Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Prepared by:
Rod Doran, P. Eng., Senior Mining Engineer, GENIVAR Inc.
Bruce C. Churchill, P. Geo., RPA Inc.
Jason J. Cox, Principal Mining Engineer, RPA Inc.
Tim McBride, P. Geo., Hydrogeologist, AMEC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................. 1
1.1
Property and Ownership .................................................................................. 2
1.2
Geology, Deposit Type, Mineralization ............................................................ 2
1.3
History and Exploration ................................................................................... 3
1.4
Drilling.............................................................................................................. 4
1.5
Data Verification and Site Visit ........................................................................ 4
1.6
Metallurgical Testwork ..................................................................................... 5
1.7
Resource Estimation ....................................................................................... 5
1.8
Mineral Reserves and Mining .......................................................................... 6
1.8.1 Pit Location and Design ............................................................................. 8
1.8.2 Mining Operation ....................................................................................... 8
1.8.3 Mine Production Schedule ......................................................................... 9
1.9
Materials Handling and Processing ............................................................... 11
1.10 Environmental Considerations....................................................................... 11
1.11 Project Permitting .......................................................................................... 11
1.12 Mine Operating Costs .................................................................................... 13
1.13 Estimated Capital Costs ................................................................................ 13
1.14 Financial Analysis .......................................................................................... 14
1.14.1 Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................. 16
1.15 Risks and Opportunities ................................................................................ 17
1.15.1 Risk and Uncertainties ......................................................................... 17
1.15.2 Opportunities ....................................................................................... 19
1.16 Interpretation and Conclusions ...................................................................... 19
1.17 Recommendations......................................................................................... 20
2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 22
2.1
Sources of Information .................................................................................. 23
2.2
List of abbreviations....................................................................................... 25
3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS........................................................................... 26
4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ......................................................... 27
5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND
PHYSIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 31
5.1
Accessibility ................................................................................................... 31
5.2
Climate .......................................................................................................... 31
5.3
Local Resources ............................................................................................ 31
5.4
Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 32
5.5
Physiography ................................................................................................. 32
6 HISTORY .................................................................................................................. 33
7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION .................................................. 34
i
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
DRILLING ............................................................................................................ 47
10.1 Broken Hammer ............................................................................................ 47
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
17.3.3
17.3.4
17.3.5
17.3.6
18
19
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY
IMPACT......................................................................................................................... 154
19.1 Baseline Environmental Studies .................................................................. 154
19.2 Mine Permitting Requirements .................................................................... 156
19.2.1 Provincial ........................................................................................... 156
19.2.2 Federal .............................................................................................. 157
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28.4
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1: Summary of Mineral Resources JULY 27, 2012 ............................................. 6
Table 2: Pit General Characteristics ................................................................................ 7
Table 3: Broken Hammer - In-pit Mineral Reserves ......................................................... 8
Table 4: Broken Hammer - Mining Schedule ................................................................. 10
Table 5: Broken Hammer - Mining Schedule ................................................................. 12
Table 6: Mine Operating Costs ...................................................................................... 13
Table 7: Capital Expenditures ........................................................................................ 14
Table 8: Broken Hammer Projected Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and
Amortization (EBITDA) .................................................................................................... 15
Table 9: Bulk Sample Reconciliation............................................................................... 46
Table 10: Assays for Individual Size Fractions ............................................................... 62
Table 11: Mineral Distribution data obtained by QemSCAN ........................................... 65
Table 12: Average Head Assays..................................................................................... 69
Table 13: Bond Work Index Summary ............................................................................ 69
Table 14: Locked Cycle Summary Results ..................................................................... 72
Table 15: Locked Cycle Test Results.............................................................................. 74
Table 16: Gravity Test Results ........................................................................................ 75
Table 17: Sample Head Grades...................................................................................... 76
Table 18: F9 Test Results ............................................................................................... 76
Table 19: Gravity Concentration Summary Results ........................................................ 77
Table 20: F14 Batch Gravity/Flotation Test Results and Summary ................................ 78
Table 21: Batch Gravity/Flotation Test Summary ........................................................... 78
Table 22: Locked Cycle Test Results.............................................................................. 80
Table 23 : Metallurgical Recoveries ................................................................................ 83
Table 24: Summary of Mineral Resources July 27, 2012 ............................................ 84
Table 25: Assay Statistics ............................................................................................... 85
Table 26: Summary of Assay Grade Capping................................................................. 87
Table 27: Analysis of Sample Lengths ............................................................................ 87
Table 28: Analysis of Composited and Capped Assay Statistics .................................... 88
Table 29: Variography Parameters ................................................................................. 91
Table 30: NSR Parameters ............................................................................................. 93
Table 31: Summary of Mineral Resources July 27, 2012 ............................................ 98
Table 32: Probable Mineral Reserves ........................................................................... 102
Table 33: Pit Optimization Parameters ......................................................................... 107
Table 34: Pit Optimization Results ................................................................................ 108
Table 35: Detailed Mine Design Parameters ................................................................ 109
Table 36 : Mine Development Schedule ....................................................................... 113
Table 37: Production Schedule ..................................................................................... 116
Table 38: Broken Hammer Pit Bench Tonnages ........................................................... 117
Table 39: Waste Rock Required for Mine Infrastructure Construction .......................... 132
Table 40: Monthly Mine Equipment Requirements ....................................................... 136
Table 41: Monthly Personnel Requirements ................................................................. 137
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location Map .................................................................................................. 29
Figure 2: Property Map .................................................................................................. 30
Figure 3: Regional Geology ........................................................................................... 35
Figure 4: Property Geology ............................................................................................ 38
Figure 5: Broken Hammer Geology ............................................................................... 38
Figure 6: Drill Hole Location Map ................................................................................... 48
Figure 7: Copper in Blank Samples ............................................................................... 52
Figure 8: Nickel in Blank Samples ................................................................................. 52
Figure 9: Palladium in Blank Samples ........................................................................... 52
Figure 10: Nickel Standard Assay Values ....................................................................... 54
Figure 11: Palladium Standard Assay Values ................................................................. 54
Figure 12: Palladium Standard Assay Values ................................................................. 55
Figure 13: Copper Duplicate Assays............................................................................... 56
Figure 14: Platinum Duplicate Assays ............................................................................ 56
Figure 15: Mineral Distribution data ranked in decreasing upgrade factor to the sinks
fractions........................................................................................................................... 63
Figure 16: Two rounded inclusions of Ag-Telluride/Bi-Selenide included in chalcopyrite.
Pt-Tellurides occupy the core of both inclusions ............................................................. 67
Figure 17: A very large Pt-Telluride inclusion in liberated chalcopyrite ........................... 67
Figure 18: A very coarse sperrylite particle (>100um). Remaining particles are almost all
magnetite ........................................................................................................................ 68
Figure 19: Photomicrograph taken at lower magnification to illustrate the abundance of
PGM's within the gravity concentrate. The bright particles include sperrylite and galena
........................................................................................................................................ 68
Figure 20: Kinetic Curves: Combined Tests F1,F4,F5 .................................................... 71
Figure 21: Locked Cycle Flotation Flowsheet (Strathcona) ............................................ 73
Figure 22: Locked Cycle Flowsheet ................................................................................ 79
Figure 23: Recovery Balance by Element ....................................................................... 82
Figure 24: Screen Capture of 3D Solids Looking North .................................................. 86
Figure 25: Regression for Sulphur .................................................................................. 89
Figure 26: Specific Gravity Versus Sulphur .................................................................... 90
Figure 27: Comparison of Estimation Methods ............................................................... 92
vi
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wallbridge is a junior mining company involved in the discovery and development of
mineral resources. Wallbridge specializes in platinum, palladium, copper, and nickel
projects in North America, with a focus on Sudbury, Ontario. Wallbridge has a large
number of exploration to pre-feasibility stage mineral projects including joint ventures
with partners Lonmin Plc, Impala Platinum Holdings Limited, Xstrata Nickel, and a
number of junior mining companies. The company also holds equity interests in Duluth
Metals Limited (TSX:DM) and Miocene Metals Limited (TSXV:MII).
Exploration work on the Broken Hammer Zone has identified a zone of copper-nickelpalladium-platinum-gold mineralization, which is typical of footwall-hosted mineralization
in the Sudbury area.
This pre-feasibility report is based on the updated mineral resource on the Broken
Hammer property prepared by Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (RPA) Technical Report
on the Broken Hammer Project, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, July 27, 2012 following
additional diamond drilling and the extraction of a 30,000 tonne bulk sample in 2011.
In addition to the mineral resource estimate, a pit design and optimization were
completed by RPA for the purpose of this report. This Technical Report conforms to NI
43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.
The data presented in this report is for the exploitation of the currently identified
indicated resource. The deposit remains open to depth and down plunge to the west.
Additional drilling is warranted in this area to attempt to define a deeper underground
resource.
Unless otherwise specified all values reported in this Technical report are in Canadian
dollars and metric units are the reference.
1.1
The Broken Hammer Project is located in Wisner and Bowel Townships approximately
30 km north of Sudbury, Ontario (Figure 1). The property contains two mining leases
(108106 and 108508) in Wisner Township (Figure 2) covering an area of 223 ha, that
are held 100% in the name of Wallbridge. Lease 108106 is subject to an agreement
with Xstrata Nickel whereby Xstrata Nickel retains 1.5% interest in the property and
certain other rights.
1.2
The Sudbury Structure is host to one of the most prolific nickel-copper mining districts in
the world. The principal feature of the geology of the region is the Sudbury Intrusive
Complex (SIC). The structure has been divided into three geographical areas termed
the North, South, and East ranges. The Broken Hammer property is situated in the
North Range approximately one kilometre to two kilometres north of the sublayer in the
footwall of the Wisner embayment.
irregular bodies of Sudbury Breccia, which are the main host environments for footwallstyle Ni-Cu-PGE mineralization, as is also the case at the Broken Hammer deposit.
Trenching and overburden stripping has exposed Sudbury Breccia in gneissic quartz
monzonite with meta-sedimentary, diabase, and amphibolite mega-breccia clasts and
xenoliths. Gabbro and pyroxenite outcrops in the western portion of the stripped area.
1.3
Only limited exploration work was carried out on the property prior to exploration work by
Wallbridge.
Inco Limited (Inco), now known as Vale, carried out work south of the
property, which resulted in the discovery of nickel-copper-platinum group element (NiCu-PGE) deposits (WD-13 and WD-16).
Falconbridge Limited carried out regional exploration work throughout the North and
East ranges of the Sudbury Igneous Complex (SIC) in the late 1980s.
This work
Wallbridge extracted a 30,000 tonne bulk sample from the Broken Hammer Zone in the
first quarter of 2011. The purpose of the bulk sample was to confirm the grades and
metallurgical recoveries of the Broken Hammer sulphide mineralization.
The bulk
sampling was successful establishing that the continuity of the mineralization was such
that it could be mined selectively using a 3m mining bench and a blasting pattern of two
metre by two metre blast holes for grade control.
The 30,000 tonne bulk sample program in 2011 demonstrated the continuity of the
mineralization at a scale amenable to mining with effective grade control practices and
confirmed that metallurgical recoveries can be expected to be similar to or better than
typical Sudbury Basin copper-nickel-palladium-platinum-gold footwall-type deposits. A
total of 29,791 tonnes of mined material was processed.
The mineralized portion of this material totalled 26,324 tonnes grading 1.61% Cu, 0.12%
Ni, 2.16 g/t Pt, 2.28 g/t Pd, and 0.74 g/t Au.
The excavated material totalled 50,842 tonnes. Based on the volume of the material
within the ore outlines, the mineralized material consisted of 26,324 dry tonnes and the
material crushed and delivered to the Strathcona mill was 29,791 dry tonnes, which
indicates about 13% dilution.
A reconciliation of the material shipped from blast hole grades versus the 2005 RPA
resource estimate indicated a 75% increase in the in-situ contained metal value relative
to the 2005 resource model for the volume excavated, with a 7% increase in tonnage,
and a 64% increase in grade. This is not an unexpected result considering that the 2005
RPA resource estimate was an Inferred Resource based on less drill information and
topcut precious metal values.
1.4
Drilling
To date, 113 diamond drill holes, totalling 14,285 m, have been completed on the
Broken Hammer Property out of which 110 tested the Broken Hammer Zone area. All
110 diamond drill holes have been used to estimate the update resource estimate in
2012.
1.5
The Property was visited by a number of experts during the past two years to view the
bulk sample mining progress, the mineralization present in the pit location and the
4
general topography. Among others the property was visited by Mr. Rod Doran, P. Eng.,
Qualified Person (QP) from GENIVAR on April 11, 2012 and on two more occasions;
July 24 and on August 15, 2012. On these occasions site inspections were made to gain
a better understanding of the Broken Hammer mine site. Numerous discussions have
been held with Wallbridge officials verifying data that is presented in this report.
Mr. Churchill, QP for RPA, visited the Project site on March 19 and 20, 2012. While at
the site, a surface tour was completed to inspect the site of the bulk sample, drill core,
drill collars, surface geology, sampling facilities plus various plans and cross sections.
1.6
Metallurgical Testwork
SGS Minerals Services (Lakefield) have completed two metallurgical studies and one
Mineralogical Study of mineralized samples from the Broken Hammer project. This work
is detailed in Section 13 of this report.
The 30,000 tonne bulk sample that Wallbridge mined from the Broken Hammer Zone in
the first quarter of 2011 confirmed that the metallurgical recoveries of the Broken
Hammer sulphide mineralization is typical of Sudbury footwall-Style ore.
1.7
Resource Estimation
RPA prepared a mineral resource estimate for the Broken Hammer deposit using digital
drill hole data provided by Wallbridge. Wireframe solids were prepared by RPA and
checked by Wallbridge geologists to ensure interpretational validity. Pertinent statistics
and variograms were determined for the deposit and grades were interpolated into the
blocks using Ordinary Kriging methodology.
Based on the assumption that there is potential to establish a mining operation using a
custom mill facility, reasonable parameters were used to fit a preliminary pit to the
Broken Hammer deposit.
mineralization continuing beyond the pit walls was considered not to be economic using
5
Tonnes
Cu (%)
Ni (%)
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Au (g/t)
Ag (g/t)
Indicated
231,100
0.92
0.10
2.01
1.90
0.71
6.35
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.8
The resource estimate and mining plan as prepared and presented in this report has
formed the basis of pit optimization and the determination of the mineral reserves for the
Broken Hammer Project. In accordance with the guidelines of the National Instrument NI
43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects and the Canadian Institute of Mine
Metallurgy and Petroleum Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral
Reserves adopted on November 27, 2010, the open-pit optimization has used all
material classified in the indicated category.
The mining of Wallbridge's Broken Hammer deposit will follow the standard practice of a
contractor mined small scale open-pit excavator/truck operation with all of the mine
operations and development functions contracted to an experienced mining contractor.
The mining plan in this Technical report is similar to the mining plan for the 30,000 tonne
of bulk sample that was mined in 2011. The Broken Hammer mine will operate in a load
and haul cycle, using trucks and excavators, and supported by a fleet of auxiliary
equipment. The run-of-mine (RoM) mined ore will be loaded by hydraulic excavators and
delivered by trucks to the primary jaw crusher. The crushed ore will be transferred to a
6
screening plant where the plus 1 inch material will be reduced in size by a cone crusher
that will operate in a closed loop with the screening plant. The amount of minus 1 inch
material will be conveyed to a sample tower where a representative small amount of the
total ore will be further reduced in size and amount to provide representative samples for
metal accounting. The minus 1 inch ore will be conveyed to a stacker for temporary
storage prior to being loaded and transported to a custom mill for processing. Waste
rock will be hauled to the waste rock storage pile. That portion of the mineralized
resource that is judged to be below mine cut-off grade but capable of paying for the
crushing, transportation and processing costs will be stored adjacent to the east end of
the pit. If this material is judged to be sub-economic in mine closure it will be dozed into
the pit to prevent further oxidation and metal leaching concerns.
The mining study is based on Wallbridge contracting out all of the mining, crushing and
transportation functions. Wallbridge personnel would direct the mining operations and
perform the sampling and grade control functions at the mine. The final engineered pit
geometry was adjusted to include the following parameters:
(m)
(m)
(%)
(degree)
(degree)
(degree)
(m)
(m)
Gemcom Whittle software was used to model the mineable tonnage from the probable
ore. The in-pit reserves are sufficient to cover a mine life of 12 months based on the
production rate of approximately 800tpd of ore. Total waste material in the pit design
amounts to approximately 1.7Mt of waste for a stripping ratio of 8.7 tonnes of waste per
tonne of ore. Table 3 presents a summary of the mineable in-pit reserve for the Broken
Hammer project.
Tonnage
Cu
Ni
Au
Ag
Pt
Pd
(t)
(%)
(%)
gpt
gpt
gpt
gpt
196,600
1,710,770
8.7
0.92
0.10
0.64
6.02
1.92
1.82
continuing beyond the pit walls was generally considered not to be economic using
reasonable underground mining costs.
The computer-designed 90m deep open pit plan outlines 3m pit benches from the 409m
elevation to 319m elevations that will be developed by a 12% ramp located primarily on
the east side of the open pit.
Overburden that covers some of the material to the west of the Chisel Creek fault as well
as the overburden within the depression caused by the Chisel Creek fault that separates
the west and east ends of the pit for the first few benches is estimated to total
approximately 6,500 cubic metres.
8
The crushing and sampling plant is scheduled to be operational in the third month of the
schedule.
