ||||
Responsible for project planning, field, and laboratory investigations, design analyses, and report preparation. Typical projects included design and construction supervision for tailings dams, evaluation of industrial waste disposal facilities, safety evaluations for existing dams, preparation of analysis reports for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s SEED program, and foundation design for electrical transmission line towers. | ||||
1979 to 1983 | Klohn Leonoff Ltd. | Richmond, British Columbia, Canada | ||
Staff Geotechnical Engineer | ||||
Responsible for field and laboratory geotechnical investigations, management of construction monitoring crews, design analyses and report preparation on a variety of projects including tailings dams, heap leach pads and ponds, water storage dams, and industrial foundations. |
Moab Uranium Tailings Pile Relocation Project | Moab, Utah |
Peñasquito Project | Zacatecas State, Mexico |
Choco Gold Mine | Bolivar State, Venezuela |
Conga Project | Cajamarca Department, Peru |
Molycorp Mountain Pass Mine | Mountain Pass, California |
Molycorp Mountain Pass Mine | Mountain Pass, California |
U.S. Borax | Boron, California |
\
Minera Yanacocha SRL | Cajamarca, Peru |
Molycorp Questa Mine | Questa, New Mexico |
Molycorp Mountain Pass Mine | Mountain Pass, California |
Phelps Dodge Morenci Inc. | Morenci, Arizona |
Molycorp Questa Mine | Questa, New Mexico |
Mina Morro Do Ouro | Paracatu, Brazil |
Los Pelambres Copper Project | Region IV, Chile |
Cuiaba Mine | Nova Lima, Brazil |
Molycorp Mountain Pass Mine | Mountain Pass, California |
Luzenac Vermont Properties | Vermont |
El Sauzal Project | Mexico |
Sossego Project | Brazil |
Lone Tree Mine | Nevada |
Cresson Mine | Victor, Colorado |
Concorcio Minero Horizonte | Peru |
La Camorra Mine | Venezuela |
Pipeline Mine | Beowawe, Nevada |
Mosaic Carlsbad Potash Mine | Carlsbad, New Mexico |
Mississippi Potash East Plant | Carlsbad, New Mexico |
Cerro Casale Project | Region III, Chile |
Soledad Mountain Project | Mojave, California |
Collahuasi Copper Project | Region I, Chile |
Quebrada Blanca Copper Project | Region I, Chile |
Phoenix Gold Project | Battle Mountain, Nevada |
Gold Quarry Expansion Project | Carlin, Nevada |
Black Cloud Lead-Zinc Mine | Lake County, Colorado |
Central Colorado Mining Superfund Site | Colorado |
Zortman-Landusky Mine Expansion | Phillips County, Montana |
Lamefoot Project | Ferry County, Washington |
Chino Copper Mine | Grant County, New Mexico |
Coeur Rochester Silver Mine | Pershing County, Nevada |
San Luis Gold Mine | Costilla County, Colorado |
Carbonate Hill Gold Project | Teller County, Colorado |
McCoy Gold Mine | Battle Mountain, Nevada |