Months
Units
days
30
28
30
30
30
Capitalized:
Overburden
tonnes
6,500
Operating:
Mined Waste
Mined Ore
Total Mined
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
0
0
0
75,366
0
75,366
78,037
0
78,037
178,680
29,672
208,352
Mined Waste
Waste
Total Waste
tonnes
tonnes
0
0
75,366
75,366
78,037
78,037
Mined Ore
INDICATED
Cu
Ni
Au
Ag
Pt
Pd
tonnes
%
%
g/t
g/t
g/t
g/t
0
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Mill Feed
INDICATED
Cu
Ni
Au
Ag
Pt
Pd
tonnes
%
%
g/t
g/t
g/t
g/t
0
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
10
11
12
Total
30
30
30
30
30
30
358
6,500
218,319
14,322
232,641
226,335
9,306
235,641
226,679
9,293
235,971
216,133
25,713
241,846
196,169
41,372
237,541
195,248
43,035
238,282
70,684
16,324
87,008
29,123
7,568
36,691
1,710,771
196,605
1,907,376
178,680
178,680
218,319
218,319
226,335
226,335
226,679
226,679
216,133
216,133
196,169
196,169
195,248
195,248
70,684
70,684
29,123
29,123
1,710,771
1,710,771
0
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
29,672
0.97
0.16
0.475
8.431
1.528
1.535
14,322
1.01
0.12
0.616
7.062
2.272
2.039
9,306
1.10
0.10
0.714
8.356
2.729
2.420
9,293
1.60
0.11
0.650
5.391
1.777
2.501
25,713
1.09
0.13
0.827
5.095
1.189
1.868
41,372
1.06
0.09
0.806
5.021
1.155
1.948
43,035
0.76
0.07
0.579
5.297
2.192
1.804
16,324
0.37
0.03
0.385
5.204
3.484
1.380
7,568
0.22
0.03
0.559
6.855
3.761
2.190
196,605
0.92
0.10
0.639
6.016
1.922
1.861
0
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
29,672
0.97
0.16
0.475
8.431
1.528
1.535
14,322
1.01
0.12
0.616
7.062
2.272
2.039
9,306
1.10
0.10
0.714
8.356
2.729
2.420
9,293
1.60
0.11
0.650
5.391
1.777
2.501
25,713
1.09
0.13
0.827
5.095
1.189
1.868
41,372
1.06
0.09
0.806
5.021
1.155
1.948
43,035
0.76
0.07
0.579
5.297
2.192
1.804
16,324
0.37
0.03
0.385
5.204
3.484
1.380
7,568
0.22
0.03
0.559
6.855
3.761
2.190
196,605
0.92
0.10
0.639
6.016
1.922
1.861
30
10
1.9
Depending on the selected custom mill and the timing of the site development in relation
to the half-load shipping restrictions, pit production during the first few months of mining
may be stockpiled on site to provide a continuous flow of crushed resource to the custom
miller. In this scenario, on site storage needs may approach 40,000 tonnes. To allow for
such a scenario developing the crushing and sampling area has been designed to
provide sufficient room to store approximately 40,000 tonnes of crushed ore.
Federal permitting procedures should not be triggered since the only standing water on
site, a small beaver pond, has been declared free of fish by the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans, and no on site explosive storage facilities are planned which would trigger
a Natural Resources Canada Federal approval process.
Project environmental sampling and permitting has been assigned to AMEC Inc.
Preparations to submit the required permits have been ongoing since mid-July. Table 5
summarizes the Broken Hammer permitting activities:
11
12
$/Tonne
$/Tonne
Mined
Milled
$8,334,000
$4.37
$42.39
$4.37
$42.39
$0.66
$1.13
$1.03
$2.82
$7.19
$6.42
$11.00
$10.00
$27.42
$69.80
$6.41
$6.41
$62.19
$62.19
$13.60
$131.99
$12,227,000
13
Total Cost
$538,000
$80,700
$618,700
$1,130,000
$169,500
$1,299,500
$1,918,200
The parameters used in the evaluation of the Broken Hammer Project economics are as
follows:
Metal
Price ($)
Copper
Nickel
Palladium
Platinum
Gold
Silver
3.50/lb
9.00/lb
650/oz
1,600/oz
1,700/oz
35.00/oz
94.0
58.0
85.0
71.0
81.0
63.0
14
(Copper & Platinum) used for the 2012 updated resource, the metal prices used for this
report as well as spot prices and 3-year average prices for the same metals as at
October 1, 2012.
Metal
Units
2012 Updated
Spot Prices
Base Case
Resource Report
Oct. 1, 2012
PFS
3-Yr avg.
Copper
US$/lb.
3.00
3.75
3.50
3.62
Platinum
US$/oz.
1,600
1,675
1,600
1,601
Smelter
Revenue:
Copper
Nickel
Platinum
Palladium
Gold
Silver
TOTALREVENUE
Costs:
Mining
Crushing&Haulage
Milling,
Smelting,
Refining
&Other
charges
TOTALCOSTS
ProfitBeforeRoyalty
RoyaltytoXstrata
EBITDA
TotalCost
PerTonne
OreMined
$11,562,603
1,932,450
10,969,070
5,214,256
4,454,346
500,089
$34,632,814
$58.81
9.83
55.79
26.52
22.66
2.54
$176.15
$9,791,186
3,932,095
$49.80
20.00
12,227,503
$25,950,785
$8,682,029
$306,589
$8,375,440
62.19
$131.99
$44.16
$1.56
$42.60
15
The sensitivity analysis on the base case pricing scenario is presented hereafter using
variations of +/- 15% from the base case in revenues for copper, platinum, and other
factors that can have a significant effect on the project including capital expenses,
operational expenses and the value of the Canadian dollar relative to the US dollar.
These variations take into account fluctuations in revenue that could potentially result
from economic cycles and illustrates variation in the major elements of the project. The
Net Present Values on the short duration project were calculated using a discount rate of
8%.
sensitivity of the project to the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the US dollar
($US/$C), the Platinum Price (Pt) in US dollars per ounce, the Operating Costs (OPEX) ,
the Capital Costs (CAPEX), the Copper Price (Cu) in US dollars per pound and the
Palladium Price (Pd) in US dollars per ounce.
16
WallbridgeMiningCo.Ltd. BrokenHammerMine
PreTaxNPV@8%
$12,000
NPVC$x'000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
15%
US/C$
10%
PtPrice
5%
Opex
Base
Capex
5%
10%
Cuprice
15%
Pdprice
The project is most sensitive to US/C$ exchange rate as well as project operating costs.
17
There can be no assurance that the mining regime currently in place in the Province of
Ontario will not be changed in a manner that could adversely affect Wallbridge, its
properties and business plans.
Consultations with Ontario First Nations can be lengthy and time consuming and may
result in changes to the operating schedule and mining plan.
Mineral Exploration is highly speculative and involves a high degree of risk, which even a
combination of careful evaluation, experience and knowledge may not be able to avoid.
These risk factors include market fluctuations, the proximity and production capacity of
custom milling facilities and processing equipment, availability of qualified personnel,
possible third party claims and government regulations, including regulations relating to
prices, royalties, allowable production, mining leases and environmental protection. The
effect of these factors cannot be accurately predicted.
Fluctuations in the market price of copper, precious metals and value of the Canadian
dollar is another element to consider in the global Project evaluation. The profitability of
the Broken Hammer mining operation is directly related to the market price of the above
factors. The market price of copper and precious metals fluctuates and is affected by
numerous factors beyond the control of Wallbridge. If the market price of copper and
precious metals should decline dramatically, or the value of the Canadian dollar
appreciate dramatically, the value of Wallbridges mineral properties could also decrease
dramatically and Wallbridge might not be able to justify the required investment to
proceed with the mining plan outlined in this Report. Price fluctuations, between the time
that such decisions are made and the commencement of production, can drastically
affect the economics of the operations. The Pre-Feasibility Study, through its market
analysis portion tried to define some of these effects (sensitivity analysis).
Mineralization at the Broken Hammer is hosted within veins and vein stock works within
a breccia complex and is irregular in nature. To some extent however the risks are
mitigated since the Broken Hammer mining plan considers an open pit operation thereby
allowing more mining flexibility as compared to an underground mining operation.
18
Mining costs in this study have been estimated on a first principles basis with Wallbridge
directing mining contractors. Mining costs in the forthcoming Feasibility Study will be
based on a secured mining contract in which mining costs may vary depending on
mining activity in the Sudbury area.
The project cash flow assumes that metals revenue is received at the time of delivery.
Custom milling facilities generally do not provide instantaneous payments. Similarly
contractor payment is assumed to be paid instantaneously. Realistically, payment to
contractors is not done until some period of time after work is completed. Actual timing
of cash inflow and outflow is contingent on contract payments to be negotiated after
feasibility study.
1.15.2 Opportunities
The metals recovered from the bulk sample resulted in a gain in mining in relation to the
estimated recoverable metals based on exploration diamond drilling. A reconciliation of
the tonnage shipped in the 2011 bulk sample compared to the 2012 RPA updated
resource estimate indicated a gain in gross metal value of approximately 18%.
In support of additional gains in mining, there are a number of drill hole intercepts within
the perimeter of the pit which were not included in the estimated resource due to the
irregular nature of mineralization within the Broken Hammer deposit. Due to the financial
cost of diamond drilling to a density sufficient to determine continuity, the project will
remain open to these types of possible gains in mining.
Opportunities exist to improve the project cash flow by negotiating a more favourable
processing contract than the one for the bulk sample. The bulk sample processing
contract was a much smaller tonnage that was batch processed for which a premium
was paid.
continue with the next stage - a Feasibility Study of the Broken Hammer Project in
preparation for the development and operation of the Broken Hammer deposit. Much
information has been gained from the more than 110 diamond drill holes which have
been completed into the mineralized zone and the mining of a 30,000 tonne bulk
sample. The project mining procedures and processing recoveries are reasonably well
defined since they are based on the successful 2011 bulk sample that was mined from
the east end of the planned pit.
The relatively small defined resource lends the project to contract mining of the open pit
and processing the resource at a custom mill facility. These project features result in low
project capital costs, a substantial net present value and an attractive internal rate of
return.
1.17 Recommendations
GENIVAR recommends that:
Based on the robust economics of the project, that the project should proceed to
a full Feasibility Study.
That Wallbridge should continue with the permitting activities of the project.
Geotechnical drill holes be drilled in the pit area to properly characterize the rock
mass and geological discontinuities within the final pit walls in order to improve
the pit slope design.
A feasibility level geotechnical study of the planned mine waste rock pile be
performed including a detailed characterization of the base material upon which
the pile will be located.
21
2 INTRODUCTION
Genivar Inc. (GENIVAR) was retained by Wallbridge Mining Company Limited
(Wallbridge) as lead consultant to prepare an Independent NI 43-101 Pre-Feasibility
Report (PFS) on the Broken Hammer project located near Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.
This pre-feasibility report is based on the updated mineral resource on the Broken
Hammer property prepared by Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (RPA) Technical Report
on the Broken Hammer Project, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, July 27, 2012 following
additional diamond drilling and the extraction of a 30,000 tonne bulk sample in 2011.
In addition to the mineral resource and reserve estimate, a pit design and optimization
were completed by RPA. This Technical Report conforms to NI 43-101 Standards of
Disclosure for Mineral Projects.
Exploration work carried out under the direction of Wallbridge has discovered footwallstyle palladium-platinum-copper-nickel-gold sulphide mineralization on the property. The
Broken Hammer deposit has been the focus of diamond drilling, trenching, and bulk
sampling. The property consists of two mining leases (108106 and 108508) in Wisner
Township that are held 100% in the name of Wallbridge. The remainder of the property
consists of contiguous claims called the Wisner Joint Venture including three claims in
Bowell Township (S984613 to S984615) and 23 claims in Wisner Township (patented
claim 73522-0115 (RJ1), plus mining claims S984625-984633, 984639-984646, 993682,
993683, 994137 and 1246144).
22
2.1
Sources of Information
This pre-feasibility report was prepared by Mr. J.R. (Rod) Doran, P. Eng., Senior Mining
Engineer of Genivar Inc. In the preparation of this report, technical documents and the
results of the bulk sample were provided by Wallbridge. The report incorporates the
results of the updated mineral resource with an effective date of July 27, 2012 as
prepared by RPA.
Mr. Rod Doran, P. Eng. from GENIVAR has prepared this report and is the Qualified
Person (QP) for the contents of the report excluding the sections of the report prepared
by other QPs.
Mr. Doran QP from GENIVAR visited the site on April 11, 2012 and on two more
occasions; July 24 and on August 15, 2012. On these occasions site inspections were
made to gain a better understanding of the Broken Hammer mine site. Numerous
discussions have been held with Wallbridge officials verifying data that is presented in
this report.
The Updated Mineral Resource as part of this report was prepared by Mr. Bruce
Churchill, P. Geo., the QP from RPA.
In preparation of the Updated Mineral Resource report, technical documents and reports
were supplied by Wallbridge. Technical documents reviewed included project reports,
assay certificates, drill logs, and cross sections. The key technical documents reviewed
by RPA for this report are Technical Report on the Broken Hammer Project, Sudbury,
Ontario dated March 15, 2012 (Soever, 2012), and Technical Report on the Mineral
Resource Estimate for the Broken Hammer Deposit, Ontario dated November 21, 2005
(Rennie, 2005).
23
Mr. Churchill visited the Project on March 19 and 20, 2012. While at the site, a surface
tour was completed to inspect the site of the bulk sample, drill core, drill collars, surface
geology, sampling facilities plus various plans and cross sections.
Mr. Jason Cox, P. Eng., from RPA oversaw the estimation of Mineral Reserves and
mining design for the Broken Hammer project. Mr. Cox did not visit the site.
Mr. Andre Gagnon, P. Eng. from Tetra Tech completed the geotechnical investigation for
pit slope design of Broken Hammer, Broken Hammer Zone Project Pre-Feasibility Pit
Slope Design - April 2012.
In formulating this study GENIVAR reviewed documents prepared by Tetra Tech and
passed on to Wallbridge following their disengagement with the Broken Hammer PreFeasibility Study.
The documentation reviewed including the 2012 updated mineral resource estimate and
other sources of information that is listed at the end of this report in Section 27.
24
2.2
List of abbreviations
Units of measurement used in this report conform to the metric system. All currency in
this report is Canadian dollars (C$) unless otherwise noted.
C
F
g
A
a
bbl
Btu
C$
cal
cfm
cm
cm2
d
dia.
dmt
dwt
ft
ft/s
ft2
ft3
g
G
Gal
g/L
g/t
gpm
gr/ft3
gr/m3
hr
ha
hp
in
in2
J
k
kcal
kg
km
km/h
km2
kN/m3
micron
degree Celsius
degree Fahrenheit
microgram
ampere
annum
barrels
British thermal units
Canadian dollars
calorie
cubic feet per minute
centimetre
square centimetre
day
diameter
dry metric tonne
dead-weight ton
foot
feet per second
square foot
cubic foot
gram
giga (billion)
Imperial gallon
gram per litre
gram per tonne
Imperial gallons per minute
grains per cubic foot
grains per cubic metre
hour
hectare
horsepower
inch
square inch
joule
kilo (thousand)
kilocalorie
kilogram
kilometre
kilometres per hour
square kilometre
kilo-Newtons per cubic metre
kPa
kVA
kW
kWh
L
L/s
lb
m
M
m2
m3
m3/h
min
MASL
mm
mil
mph
MVA
MW
MWh
opt, oz/st
oz
ppm
psia
psig
RL
s
st
stpa
stpd
t
tpa
tpd
US$
USg
USgpm
V
W
wmt
yd3
yr
25
kilopascal
kilovolt-amperes
kilowatt
kilowatt-hour
litre
litres per second
pound
metre
mega (million)
square metre
cubic metre
cubic metres per hour
minute
metres above sea level
millimeter
One thousandth of an inch
miles per hour
megavolt-amperes
megawatt
megawatt-hour
ounces per short ton
Troy ounce (31.1035g)
parts per million
pounds per square inch absolute
pounds per square inch gauge
relative elevation
second
short ton
short tons per year
short tons per day
metric tonne
metric tonnes per year
metric tonnes per day
United States dollar
United States gallon
US gallons per minute
volt
watt
wet metric tonne
cubic yard
year
The pit design and optimization of the Broken Hammer identified resource as
completed by RPA
Data, reports, and other information supplied by Wallbridge and other third
party sources.
For the purpose of this report, GENIVAR has relied on ownership information provided
by Wallbridge. The client has relied on an opinion by McLean & Kerr LLP, dated July 17,
2012 entitled Wallbridge Mining Company Limited (Wallbridge), and this opinion is
relied on in Section 4 and the Summary of this report. Neither GENIVAR nor RPA has
researched property title or mineral rights for the Broken Hammer Project and both
Companies expressed no opinion as to the ownership status of the property.
GENIVAR and RPA have relied on Wallbridge for guidance on applicable taxes,
royalties, and other government levies or interests, applicable to revenue or income from
the Project.
Except for the purposes legislated under provincial securities laws, any use of this report
by any third party is at that partys sole risk.
26
The Broken Hammer Project is located in Wisner and Bowel Townships approximately
30 km north of Sudbury, Ontario (Figure 1). The Broken Hammer property contains two
mining leases (108106 and 108508) in Wisner Township (Figure 2) covering an area of
223 ha, that are held 100% in the name of Wallbridge. Lease 108106 is subject to an
agreement with Xstrata Nickel whereby Xstrata Nickel retains 1.5% interest in the
property and certain other rights.
Wallbridge has a Closure Plan in place for its bulk sample project and has posted a
reclamation bond in the amount of $130,350. The following permits will be required to
place the property into production:
Certificate of Approval (C. of A.) air and noise for crusher operation,
generator operation, and other operations related air emissions
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) approval as per the Lakes and Rivers
Improvement Act (LRIA) for treatment pond dam construction and spillway
dam construction
MNR approval as per the LRIA, for culvert installation/water crossings (haul
road upgrades, if required)
Work permits issued by the MNR for work as per the LRIA and/or Public
Lands Act (work near water, work on Crown land, clearing trees)
Approval from the Nickel District Conservation Authority for culvert related
work, if required.
Forest Resource Licence and/or work permit issuance from the MNR to clear
trees (with involvement of current licence holder if applicable)
The remainder of the property consists of contiguous claims called the Wisner Joint
Venture (Figure 2). These claims consist of three claims in Bowell Township (S984613
to S984615) totalling 48.0 ha and 23 claims in Wisner Township (patented claim 735220115 (RJ1), plus mining claims S984625-984633, 984639-984646, 993681-993683,
994137 and 1246144) totalling 352.72 ha. These claims are in good standing until May
or September 2013.
Wallbridge is the operator of the Wisner Joint Venture with Xstrata for exploration on the
claims and to date has earned a 77% interest in the property. If diluted below 10%,
Xstrata retains 1.5% NSR royalty if ore from the property is processed at Xstrata
treatment facilities or 5% NSR royalty if ore from the property is processed at nonXstrata treatment facilities.
28
29
30
5.1
Accessibility
5.2
Climate
Climate is typical for northern Ontario with long, cold winters and relatively short, warm
summers. Mean daily temperatures range from a low of -13.70 C in January to a high of
18.90 C in July (http://www.worldclimate.com). Mean annual precipitation from 1954 to
1990 was 863 mm.
5.3
Local Resources
Sudbury is a major regional centre with extensive transportation links and commercial
infrastructure that is strongly oriented toward the mining industry. The Xstrata and Vale
smelter complexes are both located in Sudbury, and there are several operating mines
and processing plants in the area. The community is served by primary rail and highway
links with regular air service to several centres, including Toronto.
31
5.4
Infrastructure
Other than road access, there is no significant infrastructure related to the deposit. All of
the direct mining infrastructure will be located within a single drainage area. All of the
drainage from this area will be monitored from a single discharge point.
5.5
Physiography
The terrain in the Broken Hammer Project area consists primarily of boreal forest, a
small beaver pond draining through a swampy and wetland area to the north. Principal
land uses are mining and mineral exploration, forestry, and recreation (hunting and
fishing). Elevations on the property are in the order of 400 MASL.
The site topography is forested rolling hills draining to a small beaver pond and low
swampy area. The local drainage flows north from the mine drainage area then east and
south towards the Vermillion River. Bedrock is poorly exposed. GENIVAR estimates
that the property is underlain by approximately 15% to 25% outcrop, 10% water and
swamp. The land area is mostly covered with less than a metre up to in some locations
in the swampy area, five metres of glacial till. The site outcrops are commonly rounded,
smooth knobs with maximum dimensions of approximately 10 m by 10 m. The small
open pit that was developed in 2011 to extract the 30,000 tonne bulk sample is located
on the east side of the drainage area and currently measures less than 3 percent of the
drainage area.
32
6 HISTORY
The following description of History is taken from Soever, 2012.
Only limited exploration work was carried out on the property prior to exploration work by
Wallbridge.
Inco Limited (Inco), now known as Vale, carried out work south of the
property, along the Sudbury Igneous Complex footwall contact, which resulted in the
discovery of nickel-copper-platinum group element (Ni-Cu-PGE) deposits (WD-13 and
WD-16). In the late 1960s, Inco also sank its North Range shaft in this area to explore
the contact environment at depth.
Falconbridge Limited (Falconbridge) carried out regional exploration work throughout the
North and East ranges of the Sudbury Igneous Complex in the late 1980s. This work
included regional airborne magnetometer and electromagnetic (EM) surveys, as well as
reconnaissance soil and humus sampling. Soil and humus sampling was done at 200 m
centres over the Broken Hammer property, and was followed up in 1989 by soil sampling
on 50 m centres. In 1996, Falconbridge carried out an induced polarization (IP) survey
over the property.
Exploration work by Wallbridge commenced in 1999, and has been ongoing up to the
time of writing. A summary of this work is provided in Section 9 of this report.
33
7.1
Regional Geology
The Sudbury Structure is host to one of the most prolific nickel-copper mining districts in
the world (Figure 3). The principal feature of the geology of the region is the Sudbury
Igneous Complex (SIC). The SIC is a layered intrusive body exposed in an elliptical
trace measuring 60 km along a northeast-southwest trend and 28km wide at surface.
The SIC itself is 2.5km to 3.0km thick at surface. SIC igneous rocks dip about 35 to 45
towards the centre of the basin on the north side and up to vertical on the south.
It is now widely believed that the SIC formed as a consequence of a meteorite impact,
which is variously interpreted to have either melted the substrate outright, disrupted the
crust to such a degree as to initiate an intrusive event, or some combination of both.
The original structure exceeded 150km in diameter. Geologic relationships and age
dating indicate an emplacement age of 1,850Ma. Later tectonic compression, faulting
and thrusting at the margins, and deep erosion have modified the SIC to its present
shape.
The SIC rocks comprise, from the base upwards, a xenolith-bearing norite called the
contact sublayer, mafic norites, coarse-grained felsic norites, a transition layer of quartz
gabbro, and lastly, granophyre. Large depressions, called embayments, in the contact
sublayer are host to much of the nickel-copper sulphide mineralization. Surrounding the
SIC are Archean and Proterozoic rocks which have been variably fractured, brecciated,
and partially melted by the impact event. Along the North and East Ranges, a variably
metamorphosed breccia called the Footwall Breccia or Late Granite Breccia underlies
the contact sublayer. Where the breccia is predominantly matrix-supported, it is termed
Granite Breccia, and where dominated by large clasts, it is mapped as mega-breccia.
The Sudbury impact breccia (Sudbury Breccia) consists of dikes, stringers, and irregular
bodies of pseudotachylite that is commonly developed between contacts of contrasting
34
rock types within the footwall of the SIC. These are fault-related zones which formed as
a result of friction along the shear zones. The breccia has an aphanitic matrix containing
xenoliths of local rocks, with matrix colour progressively lighter grey and bleached with
proximity to the footwall.
Lying within the basin, overtop of the SIC are sedimentary rock of the Whitewater Group.
These are synformal, Aphebian age epiclastic and sedimentary rocks comprising the
Onaping Tuff and Onwatin Slate topped by the Chelmsford Sandstone. The Whitewater
Group was deposited after the irruptive event. The tuffs, related to volcanic activity
associated with the melt sheet, were laid down and followed by erosion of the SIC and
sedimentation within the basin.
35
7.2
Local Geology
The Sudbury Structure has been divided into three geographical areas termed the North,
South, and East Range. The Broken Hammer Property resides in the North Range
approximately one kilometre to two kilometres north of the contact sublayer in the
footwall of the Wisner embayment (Figure 4). The property is dominated by Archeanaged felsic to intermediate gneisses intruded by the Proterozoic Wisner Gabbro
belonging to the East Bull Lake suite of mafic to ultramafic rocks; all of which are
subsequently intruded by Matachewan and Nipissing diabase dyke swarms.
The
All rocks were regionally metamorphosed to upper amphibolite facies with retrograde
phases to greenschist facies. Contact metamorphism to albite-epidote and hornblendehornfels facies occurred as a result of the impact/eruptive event, and local zones of
partial to almost complete remelting are evident. Wallbridge geologists have been able
to map isotherms represented by the degree of thermal metamorphism in the Sudbury
Breccia matrices. Thermal effects range from nearly complete recrystallization (termed
sub-igneous texture) to aphanitic textures over a distance of approximately 60 m. The
Cu-Ni-PGE mineralization at Broken Hammer is contained within this zone, which
suggests that the mineralizing event was coeval with the metamorphism.
The area has been subject to polyphase ductile and brittle deformation. Early ductile
deformation (D1) related to peak pressure-temperature conditions during amphibolite
facies regional metamorphism has produced large-scale tight upright folds and
boudinage of more competent layers. The dominant foliation is S2 regional gneissic
fabric that trends northwesterly with near vertical dips. The S2 foliation is associated
with isoclinal to tight upright folding.
36
Brittle deformation occurred as a result of the impact event and later faulting. Sudbury
Breccia pseudotachylites occur throughout the area. Northwest-trending fault zones are
interpreted from lineaments and displacements in metamorphic isotherms, and faults
have been intersected in drill holes.
7.3
The Broken Hammer deposit is situated within a belt of Sudbury Breccia about 1.4km
north of the SIC contact. Trenching and overburden stripping have exposed Sudbury
Breccia in gneissic quartz monzonite with meta-sedimentary, diabase, and amphibolite
mega-breccia clasts and xenoliths (Figure 6) gabbro and pyroxenite outcrop in the
western portion of the stripped area. The Sudbury Breccia zone hosting the Broken
Hammer Zone developed along the contact between the Wisner Gabbro intrusion with
the Levack Gneiss.
The Chisel Creek fault is a northerly striking, shallowly east-dipping fault zone that
bisects the deposit. The trend of the Chisel Creek fault is a topographic low occupied by
a creek and a small beaver pond. Displacement across this fault is thought to be postmineralization, comprising a modest rotation and possibly some translation.
The
orientation of veins is observed to change by about 30 across the fault plane. The
intersection of principal fracture sets plunges at 248/-35 above the fault and 215/-45
below it.
37
38
7.4
Mineralization
Cu-Ni-PGE mineralization at the Broken Hammer Zone occurs as veins and irregular
masses in Sudbury Breccia matrix as well as sulphide disseminations, clots, and veinlets
in quartz monzonite gneiss, within a zone approximately 250m long by 80m wide.
Massive sulphide veins can be up to a metre or more in thickness but more commonly
are less than 50cm. The most prominent feature is the Big Boy Vein, a decimetre- to
metre-scale massive sulphide vein striking east-southeast and dipping shallowly to
moderately to the southwest. Other narrower veins are observed to form swarms and
clusters, often branching and anastomosing. The veins are variable in orientation and
pinch and swell rapidly. Veins are tensional features and often occupy strain shadows of
mega-breccia clasts. Control of mineralization appears to be by a dextral Reidel shear
environment with the primary shear directions being oriented 040 west of the Chisel
Creek Fault and 070 east of it.
39
8 DEPOSIT TYPES
The following description of Deposit Types is taken from Soever, 2012.
Cu-Ni-PGE-Au mineralization occurs in a variety of settings within the SIC. For context,
these are all introduced briefly below and are subdivided into 1) mineralization
associated with the basal contact of the SIC, 2) mineralization associated with the offset
quartz diorite dykes that extend outwards from the main mass of the SIC into the
footwall, 3) mineralization occurring within the footwall rocks of the Sudbury Structure,
and 4) structurally controlled remobilized mineralization. The primary exploration target
on the Broken Hammer Property is footwall-style Cu-Ni-PGE enriched mineralization.
8.1
Contact-Style Mineralization
1. Minor disseminated pyrrhotite, pentlandite, and chalcopyrite mineralization is
present within the basal noritic members of the main mass of the SIC, especially
where the basal norite is in contact with mineralized sublayer embayment
structures.
2. Mineralization occurs as disseminated to massive accumulations within the
sublayer, along the basal contact of the main mass of the SIC. These deposits
are most important where the sublayer unit thickens within embayment structures
and are generally characterized by iron and nickel rich assemblages of pyrrhotite,
pentlandite, and chalcopyrite. The PGE content of these deposits is quite
variable.
3. Mineralization occurs as blebby disseminations, fragments of sulphide, veins,
stringers, and massive accumulations within zones of footwall breccia beneath
the igneous sublayer embayment structures. This style of mineralization is also
generally characterized by iron and nickel rich assemblages of pyrrhotite,
pentlandite, and chalcopyrite and the PGE content of these deposits is generally
low.
8.2
Offset-Style Mineralization
40
8.3
Footwall-Style Mineralization
Mineralization occurs as vein and stockwork systems within the footwall rocks underlying
the SIC. These deposits are often constrained within thick dykes and irregular zones of
Sudbury Breccia and occur up to a kilometre from the basal contact of the SIC, such as
at the McCreedy East property on the North Range.
associated with irregular quartz diorite melt pockets within belts of Sudbury Breccia, as
in the case of the immense Frood-Stobie orebodies that occur more than a kilometre into
the footwall on the South Range.
systems that primarily are massive chalcopyrite or cubanite that vary from millimetre
scale to greater than 10 m wide.
chalcopyrite, and millerite characterize the distal portions of these deposits on the North
Range. Minor alteration of the host footwall rocks immediately next to the deposits
includes quartz-carbonate veining, and epidote and chlorite in seams and fractures.
These deposits are characterized by significant PGE-Au mineralization, which occurs not
only within the main sulphide veins but also in peripheral stringers and altered host
rocks.
8.4
In some deposits, sulphide has been remobilized into shear zones and related structural
traps. Important examples of this type of deposit include those at Garson, Falconbridge,
Falconbridge East, and Creighton mines on the South Range of the SIC.
41
9 EXPLORATION
The following description of Exploration is taken from Soever, 2012 and Jago 2008.
Wallbridge commenced exploration work on the property in 1999 with airborne timedomain EM (GEOTEM) surveys over the entire Wisner claim block. The GEOTEM was
followed up in 2000 and 2001 with reconnaissance mapping and sampling, which
confirmed the presence of recrystallized, thermally metamorphosed Sudbury Breccias,
although no significant mineralization was found.
In 2002, ground work continued with line-cutting, geological mapping, sampling, and
ground geophysics. Sulphide-bearing outcrops were mapped and sampled and four
trenches were completed in the South Zone (Figure 4). The trenching uncovered Cu-NiPGE mineralization occurring in veins as well as disseminations and veinlets in Sudbury
Breccia.
Prospecting and sampling continued in 2003, leading to the discovery of the Broken
Hammer Zone Cu-Ni-PGE sulphide mineralization associated with a 250m long
IP/resistivity anomaly. Surface stripping was carried out in three trenches over a total
area of 0.95 ha.
In late September 2005, two holes were drilled at the South Zone showing totalling
338m. These holes targeted one of the new beep map discoveries in the vicinity of the
South Zone.
Five pits were blasted on five new showings that were discovered during a beep
mapping program in 2005. All blast pits contained chalcopyrite and PGE mineralization.
Three of these blasted trenches were stripped, mapped, and sampled in 2006.
42
9.1
Wallbridge extracted a 30,000 tonne bulk sample from the Broken Hammer during the
first quarter of 2011. The bulk sample mining operation started in January 2011 with
drilling, blasting, and crushing completed in March 2011.
Material transportation to
Xstratas Strathcona mill was completed in May and batch processing of the mined
material was carried out in July.
The purpose of the bulk sample was to follow up on the recommendations made by RPA
in 2005. A 30,000 tonne bulk sample, sufficient to provide enough material for a five to
six day mill run, was excavated from a pit with surface dimensions of approximately 90m
by 30m. The pit was excavated in four three metre benches with the fourth bench
dimensions of 75m by 20m with pit slopes of 60 to 70.
The benches were drilled on roughly two metre by two metre patterns using air track
drills and blasted using emulsion explosives. The drill hole cuttings were sampled (see
sampling procedures below) and waste and mineralized material were marked in the
field for excavation.
The waste material was hauled to the waste pile while the
mineralized material was transported to the laydown area adjacent to the crusher. The
mineralized material was then crushed to nominal minus six inches prior to being trucked
to Xstrata Nickels Strathcona mill.
To attempt to minimize fines loss, the laydown area was underlain with a pad of coarse
grit sand about 60 cm thick which was excavated locally. The crushed ore material was
placed on this pad (approximately 60cm thick in a 20m by 50m area) prior to
transportation to the mill. A similar pad was built at the mill to capture any lost fines.
The pad materials from the laydown area on site, as well as the pad material at the mill
were both processed through the mill.
43
9.2
A representative sample of drill cuttings averaging four kilograms in weight was collected
from each blast hole by Wallbridge's technical staff and transported daily to Wallbridge's
office in Lively, Ontario. The samples were then placed in a 60cm by 48cm by 15cm
container and gridded into six segments. A crucible containing 20g of material was
collected from each segment and analyzed with a portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF)
analyzer. The average of the six analyses was used to determine the provisional copper
and nickel grades for each individual blast hole sample. These provisional values were
used to determine the boundaries of the mineralization above the 0.29% Cu or 0.04% Ni
cut-off grade, and were used to determine which material was to be blasted as ore.
Each entire sample from within the ore outlines and the waste samples from the first
bench was then re-bagged and shipped to ALS Chemex Ltd. (ALS Chemex) laboratories
in Sudbury for sample preparation, with the prepared pulps sent on to ALS Chemex's
analytical facilities in Vancouver for analysis for nickel, copper, platinum, palladium, gold,
and silver by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and atomic
emission spectrometry (ICP-AES) methods. The ALS Chemex analytical values were
used in calculating the final grade of the material mined and sent to the mill.
9.3
Material Processing
The excavated material was trucked to Xstratas Strathcona mill for batch processing.
Upon arrival at the mill the material was weighed in on the scales, and then placed on a
dedicated pad.
Batch processing was carried out using milling protocols similar to those typically used
for other Sudbury footwall ores. Sampling was carried out using protocols developed by
Xstrata Process Support (XPS) personnel and the assay results were provided by XPS
Laboratories in Sudbury, Ontario. Samples were collected at the rod mill discharge and
of the concentrate produced and the tailings. The assay results were used to calculate a
material balance for the material processed.
proprietary, but the metallurgical performance was favourable with metal recoveries
similar to or better than typical Sudbury footwall-type deposits.
44
9.4
Results
The excavated material (including a ramp) totalled 18,158m3 or 50,842 tonnes (using an
average specific gravity (SG) of 2.8). Based on the volume of the material within the ore
outlines, the mineralized material consisted of 26,324 dry tonnes (using an SG of 2.8).
Material crushed and delivered to the Strathcona mill was 30,507 wet or 29,791 dry
metric tonnes (calculated using 2.403% moisture content), which indicates about 13%
dilution. The Waste stockpile at the site is approximately 21,051 tonnes, which was
calculated as the difference of the total excavated and the delivered material.
A reconciliation of the material shipped versus the 2005 RPA resource estimate (Table
9) indicated a 75% increase in the in-situ contained metal value relative to the resource
model for the volume excavated, with a seven percent increase in tonnage, and a 64%
increase in grade (Table 11). This is not an unexpected result considering that the 2005
RPA resource estimate was an Inferred Resource based on less drill information and
topcut precious metal values.
The bulk sample assay results and mapping of pit walls offered valuable information
regarding the spatial distribution and structural controls of sulphide mineralization.
These data were incorporated into 3D modelling of the deposit to create the wireframe
used for resource estimation.
45
Tonnes
404
401
398
395
Total
7,241
6,065
6,880
6,138
26,324
TPM (g/t)
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Blast Hole Assay Grade
2.43
0.86
1.15
4.70
1.80
2.23
9.52
4.41
3.80
4.04
1.54
1.95
5.18
2.16
2.28
2,371
4,487
8,486
9,268
24,611
404
401
398
395
Total
404
401
398
395
Total
Au g/t)
Cu (%)
Ni (%)
0.42
0.67
1.31
0.55
0.74
0.92
1.63
2.82
1.04
1.61
0.07
0.10
0.19
0.12
0.12
0.27
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.57
0.92
1.06
1.11
1.01
0.05
0.07
0.12
0.12
0.10
60
77
164
-7
59
35
59
60
-2
16
46
10 DRILLING
The following description of Drilling is mostly taken from Soever, 2012.
In 2004,
Wallbridge drilled 33 holes for a total of 4,014m on the property. Fourteen of these holes
were drilled on the Big Boy Vein on a 20m pattern. The other 11 holes were drilled to
test the down-plunge extension of mineralization to the west of the Chisel Creek fault.
The drill results confirmed and expanded the known mineralization.
To date, 113 diamond drill holes totalling 14,285m have been completed on the Broken
Hammer Property, of which 110 holes tested the Broken Hammer Zone. All core is NQsize (47.6mm diameter) or BQTK-size (40.7 mm diameter) and is stored at the
Wallbridge office facility in Lively, Ontario. Drill hole locations for the Broken Hammer
deposit are shown in Figure 6.
RPAs 2005 resource estimate for the Broken Hammer Zone utilized the 66 drill holes
which were completed at that time. Since then an additional 44 drill holes have been
completed. These drill holes were mainly designed to test mineralized trends outside of
the existing resource, but some in-fill drilling was also done especially in the Western
part of the deposit. The drilling completed since 2005 delineated additional sulphide
mineralization and extended the mineralization to the north, west, and east.
As part of the 2011 drill program, Wallbridge carried out SG measurements on core
samples. A total of 60 SG values were collected for various rock types and copper
grades to be used in new resource estimates. In preparation of this resource estimate,
SG determinations were also performed on 300 sample pulps.
47
In 2006, 16 diamond drill holes totalling 3,194m were targeted in three areas. Twelve
holes were drilled at the Southwest showing, three at the South Zone showing, and one
hole targeted an IP anomaly. A total of 1,093 core samples were sent for assay and ICP
analysis.
Ten of the 2006 holes were probed using Crone Geophysics and Exploration Ltd.s
Pulse EM borehole system, two by Lamontagne Geophysics Ltd.s BHUTEM downhole
system, and three with IP using JVX Ltd. JVX also performed a mise-a-la-masse survey
over the Southwest showing.
In 2007, one new diamond drill hole was completed, and one hole deepened for a total
of 1,933m. The most significant assay results came from hole WIS-094, which returned
0.55 g/t TPM (Au + Pt + Pd) over 9.55m.
Two diamond drill holes (1,554 m) were completed in 2008 and another drill hole (401 m)
was completed in 2010. No significant results were returned.
48
During the drilling program, core samples are transported from the field to the Wallbridge
head office by company personnel. Core is logged and sample intervals are marked by
Wallbridge geologists. Core is halved using a water cooled diamond saw, which is
cleaned regularly to avoid sample to sample contamination. Half the sample interval is
submitted to the laboratory for analysis and the other half is retained on outdoor, roofed
core racks at the Wallbridge head office.
All samples for shipment are sealed in individual, labelled plastic bags with a sample tag.
Blind standards (LDI-3 STD) and blanks are submitted at least every twentieth sample to
ensure that each batch processed in the laboratory includes one blank and one standard
sample.
Since January 2005, samples have been sent to ALS Chemex sample preparation
laboratory in Sudbury (ISO 9001:2000) for geochemical analyses. Before that samples
were shipped to the ALS Chemex sample preparation facility in Toronto by an
independent trucking company.
At ALS Chemex, samples are checked against requisition documents prior to being
dried, weighed, crushed, and split into 200g fractions using a Jones riffle and milled to
90% to 95% passing 200 mesh.
All samples are analyzed for gold, platinum, and palladium by standard lead collection
fire assay fusion followed by a combination of ICP-MS and ICP-AES. Samples are also
analyzed for 47 base metals and trace elements using a four acid (HNO3-HCIO4-HF and
HCI) near total digestion and a combination of ICP-MS and ICP-AES. ICP over-limit
samples are re-analyzed using sodium peroxide fusion acid dissolution followed by ICPAES.
Selected samples of Sudbury Breccia are analyzed for chlorine and fluorine using fusion
specific ion electrode (ELE81A) and neutron activation (NAA-06) procedures. Selected
samples are subjected to whole rock and rare earth element (REE) analysis. These
samples are subjected to lithium metaborate fusion with ICP-AES for whole rock analysis
with accompanying LECO titration to ascertain carbon and sulphur values, and lithium
borate fusion with ICP-MS for trace and REE evaluation. Volatiles were analyzed with
aqua regia digestion ICP-MS.
Assay results are downloaded from the ALS Chemex web site by the Wallbridge
Logistics Manager, and sent to the project geologist via email.
Prior to the 2005 exploration season, core and grab samples were analyzed by SGS
Mineral Services (SGS), an ISO 9000 certified geochemical exploration and research
analysis facility, which maintains a sample preparation laboratory in Sudbury, Ontario.
Samples were routinely dried, crushed, riffle split, and pulverized to produce 250g 85%
passing -75 micron assay grade pulps. These pulps were subsequently transported to
SGS analytical facilities in Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec, for PGE analyses by fire assay, and
to Toronto for ICP-MS multi-element geochemical analysis.
SGS analyzed the submitted samples for PGEs using a nominal 30g trace level fire
assay lead collection procedure with an ICP finish. Over-limit samples were subjected to
an ore grade fire assay gravimetric analysis method. Base metal analysis was done
using a combination of multi-acid digestion (ICP-40B) and ICP-MS methods to produce a
32 element suite of base metal and trace elements.
ICM40B method for copper, nickel, and cobalt were treated to dedicated analysis using a
sodium peroxide fusion ICP - resource definition procedure. Silver and sulphur values
50
were determined by aqua regia digestion with an atomic absorption finish, and LECO
titration methods.
11.2 Blanks
In 2005, RPA extracted the blank sample records from the database and noted that
there were a total of 249 from a data set containing 5,873 samples. This number of
blanks corresponds reasonably well with the reported rate of one blank for every 20
samples.
In RPAs opinion, at the time, the results demonstrated that there was a
likelihood that contamination of some samples had occurred. However, it did not appear
as though this was a particularly common occurrence.
Wallbridge reviewed a total of 393 blank samples analyzed during drill programs up to
the end of 2011 (Figures 7 to 9). The blank data up to May/June 2005 is quite noisy,
when samples were sent to SGS (instead of ALS Chemex) and felsic norite was used as
a blank in many cases. Some samples were also mislabelled standards. The data after
2005 is quite uniform and does not show significant errors. In the case of copper, nickel,
gold, and palladium, only few (one, zero, five, and one, respectively) samples plot above
average grade plus one standard deviation (Avg + STD), whereas slightly more (seven)
are above this value for platinum. In RPAs opinion, the number of outliers since 2005 is
well within acceptable limits and the results demonstrate that no significant
contamination of samples occurred.
51
CuBlankSamples
0.06
0.05
wt.%
0.04
samples
Avg+STD
0.03
Linear(Avg)
0.02
Linear(Avg+STD)
0.01
0
27Jan04
10Jun05
23Oct06
6Mar08
19Jul09
1Dec10
NiBlankSamples
0.09
0.08
0.07
wt.%
0.06
samples
0.05
Avg+STD
0.04
Linear(Avg)
0.03
Linear(Avg+STD)
0.02
0.01
0
27Jan04
10Jun05
23Oct06
6Mar08
19Jul09
1Dec10
PdBlankSamples
0.6
0.5
ppm
0.4
samples
Avg+STD
0.3
Linear(Avg)
0.2
Linear(Avg+STD)
0.1
0
27Jan04
10Jun05
23Oct06
6Mar08
52
19Jul09
1Dec10
There were 49 blank samples inserted during the 2011 bulk sampling. One of the
samples showed high values (above the average grade plus two STDs) for copper,
platinum, palladium, and gold, clearly demonstrating that this sample was contaminated.
Because the standards inserted in the same sample batches do not show any errors,
Wallbridge believes that the problems recognized in the blank sample data do represent
contamination of the blank samples rather than analytical error in the laboratory. This
problem was since addressed, and Wallbridge personnel take every possible effort to
ensure that the blank material is kept clean.
11.3 Standards
In 2005, RPA extracted 225 records that were identified as a standard. There were two
standards used, one prepared at the Lac des Isle mine, and the other a commercial
standard prepared by Geoscience Laboratories. The standards analyses for gold,
copper, cobalt, nickel, palladium, and platinum were observed to be within a reasonable
range except for several analyses reported on February 4, 2004, and a nickel and a
cobalt assay on January 27, 2004. Palladium displayed a somewhat broad dispersion in
the range of 4g/t to 6g/t.
Wallbridge has reviewed a total of 366 standard samples submitted during drill programs
up to the end of 2011. The analyses for copper, nickel, platinum, palladium, and gold
are observed to be within three STD of the expected standard value with the exception
of a few samples from 2004 and 2005, which were already noted by RPA. In the data
since then, there is only one nickel analysis that plots outside of the 3 STD range
(Figure 10). The broad dispersion of palladium in the range of 4g/t to 6g/t noted by RPA
is still present in samples from 2006 and 2007, but the data from 2010 and 2011 is much
more uniform (Figure 11).
53
NickelStandard
0.1
wt.%
0.075
0.05
0.025
Analyses
Standard
Upper3STD
Lower3STD
PdStandard
7
6
ppm
5
4
Analyses
Standard
3
2
06Jan04
Upper3STD
Lower3STD
06Jan05
06Jan06
06Jan07
06Jan08
06Jan09
06Jan10
06Jan11
The 49 standard samples inserted during the 2011 bulk sampling show also good
results. With the exception of one copper analysis, all metal values of all samples plot
within three STD of the expected standard value. They show a typical sinuous pattern
following the average value (Figure 12).
54
11.4 Duplicates
During the 2011 bulk sampling, Wallbridge submitted a total of 38 duplicate samples
along with the standards and blanks. In the case of nickel, copper, palladium, and gold,
the duplicate pairs show excellent linear correlation with R2 values of 0.99, 0.99, 0.96,
and 0.98, respectively (Figure 13). As expected from the nuggety nature of platinum
distribution caused by heterogeneous occurrence of coarse-grained sperrylite crystals,
the R2 value in the case of the platinum pairs is lower, only 0.78 (Figure 14).
55
CuDuplicatePairs
100
y=0.9906x
R=0.9906
Cuwt.%
10
1
Cuvalue
Linear(Cuvalue)
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.1
10
100
Cuwt.%
PtDuplicatePairs
100
y=0.5446x
R=0.7784
10
1
Ptvalue
0.1
Linear(Ptvalue)
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
would include duplicates of the crushed reject and at least five percent of the original
pulp samples should be sent to another laboratory, as a check of the primary laboratory.
In RPAs opinion, the database is acceptable for use in Mineral Resource estimation,
although the QA/QC program could be improved.
RPA is of the opinion that the sample preparation, security, and assay procedures at the
Broken Hammer Project are adequate and in keeping with industry standards.
57
12 DATA VERIFICATION
The drill data has been compiled into a Datamine database. This database contains
tables for assays (both fire assay and ICP), lithology, alteration, mineralization, structure,
and QA/QC results.
RPA carried out validation exercises on the database which consisted of using the
Datamine built-in validation utilities and visual verification of a selection of the laboratory
certificate data.
resolved by Wallbridge personnel prior to completing the estimation. RPA found the
Broken Hammer database to be free of significant errors, although there were a few
minor ones. None of the errors encountered would impact on the Mineral Resource
estimates, and so they are classed as minor. A total of 43% of the analyses used in the
estimate were checked against the original records from the laboratory.
Based on our review of the database and primary records, plus discussions with
Wallbridge personnel, RPA is of the opinion that data collection and entry, and database
verification procedures for the Broken Hammer Project comply with industry standards
and are suitable for the estimation of Mineral Resources.
58
a basic program of flotation testing based on the Strathcona Mill flowsheet, and
It should be noted that no effort was made to ensure that the sample provided spatial
representativity. Hole numbers 015 through 017 were drilled using NQ core size whereas
hole number 023 was drilled using AQ core. Upon receipt the samples were placed in a
walk-in freezer to eliminate any further chemical reactions. The average head assays are
shown in Section 13.3.1.
This sample was used in the following studies two studies that were conducted at
Lakefield and are summarized in the following sections:
A second sample of approximately 175 kilograms of crushed sample from the deposit
was received in six pails from Wallbridge at Lakefield on February 21, 2006. These
59
samples were selected to provide excellent spatial representatively and represent the
overall grade of the deposit. This sample was used to conduct a follow-up
metallurgical study examining the effects of a simple gravity circuit within a singlestage milling process to recover a significantly larger proportion of contained platinum
(Nov/06). A summary of this work is shown in Section 13.4.
The last part of this section (Section 13.5) details the metals recoveries and payments
from custom milling the 30,000 tonne bulk sample that was mined in 2011 and shipped
to Xstrata's Strathcona mill for processing.
As a result of this request SGS undertook a mineralogical characterization study with the
following objectives of determining:
The bulk mineralogical composition and a brief account of potential sizedependence of mineralogy on processing.
13.2.1 Procedure
Bulk modal mineralogy measurements on this ore were based on a crushed sample
which was subjected to heavy liquids separation. This procedure includes de-sliming,
screening at 53m and separation using methylene iodide at 3.1g/cc. Mineral mass and
distribution data are summarized in Table 12.
Each fraction was submitted for whole rock analysis and metal balances for each size
fraction were calculated based upon the initial fraction assays.
61
Table 10 details selected grades for individual size fractions. The data shows a positive
correlation between Cu and Pt.
Mass %
1.4
56.2
1.1
24.2
17.1
Cu
10.5
0.13
6.87
0.08
0.24
Ni
0.8
0.06
0.53
0.11
0.31
62
S
10.6
0.13
6.79
0.08
0.25
Au
4.26
0.17
3.79
0.1
na
Pt
50.2
0.41
29.3
0.12
na
Over 80% of copper mineralization reports to the sinks and fines, which suggests
amenability to dense media separation.
Nickel and iron sulphides tend to slime more readily than the copper sulphides.
The majority of "concentrate" dilution is the feldspars, micas and chlorites found
in the fines fraction.
63
13.2.2.1
The bulk modal mineralogy of the fractions and calculated head is provided in Table 13
from which the following points are significant:
Float fractions are dominated by feldspar, quartz and mica, while sink fractions
are characterized by high chalcopyrite and magnetite and other iron sulphides.
13.2.2.2
PGE Mineralogy
PGE mineralogy to date has been qualitative - the SGS QEMSCAN study describes
tellurides, bismuthides and arsenides but it should be noted that this data is not
representative as it is only based on six to ten measurements.
64
A more extensive qualitative mineralogical study was carried by Pntek et al. (2008)
based on scanning electron microscope (SEM) and electron microprobe analyses. This
study showed that the most dominant platinum-mineral is millimetre-scale sperrylite
(PtAs2), whereas palladium mostly occurs in merenskyite (PdTe2), malyshevite
(CuPdBiS3), michenerite (PdBiTe), sopcheite (Ag4Pd3Te4), and kotulskite (PdTe). Silver
is hosted by hessite (Ag2Te), gold-silver alloy, and sopcheite. The gold-silver alloy has a
composition of Au65Ag35.
Table 11 shows the mineral distribution data obtained by QemSCAN:
Mineral Distribution
Sink
Fines
Float
Sink
Fines
+53
-53/+10
+53
-53/+10
-10
+53
-53/+10
+53
-53/+10
-10
Ni Sulphides
0.2
0.2
1.7
1.1
0.7
35.6
16.5
7.5
3.6
36.7
Chalcopyrite
0.2
0.3
29.4
17.1
0.7
12.6
6.8
47.5
20.2
12.9
Fe Sulphides
Other
Sulphides
0.0
0.1
2.0
2.1
0.3
11.7
12.0
23.2
18.1
34.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
3.1
28.6
4.9
28.2
35.2
Magnetite
0.4
0.8
16.2
20.1
0.5
24.9
20.4
24.1
21.9
8.7
Quartz
12.9
12.2
1.2
3.9
10.8
59.7
24.5
0.1
0.3
15.3
Ca-Pyriboles
0.6
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.8
48.9
30.0
0.5
0.4
20.1
Mg-Pyriboles
9.7
6.8
3.0
2.1
8.3
63.5
19.2
0.5
0.3
16.6
Talc
1.2
1.4
0.2
0.3
1.6
52.3
25.7
0.3
0.3
21.5
Feldspars
52.6
52.1
12.4
26.1
46.1
60.1
24.0
0.3
0.5
15.0
Amphibole
1.6
1.3
11.7
10.6
1.6
50.5
17.5
9.7
6.5
15.9
Chlorite
3.4
5.7
1.4
2.1
10.1
37.7
27.4
0.4
0.4
34.0
Mica
10.2
12.7
3.1
3.6
14.8
50.2
26.9
0.4
0.3
22.2
Carbonates
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
30.6
29.9
1.0
1.2
37.3
Ti Fe Oxides
0.2
0.3
8.8
3.8
0.2
24.6
18.9
34.8
11.1
10.7
Epidote
Serpentine/Oli
vine
2.1
2.9
0.7
1.1
1.0
56.5
34.1
0.5
0.5
8.3
0.7
1.9
5.6
3.4
0.9
35.2
40.6
7.2
3.2
13.7
Other
0.3
0.1
1.6
1.4
1.0
7.1
1.8
36.0
32.2
23.0
Total
100
99.9
99.4
99.3
99.8
55.1
23.8
2.2
1.8
17.1
Note: The passing 10 micrometer data has been added to complete the mineralogy
inventory
65
Most sulphides were effectively liberated at ten mesh an indication that fine
primary grinds will not be necessary.
Chlorite, mica and talc report preferentially to the -10m fraction which suggests
that deleterious influence associated with these minerals would increase with
increasing fineness of grind.
The bulk of the sulphide content is chalcopyrite, with millerite, cubanite and
pyrrhotite forming the next most abundant phases.
Minor/trace amounts of
Nickel deportment includes pyrrhotite, millerite and pentlandite, but also silicate
species such as chlorite and amphiboles.
13.2.2.3
PGM Deportment
Figures 16 and 17 illustrate some of the particles described in this study. Figures 18 and
19 illustrate PGM's within a gravity concentrate.
66
67
68
significant variability in PGE assay was noted throughout this program, and confidence
around supplied metallurgical balance suffers accordingly.
% Cu
0.63
% Ni
0.12
% Fe
5.23
%S
0.67
g/t Pt
1.75
g/t Pd
1.38
g/t Au
0.43
cobaltite and pentlandite were also observed. Nickel is found in pyrrhotite, millerite and
pentlandite. Nickel is also found in non-recoverable gangue species such as chlorite and
amphiboles indicating that concentrate recoveries are expected to be low.
deportment of this element to the silicate species. Overall recovery is good, indicating
adequate liberation of most minerals (possibly excluding gold) at the Strathcona primary
grind of 80% passing 150m.
70
Recovery (%)
70
60
50
40
Copper
30
Palladium
20
Platinum
Gold
10
Nickel
0
0
10
Time (min)
12
14
16
18
20
As shown in Figure 20 above, nickel recovery was poor, likely the result of poor
liberation and the significant association of nickel with gangue minerals.
Copper, gold and palladium recovery profiles were similar in shape suggesting either
mineralogical association or a well-liberated fraction of 70-90%. The copper
(chalcopyrite) was fast floating and recovered early in the process - with 90% recovery in
three minutes.
The overall recovery of platinum was good indicating adequate liberation. The
association of platinum with other elements was not apparent although the relatively
slow response of this mineral early in the process may indicate early liberation from the
chalcopyrite.
71
Additional testing involving finer grinds and co-collectors was conducted to investigate
the possibility of increased palladium and gold recovery. These tests confirmed the merit
of further testing of finer grinds and co-collectors to improve the palladium response;
neither of these tests appeared to increase gold recoveries
Locked cycle testing of a simplified Strathcona flowsheet yielded the following results:
Copper Concentrate:
Grade
Recovery
Nickel Concentrate:
Grade
Recovery
Bulk Concentrate:
Grade
Recovery
Cu
Ni
Pt
Pd
Au
20.6%
90.4%
1.31%
31.6%
21.3%
89.3%
74.2 g/t
61.2%
39.9 g/t
81.5%
11.7 g/t
74.3%
2.8%
4.4%
0.31%
2.6%
3.0%
4.5%
63.4 g/t
18.6%
8.6 g/t
6.2%
3.1 g/t
7.1%
15.9%
94.8%
1.05%
34.2%
16.5%
93.8%
71.4 g/t
79.8%
31.7 g/t
87.7%
9.4 g/t
81.4%
The following diagram illustrates the flowsheet that was used in the locked cycle flotation
tests. The rougher cleaner (E) concentrate and pyrrhotite rejection rougher (F)
concentrate was added to the copper/nickel separation circuit. The pyrrhotite rejection
rougher scavenger (G) concentrate was re-cycled back to the regrind mill.
72
Primary Grind
Scav Tails
Regrind
Po Tails
G
In the flowsheet, the primary rougher (A) should produce a high grade copper/nickel
concentrate. Secondary rougher (B) concentrate carries copper/nickel particles with a
greater degree of locking and is thus subjected to an intermediate cleaning stage (E).
The Scavenger (C) concentrate is designed to capture flame pentlandite locked within
pyrrhotite and this concentrate carries a high concentration of the latter mineral.
Pyrrhotite/pentlandite selectivity is adjusted throughout the rougher/scavenger flotation
process using lime and sulphuric acid.
A pyrrhotite rejection circuit employing a regrind mill and two flotation stages (F and G) is
used to liberate fine pentlandite from coarser pyrrhotite and the latter mineral is then
rejected through pulp pH/Eh adjustment (using lime). In practice, the pyrrhotite tails
stream is concentrated in sulphur and must be disposed of in an especially
environmentally-conscious fashion.
73
Rougher cleaner (E) concentrate and pyrrhotite rejection rougher (F) concentrate is
directed to the copper/nickel separation circuit whereupon lime and cyanide are added to
discourage flotation of all species but chalcopyrite.
It should be noted that the Strathcona flowsheet has not been designed to treat ores
such as Broken Hammer, although in practice, similar ores are blended with contact-type
nickel ores to give a relatively stable Cu/Ni ratio in the mill feed. If treated separately,
Broken Hammer ore would be processed using simpler bulk sulphide flotation which
does not rely on pH/Eh adjustment to control mineral selectivity
Table 15 below illustrates in detail the results of the locked cycle test results:
Weight
Assays, %, g/t
% Distribution
Cu
Ni
Pt
Pd
Au
Cu
Ni
Pt
Pd
Au
267.7
2.7
20.6
1.31
21.3
74.2
39.9
11.7
90.4
31.6
89.3
61.2
81.5
74.3
95
1.0
2.8
0.31
3.02
63.4
8.6
3.1
4.4
2.6
4.5
18.6
6.2
7.1
271.7
2.7
0.13
0.13
0.19
18.1
0.5
0.2
0.6
3.3
0.8
15.2
1.1
1.5
Scav Tail
9359.3
93.7
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.17
0.2
0.1
4.6
62.5
5.4
5.0
11.2
17.1
Head (calc)
9993.5
100
0.61
0.11
0.64
3.24
1.31
0.42
100
100
100
100
100
100
Head (direct)
10000
99.9
0.63
0.12
0.68
1.75
1.38
0.43
97.4
94.3
94.4
185.4
95.0
97.8
Bulk Conc.
362.5
3.6
15.9
1.05
16.5
74.4
31.7
9.4
94.8
34.2
93.8
79.8
87.7
81.4
Copper
Conc.
Nickel Conc.
Pyrrhotite
Rej
Tail
Overall (bulk concentrate) recoveries are not poor, although because of silicate nickel,
recovery of this element is very low. The following points are noteworthy:
The majority of PGEs are carried into the copper concentrate. In terms of
downstream processing, credits for PGE units are generally lower in the copper
circuit (Kidd Creek) than the nickel circuit (Sudbury Smelter -> Nikkelverk).
74
Knelson/Mozley
108.0/61.0
37.7/26.2
22.7/40.9
Knelson Scav.
12.5/81.3
5.9/52.5
2.9/63.7
GRPGE
39.9/69.2
23.8/36.7
9.8/53.0
explored in more detail and alternative reagents were tested in the flotation process.
75
% Cu
0.63
0.56
% Ni
0.12
0.11
% Co
0.02
%S
0.67
0.61
g/t Pt
1.75
1.97
g/t Pd
1.38
1.34
g/t Au
0.43
0.61
g/t Ag
4.0
Past analysis of this mineralization has shown extreme variability in the platinum grade
thought to be due to the presence of coarse sperrylite. For this program extra-ordinary
sample blending techniques were employed in an attempt to lower variability in PGE
grade, as this effect affected metallurgical accountability in earlier work. Platinum
variability dropped somewhat, but gold remains high with >30% relative standard
deviation on head assay. Additional tests showed a solids density of 2.80g/cc.
Assays, %
Cu
Ni
S
29.9
2.36
30.3
% Distribution
Cu
Ni
S
80.1
31.0
77.3
Weight
%
Cleaner 2 Conc (Final)
1.40
Assays, %
Pt
Pd
Au
55.2
54.6
30.1
% Distribution
Pt
Pd
Au
39.3
58.3
70.9
Product
Product
76
As has been observed previously, nickel mineralogy does not support good recovery
since a significant portion of the nickel is associated with unrecoverable gangue
minerals.
Table 19 summarizes the results achieved by a simple gravity circuit ahead of flotation.
Grind
F10
F11
F12
F13
F14
F15
F16
10 min
10 min
25 min
25 min
25 min
25 min
25 min
Wt
g
0.42
0.81
0.55
0.52
0.38
0.65
0.72
Pt
8002
1965
2162
3018
6220
2359
2445
Assay, g/t
Pd
285
111
222.4
186
669
366
263
Au
862
313
438
882
1165
1083
1335
% Distribution
Pt
Pd
Au
62.6
4.3
23.9
48.2
3.6
22.8
44.5
4.8
22.1
44.4
3.7
32.5
66.2
10.7
37
57
9.6
52
58.7
7
54
Flotation testing was conducted on the gravity circuit tailings slurry in an effort to recover
the non-gravity recoverable products (primarily iron sulphides, palladium and gold). The
simple flotation circuit tested previously in this program proved effective, with overall
batch results comparable to the Strathcona testwork.
77
Weight
%
0.02
2.17
2.19
Assays, %
Cu
Ni
S
10.5
2.83
14.4
20.4
1.39
20.6
20.3
1.40
20.5
% Distribution
Cu
Ni
S
0.4
0.6
0.5
87.8
32.9
87.2
88.2
33.5
87.8
Weight
%
0.02
2.17
2.19
Assays, g/t
Pt
Pd
Au
6220
669
1165
10.8
33.8
11.1
65.9
39.4
21.3
% Distribution
Pt
PD
Au
66.2
10.7
37.0
12.8
60.2
39.4
79.0
70.9
76.4
Batch gravity/flotation test F14 represents a mid-range test. Successive tests (F15 and
F16) were run with the object of increasing the flotation circuit recovery through a
combination of residence time and/or increased collector addition. The results of this
work is shown in Table that follows:
Wt
g
1.52
1.42
2.19
2.99
3.18
Pt
51.3
70.7
65.9
37.2
39.9
Assays, g/t
Pd
54.1
51.8
39.4
33.2
34.3
Au
27.6
36.2
21.3
20.2
25.2
Pt
58.3
56.5
79.0
81.5
84.4
% Distribution
Pd
64.4
56.2
70.9
78.9
80.2
Au
76.9
72.2
76.4
88.2
89.9
Excellent PGE recoveries were achieved in test F16 but the flotation concentrate
assayed only 16% copper.
It was noted that these tests show a reasonable range of achievable grade and
recovery.
78
Rougher
Rougher
Tails
Rod Mill
Gravity
Concentrate
Cleaner 1
Pebble Mill
Cleaner
Scavenger
Scavenger
Tails
Cleaner 2
Flotation
Concentrate
As the Broken Hammer ore contains little pyrrhotite, the rougher flotation stage is a
simple bulk sulphide process, employing MIBC as a frother and PAX (potassium amylxanthate) as a collector. Primary grind for this test was approximately 125m. Test
results are summarized in Table 22.
79
+53
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
12.9
0.6
9.7
1.2
56.2
1.6
3.4
10.2
0.1
0.2
2.1
0.7
0.3
100.0
Mineral Mass
Float
Sink
-53/+10
+53
-53/+10
0.2
1.7
1.1
0.3
29.4
17.1
0.1
2.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.8
16.2
20.1
12.2
1.2
3.9
0.9
0.2
0.3
6.8
3.0
2.1
1.4
0.2
0.3
52.1
12.4
26.1
1.3
11.7
10.6
5.7
1.4
2.1
12.7
3.1
3.6
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
8.8
3.8
2.9
0.7
1.1
1.9
5.6
3.4
0.1
1.6
1.4
99.9
99.4
99.3
80
Fines
-10
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.5
10.8
0.8
8.3
1.6
46.1
1.6
10.1
14.8
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.9
1.0
99.8
+53
35.6
12.6
11.7
3.1
24.9
59.7
48.9
63.5
52.3
60.1
50.5
37.7
50.2
30.6
24.6
56.5
35.2
7.1
55.1
Mineral Distribution
Float
Sink
-53/+10
+53
-53/+10
16.5
7.5
3.6
6.8
47.5
20.2
12.0
23.2
18.1
28.6
4.9
28.2
20.4
24.1
21.9
24.5
0.1
0.3
30.0
0.5
0.4
19.2
0.5
0.3
25.7
0.3
0.3
24.0
0.3
0.5
17.5
9.7
6.5
27.4
0.4
0.4
26.9
0.4
0.3
29.9
1.0
1.2
18.9
34.8
11.1
34.1
0.5
0.5
40.6
7.2
3.2
1.8
36.0
32.2
23.8
2.2
1.8
Fines
-10
36.7
12.9
34.9
35.2
8.7
15.3
20.1
16.6
21.5
15.0
15.9
34.0
22.2
37.3
10.7
8.3
13.7
23.0
17.1
Locked cycle test results were good. Copper grade was maintained over 20% while PGE
losses to the cleaner tails stream were relatively low. A total of six flotation cycles were
run after a bulk gravity concentrate was removed. The final three cycles were shown to
be stable and were used to produce the numbers in the above chart. A very salable
gravity concentrate was produced with over 3,700g/t of PGE's that contained over 60%
of the total platinum. An additional 22% platinum was recovered in the flotation
concentrate that also contained 21.6% copper and 1.35% nickel. Recovery of PGE's to
the flotation concentrate was variable, with 22% platinum, 68.4% palladium and 44.9%
of the gold. The flotation concentrate contained an overall PGE grade of more than
70g/t.
The report summed up the test work by saying, "This program of work has demonstrated
the amenability of Broken Hammer mineralization to a simple gravity/flotation circuit. The
complex Strathcona circuit used in previous testwork did not provide better metallurgical
results. Although variability in PGE grade was experienced throughout this program, the
locked cycle balance was robust and provides a good prediction of performance."
The balance of recovery between gravity concentrate and flotation concentrate in this
testwork is illustrated graphically in Figure 23 below:
81
Wallbridge delivered approximately 30,000 tonnes of material from their Broken Hammer
project in July of 2011 as part of their 2011 bulk sample. The metallurgical performance
82
was favourable with metal recoveries similar to typical Sudbury basin offset-style Cu-Ni
PGE deposits. The assay results were provided by XPS Laboratories in Sudbury,
Ontario, Canada.
Metal Recovery
Cu
94%
Ni
58%
Au
81%
Ag
63%
Pt
71%
Pd
85%
83
Tonnes
Cu (%)
Ni (%)
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Au (g/t)
Ag (g/t)
Indicated
231,100
0.92
0.10
2.01
1.90
0.71
6.35
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
available for 9,983 samples. For the area comprising the estimation, 68 of the 110 drill
holes intersected the 3D solids, containing 687 samples.
84
Number
Mean
St. Dev.
Min.
Max.
CV
% Cu
757
1.87
4.84
0.002
33.19
2.58
% Ni
757
0.19
0.93
0.001
20.27
4.84
g/t Au
757
0.87
3.49
0.001
71.78
4.01
g/t Pt
757
4.81
44.61
0.001
912.00
9.27
g/t Pd
757
2.94
5.16
0.001
35.60
1.75
g/t Ag
757
7.18
12.43
0.014
146.00
1.73
85
calculated. If the Sichels mean was greater than the mean of the composited drill hole
file, then no action was taken. If the Sichels mean was less than the mean of the
composited drill hole file, iterations were run whereby top values were replaced by a topcut number. When the replacement of the top values by the chosen top-cut number
produced a mean that was equal to the Sichels mean, the appropriate top-cut number
was identified for that variable. Primarily copper and nickel values, with two platinum
values, were identified as needing to be cut and the top cut values for each domain are
listed in Table 26.
86
UNESW
Metal
Capping Value
Percentile
No. of Samples
% of Samples
Cu
16.4927
97.3862
2.85
Ni
2.0209
98.4110
1.78
Cu
26.0942
98.4270
1.82
Ni
3.8535
99.9600
0.36
Cu
10.0083
97.9728
2.31
Ni
0.8457
96.0540
4.62
Pt
532.6192
98.9926
1.54
Ni
1.5955
98.6670
1.41
ULG
No. of
Samples
281
LLG
275
0.78
0.01
1.80
1.50
1.50
NESW
130
0.85
0.02
1.72
1.50
1.50
71
0.69
0.02
1.50
1.30
1.30
Domain
UNESW
Mean
Min
Max
95th Percentile
0.82
0.05
2.62
1.50
Composite
Length
1.50
87
LLG
NESW
UNESW
Variable
Number
Mean
St. Dev.
Min
Max
CV
Cu
156
1.15
2.05
0.01
13.55
1.78
Ni
156
0.13
0.20
0.13
1.77
1.59
Au
156
0.52
0.62
0.01
3.93
1.19
Pt
156
2.61
6.42
0.003
52.20
2.46
Pd
156
2.19
3.36
0.003
21.25
1.53
Ag
156
9.20
16.53
0.34
146.00
1.80
Cu
145
1.10
1.97
0.01
15.32
1.80
Ni
145
0.09
0.13
0.002
1.05
1.42
Au
145
0.80
2.59
0.001
27.32
3.24
Pt
145
1.30
1.51
0.003
10.60
1.16
Pd
145
2.07
2.97
0.001
22.37
1.43
Ag
145
5.10
5.44
0.34
29.58
1.07
Cu
72
0.70
1.51
0.02
10.01
2.14
Ni
72
0.07
0.11
0.005
0.62
1.57
Au
72
0.86
2.24
0.007
17.39
2.60
Pt
72
3.63
6.04
0.003
38.61
1.66
Pd
72
2.74
3.50
0.041
20.07
1.28
Ag
72
6.60
7.20
0.15
45.14
1.09
Cu
39
0.68
0.55
0.13
2.89
0.82
Ni
39
0.09
0.11
0.02
0.52
1.22
Au
39
0.60
1.48
0.02
9.46
2.46
Pt
39
1.39
2.18
0.05
13.77
1.57
Pd
39
1.54
1.09
0.15
5.23
0.71
Ag
39
5.30
5.05
0.68
26.58
0.95
regression against copper produced the most favourable R value. This regression was
used to generate sulphur values for any missing analytical data as seen in Figure 25
below.
88
SvsCu
n=646
35.00
30.00
S(%)
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
y=0.9276x+0.054
R=0.9884
5.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
Cu(%)
89
SGPulpsvsS>2.00
4.00
3.50
SGPulp
3.00
2.50
y=0.0008x2 +0.0158x+2.73
R=0.8245
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
The
search ellipse was then modified to accommodate the geometry of the domains.
Variograms were generated for each of the estimated variables in each of the four
domains (Table 29).
90
Structure
Nugget
X Range
Y Range
Z Range
Cu
Spherical
1.607
19
19
Ni
Spherical
0.004
21
21
Au
Spherical
0.246
Pt
Spherical
9.884
13
13
Pd
Spherical
1.737
23
23
Ag
Spherical
27.5
27
27
SG
Spherical
0.004
13
13
LLG
Structure
Nugget
X Range
Y Range
Z Range
Cu
Spherical
1.144
16
16
Ni
Spherical
0.005
17
17
Au
Spherical
3.616
11
11
Pt
Spherical
0.59
13
13
Pd
Spherical
3.395
12
12
Ag
Spherical
15.498
17
17
SG
Spherical
0.001
23
23
NESW
Structure
Nugget
X Range
Y Range
Z Range
Cu
Spherical
0.598
13
13
Ni
Spherical
0.004
13
13
Au
Spherical
12
12
Pt
Spherical
16
12
12
Pd
Spherical
3.184
13
13
Ag
Spherical
21.587
12
12
SG
Spherical
0.004
12
12
UNESW
Structure
Nugget
X Range
Y Range
Z Range
Cu
Spherical
0.111
18
18
Ni
Spherical
0.004
10
10
Au
Spherical
0.672
12
12
Pt
Spherical
1.292
Pd
Spherical
0.277
14
14
Ag
Spherical
5.904
16
16
SG
Spherical
0.001
12
12
91
Individual block models, with blocks measuring 5m x 5m x 5m, with level 3 sub-celling,
were created for each 3D solid. Each 3D solid had unique assay data, top-cutting, and
composite length. These individual block models were then combined to produce a
combined block model. This approach ensured there were no cross-contamination of
grades and allowed review and validation of the geometry of the grade groupings.
The estimation strategy consisted of three passes, with the orientation of the search
ellipsoid fit to the wireframe (as with the variogram ellipses) and with the search distance
of the first two passes equal to the range of the variogram.
A minimum of four
composites and a maximum of 12 composites were required within the search ellipsoid
to estimate a grade. In the first pass, if the required composites were not found, the
block was not estimated. The second pass used 1.5 times the search distances to
estimate grades. If the minimum number of composites was not found, then no grades
were estimated for the block. The third pass used eight times the ranges of the first
pass. No octant search or maximum number of composites per drill hole was used.
Interpolation of variables into the blocks was completed using OK. An estimate was also
generated using inverse distance squared (ID2) and nearest neighbour (NN)
methodologies. This was done to expose any major errors in the kriging parameters.
Results were as expected (Figure 27) and confirmed that OK is an appropriate
estimation method.
92
estimated metal grades, reasonable long term metal prices, estimated recoveries for
each metal, and treatment terms for processing raw ore to saleable metal.
These
Price ($)
Copper
Nickel
Palladium
Platinum
Gold
Silver
3.00/lb
9.00/lb
750/oz
1,600/oz
1,300/oz
20.00/oz
94.0
58.0
85.0
71.0
81.0
63.0
It should be noted that the details of the treatment charges are based on a confidential
agreement with Xstrata for the processing of the previous bulk sample. Terms for the
project will be subject to future negotiations and may differ from those used for the
resource estimate.
the mill processing facilities and the milling cost are included in the NSR factors
presented in the NSR Calculation section. The metal prices are presented on Table 30
and they are based on consensus, long term forecasts from banks and financial
institutions.
94
Figures 29 and 30 on the following pages are cross sections showing CuEq grade
distribution.
95
96
97
mineralization continuing beyond the pit walls was considered not to be economic using
reasonable underground mining costs.
open pit methods are reported. The following open pit parameters were used:
Open pit mining costs of $6.85/tonne of ore and $4.00 per tonne of waste moved
Metal prices of US$3.00/lb Cu, US$9.00/lb Ni, US$750/oz Pd, US$1,600/oz Pt,
US$1,300/oz Au, and US$20.00/oz Ag
Table 31 below lists the Mineral Resources in the Broken Hammer deposit.
Tonnes
Cu (%)
Ni (%)
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Au (g/t)
Ag (g/t)
Indicated
231,100
0.92
0.10
2.01
1.90
0.71
6.35
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Visual verification of block grades and drill hole assays and composites, on
cross-sections.
Q-Q Plots comparing the regularized block model copper equivalent grades to
the composited drill hole CuEq grades (Figure 31).
98
Comparing histograms of CuEq grades for the regularized block model with the
composited drill hole file.
Swath plots in plan, west to east sections, and south to north sections at 20 m
intervals (Figures 32, 33, and 34).
Figure 31: Q-Q-Plot Regularized Block Model and Composited Drill Hole
File
Q-Q Plot - CuEq
35.00
Grade (% CuEq)
30.00
25.00
AllCmps
20.00
Regmod
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Quantiles
8.00
90
7.00
80
6.00
70
60
CuEq (%)
5.00
50
4.00
40
3.00
30
2.00
20
1.00
10
-
Sections
99
# of Smps
AllCmp
RegAllmod
8.00
90
7.00
80
6.00
70
60
CuEq (%)
5.00
50
4.00
40
3.00
# of Smps
AllCmp
RegAllmod
30
2.00
20
1.00
10
-
Sections
7.00
180
160
6.00
140
CuEq (%)
5.00
120
4.00
100
3.00
80
60
2.00
40
1.00
20
-
Elevations
100
# of Smps
AllCmp
RegAllmod
RPA is not aware of any environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic,
marketing, political, or other relevant factors which may materially affect the Mineral
Resource estimate. RPA is also not aware of any mining, metallurgical, infrastructure, or
other relevant factor that would materially affect the Mineral Resource estimate.
101
Tonnes
Cu (%)
Ni (%)
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Au (g/t)
Ag (g/t)
Probable
196,605
0.92
0.10
1.92
1.83
0.64
6.02
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The pit design limits are in the area where Wallbridge Mining extracted a 30,000 tonne
bulk sample. The bulk sample pit was based on three-metre benches drilled on a 2m x
2m pattern. The mining production schedule was also based on a three-metre bench
height, with design criteria considering the same mining equipment used on the bulk
sample pit.
The footprint of the final pit is under 3.0ha, 170m by 250m, the maximum length eastwest. The bottom bench is 319 MASL and the main ramp accesses the pit at 397 MASL.
Further details on the generation of the Mineral Reserve pit design are contained in the
following section of this Report.
102
16 MINING METHOD
The mining of Wallbridge's Broken Hammer deposit will follow the standard practice of a
small drill/blast open pit with mucking operations utilizing a fleet of mine trucks loaded by
excavators. The mining methods and the open pit mining rate will be similar to that
employed in the 2011 bulk sample (~800 tonnes of ore per day). Since the overall size of
the open pit will be considerably larger, the waste rock mining rate of ~5,200 tonnes per
day will be considerably larger than the 2,200 tonne per day waste rock mining rate
employed during mining of the bulk sample. The Broken Hammer mine will operate on a
continuous single shift basis for an approximate twelve month duration.
The mining operations will be performed by a mining contractor using conventional open
pit mining methods (truck and shovel), using a 6m bench height. Wallbridge plans to
pattern the mining plan after the selective mining that was performed during the bulk
sample. When mining in the ore, to allow selective mining and minimize waste rock
dilution, Wallbridge will be developing the 6m bench height in two 3m sub-benches.
Waste rock mining in zones free of mineralization will employ a 6m bench height. Mining
grade control measures will include geological mapping of each bench, sampling and
analyzing the drill cuttings of each blast hole by an XRF instrument and separating the
resource from the waste rock in each bench blast.
The mine plan will be in effect for 12 months of operation, mining from the 400m
elevation down to the 319m elevation.
103
The bulk sample pit was mined in the east end of the deposit down to the 398m
elevation. The current pit plan expands the 400m elevation first bench in the east end of
the pit to an area almost twice the size of the bulk sample pit and opens an area of near
equal size area in the west shown in Figure 35. Mining, which begins in the second
month of the schedule averages approximately 5,800 tonnes per day and peaks in the
eighth month at the rate of approximately 8,000 tpd. The mining rate trails off near the
end of the schedule with 3,800tpd scheduled in the eleventh month and 1,600tpd in the
twelfth and final month.
Mining in the mineralized zone will employ a 3m bench height. The current mining plan
has the bottom bench set at 319m, which equates to a maximum pit depth of 90m in
relation to the highest point on the pit perimeter which is located at the extreme east end
of the pit.
104
105
106
Metal
Prices
Metal
Recoveries
Payable Metal
Operating
Costs
Units
Value
Comments
Platinum
US$/troy oz
1600
Palladium
US$/troy oz
750
Silver
US$/troy oz
20
Gold
US$/troy oz
1300
Nickel
US$/lb
Copper
US$/lb
Cobalt
US$/lb
0
70.6
85.2
62.6
81.0
58.4
93.0
37.3
80.0
80.0
60.0
80.0
88.0
88.0
50.0
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
$/t mined
$/t mined
8.85
Crushing
$/t milled
6.0
G&A
$/t milled
5.0
$/wmt milled
9.0
4% Ore Moisture
Ore Mill
$/t milled
30.0
Treatment
$/t conc.
285.0
Platinum
Palladium
Silver
Gold
Nickel
Copper
Cobalt
Platinum
Palladium
Silver
Gold
Nickel
Copper
Cobalt
Mining Cost - Waste
4.0
Refining Platinum
$/oz
15.0
Refining Palladium
$/oz
15.0
Refining Silver
$/oz
0.65
Refining Gold
$/oz
15.0
Refining Nickel
$/lb
0.75
Refining Copper
$/lb
0.55
Refining Cobalt
$/lb
2.5
6.0
Royalty
Mining Recovery
Mining Dilution
Overall Slope Angle
Concentrate Cu Grade
Concentrate Moisture
Mill Throughput
107
1.5
%
%
Degrees
%
%
t/d
95
5
55
20
7
800
t/a
280,000
The pit geometry selection was based on the revenue factor of 1.0, additionally a
revenue factor of 1.1 was analyzed to explore the pit potential at higher prices, but the
stripping ratio is higher for the nested pit at 1.1 revenue
thousand tonnes of waste and only 16 thousand tonnes of ore. Pit optimization results
are shown in Table 34.
Unit
tonnes
g/t
g/t
g/t
g/t
%
%
%
tonnes
tonnes
0.7
126,281
2.149
2.175
0.762
6.670
0.121
1.150
0.8
168,515
1.955
2.057
0.678
6.224
0.107
1.011
0.9
187,999
1.874
1.990
0.650
6.174
0.101
0.949
1.0
197,056
1.841
1.949
0.638
6.105
0.099
0.927
1.1
213,348
1.832
1.945
0.691
6.110
0.096
0.887
848,344
6.72
1,132,516
6.72
1,245,401
6.62
1,299,633
6.60
1,685,145
7.90
974,625
1,301,031
1,433,400
1,496,689
1,898,493
16.1.3 Density
A density of 2.73 was used for the waste and the geologic block model density of 2.76
was used for ore.
108
Value
6m
12.1 m
83
55
13.7 m
10.2 m
12%
The width of the in-pit haulage ramp is 13.7m to accommodate the 35 tonne articulated
off-highway trucks, with allocation for safety berms and a drainage ditch. This ramp will
provide sufficient room for two-way traffic to minimize the truck cycle time and maximize
productivities. Ramps of 10.2m widths (single lane) will be used in the lower benches at
the bottom of the pit. The main pit ramp has been restricted to a 12% grade.
The current geotechnical model incorporates two major geological domains: Sudbury
Breccia and the Archean Levack Gneiss Complex. The intact rock strengths were found
to be generally strong for all rock types encountered. Combining the intact rock
properties and characteristics of the observed discontinuities allowed the rock mass
quality to be classified as FAIR and GOOD according to the Rock Mass Rating (RMR)
109
The open pit slope design criteria incorporates geological information provided by
Wallbridge in combination with geotechnical, structural, and hydrogeological data
collected by Tetra Tech from three previously drilled exploration drillholes. The
geotechnical assessment consisted of detailed geotechnical core logging and laboratory
testing of lithological units located throughout the deposit area.
The scoping to Pre-Feasibility level pit slope design is based on the currently available
geotechnical data collected by Tetra Tech from the three previous exploration drillholes
and geological information provided by Wallbridge. Additional data collection is required
to advance this design to the Feasibility level. No drillholes have been completed in the
open pit area specifically for geotechnical or hydrogeological purposes. Geotechnical
drillholes are required in this area to properly characterize the rock mass and geological
discontinuities within the final pit walls.
The overall slope angle for the current scoping to Pre-Feasibility study is recommended
to be 55 degrees in each pit design sector due to the limited amount of geotechnical and
hydrogeological data within the proposed pit area. Through the collection of additional
geotechnical and hydrogeological site data, there is potential to increase the overall
slope angle in the next design stage.
110
The total waste material amounts to 1.7 million tonnes of waste rock resulting in a
stripping ratio of 8.7. The pit optimization results on Table 33 shows a stripping ratio of
6.6 at a revenue factor of 1.0, the waste increase of about 400 thousand tonnes is
related to design criteria adopted to maximize the ore extraction, ramps and minimum
mining width.
111
Dilution was
Ore mining is scheduled to commence two months following the waste rock stripping
operations that begin at the west end of the ore zone.
Although the ore mining schedule in month twelve is reduced due to ore access
constraints in the bottom of the pit, a small amount of ore is scheduled for shipment
offsite in the month following completion of mining activities.
Mine closure activities will commence as mining activities wind down in the latter months
of the mining schedule. Mine water sampling will be required after site closure activities
to confirm water quality stability.
112
MONTH
ACTIVITY
10
11
12
113
13
14
15
16
The mine production schedule for the pit is based on early overburden and waste rock
stripping of the extreme west end of the pit that will utilize a temporary road that was
used by the diamond drill and geotechnical drillers. This early stripping program of more
than 150,000 tonnes will provide sufficient waste rock to construct much of the
infrastructure planned to support the mine operation. This early waste rock stripping
program will occur concurrently with the mine infrastructure development program.
The mine production schedule includes priority scheduling of the mine water settling
pond, the crushing and sampling area and the new mine access road that will allow
construction of the large on-site waste rock pile. Following construction completion of the
mine water settling pond, the bulk sample pit will be dewatered to allow mine
development in the east end of the pit.
Crushing and sampling is scheduled to begin in month three with approximately 30,000
tonnes of mineralized material mined from the east end of the pit. During the half-loading
period (approximately late April through early June) shipping will be suspended and the
crushed/sampled material will be stockpiled on site. Depending on which custom mill is
chosen, most of the production during the first half of the schedule may be stockpiled onsite to provide a constant mill delivery rate through the remaining half of the mine
schedule.
Since much of the area is exposed bedrock the amount of overburden stripping has
been estimated to be only 6,500 cubic metres. During the second month of the schedule
114
approximately 7,200 tonnes of rockwork is planned to provide sufficient width for the new
mine access road at the top of the hill.
The mine production schedule is based on mining crews working 10 hours per day on a
5 on 5 off schedule that averages 35 hours per week over a ten week period. Table 37
shows the summary of the mine production schedule.
Table 38 illustrates the ore and waste rock that has been estimated for each 3m mining
bench.
115
Months
7
10
11
12
Total
Capitalized:
Overburden
tonnes
6,500
6,500
Operating:
Mined Waste
Mined Ore
Total Mined
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
0
0
0
75,366
0
75,366
78,037
0
78,037
178,680
29,672
208,352
218,319
14,322
232,641
226,335
9,306
235,641
226,679
9,293
235,971
216,133
25,713
241,846
196,169
41,372
237,541
195,248
43,035
238,282
70,684
16,324
87,008
29,123
7,568
36,691
1,710,771
196,605
1,907,376
tonnes
75,366
78,037
178,680
218,319
226,335
226,679
216,133
196,169
195,248
70,684
29,123
1,710,771
tonnes
75,366
78,037
178,680
218,319
226,335
226,679
216,133
196,169
195,248
70,684
29,123
1,710,771
Mined Ore
INDICATED
Cu
Ni
Au
Ag
Pt
Pd
tonnes
%
%
g/t
g/t
g/t
g/t
0
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
29,672
0.97
0.16
0.475
8.431
1.528
1.535
14,322
1.01
0.12
0.616
7.062
2.272
2.039
9,306
1.10
0.10
0.714
8.356
2.729
2.420
9,293
1.60
0.11
0.650
5.391
1.777
2.501
25,713
1.09
0.13
0.827
5.095
1.189
1.868
41,372
1.06
0.09
0.806
5.021
1.155
1.948
43,035
0.76
0.07
0.579
5.297
2.192
1.804
16,324
0.37
0.03
0.385
5.204
3.484
1.380
7,568
0.22
0.03
0.559
6.855
3.761
2.190
196,605
0.92
0.10
0.639
6.016
1.922
1.861
Mill Feed
INDICATED
Cu
Ni
Au
Ag
Pt
Pd
tonnes
%
%
g/t
g/t
g/t
g/t
0
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
29,672
0.97
0.16
0.475
8.431
1.528
1.535
14,322
1.01
0.12
0.616
7.062
2.272
2.039
9,306
1.10
0.10
0.714
8.356
2.729
2.420
9,293
1.60
0.11
0.650
5.391
1.777
2.501
25,713
1.09
0.13
0.827
5.095
1.189
1.868
41,372
1.06
0.09
0.806
5.021
1.155
1.948
43,035
0.76
0.07
0.579
5.297
2.192
1.804
16,324
0.37
0.03
0.385
5.204
3.484
1.380
7,568
0.22
0.03
0.559
6.855
3.761
2.190
196,605
0.92
0.10
0.639
6.016
1.922
1.861
Mined Waste
Waste
Total
Waste
116
WasteRock
Tonnes
509
3,983
11,464
30,642
69,237
90,846
139,336
146,552
144,584
139,585
128,641
98,038
92,231
86,553
62,250
61,627
57,481
52,160
52,289
49,208
44,930
30,787
25,763
25,020
21,573
16,362
13,920
8,014
5,379
1,459
351
1,710,771
TOTAL
555
4,501
12,481
34,216
75,021
97,520
152,732
156,741
151,568
144,700
131,876
104,095
99,864
95,602
77,301
73,048
68,812
64,761
61,127
57,696
54,486
41,129
34,064
30,887
25,906
19,995
16,578
10,467
7,269
1,974
403
1,907,376
The individual pit benches of the pit design are illustrated in figures 37 to 64 as follows:
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
Beginning in the fourth month the mine waste rock developed from mining
operations will be disposed of in the mine waste rock pile located to the south of the
open pit.
For the prefeasibility study no allowance was made for removal of the
overburden in the waste rock pile area as the overburden covering the bedrock was
estimated to average less than one metre in thickness and be composed mainly of
competent sand and gravel. For the feasibility study a detailed geotechnical investigation
is recommended to confirm the stability of the soils beneath the planned waste rock pile.
Location
Cu M
10,500
12,778
8,438
6,119
15,806
15,486
28,603
5,740
103,470
Tonnes
16,800
20,444
13,500
9,791
25,290
24,778
45,765
9,184
165,552
Cumulative
16,800
37,244
50,744
60,535
85,825
110,603
156,368
165,552
A total of approximately 985,600 cubic metres of waste rock (1.6M tonnes) will be mined
from the Broken Hammer open pit and disposed of on the mine waste rock pile. The
northern slope of the waste rock pile has been designed to extend within 6m of the pit
crest and have an overall slope of 36 degrees. The southern side of the pile is designed
to extend to the watershed boundary and retain the slope of 36 degrees. A 10% ramp
132
will be constructed on the east side of the pile and extend from the open pit to the top of
the pile.
Modeling results indicated a factor of safety (FoS) of 1.39 for the static condition and
1.05 for the seismic (pseudo-static) condition. For this study the slope was considered to
be at a maximum to optimize dump volume and it was assumed that the waste rock
slope and sandy foundation soil overlying the bedrock will remain well drained. In these
conditions static liquefaction is not expected to be a concern for the foundation material.
Genivar qualified the assessment by adding: Evidence of the waste rock pile creep,
tension cracks or other movement should be monitored frequently during placement and
during all stages of mining in the pit. If necessary the waste rock slopes should be
flattened and/or benched if signs of instability are observed.
133
A feasibility level geotechnical study of the planned mine waste rock pile be
performed including a detailed characterization of the base material upon which
the pile will be located.
The mining fleet requirement was calculated based on the production schedule
presented in Table 36. All equipment is assumed to be owned, operated and maintained
by independent mining contractors. The mine will operate on a 10 hour per day
production schedule. Two crews, each working a continuous 5 day, on/off schedule, will
provide the necessary coverage to allow continuous dayshift mining operations for 12
months to develop and mine the 196,600 tonnes of ore that has been identified by RPA.
The selection of the mining fleet is based on the production rate, mechanical availability
and utility factors of the equipment, as well as the average cycle time estimates based
on annual haulage profiles.
When required a tanker water truck will be used to apply water to the gravel roadways to
prevent dusting conditions.
A pan feeder will be used to allow the mine trucks to dump directly on the feeder
conveying the trucked mine ore to the primary crusher.
Cat 966 wheel loaders will be used for cleanup around the crushing operation, loading
the crushed ore into the highway haulers and pushing waste rock piles on the waste rock
storage pile.
A complete list of the major mine and auxiliary support equipment is listed in Table 40.
shops are located in the City of Greater Sudbury. This fact supports the assumption that
all of the major equipment maintenance will be performed offsite.
The number of operators required for the major mining equipment (excavators and haul
trucks) was determined according to the number of operating units. Manpower
requirements as shown in Table 41, are based on a two crew rotation, each working a
five day on - five day off continuous dayshift schedule of 10 hours per day to support the
7 day per week mining operation.
Recovery Methods
The pre-feasibility report is based on the Broken Hammer ore to be processed at a
custom milling facility. The custom milling facility is considered to be an existing plant.
The mined material from Broken Hammer will be crushed on site to -1 inch. The 1
material is then sampled at a sample tower on the Broken Hammer property to assess
137
its grade prior to delivery to a custom mill facility. The crushing and sampling flowchart is
shown below:
The predicted recoveries used in this study are based on previous metallurgical tests as
well as the 2011 bulk sample results.
The overall metal recoveries realized from the 2011 bulk sample are listed as follows:
Metal Recovery
(%)
94.0
58.0
85.0
71.0
81.0
63.0
138
17 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE
The City of Greater Sudbury area is a large metropolitan mining industrial area
supporting a population of more than 150,000 people. Two large mining companies,
Xstrata plc and Vale S.A., each maintain smelters in Sudbury that are supported by
mines and central mills. Large industrial fabricators and most major mine equipment
suppliers have established businesses within the City. Since downtown Sudbury is less
than 50 kilometres from the Broken Hammer mine, infrastructure support in the area is
judged to be very good. The following figure illustrates the location of the Broken
Hammer project that is situated within the boundaries of the City of Greater Sudbury:
139
Open pit mining of the Broken Hammer deposit is planned at the rate of approximately
5,800 tonnes per operating day (crushing, sampling and shipping approximately 800
tonnes per day to a custom mill and stockpiling within the mine site drainage basin 5,200
tonnes per day of broken waste rock).
an overburden stockpile
140
The mine access roadway requires a minimal amount of upgrading (estimated at less
than $100,000) to support the planned 12 month open pit mining operation. Included in
this work is road widening a short stretch (estimated at 100m) located south of Rapid
River culverts. The remaining sections of the road will require initial grading and some
addition of gravel to bring it up to operating standards.
141
142
143
144
145
The crushing/sampling area will be accessed by a ramp from the open pit to the staging
area which will become the main mine access road that will be constructed to replace
the current mine access that falls within the footprint of the waste rock stockpile..
Using a 8% ramp mine trucks will dump directly into a hopper over the pan feeder that
will feed the jaw crusher. The crushed material will be conveyed to a portable screening
plant. The screening plant minus 1 inch material will be conveyed directly to the sample
tower. The plus 1 inch material will be directed in a closed loop to a gyratory crusher
where the gyratory crusher product will be returned to the screening plant for sizing.
146
A sample tower will receive all of the minus 1 inch material and progressively reduce in
size a representative sample that will be transported to a local lab for detailed analysis.
The crushed and sampled material will be directed to a radial stacker capable of
constructing an onsite storage pile containing approximately 40,000 tonnes. All of this
infrastructure will be located in the large laydown area within the crushing/sampling area.
Load restrictions imposed to prevent pavement damage on regional roads during the
annual spring thaw could temporarily halt transport of ore material by the haul trucks.
This possibility necessitates the design of the large lay down area for crushed material to
avoid production delays in the open pit operation.
147
The mine water pond will receive all of the water that will be pumped from the open pit
workings as well as drainage water from the crushing and sampling area located to the
west of the pond and drainage water from the hillside located to the east.
Dike construction activities will include removal of the organic peat layer followed by
dumping of the mine waste rock to form the base of each structure. Prior to the addition
of sand on the upstream face of each structure a geotextile will be installed over the
mine rock to prevent sand migration into the mine rock below. A one metre layer of sand
will then be added to the upstream face of each dike before installing a water tight 60 mil
Enviroliner. A 0.6m wide trench will then be excavated some 15m from the upstream toe
of each dike and filled with a bentonite based slurry mixture. To minimize seepage
beneath the two dike structures from water within the mine water settling pond the
enviroliner will cover the bottom of the pond between each dike and its adjacent
bentonite slurry trench. Figure 72 details the south dike construction:
148
Normal discharge from the mine water settling pond will be conducted using a siphon
pipe(s) arrangement that will empty the active portion of the pond water during a seven
day dewatering campaign. The siphon pipe(s) will discharge into a downstream mixing
box where CO2 can be added to the water in the event that pH reduction is required.
The mixing box will overflow into a structure where the water level overflowing a
calibrated weir will be continuously recorded. To guard against extreme precipitation
events a spillway will be constructed on the north dike that will conduct the overflow
water directly into the downstream mixing box.
The mine water settling pond will have a capacity of approximately 20,300 cubic metres
sufficient to provide a normal residence time of 48 days. Even under the twenty-five year
storm conditions, where the pit would be dewatered over a nine day period, the large
settling pond will provide a residence time of 6 days. The active capacity of the pond
using the siphon discharge system is estimated to be approximately 19,000 cubic metres
which provides an active residence time of 45 days.
Settling Pond discharge monitoring will include flow measurements, chemical analysis
and toxicity testing.
149
GMP Precious Metal Price Review published on February 1, 2012, indicates the
Gold price assumption remains unchanged at $1575 per ounce. They also note that
gold averaged $1572/oz in 2011. While gold prices have recently rallied back up
through $1700, we will await the establishment of new support levels before making
any changes to our assumption.
For silver, GMPs adjusted price assumption is $35.00, lowered from $37.50/oz
previously. Their revised silver price assumption reflects a 45:1 gold to silver ratio
(previously used a 42:1 ratio).
150
GMP has also lowered their assumptions for the platinum group metals, now using
$1,600/oz for platinum ($1,800/oz previously), and $700/oz for palladium ($750/oz
previously), with both assumptions now much closer to spot prices ($1640/oz and
$665/oz respectively).
The outlook for gold & precious metals given the recent promise of near-zero
interest rates through 2014, sovereign debt risks in Europe (rising potential for easing
monetary policies there) remains positive, amid strong physical demand for the metal
(recent ETF additions), and continuing central bank buying.
18.1.2 Copper
Indias annual per capita consumption of copper has increased from 0.23 kg in 2000 to
0.5 kg in 2011, yet it compares poorly with Chinas per capita consumption of 5.9 kg.
Over the medium term, Indias per capita consumption growth is not expected to mirror
the strong growth trend evident in China. (Dilip Kumar Jha & Rutam Vora / Mumbai,
Business Standard September 23, 2012.)
Antaike's outlook for copper-demand growth compares with an estimate of 4.2 percent
from China International Capital Corp., according to an Aug. 22 report. China's
consumption may increase 6.6 percent to 8.28 million tons this year, Barclays Plc said in
an Aug. 16 report, forecasting a global copper deficit.
Refined imports in the first seven months surged 67 percent to 2.14 million tons
compared with a year earlier, customs data showed. According to Goldman copper will
rise to $8,000 in three months and $9,000 in six months, which forecast a pickup in
China's economy in the second half.
The vast majority of the copper used in China goes to power infrastructure it makes up
47% of the nations copper demand. Year-To-Date power cable production has shown
151
36% growth Year-over-Year, and high voltage switch production is up 25% Year-overYear.
The auto industry accounts for 10% of Chinese copper demand. Passenger vehicles
sales YTD have totaled 8.51mn units, up 9.0% Year-over-Year.
Morgan Stanley, on May 30, 2012, predicts that copper prices are expected to remain
high because of supply side difficulties. Prices will continue to remain high until the
152
global inventory pipeline is replenished most likely after 2014. They expect the average
price of copper in 2013 to be at $9,000 per Tonne ($4.08/lb.)
The forecasted metal prices used in this study are in line with the analysts forecasts for
Copper, Nickel and Precious metals.
153
19 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES,
PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR
COMMUNITY IMPACT
19.1 Baseline Environmental Studies
Environmental site investigations were first conducted in 2005 (AMEC, 2005) and
incorporated the following areas of study:
Sediment quality;
Fisheries;
Invertebrates;
Aquatic habitat;
Terrestrial vegetation;
Birds;
Climate; and,
The groundwater quality data collected during the baseline assessment (AMEC, 2007d)
indicates that several sporadic exceedances of the Ontario Drinking Water Standards
(ODWS) exist across the site. As the groundwater in the area is not presently used as a
drinking water source this comparison is very conservative. Exceedances of the ODWS
154
associated with taste, odour and ease of treatment and do not represent a health related
concern.
organic carbon, as well as the slightly depressed pH values, are typical of shallow
aquifers in Northern Ontario and are considered to be representative of the natural
background conditions.
Surface water is generally good, although slightly acidic, with minor non-conformances
with Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) for pH, aluminium, cobalt, copper, iron,
phosphorous and zinc at some locations.
Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines criteria with arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead,
nickel and zinc showing elevated values. As there are no sources of contamination to
the watershed, these values, while outside the PWQO guidelines, are considered to be
representative of natural background conditions.
None of the regionally present species at risk have been recorded within Wisner
Township to date, which contains the study area in its entirety. No species at risk were
observed during the field investigations.
The primary environmental constraints in the project area are associated with fish
habitats in the adjacent watersheds: Blueberry Lake and Rapid River. The unnamed
creek does not support a fishery, and the adjacent Blueberry Lake to the east of the
project site contained only a single species of minnow. The Broken Hammer project is at
the uppermost extreme of the Blueberry Lake watershed and as such is not discharging
into a Policy 2 receiver. A Policy 2 receiver is defined by the Ministry of Environment and
Energy as Water quality which presently does not meet the Provincial Water Quality
Objectives and shall not be further degraded and all practical measures shall be
undertaken to upgrade the water quality to the Objectives.
The adjacent Rapid River system (immediately west of the site) is however considered a
Policy 2 receiver (the Ministry of the Environment, pers.comm.). It supports a sensitive
155
fishery (brook trout). The Joe Lake watershed to the south of the property is populated
by numerous seasonal and permanent cottages whose residents belong to the
Ratepayers Association. This association has been active in providing comments and
recommendations to potential project development. None of the above two receivers will
be affected by the Broken Hammer project.
Processing of the Broken Hammer material is to occur off site at an existing processing
facility. No environmental baseline studies have been conducted for the potential
processing site, since for the purposes of this PFS report, it is assumed that the custom
milling facility is an existing plant similar to the one used for the 2011 bulk sample. The
processing facility which will be selected for the processing of the Broken Hammer
deposit will require their own due diligence in order to determine any effects of the
Broken Hammer tailings on their facility.
19.2.1 Provincial
Provincial permitting and environmental assessment requirements will occur through the
Ministries of the Environment (MOE), Natural Resources (MNR) and Northern
Development and Mines (MNDM). A list of the provincial assessments and permits likely
to be required under the existing project description are:
Class environmental assessment in support of the mine access road and/or the
Sedimentation Pond dike construction (MNR);
Work permit for the access road construction; no permit required for maintenance
work (MNR);
Authorization under Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA) for Sedimentation
Pond dam construction, and/or bridge replacement over the Rapid River (MNR)
156
Permit to Take Water (PTTW) for the dewatering of the open pit (MOE);
ECA for air emissions associated with the on-site crusher (MOE); and,
19.2.2 Federal
There are two types of federal involvement possible under the current project
description. The first is an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act (CEAA). The federal assessment would be triggered if a federal
department is required to issue any permit or authorization to allow the project to
proceed. If it is determined that the unnamed creek constitutes fish habitat, and thereby
requires an authorization through the Fisheries Act, then CEAA would be triggered. A
letter was received from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (based on a review of the
baseline data) indicating that removal of the on-site beaver pond, under the proposed
footprint of the pit and water treatment facility, is not likely to result in an impact to fish or
fish habitat. Likewise, the potential requirement for the existing bridge over the Rapid
River to be replaced would trigger a federal assessment of the project, through the
Navigable Waters Protection Act.
The second type of federal involvement would be the monitoring of mine effluent as per
the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations of the Fisheries Act. This monitoring is an
operational requirement and does not require authorization for development of the mine,
nor does it trigger an environmental assessment.
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 4 11 18 25 1
Dec
8 15 22 29
Contractor capital expenditures have been estimated for costs associated with
mobilization and demobilization, site grading and temporary services, clearing and
grubbing, upgrading the mine access road, site capital costs and the open pit works
classified as capital (pit dewatering, overburden stripping and pre-shear blasting for long
term wall stability). Wallbridge capital costs have been estimated for costs associated
with environmental sampling and permitting (including mine closure), the cost of a new
sample tower, site capital costs including the construction costs of a mine water settling
pond and the cost of setting up the staging area diesel generator.
158
The production objective of the project is to mine at a rate of approximately 5,800 tonnes
per day (tpd). Included in this figure are average mining rates of 5,200tpd of waste rock
and 6000tpd of indicated resource that will be crushed to minus 2.54cm (minus one
inch) and sampled using the onsite sample tower prior to trucking to a custom mill.
All of the estimated $1.9M CAPEX, with the exception of contractor demobilization, have
been expensed in a decreasing rate over the first four months of the approximate 12
month project.
Category
Site Services
Total Cost
$117,000
$220,000
$21,000
$35,000
$145,000
$201,000
$538,000
$80,700
$618,700
159
Capital cost associated with Wallbridge for the Broken Hammer project include
environmental sampling and permitting, the cost of constructing the mine water settling
pond, the purchase price of a new sample tower (as quoted by a Timmins area
contracting company), the costs associated with setting up the office complex in the
staging area which includes a 300kw generator and the mine closure costs in the form of
a letter of credit held by the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.
160
Unit Cost
Total Cost
$200,000
$600,000
$80,000
$250,000
$200,000
$600,000
$80,000
$250,000
$1,130,000
$169,500
$1,299,500
Total Cost
$538,000
$80,700
$618,700
$1,130,000
$169,500
$1,299,500
$1,918,200
Assumptions
$/Tonne
Milled
$1,384,000
$1,789,000
$5,162,000
$0.72
$0.94
$2.71
$4.37
$7.04
$9.10
$26.26
$42.39
$1,229,833
$2,162,050
$1,966,050
$0.64
$1.13
$1.03
$6.26
$11.00
$10.00
$2.81
$27.25
$7.18
$69.64
The processing costs for the material shipped to a custom mill have been estimated as
follows:
Processing Costs
Milling, Smelting,
RefiningCharges & Penalties
$12,227,150
Other
$0
TOTAL PROCESSING COSTS
162
$6.41
$0
$6.41
$/Tonne
Milled
$62.19
$0
$62.19
$/Tonne
Mined
$/Tonne
Milled
$13,723,281
$7.19
$69.80
$12,227,503
$6.41
$13.60
$62.19
$131.99
$306,589
$0.16
$1.56
$13.76
$133.55
A summary of the total operating costs for the project are illustrated as show in the
above table.
Assumptions
The Milling terms (recoveries and payabilities) will be improved or remain the
same as the bulk sample terms
163
21 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
GENIVAR has prepared its assessment of the Broken Hammer project based on a
discounted cash flow model, from which Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of
Return (IRR), payback and other measures of the project feasibility are determined.
The above assessments are generally accepted for the evaluation of mining projects as
representing the economic value of a project after consideration of the initial capital
investment in the project.
The objective of this report is to determine the feasibility of the proposed open pit and
processing of that material at a custom milling facility to exploit the Broken Hammer
deposit. For this analysis, the cash flow arising from the base case of the project has
been forecast, allowing for the calculation of the NPV. The sensitivity of this NPV to
changes in the base case assumptions are then made and examined.
The parameters used in the evaluation of the Broken Hammer Project economics are as
follows:
Price ($)
Copper
Nickel
Palladium
Platinum
Gold
Silver
3.50/lb
9.00/lb
650/oz
1,600/oz
1,700/oz
35.00/oz
94.0
58.0
85.0
71.0
81.0
63.0
The sensitivity analysis on the base case pricing scenario is presented hereafter using
variations of +/- 15% from the base case in revenues for copper, platinum, and other
factors that can have a significant effect on the project including capital expenses,
operational expenses and the value of the Canadian dollar relative to the US dollar.
These variations take into account potential fluctuations in revenue that could result from
164
economic cycles and covers the variation in the above factors. The Net Present Value on
the project were calculated using a discount rate of 8%.
The USD/CAD exchange rate selected for the base case is (USD 1.00 per CAD) since
the three-year average to October 1, 2012, as shown in Figure 74, is close to parity.
1CAD>USD
1.06
1.04
1.02
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.9
0.88
165
The 3-year return on Canadian bond taken as a proxy for risk-free interest rate is
approximately 1.5% from the data provided from Bank of Canada. The historical risk
premium for equity has been estimated at around 6%. As such, GENIVAR has selected
the discount rate of 8% to represent the Broken Hammer cost of equity.
Copper
3year averageprice
ofCopperis$3.62
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
166
Sep12
Jul12
May12
Mar12
Jan12
Nov11
Sep11
Jul11
May11
Mar11
Jan11
Nov10
Sep10
Jul10
May10
Mar10
Jan10
Nov09
Sep09
3year averagepriceof
Platinumis$1,601.00
Platinum
Sep12
Jul12
May12
Mar12
Jan12
Nov11
Sep11
Jul11
May11
Mar11
Jan11
Nov10
Sep10
Jul10
May10
Mar10
Jan10
Nov09
Sep09
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
The 3-year average metal prices for Copper and Platinum were reviewed and prices of
$3.50 per lb. and $1,600 per oz. were selected for Copper and Platinum respectively to
be used in the economic analysis of the base case. The 2012 updated resource which
was commissioned in 2011 used long-term forecasted metal prices. This selection was
based on the fact that the timing and duration of the project start-up was unknown at the
time.
For comparison, Table 51 below presents the two most contributing metal prices
(Copper & Platinum) used for the 2012 updated resource, the metal prices used for this
report as well as spot prices and 3-year average prices for the same metals as at
October 1, 2012.
167
Units
2012 Updated
Spot Prices
Base Case
Resource Report
October 1, 12
PFS
3-Yr avg.
Copper
US$/lb.
3.00
3.75
3.50
3.62
Platinum
US$/oz.
1,600
1,675
1,600
1,601
The Company has applied for registration for Ontario Mining Tax and anticipates that it
will be able to use the tax exemption for a new mine to a maximum of the first $10 million
of profit in the 36 months commencing commercial production (based on the timeframe
in this report). In addition, the Company has Ontario exploration and development
expenditures available which can be carried forward and deducted from future profits. As
such the Company does not anticipate any Ontario Mining Tax payable on the income
generated in the 12-month period referenced in this report.
21.1.5 Royalty
The only royalty on the project is a 1.5% NSR to Xstrata Nickel as part of prior
arrangement for the Broken Hammer project. This Royalty has been taken into account
in the economic calculation of the project.
214 thousand pounds of nickel worth an estimated $1.9 million dollars and
The recoveries used in these calculations are similar to that experienced from the
custom milling, smelting and refining the metals contained in the 30,000 tonne bulk
sample in 2011.
Revenue:
Copper
Nickel
Platinum
Paladium
Gold
Silver
TOTALREVENUE
Costs:
Mining
Crushing&Haulage
Milling
Smelting&Refining
TOTALCOSTS
ProfitBeforeRoyalty
RoyaltytoXstrata
EBITDA
Total
$11,562,603
1,932,450
10,969,070
5,214,256
4,454,346
500,089
$34,632,814
$9,791,186
3,932,095
5,898,143
6,329,360
$25,950,785
$8,682,029
$306,589
$8,375,440
169
PerTonne
OreMined
$58.81
9.83
55.79
26.52
22.66
2.54
$176.15
$49.80
20.00
30.00
32.19
$131.99
$44.16
$1.56
$42.60
The above table shows that the total expected revenue from the Broken Hammer open
pit equates to $176.15 per tonne of indicated resource. After paying the Xstrata 1.5%
royalty the operation is expected to earn $42.60 per tonne of indicated resource before
income taxes, depreciation and amortization.
sensitivity of the project to the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the US dollar
($US/$C), the Platinum Price (Pt) in US dollars per ounce, the OPEX (project operating
costs), the CAPEX (project capital costs), the Copper Price (Cu) in US dollars per pound
and the Palladium Price (Pd) in US dollars per ounce.
170
WallbridgeMiningCo.Ltd. BrokenHammerMine
PreTaxNPV@8%
$12,000
NPVC$x'000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
15%
US/C$
10%
PtPrice
5%
Base
Opex
Capex
5%
10%
Cuprice
15%
Pdprice
The project is mostly sensitive to the exchange rate of US/C$ as well as mine operating
costs (OPEX).
171
There can be no assurance that the mining regime currently in place in the Province of
Ontario will not be changed in a manner that could adversely affect Wallbridge, its
properties and business plans.
Consultations with Ontario First Nations can be lengthy and time consuming and may
result in changes to the operating schedule and mining plan.
Mineral Exploration is highly speculative and involves a high degree of risk, which even a
combination of careful evaluation, experience and knowledge may not be able to avoid.
These risk factors include market fluctuations, the proximity and production capacity of
custom milling facilities and processing equipment, availability of qualified personnel,
possible third party claims and government regulations, including regulations relating to
prices, royalties, allowable production, mining leases and environmental protection. The
effect of these factors cannot be accurately predicted.
Fluctuations in the market price of copper, precious metals and value of the Canadian
dollar is another element to consider in the global Project evaluation. The profitability of
the Broken Hammer mining operation is directly related to the market price of the above
factors. The market price of copper and precious metals fluctuates and is affected by
numerous factors beyond the control of Wallbridge. If the market price of copper and
precious metals should decline dramatically, or the value of the Canadian dollar
appreciate dramatically, the value of Wallbridges mineral properties could also decrease
dramatically and Wallbridge might not be able to justify the required investment to
proceed with the mining plan outlined in this Report. Price fluctuations, between the time
that such decisions are made and the commencement of production, can drastically
affect the economics of the operations. The Pre-Feasibility Study, through its market
analysis portion tried to define some of these effects (sensitivity analysis).
172
Mineralization at the Broken Hammer is hosted within veins and vein stock works within
a breccia complex and is irregular in nature. To some extent however the risks are
mitigated since Broken Hammer mining plan considers an open pit operation thereby
allowing more mining flexibility as compared to an underground mining operation.
Mining costs in this study have been estimated on a first principles basis with Wallbridge
directing mining contractors. Mining costs in the forthcoming Feasibility Study will be
based on secured mining contract in which mining costs may vary depending on mining
activity in the Sudbury area.
The project cash flow assumes that metals revenue is received at the time of delivery.
Custom milling facilities generally do not provide instantaneous payments. Similarly
contractor payment is assumed to be paid instantaneously. Realistically, payment to
contractors is not done until some period of time after work is completed. Precise timing
of cash inflow and outflow is contingent on contract payments to be negotiated after
feasibility study.
21.6.2 Opportunities
The metals recovered from the bulk sample resulted in a gain in mining in relation to the
estimated recoverable metals based on exploration diamond drilling. A reconciliation of
the tonnage shipped in the 2011 bulk sample compared to the 2012 RPA updated
resource estimate indicated a gain in gross metal value of approximately 18%.
In addition, there are a number of drill hole intercepts within the perimeter of the pit
which were not included in the estimated resource due to the irregular nature of
mineralization within the Broken Hammer deposit. Due to the financial cost of diamond
drilling to a density sufficient to determine continuity the project will remain open to these
types of possible gains in mining.
173
Opportunities exist to improve the project cash flow by negotiating a more favourable
processing contract than the one which was in place for the bulk sample which was a
much smaller tonnage that was batched for which a premium was paid.
174
22 ADJACENT PROPERTIES
The following description on Adjacent Properties is taken from Soever, 2012. The author
is unable to verify information regarding adjacent properties. Information on adjacent
properties is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the Wallbridge property.
The North Range district is being actively explored by a number of companies. The
Broken Hammer property is part of a larger Wisner land package on which Wallbridge is
exploring actively in part as a joint venture with Xstrata. On the adjacent Wisner Xstrata
Joint Venture property, two zones of footwall-style Cu-Ni-PGE mineralization (South and
Southwest zones) occur in Sudbury breccia zones. The ground immediately south of the
Broken Hammer property is held by Xstrata and Vale. Vales claims encompass two
nearby contact deposits, the WD16 and WD13. Inco Limited (now Vale) also sank a
shaft in the 1960s to access the contact sublayer some two kilometres south of the
Wallbridge claims. A portion of the Vale lands are subject to a joint venture agreement
between Vale and Lonmin PLC.
The
175
176
Tonnes
Cu (%)
Ni (%)
Pt (g/t)
Pd (g/t)
Au (g/t)
Ag (g/t)
Indicated
231,100
0.92
0.10
2.01
1.90
0.71
6.35
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A reconciliation of the tonnage shipped in the 2011 bulk sample compared to the 2012
RPA Update resource estimate indicates an 18% increase in the overall metals revenue
for the same volume of material mined.
If the favourable metal recovery balance experienced during bulk sample repeats for this
open pit, the NPV projections may prove to be conservative.
Additional drilling is
Although RPA states that the mineralization continuing beyond the pit walls was
considered not to be economic using reasonable underground mining costs, zones of
high grade mineralization near the pit bottom may prove to be tempting development
targets for a mining contractor with narrow vein underground mining experience.
178
25 RECOMMENDATIONS
GENIVAR recommends that:
Based on the robust economics of the project, it is recommended that the project
proceed to the next stage of Feasibility Study.
Mining contract should be secured at the feasibility study stage with a contracting
company capable of mining the outlined resource at the Broken Hammer project.
Geotechnical drill holes are recommended in the pit area to properly characterize
the rock mass and geological discontinuities within the final pit walls to
investigate improvements in the pit slope design.
A feasibility level geotechnical study of the planned mine waste rock pile be
performed including a detailed characterization of the base material upon which
the pile will be located.
179
26 REFERENCES
AMEC, 2005. Environmental Baseline Study for the Broken Hammer Advanced
Exploration Project. Report submitted to Northern Development and Mines, Mines and
Minerals Division, Sudbury, Ontario. AMEC Reference # TC51407.
AMEC, 2007a. Tailings Impoundment Site Selection, Broken Hammer Project PreFeasibility Study.
Report submitted to
Ontario, Canada, prepared for Wallbridge Mining Company Ltd. by Roscoe Postle
Associates Inc., July 27, 2012.
180
Farrow, C.E.G., Everest, J.O., King, D.M., and Jolette, C., 2005, Sudbury Cu (-Ni)-PGE
systems, Refining the Classification using McCreedy West Mine and Podolsky Project
case studies, Mineralogical Association of Canada, Short Course 35, pp. 163-180.
Jago, B.C., 2008, Technical Report on the Wisner Property, Sudbury, Ontario, prepared
for Wallbridge Mining Company Limited, December 31, 2008.
Kjarsgaard, I., and Ames, D.E., 2010, Ore Mineralogy of Cu-Ni-PGE Deposits in the
North Range Footwall Environment, Sudbury, Canada, 11th International Platinum
Symposium abstracts, Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous ReleaseData 269.
SOR/DORS.2002-222.
Pntek, A., Molnr, F., Watkinson, D.H., and Jones, P.C., 2008, Footwall-type CuNi
PGE mineralization in the Broken Hammer area, Wisner Township, North Range,
Sudbury Structure, Economic Geology, v. 103, pp. 10051028.
Price, W.A. 1997. DRAFT Guidelines and recommended methods for prediction of metal
leaching and acid rock drainage at mine sites in British Columbia. Reclamation Section,
Energy and Minerals Division. Ministry of Employment and Investment. Smithers, B.C.
Rennie, D.W., 2005, Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Estimate for the Broken
Hammer Deposit, Ontario, prepared for Wallbridge Mining Company Ltd. by Roscoe
Postle Associates Inc., November 21, 2005.
Soever, A., 2012, Technical Report on the Broken Hammer Deposit, Sudbury, Ontario,
prepared for Wallbridge Mining Company Limited, March 15, 2012.
181
SGS Lakefield Research Limited, 2005, Metallurgical Testing of Mineralization from the
Broken Hammer Zone of the Wisner Property, prepared for Wallbridge Mining Company
Limited, September 30, 2005.
SGS Lakefield Research Limited, 2006, Metallurgical Testing of Mineralization from the
Broken Hammer Zone of the Wisner Property, prepared for Wallbridge Mining Company
Limited, November 20, 2006.
Tuba, Gy., Molnr, F., Watkinson, D.H., Jones, P.C., and Mogessie, A., 2010,
Hydrothermal Vein and Alteration Assemblages associated with Low Sulfide Footwall
Cu-Ni-PGE Mineralization and Regional Hydrothermal processes, North and East
Ranges, Sudbury structure, Canada, Society of Economic Geologists, Special
Publication 15, v. 2, pp. 573-598.
Andre C. Gagnon, Broken Hammer Zone Project Pre-Feasibility Pit Slope Design,
prepared for Wallbridge Mining Company Limited by Tetra Tech, Toronto, April 2012,
182
Dated Sudbury, ON
October 8, 2012
J. R. Doran, P. Eng.
Senior Mining Engineer, GENIVAR
Dated Toronto, ON
October 8, 2012
Dated Toronto, ON
October 8, 2012
Dated Toronto, ON
October 8, 2012
183
184
10. As of the effective date of this Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge,
information, and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical
information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not
misleading.
185
187
189
190
191